PRE-TURK PEOPLE AND PRE-TURK CULTURE
As I mentioned in my last post. The ruler of the alliance of Turk stemmed from Scythian--an Indo-Europe tribe. But they were not the Ural-Altaic speakers. Who were the foremost Turkish speaker and the creator of the Turkish culture?
There was an alliance of tribes called Dil lived north to China since very early time. And there was a tribe called Wu-Sun lived in the place south to Altai Mountain, another tribe called Jan-Kuen lived in southern Siberia. The Wu-Sun and Jan-Kuen were kin tribes, they were all described as Caucasoid with reddish hair and blue eyes. But scholars of linguistics found it was very amazing that their languages were not Indo-European language, but Ural-Altaic, and correlated the Turkish, their language can be called pre-Turk language. And these people were pre-Turk people. Nevertheless, the Dil were a more significant pre-Turk people. No serious research was taken on the ethnic compose of Dil, but I think they are no doubt chiefly Mongoloid.
The ancient tale implicated that the Jan-Kuen and the Dil were also kin tribes, how can the tribes with different ethnic compose be kin tribes? That's the identical language and culture.
We can't infer a nation's race from its language. The Ural-Altaic languages were not "Mongoloid language". Many skulls belong to the Neolithic age and early Bronze age were excavated in Central Siberia and Northern Mongolia, among these skulls, the Mongoloid ones were not dominant, on the contrary, there were abundant of Caucasoid skulls. But at that time, the Indo-Europe nation (Aryan nation) hadn't arisen in the world. So of course, these Caucasian people were not Indo-Europe people, and their language was not Indo-European. It's very likely that, these Caucasian people's language were originally Ural-Altaic like some Mongoloid nomadic tribes. And these Caucasoid people might be the ancestor of Wu-Sun, Jan-Kuen, or other pre-Turk Caucasian people. The scholars also found that some eastern Scythian tribes' languages were Ural-Altaic, but also course, their languages were not originally Ural-Altaic, but altered by the influence of the Ural-Altaic speakers.
And the track of pre-Turk culture could be found in some more western region such as the Southern Russian steppe, and the Caucasus region, and they existed there thousand of years ago. It was quite possible that some Aryan tribe were also the member of the creators of pre-Turk culture, especially, the Scythian. Also, there were some Finno-Ural consist in the pre-Turk culture.
Now, we can conclude that, the original Turkish language and original Turkish culture were created by people ranged from different language and ethnic compose. These Tribes later all joined the alliance of Turk, and brought their culture into the Turk culture, so the Turk civilization came from different types of pre-Turk culture, and revealed the traits of different civilization.

