The Turkish Review of Anthropology and the Racist Face of Turkish Nationalism

T H E T U R K I S H R E V I E W O FA N T H R O P O L O G Y A N D T H E R AC I S T FAC E

O F T U R K I S H NAT I O NA L I S M

NAZAN MAKSUDYANSabancı University, Istanbul

�

ABSTRACT

As a new nation state founded in 1923 on the ashes of the Ottoman Empire,the Republic of Turkey faced the need to establish a new national identity andideology. Recognizing the multiple faces of Turkish nationalism, this articleexplores how Kemalist conceptions of national identity were not limited tocivic nationalist ideologies, but incorporated racist ascriptions of ethnicnationalism as well. Based on the research and publications of scholars associ-ated with the Turkish Review of Anthropology from 1925 to 1939, this articleanalyzes a form of early Turkish nationalism that was shaped by a racistdiscourse supported by and purveyed through the disciplinary authority ofanthropology. The author’s analysis reveals a dominating and exclusionarydiscourse of Turkish nationalism, in which the ‘Turkish race’ (posited as thedominant national group) had a sense of proprietary ownership of the nationand national identity.

Key Words � anthropology � national identity � nationalism � physicalanthropology � racism � Turkey

This article examines some of the research projects and publications ofscholars associated with the Turkish Review of Anthropology from 1925 tothe late 1930s. This group among the scientific elite explicitly developed aracist discourse in the early period of nation-building in Turkey. I argue thatthe particular work of the scholars under the roof of the Review exposesanother face of nationalist ideology during the early years of the TurkishRepublic. While Kemalist nationalism manifestly recognized a concept ofcitizenship based on universal rights of the entire population, the govern-ment also promoted research that supported an ethnic–racial version ofnationality. The discourse of the Review demonstrates that Turkish nation-building worked within a particular racial hierarchy and that all groupswere not equally and universally incorporated into the concept of thenation.

17(3): 291–322. [DOI: 10.1177/0921374005061992] http://cdy.sagepub.comCopyright © 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)

Cultural Dynamics

Race and Turkish Nationalism

Nationalism has provided perhaps the most compelling identity myth of themodern world. Myths of national identity typically refer to territory orancestry (or both) as the basis of political community. Contemporaryscholars of nationalism often claim that nationalism is a protean doctrine,as distinct nationalisms define their relevant nations as such by employingdifferent criteria: in some cases the nation is defined as a linguistic group,sometimes as a cultural body, a race, a collective with common history, andso forth (Greenfield, 1995: 7–13). However, it is also possible to argue thatthe common denominator of certain nationalisms is that they conceive thenation as a sort of extended family. In this genealogical perception, race alsobecomes a key concept in the formation of national identities and policiesfor preserving national unity.

In the late 19th century, almost all of the European states were addingracist ingredients to their nationalist ideologies. In France the doctrine ofrace, language and nationality was leading the Second Empire; nationalismin Italy was also accompanied by claims that long skulls and Germanicorigins determined an inherent capacity or incapacity for government;Bismarck, faced with the same problems of unity and power, argued that‘the Gaul was easier to govern than the German’, flattering the latter withthe possession of unruly blood (Barzun, 1965: 135).

In the case of the Republic of Turkey, there were also racial componentsin the national picture. Although the official discourse of Turkish national-ism stresses an inclusive conception of national affiliation under the bannerof Kemalism, there is evidence for narrower criteria. There is more than oneface of Kemalist Turkish nationalism (Parla and Davison, 2004: 68). Differ-ent definitions are implicit in the attitudes of Kemalist elites (and MustafaKemal himself) toward Turkey’s relation with developed European states.At times these elites claimed that the Turkish nation should be equal withthe most advanced nations; but at other times they claimed that theKemalist state should surpass all other nations because the Turkish nationpossessed special qualities. These opposing stances illustrate, at the veryleast, two faces of Turkish nationalism. An inclusive version was more orless based on citizenship and ignored particular identities, but an exclusiveversion emphasized ethnic and racial traits. Therefore, by employing ethnicand racial concepts to describe the special qualities of the Turkish nation,Kemalist thinking was loaded with restrictive meanings that contradictedmore open conceptions of national citizenship (Parla and Davison, 2004:72).

