Anthropology as a nation-building rhetoric: the shaping

of Turkish anthropology (from 1850s to 1940s)

Sibel O

zbudun Demirer
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Abstract Although the presence of anthropology is strongly felt during the rst
decades of the Turkish republican history, namely the period between 1923 and
1940, it is striking to see that the discipline was conceived more as a nation-building
device than a scientic endeavour. This article traces the formation of Turkish
anthropology from the late Ottoman period to the consolidation of the Republican
regime, emphasizing the interesting oscillations between physical and social/
cultural anthropologies, which are alternately brought to fore according to the
requirements the political agenda.
Keywords Turkish anthropology History of anthropology
Nation-building Cultural policies Turkication
In a very similar fashion to many of the peripheral regions,
1
the presence of
anthropology is strongly felt during the rst decades of the Turkish republican
history, namely the period between 1923 and 1940. Throughout this period,
anthropology is considered an important element in the nation-building endeavour.
Yamashita (2006), relating the beginnings of anthropology in Japan, says that in
1884, a group of young scholars had organized the Jinruigaku no Tomo workshop,
This article is the rst part of a longer project which aims at tracing the history of Turkish anthropology
up to 1970s focusing on the mission(s) it has undertaken and does not claim to provide a bibliography (or
bio-bibliography) for its subject, a task which has been prociently realized in at least two articles. See
Magnarella and Turkdogan (1976); and Erdentug and Magnarella (2002).
S. O

. Demirer (&)
Department of Anthropology, Hacettepe University, Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey
e-mail: sozbudun@hotmail.com; sozbudun@hacettepe.edu.tr
1
For a comprehensive compilation on peripheral anthropology, see Ribeiro and Escobar (2006).
1 3
Dialect Anthropol
DOI 10.1007/s10624-010-9210-x
in reaction to the claims of foreign researchers of cannibalistic practices in ancient
Japan. The group was asserting that Japanese culture should be studied by Japanese
themselves and not by foreign scholars. A similar story is related to the beginnings
of historiography and anthropology in the young Turkish republic, according to
which Afet I

nan, the goddaughter of Kemal Ataturk, while still a high school

student, shows to Ghazi the claims in her history textbook about the afliation of
Turks with the mongoloid race. The indignant Ghazi then orders new books,
personally involving himself in the investigation of history, mobilizing the
historians around him. Thus began the work to prepare a handbook determining
the guidelines of Turkish history (I

nan 2007: 2567).

The roots of anthropology integrated to the project of nation-building can be
traced back to the intellectual life of the late Ottoman period. It is, without doubt,
not possible to treat this literature in a comprehensive manner in a limited space. For
this reason, let us be contented with short side notes about the pre-Republican
period.
An explicatory note for readers not familiar with recent Turkish history is
necessary before proceeding, though.
2
The pre-Republican period may, for
convenience, be separated into two sequences. The rst may be dated roughly
between 18501908, a period which covers political events such as the declaration
of the First (and rather short-lived) Constitution (in 1867) followed by its abolition
by the autocratic rule of Sultan Abdulhamid II, which, nonetheless, is marked by
desperate efforts to save the crumbling empire. The second sequence, instigated by
the 1908 declaration, of the Second Constitution imposed by the Association of
Union and Progress
3
, ends with the proclamation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, a
logical culmination of the quest of the abated Ottomano-Turkish socio-political
entity to continue its existence. Both of these sequences are marked by tempestuous
imperial wars (notably with Russia, which has mobilized the peoples of the entire
Caucasian region) and wars of liberation (notably in the Balkan peninsula) on part
of the subject nations to reclaim their independence from the Ottoman Empire and
hence were scenes of a progressive process of gaining awareness by the Empires
enthusiastic intellectuals of the importance of the idea of nation.
So, the efforts to keep the empire alive and going (which may be dated back to
the rst endeavours to modernize the military in the eighteenth century) may be
characterized as a progressive crystallization process from blurred attempts at
modernization to conscious policies of nation-building. Berkes (1973), in his
pioneering research in the modernization processes of the Ottoman Empire, thus
distinguishes four orientations in this eld: 1. Westerniststhose who contend that
only by adopting Western ideas along with Western techniques can the empire be
2
For a brief but signicant outline of late Ottoman politico-intellectual history, cf. Eissenstat (2005:
240245).
3
Association of Union and Progress (I

ttihat ve Terakki CemiyetiIT). A conspirational organization

formed by dissident Ottoman military and civilian intellectuals abroad seeking to topple the autocratic
regime of the Ottoman sultan Abdulhamid II and to found a constitutional regime to save and restore the
debilitating empire. Seizing power through its ideologues and partisans in 1908, the association itself
would resort to despotic measures, pursuing a policy marked by fervid nationalism (some of its leaders
even yielding to Turanic, i.e. pan-Turkist temptations), allying with Germany during the World War I.
S. O

. Demirer
1 3
restored; 2. Ottomaniststhose who insist on modernizing the empire by keeping
its various ethno-religious ingredients (non-Muslims as well as Muslims) together in
a constitutional formation; 3. Islamiststhose who try to rally the support of the
Islamic world by restoring and strengthening the (Islamic) Caliphate; and 4.
Turkiststhose who think that only by relying on the Turkish ethnicity
(Panturkism) and/or by heading towards building a modern nation based on that
identity (Turkish nationalism), whatever is left over from the empire can be saved.
We may add that these three orientations towards modernization, Westernism,
Ottomanism and Turkism (Islamism being more of a context of reaction, albeit
(re-)formulated in modernist terms) were more consequential than simultaneous,
since the failure of each opened up to the next.
The end of the empire: can Darwin be a cure?
In the second half of the nineteenth century, during the Westernization process of
the Ottoman Empire and within the framework of efforts to adopt Western scientic
conventions, the Mecmua-i Funun (Journal of Sciences) published by the leading
names of a movement which may be dened as Ottoman Encyclopaedism,
evolutionist articles were being published as early as 1863; for instance, the
article by Hayrullah Efendi, The Appearance and Diffusion of Man may be
considered the rst instance of scientic narration of the history of mankind, outside
of the tradition of starting it by Adam. (Dogan 2006: 150151).
Nevertheless, the rst important representative of social Darwinism among
Ottoman intellectuals is Ahmed Mithat Efendi (Dogan 2006: 152) who, in the early
years of his intellectual life, was promoting Lamarckian ideas in the journal
Dagarck. His claim that social development is enhanced by competitiveness and
not by language or social life clearly demonstrates his inclination towards social
Darwinism. Though in later life, he was to be overwhelmed by a rigid religiosity, he
was bold enough in his earlier years to claim that some of the orang-utans evolved
into human beings (Dogan 2006: 159). Another modernist, S emseddin Sami, was
promoting the idea of mans common origins with apes and trying to substantiate
human evolution by geological data, back in 1878 (Sami 1998).
Among other evolutionist intellectuals of the declining empire, the names of
Besir Fuad (18521887) who, in his brochure titled Humanity,
4
admits the inuence
of Spencer on his philosophical formation (Korlaelci 1986: 227245); the
Westernizing intellectual Abdullah Cevdet whose ideas are strongly inuenced
by Gustav Le Bon and whose social Darwinism is overrun by a racializing
discourse,
5
and I

bn-i Resat Mahmut, who was printing Spencerian articles in the

journal Maarif, are worth mentioning. By the time of the Second Constitution
(1908), evolutionary notions were being postulated without any restraint as Hilmi
4
Published in 1886.
5
In his writings dating back to the 1890s, Abdullah Cevdet was openly propounding that larger cranial
capacity signied higher intelligence and that the nation should naturally be conded to a biologically
superior elite (Hanioglu 1981: 1618).
Anthropology as a nation-building rhetoric
1 3
Ziya U