THE TURK EMPIRE
The 6th century, the empire of Turk finally established. The ruling tribe of the Turk Empire (actually the alliance of tribes) came from Scythian, they first brought in the name of "Turk", and called themselves "blue Turk". The Lord of blue Turk 's surname was Arsina. The early 6th century, the blue Turk lived in the region south to Altai Mountain. At that time the most powerful tribe in the Mongol Highland and Siberia was Rozan, (a branch of Xianbei (Seinpei)) the ancestor of the Avar (a Asiatic barbarian which invaded Europe later). The blue Turk was once forced to do the iron work for Rozan, and often humiliated by the Khan of Rozan. 551AD, the Turk helped the Rozan to beat a rebelling Dil tribe, received 50,000 tents (1 tent means 1 family) as capture. From then on, the Turk was thrived. It replaced Rozan as the ruler of Northern Asia. The Turk soon conquered the Jan-Kuen. To the west, it vanquished White Hun (a tribe ruined Persia, Northwest India, and occupied the Central Asia), to the east, Turk prevailed some pre-Mongolian tribes. The Turk's territory included the vast land from Caspian Sea to the Eastern coast. That very time, the China was divided into Northern dynasty and Southern dynasty. The Southern was ruled by a Han King, and the Northern ruled by a Xianbei King. The middle 6th century, even the Northern dynasty itself was deivided into 2 Xianbei realms. The 2 realms all wanted the Turk to be their foreign aid. As Turk was flattered by these Kings, and at that time, the divided China had no strength to fight against the Turk, the Chinese realms pay in tribute to Turk. But Turk still ravished China frequently. The largest alliance of tribes in the Turk Empire's territory was Dil. At the first stage of the Turk Empire, the most important absorbed ruled (conquered) tribe were Ugoos, stem from Dil. After they were absorbed into Turk, they were called black Turk. The black Turk and other ruled tribes in the alliance of Turk were called "different surname Turk". But there were also many Dil tribes refuse to be absorbed into Turk or called themselves Turk. Because of the strong influence of Dil and other conquered pre-Turk tribes, blue Turk soon lost their Indo-Europe language.
The year 581, as the establishment of Sui Dynasty, the China was reunited. While after the death of a competent Turkish Khan, there emerged 4 Khans in Turk Empire. They all possessed hundreds of thousands of troops and attack each other. Sui grasp the chance to eliminate these Turkish force. The 580s, the empire of Turk was divided into Eastern Turk and Western Turk. The Sui controlled the Eastern Turk Khan to beat other Turk. 620s, The chaos took place in China, the Eastern Turk uproar, from then on the Eastern Turk raided China frequently. There were 2 Khans in the Eastern Turk Empire. After Tang dynasty set up in China, the Chinese emperor set a trick to let them conflict. Thus, the Eastern Turk was emaciated. The year 627, the Dil tribes that didn't surrender to Turk revolted. The ruler of them was a strong Dil tribe called Sheyanto. The blue Turk could not control that circumstance. The year 630, Eastern Turk was finally beaten by Chinese (Tang Dynasty, the foremost emperors of which shared the descent of Turk), the Khans of Eastern Turk was captured, and many Turkish noble became officials in Chinese central government. Some of the Eastern Turk fled westward to Western Turk, some moved north to go over and serve the Sheyanto, more of them were absorbed by Chinese (the number of people estimated at 1,300,000). Most Eastern Turk moved to inner China, and became common Chinese peasants. But some remained in the frontier, the year 639, the Tang specified a Turkish prince to lead 100,000 of this populace live outside of the frontier, establish a new Eastern Turk State, attached to Chinese central government. These Turk frequently rebelled, elected their own Khan. Hence, the eastern Turk Empire existed discontinuity for another period. The Eastern Turk was mostly blue Turk. So, in the Chinese record, the Turk people were often described as Caucasoid.

HUIHU--THE ANCESTOR OF UYGUR
During this period, another Dil tribe--Huihu, gradually controlled the Mongol highland. Year 745, they slay the last Khan of Post-Eastern Turk Empire, that's the end of Eastern Turk. The year 846, the Huihu Empire was overthrown by the offspring of Jan-Kuen. Most of the Huihu people fled westward to the zone around Takla-Makan desert or the oasis in it. There, they mingled with the aboriginal Iranian people there, thus, the Uygur nation appeared. As the Turkish language was mostly come from the pre-Turk nation like Dil, so all Dil people are regarded as Turk later. And of course, the Uygur are also classified into Turk. An Uygur man can master the language of Turkey within one month.