Turkish nationalism has many different forms that have changed acrosstime and place, in the same way as other nationalisms and national identi-ties. First, religion comes directly into the question of nation-building: theseparation of Muslims from the non-Muslim population as well as the

292 Cultural Dynamics 17(3)

separation of Sunni Muslims from non-Sunni ones (such as Alevites). Inaddition to religion, the literature on nation-building in Turkey brings inother mainstays of Turkish nationalism, such as the idea of ethnie: thelinguistic roots and heroic historical myths and heritage from Central Asia.Thus, Kemalist conceptions of national identity not only convey civicnational meanings, but also other supremacy-oriented ethnic and racistelements as well (Parla and Davison, 2004: 80). While addressing thesedifferent issues, this article reveals and analyzes one of these faces: aparticular form of early Turkish nationalism which was predominantlyshaped by a racist discourse that was supported by the disciplinary author-ity of anthropology.

There is a rich literature (historical, archival, discursive, and legal), whichpoints to the ‘civic’ face of Turkish nationalism. In fact, many researchersargue that Turkish nationalism is among those civic nationalisms of Europethat take territory as the basis of nationality (jure solis) and endow thepopulation of the nation with equal and identical citizenship. Supporters ofthis argument admit that discrimination occurred, but they interpret it asdeviation from the norm, its instances being unsystematic exceptions. Thesestudies therefore insist on the huge gap between what was ‘formally written’and what was ‘substantially experienced’ (Aktar, 1996a: 45–56; 1996b: 4–18;McDowall, 1996; Kiris,c, i, 2000: 1–22).

In this article the I argue that the discriminatory tendencies of Turkishnationalism in defining national identity (especially based on Sunni Islam,Turkish language, and race) were not solely matters of practice, but pene-trated the deeper theoretical levels—for the purposes of this article, therealm of theory can be read as the anthropological discourse of the earlyTurkish Republic. My intention is to put aside for a while the civic face inorder to present a picture of the non-civic, namely racist, side of Turkishnationalism, not by referring to deviations from the norm or by discussingcertain ‘exceptional’ practices but by arguing that the norms themselveswere directly shaped by discriminatory presumptions (Yıldız, 2001).1 Thenationalist movement, I argue, did not simply incidentally and occasionallystray into an ethnoracialist stance. At least some of the elite cadres, inspiredby an ethnoracial ideology, used willing academics to legitimize a racist typeof nationalism by appealing to (and abusing) the language and methods ofscience.

A Journal: the Turkish Review of Anthropology

The Turkish Review of Anthropology, published between 1925 and 1939,was the journal of the Turkish Institute of Anthropology. The first issue ofthe journal appeared in October 1925, with only two articles: one explain-ing the objectives of the Review in the manner of an opening manifesto

Maksudyan: The Racist Face of Turkish Nationalism 293

(Berkol et al., 1925: 5–11) and the other discussing the theoretical signifi-cance of human morphology and physical anthropology (MacAuliffe, 1925:12–20). The first research project undertaken by the scholars of the journalwas a comparative study on the physical development of children belong-ing to different ‘racial origins’ (these included Armenians, Jews, Greeks, andTurks). After that, another study was conducted attempting to reveal thecharacteristics of the ‘Turkish race’, based on the ‘Istanbul Bone Collec-tion’, consisting of bones collected from the largest Muslim cemetery of thecity of Istanbul (Karacaahmet). This research series was published from1927 onwards, for three consecutive issues (Berkol et al., 1927a: 6–16; 1928:5–14; 1929: 6–12).

In this article, I specifically examine the conclusions of the first researchproject of the contributors to the Review, which were published in thejournal from the second issue (March 1926) onwards for three issues underthe title, ‘Comparative Analysis of the Turkish Race and Other Races Livingin Istanbul’.

Anthropology in Early Republican Turkey

During the birth and the development of anthropology as a scientific disci-pline in Turkey, it can be argued that identification of the anthropologicalcharacteristics of the Turkish race was considered to be a national goal. Thegovernment took conscious steps to help support the discipline by foundinginstitutes for the study of physical anthropology, by granting fellowships tothose who wanted to study physical anthropology abroad, and by support-ing the research of the Turkish Review of Anthropology. In a letter to thedirector of the Turkish Institute of Anthropology (17 November 1925),Mustafa Kemal wrote that he was happy to receive the first product of theTurkish Institute of Anthropology, namely the first issue of the Review. Headded: ‘I wish success to the institute in its valuable work which targets theaim of investigating the Turk’ (Kansu, 1940).2 This letter makes clear thejournal’s goal to carry out research on the Turkish race.