lken testies (cited in Dogan 2006: 203). Books by and articles on

evolutionists such as Darwin, Lamarck, Haeckel were amply translated and
published. The attitude of the Ottoman intellectuals towards evolutionary ideas and
their position vis-a`-vis religion and/or Islam varied from moderate apologism (for
example of Baha Tevk) to radical agnosticism (of Subhi Edhem).
6
Of course, the evolutionism of the Westernizing Ottoman intellectuals was
more politically/ideologically inclined than purely scientic. The notions of
progress and development they inferred from the organic evolution were conceived
of as supporting their aspirations about the progress and Westernization of the
Empire. The theory of evolution was seen as a scientic (hence indisputable)
frame which rendered the critiques of the socio-political situation of the Ottoman
Empire and aspirations to change it legitimate. It seemed to provide the modernizing
intellectual elite with arguments against the conservative Islamists who were
seeking the restoration of the empire by resorting to a strict religiosity and a call to
return to authentic sources of Islam.
7
Thus, far from being the object of pure
scientic scrutiny,
8
the arguments derived from evolutionist theses served more as
rhetorical devices in the endeavour of progressing towards an advanced civiliza-
tional stage represented by Western nations.
From biology to sociology
With the advent of the Second Constitutional period (beginning in 1908), discourses
based on biology gradually gave way to initiatives to adopt and popularize ideas
directly derived from positivistic social scientists.
9
Hence, for instance, between
19081910, the editors of Ulum-u I

ktisadiye ve I

ctimaiye Mecmuas (The Journal of

Economic and Social Sciences) undertook the mission to diffuse the ideas of
Auguste Comte and Le Play, whereas I

ctimaiyat Mecmuas (Journal of Sociology),

edited by Ziya Gokalp and Necmeddin Sadk in 1917, was more inclined towards
Durkheimian sociology (Korlaelci 1986: 221224).
6
For a concise article on Ottoman evolutionists, see Alkan (2009).
7
Heated discussions prevailed between the modernizers (i.e. the Westernists and Ottomanists) and their
opponents who often based their views on religious references during the last decades of the nineteenth
and the rst decades of the twentieth century. To peek into the zeitgeist, see Lewis (2002: 23437) and
Berkes (1973).
8
Witness to this fact is that no Ottoman intellectual, no matter the degree of his fondness for
evolutionary theory, ever thought of embarking upon a scientic enterprisebe it a research on living
species, on palaeontology, anthropometric practices, or whateveror even a deeper study of the subject.
For specialists on the eld, one had to wait for the Republican period.
9
Hence transforming the previous negative attitude towards social sciences, exemplied by physician/
philosopher Rza Tevks words (in 1895): We refrain from labelling as sciences, [disciplines] such as
sociology, psychology, ethics which pertain to spirituality and the task of which is to study human
characteristics, let alone considering them exact sciences. (cited in Hanioglu 1981: 11). However, one
should avoid the impression that literature on biological evolution ceased abruptly. Quite on the contrary,
it thrived during the Second Constitutional period, to be taken over by the Republican scientic cadres.
What seems to be happening is that a social scientic discourse is stepping to fore, and more systematic
attempts to familiarize the Ottoman urban middle classes with the writings of Western social scientists are
intensied.
S. O

. Demirer
1 3
This shift from a biologically focused approach to sociological paradigms may be
explained by several factors. The rst would be that medical doctors had a
privileged place as the rst Ottoman intellectuals to have a Western education.
Hence, most of the rst Ottoman (social) Darwinists were physicians trained in
Western universities. This prevalence would be challenged by the opening of
European higher educational opportunities for non-medical studies in the next
generation.
Secondly, Ottoman evolutionism coincides with the wake of the First Consti-
tutional period, marked by the intense persecution of liberal thought. Natural
sciences seem to have provided a safer source of metaphors in the face of the
persecutions by the autocratic regime of the Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 18761908)
than did social sciences, which usually are more straightforward in social criticism.
The declaration of the Constitutional regime in 1908, on the other hand, had ensured
a more permissive ground for the expression of opinions.
But the more important point is that this shift corresponds to the shift in the
ideological position of the dissident Ottoman intellectuals from Westernism (or
more precisely its sequel, Ottomanism) to Turkism.
As is known, the defeat of the empire in the Balkan War led the restorationist
Association of Union and Progress in power to abandon the idea of an empire
unifying the Muslim and non-Muslim elements under a constitutional regime
(Ottomanism) in favour of a formation dominated by the Muslim-Turkish element
(Turkism). The Association since then privileged the policies that would mobilize
the institutions to construct the Turkish nation.
A general idea of progress/evolution derived from the theory of evolution,
which, in its distorted form, comprises elements to legitimize ideas about the
survival of the strongest nations and the inequality of races, however, is
insufcient to provide the vocabulary necessary for the processes relating to nation-
building. To imagine a nation which is about to relinquish its empire, sociology is
needed, and along with it, ethnography and ethnology to ll its content.
The passage from an evolutionary sociology bearing the mark of Spencerian/
social Darwinism to a Durkheimian and/or Le Playian one was realized by the rst
Turkish sociologists (Ar 1986:175) namely (Durkheimian) Ziya Gokalp and (Le
Playian) Prince Sabahattin. It is important here to dwell briey upon the views of
Ziya Gokalp whose ideas had a deeper impact upon the (self-) identication of the
Turkish nation.
Gokalp has a rather zigzagging intellectual history; while an Ottomanist in his
youth (cf Yldrm 2007), he later on embraced Panturkism and nally, in his later
years, decided upon a certain conception of cultural nationalism.
10
Though his
10
To be Turkish, it is not enough to carry Turkish blood and to belong to the Turkish race. To be
Turkish, one needs, before all, to have been educated into Turkish culture, and to work for Turkish ideals.
We do not label as Turkish those who lack those qualities, even if they carry Turkish blood and make
part of the Turkish race. And, nationality, just like religion, is attested by tongue and afrmed by heart.
Every individual who pronounces that he is Turkish with his tongue, and believes in it with his heart, is
considered a Turk. We may never question his Turkishness. (cf. Karadas 2008: 104). But that underlying
this cultural nationalism there is an ethnic or at least a religious vein is obvious from the lapses of
Gokalp when he insists that the most important obstacle to Turkish national unity is the Christian
presence in Turkey, and that the problem was solved when they, for various reasons, had left the
Anthropology as a nation-building rhetoric
1 3
views on nation rest upon the opposition between culture (which he calls hars)
and civilization,
11
they tend to overcome it. For him, civilization is the product of
a conscious, methodical and individual effort and hence, articial, whereas
culture is natural and organic (Kocak 2002: 374); in other words, while
civilization pertains to materiality, techniques and practice, culture pertains to
spirituality and organicism. A nation may enter and leave different civilizational
spheres, whereas it cannot change its culture. Thus, the dening element of a
nation is its culture.
The identication of the generative element of nation as culture would
inescapably set the mission towards the people in the agenda of nation-building
young Turkish intellectuals.
From sociology to folklore
Anthropology, as Stocking (1982: 172) asserts, is not so much a single science
produced by some Comtean logico-historical process of intellectual differentiation
as it is an imperfect fusion of quite different traditions of enquiry: biological,
historical, linguistic, sociological. This exibility makes it possible for it to be a
source of legitimization for many political and/or social projects, from supporting
empires
12
to the building of nation-states;
13
from the civilizing mission
14
to
segregationism.
15
Footnote 10 continued
country, (Karadas 2008: 100) or when he is tried (by the Martial Court instigated by the forces of
occupation in the Empire) in 1919 for having resorted to violence against the Armenians [Yldrm
2007]. For Gokalp, the Turkishness of a non-Muslim citizen, even if attested by tongue and afrmed by
heart seems to have been problematican attitude still present and disputed in contemporary Turkey.
[For the prevalence of the conation of the terms Islam and Turkish during the formative years, cf.
Eissenstat (2005: 24546). For a recent polemic, cf. I