NEW ERA OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF TURK
The consist of Western Turk was much more complicated. The western Turk was divided into "10 surnames" 1 surname referred to one tribe. Of course, the "10 surnames" included both Mongoloid and Caucasoid people. The Ugoos was Mongoloid while the Turgesh (might be the descendent of Wu-Sun, one origin of Kazakhs) was blonde. The Khazars was the direct ancestor of Kazakhs, one of the "10 surnames". The origin of Khazars itself was very complex, Saka (Scythian), Tocharian, Wu-Sun, Xiongnu, and some Dil tribes compounded and generated the Khazars. We can still see their trace in the names of some Kazakhs tribes. One meaning of "Kazakhs" is "genuine Saka", the Kazakhs are divided into 3 "Yuchi", "Yuchi" sounds just like the Tocharians' name in Chinese--"Yuezhi", and there is still tribe in Kazakhs called Wu-Sun today. Later, the Khazars mingled with Turgesh, Kang-Ju (an ancient Indo-European tribe in central Asia), Alan (an Indo-Europe tribe lived between the Black and Caspian seas), some more Dil tribes, Qidan (a Mongol tribe once vanquished Northern China), and the later, Mongolian (the various Tartar tribes). All these factors compound, the hybrid is the current Kazakhs people. At the beginning decades of the west Turk Empire, it was still very flourish, occupied large area. And Although the Khan of Western Turk was still blue Turk, their ruling power was greatly eliminated by the punch of Eastern Turk, China, Arab, and "different surname Turk". And the strength of black Turk grew greatly. These Turkish Khans fought against each other, remained the chance for Tang. Year 634, the Khan of West Turk divided the "10 surnames" into 2 parts (left and right), that meant 1 country will be divided into 2, and that also reflect how the noble of blue Turk weaken their own force. Year 648, the "right part" was defeated by the "left part', their Khan went to serve Tang. The Tang appointed him as the leader lead Han and Turk soldiers, to quell the remained Turk. Finally, 657, the Tang beat the remained West Turk. The Iranian resident countries in central Asia which once belonged to Turk Empire was grabbed by Tang, and the Turk Empire itself was attached to Tang. The Turkish Khans and the kings of these Iranian countries were in the name of the officials of Tang. Early 8th century, the Turgesh Empire replaced of the old Turk Empire. The blue Turk gradually vanished among the "different surname Turk". From then on, the development of Turk came to a new era. These Turkish speaking tribes (long before the collapse of the Turk Empire, the Indo-Europe tribes and other new members of the Turk tribe alliance had been Turkish speaking like Dil and Wu-Sun), left the old land of Turk Empire, moved to central Asia. In the Northern central Asia, there were less Iranian resident inhabitants, but more Iranian nomadic tribes. (the Scythian can be also called Iranian or Persia, because their language belonged to the Eastern Iran group of Indo-Europe family). As the number of the new comers (Turkish speakers) was overwhelming. The Iranian nomadic tribes soon fused into the Turk. From then on, the Northern central Asia (Kazakhs steppe) was filled with Turkish speaking nomadic people. After these Turkish people entered central Asia, they soon accepted the Islam religion. In the Southern Central Asia, less nomadic Turkish people reached there, the Iranian resident people there absorbed certain Turkish blood, under the stress of nomadic tribes, they modified their language, from then on, the were also Turk people. These Iranian people who evaded being Turklized were called Tajik. These Iranian-Turk sometimes expand their land to Afghani and east Iran. The Sudan of the Islam realms in Northwest India often recruited these Iranian Turk people as warriors. But these Turk harbored their own purpose, occasionally they replace their master as the new Sudan. Several Islam realms in Northwest India were founded in this way, including the Delhi Sudan realm. And, later, the well-known Mughal, also established by a group of invaders from Persia, Afghani, and southern central Asia. The leader of them was a noble from Tashkent whose mother ancestor origin from Mongol and father ancestor was local. The record at that time said, there were only 2 kinds of people in central Asia-Turk, and Tajik.
The Ugoos people found a land at the southeast coast of Caspian Sea, they deemed they less mingled with the Iranian people and other nomadic tribe, they were pure blood Turk. So, they called themselves Turkmen. As the stress of the Turkish tribes in Kazakhs steppe, some Turkmen moved to Anatolia and West Asia, to find better place. Then, that's the origin of the Seljuks Turk Empire. The Seljuks called on more Turkmen to enter west Asia to extend their territory. Many Turkish warriors established their own small realms in west Asia. The next thing you know better than me, the Ottoman Turk reached there.