The Turkish Review of Anthropology was the primary official umbrellafor initiating and coordinating anthropological research in Turkey. Thejournal was a publication of a state academy/university. It was founded inthe company of the Turkish Institute of Anthropology in 1925 in the Facultyof Medicine of the Darülfünun, or University, of Istanbul. The participantsin the Review were medical doctors (mostly anatomists) who had recentlybegun to present themselves as anthropologists. Although the journal wascalled the Review of Anthropology and the association was called the Insti-tute of Anthropology, there were neither any trained anthropologists nor awell-established research center for anthropology in the first years of theTurkish Republic. However, by the 1930s, a number of individuals hadstudied anthropology in Europe with official support.


S, evket Aziz Kansu was the first, and also one of the most important, ofthese individuals. Kansu was a medical doctor working as an assistant in thedepartment of internal diseases of the University of Istanbul. In 1927, hewas sent to the Paris Anthropology Institute in the École des HautesÉtudes. He worked in the Broca Laboratory of Anthropology,3 under thesupervision of Georges Papillault.4 Based on his work on the morphologyof the skulls of Neo-Caledonians and African Negroes, he earned a diplomafor anthropological science.

Others would follow the example of Kansu during the 1930s. Afet Inangained her PhD in the University of Geneva in 1939 under the supervisionof Eugène Pittard.5 Her investigation on the characteristics of the Turkishrace would strengthen the racial component of Turkish nationalism.6 SenihaTunakan was a research assistant in the Department of Anthropology in theUniversity of Istanbul. She won a university-wide contest in 1935 for studyabroad and went to Berlin University where she worked with EugenFischer7 in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology. When oneconsiders the countries in which these individuals studied, together with thesort of anthropological instruction these students received, it is clear thatanthropological studies in Turkey were closely linked with the idea of raceand its nationalist implications.

Methodological Approach of the Review

From the later 19th century, the science of physical anthropology had cometo play a large role in anthropological research. The practitioners of thisapproach advocated counting, measuring, and experimenting as the basis ofa positivistic science that was more than mere observation and description.The quest for certainty in the understanding of the human species would beachieved by means of number. Anthropology would become the scientificdiscipline of measuring the parts of the human body, principally the skull,but also the features, the limbs, the genital organs, the stature, the diameterof the heart of the buttocks, and so on.

The Turkish Review of Anthropology was very much identified with thesemethodological perspectives. The participating scholars declared from thebeginning that they would limit themselves systematically to morphologic/somatic anthropology, leaving to their colleagues from other sections of theUniversity (Faculty of Arts, Faculty of Law, and Faculty of Science) thestudy of general anthropology. Basically three measurement methods werewidely used: somatometry or anthropometry (measurement and study ofthe human body and its parts), cephalometry (the measurement of thebones in the head of the living), and craniometry (measurement ofdry skulls after removal of their soft parts). The measuring techniquesadopted were usually designed to determine unchanging racial character-istics.


Science Fictions: Legitimation of the Racist Accent

During the 19th and the early 20th centuries, the rise of the idea of race innationalist discourses came in the company of the use (and abuse) ofanthropology as an academic justification for official racist policies. Withscience as a legitimating shield, some anthropological researchers freelyemployed concepts of race to create stereotypes of ethnic or nationalgroupings and attributed all kinds of capacities and deficiencies to thesegroupings. This process reveals how science (physical anthropology) wasutilized to argue for the racial superiority of one nation over the other(within a country or between different countries).

In order to understand the importance of positivistic science in thediscourse of the Kemalist elites, it is necessary to look at their imperial fore-runners, some of whom remained active members among new nationalistcadres. The Young Turks of the late Ottoman Empire represented a gener-ation of enlightened men who were educated in both military and civilschools that had taken European intellectual trends as their example.Science had become an almost magical concept for them. To a large extent,they were strongly influenced by both positivistic science and SocialDarwinism. They argued that social problems and their solutions could onlybe grasped through the methods of the natural/positive sciences. The YoungTurks saw themselves as the best qualified social doctors to effect a cure ofsocial ills (Mardin, 1999: 18).