nsel (2009) and Oran (2009), similar articles by two

liberal Turkish writers, coincidentally published in the same magazine].
11
This opposition has often been noted by theorists of culture and related to the ideologico-political
reaction to French Illumination with claims to a universal (technically conceived) civilization by German
romanticism/culturalism which privileges the particular, the mystical and the poetical. (Cf. Kuper 1999:
6; Eagleton 2005: 21).
12
The discipline was much criticized for the role it played in supporting colonialism. For a pioneering
example, cf. Asad (1985).
13
The compilation by Ribeiro and Escobar (2006) contains very interesting articles on different
experimentations of anthropology in nation-building processes. For an example on China, see Smart
(2006), on Mexico, Krotz (2006), on Brazil, Velho (2006). Another revealing example on Mexico is
Hernandez Castillo (2001).
14
The anthropologists of the so-called functional school were uncritical in offering their services to the
civilizational mission of colonial powers. Malinowski, for instance, in many of his articles published in
Africa stresses the importance of the partnership between practical man (i.e. colonial administrator) and
the anthropologist. (cf. Malinowski 1929).
15
Kuper (1999: xiixiii) relates how South African anthropologists (particularly W. W. M. Eiselen, the
Afrikaner ethnologist) drew from Boasian notion of culture to promote the preservation of cultural
differences and to legitimize the notion of separate development, hence promoting the Apartheid
regime.
S. O

. Demirer
1 3
The Turkish nation-building process has often made use of this compliant
repertoire. An important element of this process is ethnography (or rather, folklore
as the Volkskunde as distinct from Volkerkunde, or ethnography in the Anglosaxon
meaning of the term)
16
which plays an important role in determining the (cultural)
ingredients of the nation. Ethnography and/or folklore in the Ottoman land dates
back as early as the Decree of Reformation (1839).
17
But more systematic efforts
(such as articles about ethnography in various journals, lectures by Prof. Mezsaros
Gyu`la in Darulfunun
18
or researches by Turkist associations
19
) were made possible
by the Turkism of the Second Constitutional period.
Hence, for instance, the Turkish Society founded in Istanbul in 1908 to promote
scientic Turkism formulates, in the rst article of its Charter (1911), the objective
of the association in these terms: The aim of the association is to study and teach the
works, conditions and environments of all the peoples known as Turks, that is, to
make research on and to diffuse information about the ancient relics, history,
languages, the popular and elite literatures, ethnography and ethnology, social
conditions and actual civilizations of Turks, to work to improve our language to make
it conform to civilizational standards and to research its grammar (cited by U

stel
2004: 2122). In other words, the Turkish Society engaged in the processes of nation-
building not only theoretically but also practically, and this engagement brought forth
the birth of a Turkish ethnography (though still in an amateurish fashion). The
programme of the society, as cited by U

stel (2004: 14), charges the members with

obligations such as compiling local songs, proverbs, stories; registering the names of
and demographic data on Turkish tribes they encounter; studying local notables; and
collecting samples of medical herbs and information on local curing practices.
Turkish Hearths (Turk Ocaklar),
20
the sequel to the Turkish Society, which
was founded in 1911/12, state in their Charter that the organizations objective is to
16
Differentiating between empire-building anthropologies and nation-building anthropologies,
Stocking (1982) associates Volkerkunde, which he denes as the study of distant peoples with the rst
(represented by the British tradition) and Volkskunde, dened as the study of internal peasant others who
composed the nation or potential nations within an imperial state with the second (i.e. cultural
nationalism of many nineteenth century European political formations).
17
See Kosay (1974) and O

zturkmen (1998) for details.

18
Darulfunun (lit. House of Sciences), the rst Ottoman university in the European sense, was
founded in Istanbul in 1900 by the decree of Sultan Abdulhamit II. The institution was later transformed
into I

stanbul University, with the higher educational reform of 1933.

19
Various associations which may be labelled as Turkist and/or nationalist and which were aimed at
creating/inventing a Turkish culture among various ethnic subject-peoples of the dilapidated empire,
were founded throughout the rst decade of the twentieth century. These pioneering organizations which
would culminate in the Peoples Houses designed and controlled by the Party-State power of the rst era
of Republican Turkey are Turkish Association (Turk Dernegi19081912); The Association of Turkish
Land (Turk Yurdu Cemiyeti1911; merging soon with Turkish Hearths); Turkish Hearths (Turk
Ocaklar19121931), The Society of Peasantists (Koyculer Cemiyeti1918/19, inspired by Russian
narodniks and Balkan populists) (U

stel 2004; Gumusoglu 2005).

20
Turkish Hearths was founded on 1911/12 by a group of students of the Faculty of Medicine and
prominent ideologues of Turkism. Being the most long-lived organisation among its contemporaries, the
society was inuential in creating and propagating a sense of cultural nationalism (although Pan-Turkist/
Turanist tendencies were not lacking among its ranks) within the rest of the empire and contributed to the
formulation an idea of citizenship within the newly founded Republic.
Anthropology as a nation-building rhetoric
1 3
strive for the improvement of national education and the scientic, social and
economic levels of Turks, who constitute an important element of Islamic peoples
and for the perfection of the Turkish race and language. Turkish Hearths, though
conceptualizing Turkishness on more racial terms than their predecessor, the
Turkish Association, which talked about peoples (i.e. ethnic/cultural groupsS.
O.) known as Turks, took over the interest of its predecessor towards sociology,
archaeology, ethnography and ethnology.
To build the nation: blood and/or land?The principle of blood
The cultural front of the process of nation-building enthusiastically embraced by the
Kemalist elite,
21
who founded the Republican regime in the wake of the World
War I, was single-mindedly oriented towards manufacturing a nation sharing the
same fate, sorrows and joys from an ethnically and (partly) religiously heteroge-
neous residual population of the empire, now retreated back into Anatolia, towards
generating a society of citizens from rural communities who, for centuries, had led
an autarchic life, towards amalgamating those who were brought in (the Muslim
populations of the Balkans and Caucasia: Bosnians, Macedonians, Albanians,
Pomaks, Muslims from Bulgaria and Greece, Circassians, Georgians) in place of
those sent out (non-Muslims; mainly deported and/or massacred Armenians,
exchanged Greeks) with the autochthonous elements (Turkomans, Laz, Kurds,
Arabs) and Turkifying them all. All intellectuals and all academicians were
called to this duty. In this mission, the dual heritage of the anthropological/
ethnographical fermentation of the late nineteenth century provided them with a
malleable material to operate on biology and culture, or blood and land. This
inherently contradictory relationship within cultural institutions inherited or
instigated by the young Turkish Republic continued throughout the formative
years, now bearing to front one aspect, then the other.
21
The Turkish Republic was founded by a constricted cadre of military and civilian elite gathered around
Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk), himself a military man committed to the ideals of I

ttihat ve Terakki during his

early career. World War I irreversibly destroying the possibility of restoring the empire and the
aspirations about Panturkism (embraced especially by the IT leaders from the Turkic lands of Tsarist
Russia) brought this cadre to more realistic conclusions as to the formation of a sovereign nation-state
consistent with the European model(s). The elite organized in the Peoples Republican Party (Cumhuriyet
Halk PartisiCHP), formed from the Anatolian and Rumeli Society for the Defence of Rights (Anadolu
ve Rumeli Mudafaa-i Hukuk Cemiyeti), an organization which brought together and centralized the
committees of resistance to the occupation of Anatolia during World War I and which supplied military
and civilian support to the ensuing War of Liberation. The party, formally founded in 1923, monopolized
political power until 1950, when it had to cede before the newly founded Democratic Party (Demokrat
PartiDP). The single-party regime (19231946) took radical measures in view of transforming the
country into a modern, Western-type nation-state and boldly suppressed all opposition, even mild
attempts. The party was keen on controlling the lives of the citizens to convert them into modernized,
Western-type AND patriotic individuals, a control which was effected through the partys local
organizations and quasi-civic organizations such as Peoples Houses. Most of the intellectuals of the time
seem to have endorsed these ideals; the opposing minority was intimidated by calumnies and banishments
(the leaders and participants of the few Kurdish or Islamic resurrections were less lucky, though. See
Aydogan 2007).
S. O