THE COMPACT OF MONGOLIAN
As known to all, the 13th century belonged to Mongolian. At first, let's probe the consist of the tribe alliance of Mongolian, you'll find, many Mongol (Tartar) tribes were actually Turk, Turkish speaking. The 3 most important Turk-Mongol tribe were called "Naman", "Kelie" and "Wangu". Nanman and Kelie might be traced back to Dil Turk. While the Wangu stemmed from a small tribe of West Turk named Satuo (They set up 3 dynasties in Northern China). The feature of Wangu people was quite different from other Tartar people (Caucasoid in fact), they were called "white Tartar", while other Mongol were called "black Tartar". The Russians also noticed that, there were "Caucasian Tartar". Some times, the European historian couldn't distinct whether the invader were Mongol or Turk, as some Turk people remained in Siberia just looks like Mongolian, and many of them joined the alliance of Mongol. It was very funny that, some times the Mongolian will called themselves "Turk". For example, when the Mongolian troop embraced the city of Samarkand, the found the defending soldiers were not Iranian-Turk, but the nomadic Kang-li Turk (origin from Kang-Ju, I've introduced them). The Mongolian wanted to lure the Kang-li to surrender, they told Kang-li that "We are all Turk, it is no good our massacring each other and benefit alien (Iranian)." The Kang-li were convinced. But of course, after the Mongolian controlled that city, the Kang-li soldiers were slaughtered together with the inhabitants in the city. It was very queer that, the Kang-li and Iranian all Turkish speaking, the Mongolian were not, how could the Mongolian claim they're kin of Turk; and racially, the Kang-li and Iranian were all Caucasoid, how could the Mongolian convinced the Kang-li that the Iranian were alien?
Of course, after the Mongol invading, the Northern central Asia became more Mongoloid. Plenty of Tartar, Qidan or Dil Turk rushed into. At that time, the current Kazakhs people was nearly last formed. The early 16th century, a nomadic tribe called Uzbeck came from the Mongol "Golden tent Empire" (lies in western Siberia and Eastern Russia) entered the Southern central Asia, They eliminated the ruling force there. The Uzbeck were probably ancient Dil people like Ugoos. When the Russian first reached central Asia, the nomadic Uzbeck hadn't compounded with the local residents. The Russians were very astonished that the resident Uzbeck people (actually, Iranian Turk) were reddish hair, gray eyes, while the nomadic Uzbeck, "just resemble the Mongolian."

SHORT CONCLUSION
We all know, the Turk people has no identical origin. Some Turk tribes' origin still remained as riddle, for instance, who knows the Ottoman Turk were initial blue Turk or "different surname Turk"? And, once the nomadic Turk people settle down, they will no doubt mix with the local people. That makes the descent of Turk more complex. For example, I think many people ignore a very simple but vital fact that, the most primary ancestors of current Turkey might neither be Seljuks Turk nor Ottoman Turk, but the aboriginal non-Turk people there.
Today, you observe the Turk people's face, you'll find, the Turkey and Azerb can be regarded as complete Caucasoid type, while the Turk in eastern Europe like Bulgarian are Caucasoid people with certain Mongoloid descent; and the central Asia Turk are the mixed type between Mongolian and Caucasian, the Turk in Siberia are principally absolute Mongoloid people.
I think, the "Turk" is nothing more but a group of people speaking similar language. That's better than to define Turk as a nation.


NOTE:
Most of the names of tribes mentioned in this article were spelt according to their pronunciation in Chinese, I don't know how the scholars name them in English.

I wrote this post just a few days ago in another forum. Since it looked kind of interesting and somehow related to the topics I am working on in this forum, I decided to post it here, too. It is also somehow related to the above post by moron.

t.

A few quick comments:

"That concept never existed until the ninteenth century, and, if it did, it was entertained for the greater part by the Ottoman romantics - and it is said that these started with the Hungarians, who, only out of coincidence, realized they weren't even eligible for Turanism, being Finno-Ugric peoples."