From the very first years of the new Republic of Turkey onwards, the ‘callto science’ was pursued with enthusiasm and the ambition was to establisha ‘society of science’. However, the understanding of science in the Turkishcontext was superficial. The meaning of science, scientific research, andscientific inquiry remained quite far-off to many intellectuals and politicalelites. Much of the effort in the field of scientific research was directlysubject to the hegemony of nationalist ideology. In the context of theRepublic, it was possible to attach truth to virtually anything under thedisguise of a scientific argument. In fact, science was utilized by the Repub-lican elites in a very subtle manner in order to suggest that scientific findingsdictated the only right way of solving the problems; and therefore, tosuppress any questioning of policies undertaken by the scientific state ofTurkey.

In this respect, the Turkish Review of Anthropology was founded to provemyths about the Turkish race by using positivist methods of physical anthro-pology. Anthropology was considered to be a perfect tool to convey in ascientific manner truths about the Turkish race that were no more thannationalist inventions. These researchers, aided and abetted by governmentofficials and support, used the language and method of science to legitimizeracism. In other words, under the guise of a pure positive science usingspecific measurement techniques and devices, anthropology at the hands of


these was reconstructing, with the quality of indisputableness, politicallydetermined racist fictions of Turkish nationalism. Thus, their job can best benamed as writing science fiction.

The Writers

One aspect of the dominant ideology in the one-party state was manifestedin the recruitment of politician–intellectuals to undertake the mission ofspreading Turkish nationalism. The political role assigned to the ‘scientists’of the time was an enormous one. These men had to be dedicated nation-alists while undertaking their scientific studies. They were also held respon-sible for educating future generations with a new identity formulated bytheir research. The cultural, social, and scientific activities of these poli-tician-scientists were molded by political participation. Their beliefs andideals were consistently shaped by their political commitments.

The majority of the writers of the Turkish Review of Anthropology weremedical doctors working as professors in the Haydarpas,a Faculty ofMedicine.8 The writers of the article series in question, ‘ComparativeAnalysis of the Turkish Race and Other Races Living in Istanbul’,—Nureddin Ali Berkol, Nes,et Ömer Irdelp, Aime Mouchet, Süreyâ AliKayacan and Ismail Hakkı C, elebi—were all medical doctors writing theirarticles together as a group. Between 1925 and 1930, they were, in a sense,the ‘brains’ of the Review, and their articles were consistently published inthe issues of the journal.

Nureddin Ali was a professor of anatomy, who graduated from theMilitary Medicine Academy (1902) and then went to Paris for his special-ization in anatomy (1906). He also worked on histology.9 Ismail Hakkı isknown to be the founder of theoretical and applied medical zoology andparasitology in Turkey. He was sent to Europe for higher education in 1891,and when he came back in 1895, he taught in both Military and Civil Veteri-nary Schools. Nes,et Ömer was also a doctor, who graduated from the CivilMedical Academy in 1902 and then went to Paris to specialize in internalmedicine. Moreover, he was the private doctor of Mustafa Kemal and isstated to have been his close friend. Basically, these individuals were alldoctors, who had suddenly assumed the role of anthropologists.10

Almost all of the writers of the Turkish Review of Anthropology wereprominent figures at the higher positions in the official state academy andwere attached to the government bureaucracy either by their adminis-trative positions in the university or by their direct involvement in politics.In fact, the academic cadres of the Review were, in some instances, thepolitical cadres of the Republic as well. These organic links are importantin the sense that they point to the fact that this group of the scientific elite,with its explicitly developed racist discourse in the early period of nation-building and strong relations with state officials and organs, represented


and projected the viewpoint of a section of the Kemalist ruling elite of thetime.

Nureddin Ali was one of the more prominent of these individuals. He hadbeen the dean of the Faculty of Medicine (1924–5) and the rector of theDarülfünun (1925–7). After that, he was elected to the Grand NationalAssembly as a deputy for Istanbul in 1927.11 Nureddin Ali became the vicepresident of the National Assembly in 1931, without quitting his office inthe Darülfünun as Professor of Anatomy. Nes,et Ömer had also been thedean of the Faculty of Medicine (1925–7) and the rector of Darülfünun(1927–30). During the ‘university reform’ of 1933,12 he was not purged (likemany others) but instead promoted with the new title of ‘ordinariusprofessor’.13 After the foundation of the new University of Istanbul, Nes,etÖmer became the first rector (1933). One year later, he was also elected asa deputy in the Grand National Assembly (1934). He served in the parlia-ment until the elections of 1939. Süreyâ Ali, another member of this group,had also been the dean of the Faculty of Medicine (1927–9). These peoplefollowed each other in important positions within the state hierarchy.Therefore, it is possible to conclude that they were benefiting politicallyfrom their ‘contributions’ to the Review.