. Demirer
1 3
But we have to point out to the fact that the commissioned intellectuals and/or
academicians were more disadvantaged vis-a`-vis their relatively autonomous
Ottoman predecessors in that they were under strict supervision of the cadre led by
Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk); those who tended to violate or were thought of having
violated the set limits or to resist, even passively, the Kemalist agenda were
immediately eliminated, and critical voices were silenced. The founders and the
rulers of the Republic have favoured, for the sake of a strong nationalism, an
invincible homogeneity in the political thoughts of Turkish intellectuals, says
Ersanl-Behar (1992: 91), stressing that the formation of a homogenous identity
was seen as necessary for the resolution of social, economical, political and cultural
problems, and that social and political dissents were thought to hamper the efforts
of modernization (1992: 92).
The rst years of the Republic are full of such attempts at homogenization and
hence, disillusionments, for (at least some of) the intellectuals. The cultural and
educational institutions within which they acted were being restructured with the
aim of narrowing their objectives and pushing them as close as possible to those of
the founding will. The response to any objection or even questioning was
elimination.
22
For instance, the Turkish Hearths (which, through their president
Hamdullah Suphi seem to have claimed a degree of independence vis-a` vis the
party-governmentcf. U

stel 2004: 251252) that have played an important role in

the Turkication of Anatolia, were closed down overnight to yield to the Peoples
Houses under the total control of the Republican Peoples Party in power, and
Hamdullah Suphi was sent to Bucharest as charge daffaires (Ersanl-Behar 1992:
98). Or Zeki Velid [Togan] who criticized the ofcial Turkish History thesis
during the rst Congress of Turkish History held in Ankara, was forced to resign
from his post at Darulfunun (Ersanl-Behar 1992: 149).
Hence, during the formative years of the Republic that can roughly be dated to
19231938/1940s, which discourse of or emphasis on nation would come to fore
was more dependent upon the preferences of political cadres than those of the
intellectuals.
In these conditions, it must not surprise us to see that the founding cadre of the
Republic placed a great importance on anthropology. During the early years of
the regime, the adventure of anthropology may be discerned in two contexts: The
Turkish Centre of Anthropological Studies; and the two Congresses of Turkish
History (1932 and 1937) during which the ofcial Turkish history thesis was
formulated.
The rst anthropological centre was founded in 1925 within the Darulfunun,
transferred in 1933 to the Faculty of Sciences of the same university and later, to the
Faculty of Language and History, Geography (DTCF) of the Ankara University,
founded in 1935 (Kansu 1946: 141142). Among the founders of the Turkish Centre
of Anthropological Studies were prominent Turkists such as S emseddin Gunaltay
22
That this silencing operation was in great part successful is attested by the observation Ersanl-Behar
(1992) makes upon her comparison of the two Congresses of History organized by Kemalist cadres with a
time lapse of ve years (the rst Congress having been held in 1932 and the second in 1937). Most of the
dissident (albeit cautious) voices of the rst congress were silenced (or non-present) during the second
one!
Anthropology as a nation-building rhetoric
1 3
and Kopruluzade Fuat and among the honorary presidents were Hamdullah Suphi,
Mustafa Necati and Dr. Rek (Saydam) (Aydn 2002: 356). The Centres Turk
Antropoloji Mecmuas (Turkish Journal of Anthropology) was rst printed in 1925
and was at its 22nd issue when it ceased publication in 1939, the year following
Ataturks death. The objective of the Centre was dened by Ataturk in a letter
(dated November 1925) to the president of the Darulfunun, Dr. Nureddin Ali as to
inspect the Turk and the Turkish society (Maksudyan 2005: 88). And its mission
was explained by one of the professors of the Centre (later to be rebaptized as
Institute) as It is our righteous duty to establish the position betting our race
among human races, just as it is our right to claim our political abode among
nations. (Maksudyan 2005: 99)
It is obvious that the founding cadre of the Republic and especially Mustafa
Kemal attributed an important role to anthropology in establishing the position
betting our race among human races. Young people, including the physician
Dr. S evket Aziz Kansu and the goddaughter Afet I

nan, were sent to countries such

as France, Germany and Switzerland
23
to master anthropology (O

zbek 1998; Aydn

2002: 357); lectures on physical anthropology were organized between 1930 and
1933 in the Faculty of Medicine. Books on anthropology (and prehistory/
archaeology, since all were considered complementary to history. But this theme
will be dealt with later) were ordered from abroad to be placed in prominent
libraries.
24
While it was within the Faculty of Sciences of the Istanbul University, the
curriculum of the Institute of Anthropology was based on the distinction of human
races. Topics such as the description and history of human races, the techniques
of observation and inspection of racial characteristics, information on morphology
23
Signicantly, Kansu would study in Paris under George Papillaut (Erdentug 1998: 21) and Inan, in
Geneva under Eugene Pittard, both physical anthropologists known for their predilection for racial
studies. [Turdas (2007:364) reference to Pittard as a mentor of Romanian (racial) anthropologists is very
signicant and provides a clue which calls for a comparative analysis of the role of (physical)
anthropology within the nation-building processes of the Balkan countries and that of Turkey. The French
anthropologist G. Papillaut is notorious for his eugenistic and antihumanist stance. Cf. Adams (1990: 76,
95)].
24
One of which is, of course, the library of the National Assembly. A brief consultation of the book
registers on related topics in the actual Library of the Parliament reveals two signicant points: That
Anthropology was conceived mainly as physical anthropology, as is suggested by the fact that almost
all of the 35 entries dating to 1943 or earlier, of the 239 books classied under Anthropology were on
races, human biological evolution and prehistory. The concept of culture seems to have attracted less
attention: of the 1,034 entries which may be accessed through this keyword, only twelve belong to 1940
and earlier. The second point is that the concern with culture was not theoretically oriented but was
focused on the necessities of nation-formation: ethnographic works, socio-political histories of the
Mesopotamian civilizations allegedly of Turkic/Central Asian origin, and the like. It is revealing that
books by prominent anthropologists of the time are lacking among the pre-1943 registers: there are no
A. Bastians, J. J. Bachofens, McLennans, H. Morgans, F. Boas, F. Graebners, C. Wisslers, A. Kroebers,
E. Sapirs, G. Roheims, R. Seligmanns, R. Lintons, B. Malinowskis, A. R. Radcliffe-Browns, R. Benedicts,
R. Firths, B. L. Whorfs, E. Evans-Pritchards, C. Kluckhohns, to mention but a few appearing on the
anthropological bibliography compiled by Keesing (1973). Those who are present, such as H. Maine,
P. Radin, E. B. Tylor, J. Frazer, M. Mauss are represented by marginal (or non-anthropological) works (for
a consultation, the website of the General Assemblys Library may be visited: http://kutuphane.tbmm.
gov.tr/cgi-bin/koha/opac-main.pl).
S. O