Filiz, do you mean here that Hungarians came to the conclusion that they were not even eligible for Turanism. If so, they might have eventually; I do not have much information on this later development. However, in the beginning Magyars were included in the concept of Turan. Turks were latecomers to this concept; as I understand you imply this point anyway. Here, we might see some racist perspectives, since pan-Turanism does not survive very long among Ottomans and becomes pan-Turkism. Also, in reply to Steve, since Turan is about a geographical area, a piece of land, I think the development of Turkish nationalism, and to some extent racism, which was not a very uncommon phenomenon in those years all around the world, went hand in hand with efforts of defining this new concept, the land.

"In Turkey today, I see a near univeral contempt for the land. I mean "Land" in an abstract way (aarg, MJ, now I am using the word ). The Natural World. Maybe it is because they are not that land's original inhabitants, or maybe it is due to the original homeland of the Turks being a limitless steppe without strong geographical features or permanent settlements, or maybe I am making something out of nothing."

Turan is about an attempt to define a homeland. Similarly, the transformation of the word 'vatan' from its original Arabic meaning to something that meant the land of a particular nation, in this case, first the Ottoman nation and later the Turkish nation, had already started by Namik Kemal in the 19th century. In fact, the development of the concept of 'vatan', (motherland) preceded the concept of a nation made from one race. Moreover, during the Emancipation or Independence War of Turkey, the greater emphasis was on 'vatan', the motherland, the land of the present-day Turks than the Turkish race to the point that pan-Turkist were ignored and persecuted in the early Republican era. Although it is difficult to put boundaries on these different currents, one important characteristic of Kemalism in the early Republican era is its emphasis on land rather than blood and attempts to produce historical narratives and ideologies to show that Turks were already in this particular land thousands years ago.

If you are, however, talking about universal contempt towards some abstract notion of land by the people in our land, in Turkey, then that is a different story, and I do not know how much it makes sense. Mostly common people do not really think about these matters as deeply as we do. But, this would not mean that they have contempt towards their land. If you get down to the language they use in relation to their land, to their songs, their traditions, you will see that they have as deep attachment to their land as any other people on this planet. They are mostly peasants after all.

I suppose you were, however, talking about this nation-motherland thing. Well, if that is the case, you are very much wrong. I wish Turks had less of this thing, so that the solution of certain problems would be easier. If you get down deep into Turkish people's feelings you will find out that they are ready to die for 'vatan' (motherland) most of the time, not for 'millet' (crudely put, people, nation). See, in Turkey, we "vatanimiz icin oluruz, milletin agzina sicariz" (we die for our motherland, but, literally, shit in the mouths of our nation, people). I personally never heard anyone reverse this formulation. When we have to shit in our 'vatan', the word becomes either 'memleket' or 'ulke', both of which mean country. Also, for us 'vatan' is motherland not fatherland, and, as most people would figure it out quickly once they are in Turkey, you do not mess with mothers. This might have some psychological (even Freudian) dimension to the whole thing.

When you get into historical anthropological details, you will find out things like 'Canakkale gecilmez' (Dardanelles cannot be passed) in our tradition. The emphasis was again not on the nation, but the land, the vatan that was in danger, and in everyone's obligation to die for land regardless of anything else. There are no Canakkale studies in Turkey yet, but I think it should be, since I belive it is one of episodes of utmost importance in our recent history that shaped our present mentality. Similarly, the Yemen folk song in Turkey: similar theme, or the expression vatan-millet-sakarya, where vatan comes first. Or Namik Kemal's 'Vatan yahut Silistre' (motherland or Silistre(a place in Bulgaria)). It was not the 'nation or Silistre'.