The ‘anthropologists’ of the Review were following the same route asother scientific elites of the one-party period by serving as docile protagon-ists of the regime. Starting from the first article with a racist nationalist tone,the authors remained in compliance with the nationalist ideologicalcampaign of the Republic.

Involvement of the One-Party State

The Turkish Review of Anthropology was born under the auspices of theTurkish Institute of Anthropology which was founded in 1925 in the Facultyof Medicine of the Darülfünun. The ‘university reform’ of 1933, crucial forthe settlement of the authoritarian one-party rule,14 was also an importantevent for the history of the Turkish Review of Anthropology. A largenumber of very important names of the Darülfünun were not reappointedto the University of Istanbul.15 Yet we know that none of the writers associ-ated with the Review was discharged during the ‘reform’. On the contrary,most of them were promoted and granted more prestigious titles.

When the University of Istanbul was founded in 1933, the Turkish Insti-tute of Anthropology was first placed under the roof of the Faculty ofSciences, as a separate Department of Anthropology. After the establish-ment of the Faculty of Language, History and Geography in AnkaraUniversity in 1935, the Institute was then moved there, under the new nameof Turkish Institute for Anthropology and Ethnology. These relocations andrenamings point to a number of things. First of all, the establishment ofa research center of anthropology was in itself a rather ad hoc (and


precipitous) act. Consequently, it was easy to uproot the Institute. Another,probably more significant, aspect of this ‘migration’ is the specialization ofthe discipline. First established as an institute tied to the Faculty ofMedicine, and then moved to the Faculty of Sciences, the department ofanthropology had finally become relatively independent from doctors,biologists, anatomists, etc. and self-sufficient.

Apart from its links with the university, the Review also had relations withthe Ministry of Education. The Ministers of Education were alwayshonorary presidents of the journal and their names were published in eachissue. And while this title was only symbolic, it is another indication that theReview was supported, inspected, and approved by the Ministry. Later on,the Rectors of the University of Istanbul and the Ministers of Health andSocial Security were also designated as honorary presidents. The Reviewhad such strong links with the state that it would be entirely appropriate todescribe it as an official publication.

What matters most here is not simply that the journal was a publicationof a state university, but that the state itself was a one-party regime duringthe period from 1925 to 1950. During this period, it was impossible to under-take any sort of scientific activity without the approval and support of stateauthorities. Therefore, it seems clear that the Turkish Review of Anthropol-ogy was an official outlet of political power. If you like, it was a ‘think-tank’of the Republic that had been assigned the duty of preparing the ideologi-cal foundations for the racist dimensions of Turkish nationalism.

‘Comparative Analysis of the Turkish Race and Other Races Livingin Istanbul’

The first research article published in the Turkish Review of Anthropologybore the title, ‘Comparative Analysis of the Turkish Race and Other RacesLiving in Istanbul’. It appeared in the second issue (March 1926) andcontinued in the third and fourth issues. In the first of the three parts,measurements of the ‘Turkish race’ were provided, together with a generalintroduction to the research. In the second part, general historical–anthro-pological information was reported as well as anthropometric measure-ments relating to Greeks, Jews, and Armenians. These individuals were theso-called ‘other races living in Istanbul’. In the third part, comparisons weremade between the ‘Turkish race’ and each of the ‘other races’.

The fact that its initial research focused on the non-Muslim groups ofIstanbul gives us clues about the priorities of the Review—especially whenone considers the context of the notorious efforts of identity-building in thenewly founded Republic. A race-based comparison (as the authors claimed)was applied to what were in fact different religious groups. This indicates asignificant confusion. The ‘other races’ were defined throughout the


Ottoman period as different non-Muslim religious groups. There is noevidence that this perception had changed with the Republic. Why then didthe scholars of the Review call them ‘races’? This conflict is a sign of a basiccontinuity underlying what were otherwise changing conditions. First, theauthors adopted the already defined ‘others’ of the national identity.Second, they transformed the unit of analysis such that now the categorieswere modern, not pre-modern (considering the secularist obsessions of theelites). In that sense, what the elites acquired was a new scientific jargon toreproduce and legitimize older hierarchies.