. Demirer
1 3
and eugenics, anthropological and racial principles of Turkish history, etc. were
treated, and questions on the diffusion of trades, customs, languages, religions and
institutions were asked as well as cranial and other anthropometric measurements
required in exams (Maksudyan 2005: 90). Hence, the activities of the Institute in
Istanbul, comprising a small group of medical doctors, were centred on physical
anthropology, and ethnography/ethnology was considered a peripheral subject. And
the anthropology of the Institute, like the great part of its counterpart and mentor,
continental European anthropology, was focused on racial/eugenic principles.
Hence, Nureddin Ali Berkol, president of the Darulfunun until 1927 and a member
of the parliament after that date, states in an article which appeared in the Journal
(March 1927) that the main objective of the Institute is to inspect the Turkish and
other Anatolian races (Maksudyan 2005: 99). For the young Republic vexed in
dening its citizens in the heterogenous homeland of Anatolia, racial/physical
characteristics seem to be promising objective implements in determining who
was Turkish and who was not. To identify the physical traits of the Turkish race
was such an important mission that Berkol was willing to yield other elds of
anthropology to other faculties (N. A. Berkol et.al. 1/10) (Maksudyan 2005: 125).
However, notwithstanding the testimony of the racist historian Reha Oguz
Turkkan citing his father, who remarked that Ataturk fancied taking cranial
measurements of his guests in the presidential residence
25
; as far as we know, this
sensitivity towards races did not lead to such dramatic results as say, those in the
contemporary Nazi Germany.
26
So, how can we explain this passion of the young
Turkish anthropology towards races? I think, on several grounds:
First, the Republican cadres inherited from the late Ottoman intellectuals the
convention that the distinguishing aspect of the Western civilization was its
scientic/positivistic character. But in the hands of the founding cadre of the
Republic, validations about the truest mentor in life
27
were at the same time
translated into a political programme: to bestow dominance to scientic
precision, to measurements, to methodology in daily life, simultaneously meant
to weaken the inuence of religion (that is, of Islam) on society (cf. Maksudyan
2005: 7374). Hence, the pseudo-scientic aura enhanced by millimetric
measurements of cephalic index, enthusiastic discussions on fossil ndings,
geological speculations not only constituted the scientic capital of the
intelligentsia whose position vis-a`-vis the political power was quite fragile and
whose promotion as well as disposition was decided upon during dinners in the
presidential residence in C ankaya, but also the arguments of the intellectual
struggle of deislamization.
The efforts to prove that Turks were the autochthonous people of Anatolia and
that they belonged to the brachycephalic Caucasoid/Alpine race and not to the
25
R. Oguz Turkan, Kafatasclk Nedir? Anlayan Beri Gelsin, http://www.ulkucugenclik.biz/;imode.
26
Eissenstat (2005: 139) maintains that racial discourse in Turkey was part of the assimilationist
policies: What is surprising, given our association of race discourse with the policies of segregation in
America or Nazi Germany, is that this discourse was fundamentally designed to act as an inclusory (if
aggressively assimilationist) rather than exclusory discourse.
27
An allusion to Ataturks saying: The truest mentor in life is science.
Anthropology as a nation-building rhetoric
1 3
despised Mongoloids; that they played a pioneering role in the foundation of
civilization; that the Sumerians, Hittites, Egyptians, Etruskians, founders of
ancient civilizations, were Turks who had migrated from Central Asia, their
homeland, was also in conformity with aspirations to include the country to the
Western civilizational sphere. In other words, the Eurocentric image of
barbarous Turks, enemies of civilization was reversed into the image of the
rst nation to teach the arts of civilization to Westerners.
28
These speculations
would also form the axis of the Congresses of Turkish History, during which the
Turkish History Thesis would be sublimed into the ofcial thesis of the
Turkish Republican State.
And nally, the efforts to create a Turkish nation out of various elements
imported from the Balkans and the Caucases and the autochthonous elements of
Anatolia needed a founding myth. [According to Samih Rfat, a participant of
the First Congress of History, truth was on the side of Turks. Hence, the Turks
would create the Turanic reality with positive data and scientic facts. (Ersanl-
Behar 1992: 142)]. The mission to create an imagination and a myth of a nation
stretching from pre to post history
29
and sharing the same blood, lineage,
language, and culture called physical anthropology to duty and made it
(along with archaeology) the handmaids of the speculative history of Turks,
delineated during the two Congresses of history. So, anthropology, especially
physical anthropology, was transformed into an implement, a rhetorical device
to manufacture history.
Thus, the intellectual adventure of the Ottoman intellectuals from biology to
sociology and from sociology to ethnology seems to be reversed with the Republic:
the naturalistic approach in the determination of the social is once again at the
forefront. S evket Aziz Kansu,
30
personally pronounced by Ataturk as the magna cum
lauda of anthropology, in his Antropoloji Dersleri (Courses of Anthropology),
28
Mustafa Kemal dictates to Afet I

nan: Leaving aside the stone ages of humanity, metallic or stone

implements and ornaments were manufactured during the Age of Metals. To domesticate animals, to
make use of them, to herd them were among the rst accomplishments of Man. So was agriculture. Apart
from those, men built houses of stone sundried bricks. They opened channels and dried up swamps, found
different methods of irrigation. They deduced the principles of calendar from their observation on the
movements of heavenly bodies, and discovered that the Nature was the greatest power. Those who built
the rst ships and displayed the ability to navigate seas were again these human beings. And they were the
rst ones to form the rst societies and states based on democratic principles. These achievements are the
rst civilized works of humanity. The homeland of Turks is the steppes of Central Asia. (Afetinan 1969:
51). In other words, Turks of Central Asia were the inventors of all the civilizational arts, including
navigation and trade!
29
Allusion to the lyrics of a popular march composed on the occasion of the 10th Anniversary of the
Republic, saying we were before history, and we will be after it.
30
S . A. Kansu (b. 1903) was sent to Paris to study physical anthropology (192729) when he was a
research assistant in the Faculty of Medicine. After completing his doctoral dissertation, he was appointed
to professorship at the age of 30 on the request of Ataturk. (With the University Reform of 1933,
universities were relegated to the authority of the Ministry of National Education and the academic
appointments were brought under the responsibility of the Minister). With the transfer of the Institute of
Anthropology to the Faculty of Languages and History, Geography, he was brought to the head of the
newly created chair of Anthropology and Ethnology as the First Turkish Professor. He later became the
president of Ankara University in 1946. (Magnarella and Turkdogan 1998 [1976]: 9; Erdentug 1998).
S. O