I would like to make one last comment without much explanation about it for now. You (that would be Steve) are making a rather wrong assumption about the ancient Turks from at least two perspectives. First of all, their concept of nation, which is the so-called 'budun' of these ancient Turks , was not the same thing with our nation. It was not based on an understanding of racial, ethnic and even linguistic unity, or one-ness. Secondly, for nomadic groups, it is the land that is most important to them. True, they may be happy with any region, but they still need a piece of land with specific conditions, not any land. And, once they have it, they protect it dearly, because you take their land then their herds have no place. And, when their herds do not have any place they perish. In fact, one may argue that this is why the Turkic states were based on expansive territories, not city-states. Abother logical point would be that greater emphasis on one's ethnicity would greatly diminish one's chances of survivial in espcially Central Asian conditions. Nomadic gorups, that would also be those groups of hunter-gatherers and pastorilists, do not reproduce at the rates that are found among farming communities. In fact too many people around is not very desirable for them.
Anyway, some thoughts. But, even in your translation of that old Turkish statement, (which was "If the sky above did not collapse and if the earth below did not give way, Oh Turk people, who would be able to destroy your state and your institutions."), we have the sky and the land as the preconditions for the existence of the Turkish budun (people). Between those two exist the Turk, which, in ancient Turkish, had the meaning of mature human being, one who is in the prime of his youth, life, by the way. So, the whole symbolism makes sense to me from the perspective of those people who were living in the midst of nature. Some say it also meant 'strong'. It is possible that it might have meant 'strong' in the sanse that one who is in the prime of his youth, fully developed.

Anyway, we should not jump to the conclusions about these concepts. These people lived many centuries ago, and it is highly possible that they did not use these concepts in the same way we do today. There are now some very interesting comments about the symbolism associated with these old Turkic groups. Also, shit, I can not stop, when one understands what 'budun' (people) actually meant in those times, then one understands why those Turkic khans (rulers) are talking like that in these inscriptions. And, one more thing, some of those Turkic rulers did not have Turkic names as in Bumin.
regards

t.

“üze tengri basmasar asra yir telinmeser türk budun ilingin törüngin kim artati udaçi erti”

The above statement is from Kül Tigin inscriptions. One translation of it is what Steve found it in some website and told me about it in an exchange we had in another forum, part of which was the following:

“One of the inscriptions reads "If the sky above did not collapse and if the earth below did not give way, Oh Turk people, who would be able to destroy your state and your institutions." which could be a motto from early Republican Turkey!”

I would like to talk a little about this statement.

First of all, the translation is not correct, or it rather results from a biased view. Although we, the present day Turks, cannot easily understand the above statement, there are still a lot of familiar words for us up there, if we look at them carefully. Two of these words are ilingin and törüngin, present day il and töre (realm and tradition). Although I cannot say much about the grammar of the above sentence, since it is different from ours, this does not stop me from seeing that ‘’ilingin’ and ‘törüngin’ do not mean state and institutions, respectively.

We have already talked about ‘il’ or ‘el’. ‘Törü’ means, on the other hand, according to the etymological dictionary of G. Clauson, “traditional, customary, unwritten law; one of the basic political terms of the Turkish pagan period” (531). According to both Clauson and Divitcioglu, ‘töre’ almost always appears in association with ‘el’, ‘il’, and sometimes with ‘xagan’ (ruler). So, the basic political concepts we are dealing with in the Kök Türk era are ‘el’ or ‘il’ and ‘törü’. Some people may think that this was their understanding of what a state was all about, and therefore they may find it convenient to translate ‘el/il’ as state. This is simply wrong, because we have both of these concepts and words in our language now. Obviously, ‘el/il’ does not mean state so that we have a different word. The concept of state corresponds to a different, and perhaps more complex, development in societies. I think these ancient Türks were just on the verge of attaining such an institution, and furthermore, I believe it is in the institution of ‘ordu’, the royal residence, as I discussed it previously, where we should look for the development of the concept of state.

I will continue this discussion. I would like to take a break for now by concluding that the above statement should end as ‘Oh Türk people, who would be able to destroy your realm/country and your law.

t.