To repeat the main argument of my article, the scholars of the Reviewappealed to theories that contradicted the civic definition of Turkish nation-alism. Thus, it is possible to treat the Review as a symptom of the existenceof a second face of Turkish nationalism, which relied more on ethnic andracial characteristics and which constructed Turkish national identity interms of these characteristics with race-based definitions of nationality.

The State’s Support

In order to understand a significant dimension of the support from the state,it must be mentioned that almost all the anthropometric samples cited inthe articles of the TRA were based on measurements of soldiers or students.It is also remarkable that the studies were undertaken on ‘official’ premises(barracks or schools) under the supervision of state officials. Thus, theinvolvement of the state in arranging the research projects is clear.

The study on the ‘Turkish Race and Other Races Living in Istanbul’ wasalso directly sponsored by the state, symbolizing a pattern within the overallhistory of the Turkish Review of Anthropology. In this case, the governmentfacilitated the selection of students for measurement. The authors declaredtheir gratitude to the authorities in their second article:

This study had been probably impossible, or it would have met the greatest difficulties,without the executive help of the government. By a special order, the Ministry ofEducation has ordered and prescribed all the school directors in Istanbul, to provideall the information requested to establish this present scientific survey. We have themeasurements concerning: 2200 Greeks, 1600 Armenians, 1340 Jews, 720 Levantines ormongrels, ‘indeterminate races’. (Berkol et al., 1926b: 5)16

Probably, the authors of the Review requested support from the relevantauthorities, informing them about the objectives of the research project. Itseems that the response to this request was even more positive thanexpected. In fact, the crucial point here is to determine who initiated thestudy of the ‘races’ of Istanbul and whether it might have even been thegovernment itself rather than the scholars. In any case, the Review and stateelites were clearly cooperating very closely.


The Meaning of Istanbul for Comparison: ‘Together—UtterlyDifferent’

At the beginning of ‘Comparative Analysis of the Turkish Race and OtherRaces Living in Istanbul’, the writers dwell upon the relevance of the cityof Istanbul as a research site for the study of ‘race’. After mentioning someother countries, where ‘races live side by side’ like the United States andRussia, they propose that Istanbul was quite distinct from these examples,since there different races, though living together with others, could havemaintained their specific racial characteristics and differences, as opposedto the idea of the ‘melting pot’ defended in those countries. According tothe writers, the lack of mixing was due to the permissiveness of the Turkishrace which was both the ‘dominating race’ and ‘the master of the country’.

In Constantinople, several races could develop in the same milieu, side by side forcenturies. Religious traditions and laws established insurmountable barriers betweenthe members of these various races . . . Until now, the members of various races thatare present in Istanbul have preserved their pure/unmixed characteristics. . . . Never-theless, if the various races that we will be occupied with from the very start of thisinvestigation, could develop freely and without mixture for hundreds of years inIstanbul, it is necessary to note that this was realized thanks to the permissiveness ofthe dominating Turkish Race. The Turk, who is the master of the country, could havehindered the development of all the human groupings next to him, who had been livingwithout any obstacles. His forbearance and softness, allowed the Greek, the Jew, andthe Armenian, to live next to him, under the same sky, by preserving their character-istics and their biological individuality. (Berkol et al., 1926a: 5)17

The writers of the TRA consistently argued that racial characteristicscreated essential differences which resisted environmental influences andso remained unchanged. The contributors of the TRA, in parallel with theirEuropean contemporaries, were looking for essential, never changing,hereditary differences, which could not be explained by adaptation. In otherwords, they were looking for qualities that could not be reduced to environ-mental or climatic specificities.18

According to the writers of the article under analysis, ‘the races living sideby side’ could have preserved their pure racial characteristics and did notcome to resemble each other. They concluded that there had to be otherfactors explaining the ‘conditions of the development and evolution in amilieu where several races develop in parallel and without mixture’ (Berkolet al., 1926a: 8).19

Some anthropologists claimed that the environment had an influence of modifying thephysical/somatic characteristics of a race at the end. . . . It seems, however, that this‘homogenization’ and unification of the races, who had lost their identical and pureunmixed characteristics, had an influence only to a very small extent. The Greeks, theJews and the Armenians have been living here for a long time, without adopting thecharacteristics of the Turkish race. In a boat, on a tram, on the bridge [Galata Bridge],observe the passengers; no one would be mistaken here; you do not need a fez to recog-nize—though these days everyone wears a hat. Any inhabitant of the country can say