. Demirer
1 3
published in 1938, emphasizes the primacy of physical anthropology which he labels
as a branch of zoology.
31
Anthropology, as a discipline assistant to history, would make its presence
heavily felt during the sessions of the two Congresses of history. The papers
presented to both were mostly centred on the Central Asian origins of Turks, on
proving that they were the founders of the rst Mesopotamian and Anatolian
civilizations, and they mostly consisted of second hand (physical) anthropological
data. In both, let alone free discussions, the faintest opposition was repressed and
primacy was given to the formulation of the ofcial thesis which would be taught
in primary and secondary schools and advocated in international platforms. It is
interesting to note that in the second Congress, assembled in 1937, in a milieu
dominated by the consolidation of the single-party regime and the identication
between the party and state under the inuence of the Italian and German regimes,
the ground for free discussion was even more limited.
Another important event in the history of Turkish anthropology is the installation
in Ankara of the Faculty of Language and History, Geography (DTCF) to
institutionalize the ofcial theses on History and Language. With the founding of
the DTCF, the axis of anthropological studies would shift from Istanbul to Ankara.
In the rst years, ethnological/social anthropological studies were relatively feeble
compared to pretentious researches on physical anthropology
32
realized under the
auspices of S evket Aziz Kansu (Erdentug 1998).
And land: a culture-based nationTurkish hearths and peoples houses
Nonetheless, ethnography and/or folklore were not totally abandoned. But interest-
ingly, these elds, rather than being evaluated as areas subject to academic/scientic
interest, seem to be conceived as opportunities to educate both the people and the
intellectuals and to be relegated to semi-ofcial popular institutions.
Let me explain. I have emphasized above that the Turkish Hearths, since their
foundation, embraced the mission of investigating popular culture and to make
publications on the subject. In these institutions which spread throughout Anatolia
with the mission of Turkication, more cautious voices were raised vis-a`-vis the
idea of ancestors, migrating from the Central Asia, probably because they were
more directly confronted with the pluriethnic nature of the population. The citations
of U

stel (2004: 151153) from the discussions on the criteria of membership to the
Turkish Hearths during the First General Congress (1924) reect the inclination of
the leaders to favour cultural criteria as opposed to racial ones.
33
The problem of
31
cf. Ersanl-Behar 1992: 180.
32
Such as the spectacular Turkish Anthropometric Inquiry realized on personal orders of Ataturk, with
the cooperation of all state institutions (1937). Its results were embraced in the academic circles as late as
1960s. [See, for instance Yasa (1958: 3031)].
33
The Chairman of the Hearths, Hamdullah Suphi, while opposing to base the membership (and
allusively the citizenship) on principles of blood, interestingly does not object the criteria of class: The
Hearths are missionary institutions. If you accept workers as members, the next day, they will turn into
socialist clubs (cf. U

stel 2004: 155).

Anthropology as a nation-building rhetoric
1 3
membership will nally be resolved with the formulation, those men and women
Turkish by decent, or culturally embracing Turkish aspirations and feelings and who
have proven their faithfulness to Turkishness may be members of the Turkish
Hearth (Charter, 1924, article 5) (U

stel 2004: 162).

But cultural nationalism is somehow problematic in the lands left over from a
pluriethnic Empire. At the Third Congress of the Hearths assembled in 1926, it was
emphasized that some of the elements who have embraced Turkishness still insist
upon using their mother tongues and it was proposed that those using a language
other than Turkish should be penalized; it was claimed that elements considered
minorities such as Circassians, Bosnians, etc. should be impeded from living in
communities and using their traditional garments and their mother tongue; the
dominant position of non-Muslims in trade was criticized; it was suggested that
foreign companies bearing Turkish names should only employ Turkish personnel;
the problems of assimilation of Kurds were discussed (U

stel 2004: 186206).

Hence, the Turkish Hearths seem to have endorsed a double mission in their
cultural struggle: to Turkify Anatolia, and to Westernize Turkey. With an eye on
this double mission, they, on one hand, were engaged in the compilation of
handicrafts, architectural styles, folk songs, proverbs, dances and to build museums
to expose them; on the other, in the teaching and propagation of Western science,
philosophy, art and techniques (cf. the Programme of Turkish Hearths cited by
U

stel 2004: 214223).

Despite their efforts at Turkication/Westernization, the Turkish Hearths could
not escape from the ofcial impulse of putting all the institutions under the control
of the Party/State during the consolidation of the regime. They had to yield to the
pressures and dissolved themselves on the extraordinary congress convoked on
April 10th, 1931, transferring their assets to the Republican Peoples Party in power.
A year later, on February 19th, 1932, Peoples Houses were founded. They were
under direct control of the party in power; the foundation was ofcialised by the
ratication of their Charter (prepared by a Committee appointed by Ataturk himself)
in the Third Congress of the Peoples Republican Party (PRP) (1931); and in 1932
the Status of the Peoples Houses of the PRP was printed: In this area, we are faced
with the task of eradicating the remains of the now historical institutions deeply
rooted within the structures of society and to implement to all souls and to all
brains, the principles of the Republic and the Revolution as the most sacred faith.
(cited in O

zturkmen 1998: 7273) In the amended Status of 1935, it was established

that to be appointed to any administrative position within the Peoples Houses, one
had to be a member of the PRP.
Apart from the missions inherited from the Turkish Hearths, i.e. to document,
compile and expose local cultural products and to convey to people the Western
culture and techniques, the Peoples Houses seem to endorse another task: to
indigenize the intellectuals, to turn them into populists.
34
This is totally
34
The following quotation, taken from a letter published in U

lku, the central organ of Peoples Houses,

reects well the popularizing pressure of the organization: The youth says: Sir, do you believe in
democracy, and have a passion for the people? We do not want words, we do not want vice. Either go and
serve the progress of people, of the peasant, or else, Ill tear up your throat which destroys our unity and
quenches our enthusiasm with my st. Liberation: This is a cause. And this cause has an only answer:
S. O

. Demirer
1 3
consistent with the views of Ziya Gokalp who, incidentally, claimed that
intellectuals, armed with the amenities of higher culture, should be inculcated with
popular culture, while civilizing the popular masses (Karadas 2008: 108). As a
matter of fact, Peoples Houses were addressing an urban population, or rather,
professionals who would be working in Anatolia (doctors, teachers, civil servants),
and they aimed to form each and every one of their members as torchbearers of
Turkish revolution who would carry national consciousness and the re of
civilization to the remotest parts of the country; but also as amateur ethnographers.
Among its different sections, the section on language, history and literature was
charged with compiling words, sayings, folk tales, proverbs and inspecting popular
traditions, whereas the section on museums and expositions was charged with
compiling elements of material culture to prepare the substructure of ethnographic
museums (Charter 1935). As for the section of village affairs, they were charged
with reporting in village monographies the information gathered from villages.
(O

zturkmen 1998: 97)

The Peoples Houses and their publications were, along with training these
amateurish ethnographers, entrusting them with small homeworks. So, on the
sixth issue (1933) of U

lku, the central organ of Peoples Houses appeared a village

poll, to serve as a sample to the amateurish ethnographers, along with an appeal to
the intellectuals, to practice ethnographic work. And village monographies started to
pour in, to U

lku as well as other journals published by the local branches: all of them
were conveying information on natural surroundings of the village, climatic
conditions and ground formations, demographic information, subsistence activities,
technology, architecture, social organization, marriage customs, childcare, etc
But it has to be kept in mind that our amateurish ethnographers never forgot that
they were more agents of the Republic than objective researchers, since when it
came to choose between loyalties, they seemed not to hesitate to report the
villagers religious feelings and their superstitions or their attitude towards the
Republic and its reforms (O

zturkmen 1998: 127)