“üze kök tengri yarliqaduq ücün asra yagiz yer igittük üçün elimin törümün etintim”

This statement comes from Uigurs, and it basically says that “since the sky god (tengri) commanded and the black earth fed it, I got/received/obtained my realm and my law/tradition,custom.

According to another inscription:

“üze kök tengri asra yagiz yir qilindiqda ikin ara kisi ogli qilinmis kisi oglinda üze eçüm apam bumin qagan istemi qagan olurmis” (Kül tigin inscription),

which is translated as:

When sky god(tengri) on the top and black earth at the bottom were created, between these two was also created the humankind. Above the humankind reigned my ancestors Bumin and Istemi qagans (rulers).
According to Divitçioglu, on the other hand, sky god’s (kök tengri) role in the creation of ‘törü’ is indirect. According to Kök Türk inscriptions, he says, ‘törü’ (law) comes from the Türk ‘budun’ (people) and Türk ‘ili’ (realm/country). Kagan (ruler), he adds, helps this process.

Yet, according to a proverb found in Kasgarli of Middle Ages, ‘el kaldi törü kalmas’ (el can be given up, but not the law/custom/order), although this might have been a later practice of the Medieval Turkic groups and have nothing to do with the ancient Türks.
The preliminary formula we get from these brief arguments is that we have sky god and black earth first, and then comes the people and realm. Finally, we have the law and order. For law to exist, we need a group of people and a piece of land, or some realm. However, later in history, or perhaps during the ancient period as well, the law, the custom, becomes more important than the land. This is of course the early Middle Ages. I believe in the Ottoman period, both the sense of land and belonging to the same people are lost only to come back in the 19th century. I would also like to point out that when we are talking about ‘budun’ (people) and ‘il’ (realm), we are not necessarily talking about existence of a type of thinking that equated the Turkish people and Turkish land with the totality of the Turkic speakers of the time. One indisputable characteristic of Kök Türk inscriptions is that there are Türks, Uigurs, Karluks, Kirgiz, Dokuz Oguz, that is, all kinds of Turkic speaking groups with separate identities and lands. Türk ‘ili’ is not the same place as the Dokuz Oguz ‘ili’, as the Türk ‘budun’ (people) is not the Dokuz Oguz ‘budun’.

t.

We know from various historical sources that there was a group of people who were called and called itself Turks in the Central Asia between 6th and 8th centuries. There were also other groups who were not called Turks and called themselves Turks, but spoke various Turkic dialects. Among some of these people, we can name Uigurs, Dokuz Oguz (Nine Oguz), Karluks, Kirgiz and quite many others. Later we get peoples who went by names such as Karahanlids, Ghaznevids, Seldjuks and Ottomans; also White Sheep and Black Sheep tribes or groups. When it comes to the Turkishness of these groups it is usually us who refer to these peoples as Turks by adding the term ‘Turks’ to the end of their names. Otherwise, it is not because they called themselves as such. And finally today, we have a country and nation named Turkiye, the land of Turks. So, although there are actually only two groups in the history who called themselves Turks without any doubt, the term is used commonly to refer to various other Turkic groups as well.

I am not going to bother with this problem right now, but the approach that is the cause of this naming, the approach I call racism in historical investigation.

It is now commonly accepted by most that Turkic peoples mixed with various other groups as other peoples in history did. In fact, according to one approach most of the people who reside in Anatolia today descend not from those Turkic groups, mainly Oguz, who started arriving in Anatolia sometime after 11th century, but from its original inhabitants who were already residing there. And, for those Turkic groups who arrived in this land at this time from the Central Asia, we can say that it is highly possible that they might have mixed with the Iranian groups who were already there, in fact, before these Turkic groups. Yet, although there was mixing between these Turkic groups and other linguistic, cultural and racial groups, most of us still able to create a history of Turks as if there was no such mixing.

What is our basis for such an approach? We know that they were racially, linguistically and culturally mixed, even if we assume that the so-called original Turks of the 6th century were a pure group. Racially, as argued in the above post by Moron, which actually comes from another post in another forum written by an author who calls himself Chinese Turk, it is not clear if they came from the Mongoloid or Caucasian race. Culturally, we cannot even talk about a unique Turkish type, since in most of their main traits, the Central Asian groups were very much alike; so it would be better to talk about a Central Asian nomadic, or steppe, culture. Linguistically, a similar mixing is there again. But, still the history of these Turkic people are categorized as the history of the Turks as if such a monolithic body can be isolated that stayed unchanged in its major characteristics for centuries. This is actually a retrospective view, since we cannot deduce from the sources on most of these Turkic groups that they believed in such an idea, an idea of Turkishness. In fact, there is evidence to show that most of these Turkic groups did not believe in such an idea that they were coming from the same race or same ethnicity and formed their organizations based on such an idea, even though they were living in a multi-ethnic and multi-racial world more than their counterparts in other parts of the world. Whereas , for example, in Europe there was basically one race, and to some extent in the Middle East as well, in Asia, there were at least two, and perhaps, even three races if we include interactions with India as well. In crude terms, there were whites, yellows and dark colored groups. Still, among Turkic groups, the state and society formations were based on neither ethnic nor racial terms. This is something we need to look into it.

My argument, therefore, is that the idea of Turkishness, the racial approach based on linking of certain societies on some supposedly unchanging and inherently shared quality, is actually not based on what history has for us, that is, not on some historical facts. But, it is based more on that we perceive these past histories, or the human history, in racial terms. We have a racial mind, which tends to see things in racial, ethnic, and sometimes cultural terms. I added cultural here as well, because the way it is used commonly is actually about something that does not change, something that is an inherent quality of a certain group, something that is actually in the same category with the concepts of the racial and ethnical.

I am not against evolutionary approaches that start explaining certain developments at present time through influences and developments that take off from certain sources in the past. We all come from some place, but this does not mean we come from one source only. There are various sources for every present. Emphasizing one of these sources at the expense of some others that may be there, and even creating a specific moralistic hierarchy of these sources, is plain racism in my opinion. For example, when we are dealing with the present day Turkiye, how come we are only emphasizing one source but not others? How come Turks of Turkiye, who created an identity for themselves in the 19th century can, or should, be traced back to one source? Why are other sources ignored, or purposefully denied? This approach is not unique characteristic of certain nationalistic groups in Turkiye, either. For example, to oppose this idea, the idea of tracing our past to only one source, the opposing idea, which can be termed as Anatolianism of some sort, is not creating multiple sources, but doing the same thing in a different direction. We have Anatolians now, who actually never existed by such name and identity anyway. Therefore, this approach is also based on racism; it does the same thing by creating a race, an ethnic group, or a cultural group that never existed, but only in the minds of some in relation to certain agendas.

Better approach would be to acknowledge all these sources and write a history based on the interactive development and influences of all these sources, not on some non-changing so-called ethnic, racial or cultural quality. We cannot take our present day concepts and assume that these concepts are perfectly applicable to these past groups and their practices, either, which is done quite often. In either way, to oppose it or to be for it, we are being racist when we create, for example, a nation of Turks who has been around for centuries. There was a group that called itself Turks, and there is a group who now calls itself Turks. Between those two there were all kinds of groups who did not call themselves Turks, even tough some of these might have used Turkic languages. So, Orkhun inscriptions are a part of our past, but it is only one of the sources, not the only source. When we say Turks came from the Central Asia, whatever are reasons may be, we are being racists. If we really want to get technical the ideology of Turkishness has nothing to do with the past 6th century cultures, but developments that took place with the beginning of the modern period in various Turkic-speaking groups in various places. And, for our country there are at least two, or even three sources, for the birth of this ideology: Europe, the Ottoman Empire, and the various other Turkic groups who were under the domination of the Russian empire at the time.

This is it for now.

t.