But more professionally inclined ethnographers fared no better. The compilation
of information on South Anatolian Turkomans and Yoruks realized by Ali Rza
Yalman (Yalkn) during his expeditions between 1922 and 1932 is a good example
of early Republican ethnography. In this work, Yalman (Yalkn) (1977a, b)
describes, rather unsystematically, all that he saw during his visits to villages and/or
transhumant tribes: from garments to techniques of animal stamping, from
architecture to birth-marriage-burial customs, from folksongs to calendars, from
social organization to curing practices, from magical techniques to transportation
The author does not enter into any explanation whatsoever about the facts, beliefs or
practices he has described. He, as a modernizing agent (actually he was a teacher, a
school headmaster and later, an educational inspector), is well aware that he is only
Footnote 34 continued
Leave the armchairs and the coffeehouses to mingle with popular masses and work with them without
bragging. The youth who hates babbling and gossiping is rising in the middle of the country like
Dumlupnar. (i.e. the river in the central-west Anatolia which is charged with metaphors of heroism since
the nal phases of the Turkish liberation war were fought on its banks) [Bayraktar and Alpar (eds.) 1982:
168].
Anthropology as a nation-building rhetoric
1 3
compiling things of a passing world; things of a world to the disappearance of which,
he intentionally or unintentionally is contributing to. This ambiguity is best expressed
in 1925 by Hamit Zubeyir Kosay, one of the rst theoreticians of folklore of the
Republican era, who notes that, although it is the duty of every Turk to accept many
of the novelties which are necessary for the survival of our land, it should not be
overlooked that the guarding of the ancient Turkish traditions which are appropriate,
is very important in view of the sentiment of national unity. (Kosay 1974: 4041)
This is ethnography endorsing the project of creating an imagined community, a
secular (or better: de-Islamized) and modern nation-state, relinquishing its recent
history which is Ottoman, in favour of a reshaped and idealized distant past bearer of
universal civilization. Its mission seems to have been centred on (re-)constructing the
localness and shaping the national character of this new modern entity.
As is seen, the project of nation-building taken over by the Republic from the
Ottoman intelligentsia had two vocabularies: a vocabulary of race referred mainly
to shape a ctive history; and a vocabulary of culture referred, mainly to embark
upon the homogenization of real and heterogeneous peoples living on an actual
territory. And, the more interesting part is that, while these two vocabularies were
being operated parallelly but on different levels, a few people were aware of (or
were bold enough to express) the contradiction(s) between them Whereas the
discourse of race was more often referred to within circles where physical
anthropologists played prominent roles, the establishments with the mission to
popularize nationalistic ideas seem to have preferred a culture-focused approach.
The decline of physical anthropology
The Second World War has caught the Turkish anthropology in its segmented
form. The defeat of the Axis led the single-party regime that has kept a benign
silence vis-a`-vis Germany throughout the war, to a quite radical shift of policy and
to distance itself from the racist discourse.
35
Hence, for instance, the President I

smet
I

nonu, in a speech he pronounced on May 19th, 1944 in Ankara, would condemn the
racist/Turanist propaganda activities, as sick and damaging and underline
historical ties of good neighbourhood with Soviet Union (Maarif Vekaleti 1944:
68). This shift of position was followed by a series of measures: the Turanist
manifestations were banned, and the manifestants were arrested. The Society of
Turkish History withdrew its support from racializing arguments. The history
manual published in 1931 with ultra-nationalistic and racist arguments was ousted
from the curriculum. The doctoral dissertation of Afet I

nan was heavily criticized in

the journal of the DTCF (Aydn 2002: 365). The legal persecutions of the critiques
against Turanism in the left press decreased.
But the Turanists were decided to prove that they were not so easy to swell.
Along with their supporters in the PRP, they started a campaign against the
35
Nazi Germany openly supported Turanism in Turkey in view of enticing the country into war on its
front, and to instigate a Turkist rebellion in the USSR. It is worth noting that these efforts were looked
upon benignly by the circles in power in Turkey. For racist propaganda in Turkey during WW II, see
Glasneck (n.d.).
S. O

. Demirer
1 3
moderate Minister of National Education, Hasan A

li Yucel, who had appointed

leftist professors to the DTCF. These professors (namely Behice Boran, Pertev
Naili Boratav, Niyazi Berkes and Muzaffer S erif) were accused of propagating
communism during their lectures, poisoning young minds, promoting contempt
towards great Turkish thinkers, and even giving poor grades to right-wing
students (C etik 1998).
One of the most interesting outcomes of this campaign was that even S evket Aziz
Kansu, the prominent constructor of Turkish racial history, the magna cum laude
of anthropology, then the President of Ankara University (of which the Faculty was
a part) could not escape, because of his lack of enthusiasm towards this witch-
hunt, from being calumnied as a communist and from being harassed by a group
of young racists in his ofce. Kansu would resign from his post in 1948.
With hardy support from the MPs of PRP sympathizing with the Turanist cause,
the anticommunist campaign resulted in the dismissal of Berkes, Boran, Boratav and
S erif from their posts at university.
36
The outcome of this liquidation was, as
Kongar (1982: 18) would state years later, the detainment of Turkish social
sciences for fteen to twenty years.
Anthropologys age of retreat had begun While physical anthropology was
left to oblivion in its chair in the DTCF
37
; social/cultural anthropology would
struggle to survive under the shadow of folklore in the form of village
monographies, handicraft studies, compilation of customs and traditions; while on
the other hand, it would be absorbed in the studies of US-trained sociologists who
had begun their scientic production in 1940s (but interrupted for some time with
the persecution of the DTCF).
It is possible to summarize in a few points what has been said above:
A certain predilection towards the Western evolutionary discourse within
the ranks of the late (and Westernized) Ottoman intellectuals who saw in it the
ideological means to restore the debilitating empire may be identied as the
beginning of anthropology in Turkey. Far from being of pure scientic interest,
evolutionary ideas were providing conscious or semi-conscious metaphors for
modernizing the empire.
Physical anthropology championed by the Ottoman medical doctors trained in
European countries would soon give way to Western sociological thought as the
declaration of the Constitution in 1908 liberalized the Ottoman socio-political
scene but also as Ottomanism gave way to ideas about forming a modern nation-
state. To form the spirit of the nation, ethnography in the sense of Volkskunde
was called upon.
The shaping of Turkish social sciences during the Republican era may be
analysed in two periods: 19201940; and 19401970. The rst is the stage of
nation-building, and the mission of constructing the nation is held above all
36
For a detailed account of the persecution of the professors in the DTCF (1948) and the following
events, see C etik (1998).
37
The abandonment in oblivion of the well-equipped laboratory of physical anthropology and of the
small ethnographic museum in the Faculty of Language and History, Geography, founded and cherished
by the clique of S evket Aziz Kansu is signicant in this sense (cf. Erdentug 1998: 17).
Anthropology as a nation-building rhetoric
1 3
other considerations. A notion of directed social sciences prevails in this period,
both in their academic and popularized forms. Two important missions are
expected from them: to help to form a citizenry in the vision of the Republic and
to localize the intellectuals over-inuenced by the West. During this period,
physical anthropology dominates within the academy, whereas a folkloric
ethnography to identify the content of national culture is also present.
Although provided with a generous material support (a special faculty, a
laboratory, museums, personnel, research funds, scholarships in Western
countries) both seem be overwhelmed and/or crippled by their mission and
the strict politico-ideological control exerted on their disciplines. Instead of
studying real human beings (physically and culturally) they seemed to have
embarked upon creating citizens: brachycephalic-alpine-Turkish and secular
a fact which renders it more appropriate to qualify the anthropological discourse
of the formative years rhetorical rather than scientic!
References
Adams, M.B. 1990. The Wellborn science. Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil and Russia. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Afetinan, A. 1969. M. Kemal Ataturk ten Yazdklarm (Ankara).
Alkan, M.O

. 2009. Osmanl da Darwinizm ve Evrim Kuramlarna I

lgi U

zerine. Toplumsal Tarih 187:

2027.
Ar, O. 1986. Turkiye de Sosyoloji Tarihi. In Turkiye de Sosyal Bilim Arastrmalarnn Gelisimi, ed.
S. Atauz. Ankara: Turk Sosyal Bilimler Dernegi.
Asad, T. 1985. Anthropology and the colonial encounter. London: Ithaca Press, New Jersey: Humanities
Press.
Aydn, S. 2002. Cumhuriyet in I

deolojik S ekillenmesinde Antropolojinin Rolu: Irkc Paradigmann

Yukselisi ve Dususu. In Modern Turkiye de Siyas Dusunce: Kemalizm, ed. T. Bora, and M.
Gultekingil, 344369. I

stanbu: I

letisim Yaynlar.
Aydogan, M. 2007. I

c I

syanlar ve S eyh Sait I

syan (Nokta Yaynlar).

Bayraktar, Z., and C. Alpar. eds. 1982. U

lku, Secmeler (19331941) (Ankara, AI

TI

A).
Berkes, N. 1973. Turkiye de C agdaslasma. Ankara: Bilgi Yaynlar.
C etik, M. ed. 1998. U

niversitede Cad Kazan. 1948 DTCF Tasyesi ve Pertev Naili Boratav n

Mudafaas (I

stanbul, Tarih Vakf-Yurt Yaynlar).

Dogan, A. 2006. Osmanl Aydnlar ve Sosyal Darwinizm. I

stanbul: Bilgi U

niversitesi Yaynlar.
Eagleton, T. 2005. Kultur Yorumlar. I

stanbul: Ayrnt Yaynlar.

Eissenstat, H. 2005. Metaphors of race and discourse of nation. In Race and nation, ed. P. Spickard.
New York and London: Routledge.
Erdentug, A. 1998. The pioneering anthropologists of Turkey: personal proles in socio-political context.
The Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 22(2): 1344.
Erdentug, S.A., and J.P. Magnarella. 2002. Turkiyedeki U

niversitelerde Sosyal Antropolojinin Dunu ve

Bugunu: biyo-bibliyograk bir Degerlendirme. Folklor/Edebiyat 22(2000/2): 43104.
Ersanl-Behar, B. 1992. I

ktidar ve Tarih: Turkiyede Resmi Tarih Tezinin Olusumu (19291937),

I

stanbul: Afa Yaynlar.

Glasneck, J. (n.d.). Turkiyede Fasist Alman Propagandas, (Ankara, Onur Yaynlar).
Gumusoglu, F. 2005. U

lku Dergisi ve Kemalist Toplum. Istanbul: Toplumsal Donusum Yaynlar.

Hanioglu, S . 1981. Bir Siyasal Dusunur Olarak Doktor Abdullah Cevdet ve Donemi. Istanbul: U

cdal
Nesriyat.
Hernandez Castillo, A. 2001. Histories and Stories from Chiapas. Border Identities in Southern Mexico,
(University of Texas Press).
S. O

. Demirer
1 3
I

nan, A. 2007. [1959] Ataturk Hakknda Hatralar ve Belgeler, ed. Ar I

nan, (Istanbul, T. I

s Bankas
Yaynlar).
I

nsel, A. 2009. O

nce Riyakarlga Son Verelim. Radikal I

ki, 29 Agustos 2009.

Kansu, S .A. 1946. The place of anthropology and ethnology in Turkish universities, and works and
studies carried on in that eld. Man 46: 141142.
Karadas, Y. 2008. Ziya Gokalpte S arkiyatclk, Dogunun Batc U

retimi. I

stanbul: Anahtar Kitaplar.

Keesing, F.M. 1973. Culture change. An analysis and bibliography of anthropological sources. Stanford
Anthropological Series, n. 1. New York: Octagon Books.
Kongar, E. 1982. Turkiyede Toplumbilimin Gelismesi ve Yontem Sorunu. In Turk Toplum Bilimcileri
I, ed. E. Kongar, I

stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.

Kocak, O. 2002 1920lerden 1970lere Kultur Politikalar. In Modern Turkiyede Siyas Dusunce:
Kemalizm (II), eds. Bora, T. and Gultekingil, M. I

stanbul: I

letisim Yaynlar.
Korlaelci, M. 1986. Pozitivizmin Turkiyeye Girisi. I

stanbul: I

nsan Yaynlar.
Kosay, H.Z. 1974. Etnografya, Folklor, Dil, Tarih v.d. Konularda Makaleler ve I

ncelemeler. Ankara:
Ayyldz Matbaas.
Krotz, E. 2006. Mexican Anthropologys ongoing search for identity. In World Anthropologies:
Disciplinary Transformations within Systems of Power, eds. Ribeiro, G.L., and Escobar, A.
www.ram-wan.net.
Kuper, A. 1999. Culture. The anthropologists account. Harvard University Press.
Lewis, B. 2002. [1964] The Emergence of modern Turkey Studies in middle Eastern history. Oxford
University Press.
Maarif Vekaleti. 1944. Irkclk-Turanclk, Turk Inklap Tarihi Enstitusu Yaynlar: 4, Ankara: Maarif
Matbaas.
Magnarella, P.J., and O. Turkdogan. 1976. The development of Turkish Social Anthropology. Current
Anthropology, 17:2:263274, Reprinted in Paul J. Magnarella, Anatolias Loom. Studies in Turkish
Culture, Society, Politics and Law. Analecta Isisiana XXX, The Isis Press, 1998.
Maksudyan, N. 2005. Turklugu O

lcmek. Bilimkurgusal Antropoloji ve Turk Milliyetciliginin Irkc

C ehresi, 19251939. I

stanbul: Metis.
Malinowski, B. 1929. Practical Anthropology Africa. Journal of the International African Institute t. 2(1):
2238.
Oran, B. 2009. Bolunmek I

stemiyorsak I

ki O

nkosul. Radikal I

ki 29 Agustos 2009.
O

zbek, M. 1998. Cumhuriyetle Baslayan Antropoloji. In H. U

. Edebiyat Fakultesi Dergisi, Cumhuriyetin

75. Yl O

zel Says, 105107.

O

zturkmen, A. 1998. Turkiyede Folklor ve Milliyetcilik. I

stanbul: I

letisim Yaynlar.
Ribeiro, G.L., and A. Escobar, eds. 2006. World anthropologies: Disciplinary transformations within
systems of power. www.ram-wan.net.
Sami, S . 1998. [1878] Ed. G. Akn I

nsan (Ankara, Cep Kutuphanesi Eserleri).

Smart, J. 2006. In search of Anthropology in China: A discipline caught in the Web of nation building
Agenda, Socialist Capitalism, and Globalization. In World Anthropologies: Disciplinary Transfor-
mations within Systems of Power, ed. G.L. Ribeiro and A. Escobar. www.ram-wan.net.
Stocking, G.W. 1982. Afterword: a view from center. Ethnos 47(1): 173186.
Turda, M. 2007. From craniology to serology: racial anthropology in interwar Hungary and Romania.
Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 43(4): 361377.
U

stel, F. 2004. [1997] I

mparatorluktan Ulus-Devlete Turk Milliyetciligi: Turk Ocaklar (19121931)

(I

stanbul, I

letisim Yaynlar).
Velho, O. 2006 The Pictographics of Tristesse: An Anthropology of Nation-Building in the Tropics and
its Aftermath. In World Anthropologies: Disciplinary Transformations within Systems of Power,
eds. Ribeiro G.L., and Escobar A. www.ram-wan.net.
Yalman (Yalkn), A. 1977a. Cenupta Turkmen Oymaklar I. Ed.S. Emir. (Ankara, Kultur Bakanlg
Yaynlar).
Yalman (Yalkn), A. 1977b. Cenupta Turkmen Oymaklar II. Ed. S. Emir. (Ankara, Kultur Bakanlg
Yaynlar).
Yamashita, S. 2006 Reshaping anthropology: a view from Japan. Eds. Ribeiro G.L., and Escobar, A.
www.ram-wan.net.
Yasa, I

. 1958. Turkiyenin Demograk ve Etnolojik Yaps ve Baz Sosyal Meseleler (Lecture notes),
(Ankara, TODAI

E).
Yldrm, A. 2007. Ziya Gokalpte Toplumsal Degisme: Kultur-Uygarlk Tezi (unpublished seminary
paper).
Anthropology as a nation-building rhetoric
1 3