‘Here is a Jew, a Greek, an Armenian!’ without failing to point out the race of thepassing person. Therefore, it is necessary to admit that the characteristics of a race arepreserved within a personality which would allow for direct identification. (Berkolet al., 1926a: 8)20

The way the authors underline that the Greeks, the Jews, and theArmenians ‘have been living here for a long time, without adopting thecharacteristics of the Turkish race’ once more exposes how they perceivethe Turk as ‘the master of the country’ and the ‘ruler’, who imposes hischaracteristics upon those subjects. Ironically, even if one could accept themetaphor of ‘host—guest’, the historical content of the argument is onslippery ground. If we are talking about the adoption and adaptation of thecharacteristics, a more appealing argument would be one in which Turkstake over the characteristics of the Greeks or Armenians, who had beenliving in Anatolia in much earlier ages. Moreover, the assumption of theauthors that it is possible to diagnose the race of a person by simple obser-vation is reflective of how the physical anthropology of the period was oper-ating through stereotypes.

‘Everyone is a Turk!’—‘Inferior Races!’

The intelligentsia of the period used two main arguments to determine theposition of the non-Turk (and non-Muslim) elements of the new state asopposed to the Turks (and Sunni Muslims). According to the first one, allthe peoples living in Anatolia were Turks, but due to certain differences inlanguage and religion they were deluded into forgetting their Turkishorigins. This claim was first put forward by S, emseddin Sami at a quite earlydate. Sami, in his encyclopedic dictionary Kamûs-ul-A’lâm defined the term‘Anatolia’ in such a way that the whole population was presented as Turkand the Turkic racial unity of the peoples of Anatolia was argued. Accord-ing to him, only the Christians who lived in some commercial ports, like theislands or Izmir, were Greek. The rest were ‘a race formed by the mixtureof ancient Turks and Turcomans and this race was connected with the familyof great Western Turks’. S, emseddin Sami argued about the pure Turkish-ness of the inhabitants of Anatolia:

It is a pity that, since some of them belong to the Armenian Church and some to Greek,they forget that their forefathers had no relations with the Greeks or Armenians; andthey had been deceived to take part in Greek or Armenian causes. (Sami, 1306[1890].cited in Kushner, 1968: 93)21

Such claims that ‘Everyone is a Turk!’ were frequently voiced in the FirstTurkish History Congress. In his presentation in the congress, Res,it Galipasserted that Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Hittites were of Turkishorigins. The evidence supporting these arguments was, expectedly, quite


dubious: Sumerians were Turks because the cephalic indexes of statues andreliefs from their time were brachycephalic;22 Egyptians belonged to theTurkish race because the skulls of the Amon priests23 were classified asbrachycephalic; Greeks were of Turkish origin since the so-called Greekcivilization had already existed in Asia Minor (as Turkish civilization),before it was transferred to Greece (Birinci Türk Tarih Kongresi, 1932:119–31). Moreover, for Res,it Galip, the anthropological investigationsprove that ‘although perceived as separate groups because of religious,political, and linguistic differences, groups like Armenians and even theexchanged Greek people were coming from the same racial origin’ (BirinciTürk Tarih Kongresi, 1932: 134).24

The second argument, determining the position of the minority groups ofthe Republic,25 not only asserted their otherness but also their ‘inferiority’.Since the concept of a ‘Turkish national’ sometimes included being amember of a ‘masterful ethnic or racial group’, it would have been difficultto be a good civic national Turk if one lacked the right ethnic or racialcharacteristics (Parla and Davison, 2004: 75). This stance was the one takenalso by the circle of the Review. It is argued, especially in ‘ComparativeAnalysis’, that the Greeks and the Jews (Armenians had an exceptionalstatus, which will be discussed later) cannot be considered as separate races,since they had been ‘hybridized’ so much as to lose their racial character-istics. Moreover, the fact that they were still in the lower steps of the evolu-tionary chain was proved by many anthropological investigations. Thesearguments corresponded to the Review’s goal to prove the ultimate superi-ority of the Turkish race and to disqualify all rivals, with the help of scien-tific investigations.

Still the important question remains, why did the Turkish Review ofAnthropology prefer the ‘minorities are other races’ argument rather thanthe ‘everyone is a Turk’ argument? The role of racist discourse and the racistelite in the context of nation-building is of primary importance here. Thesignificance of the interaction between the political elite and the scientificracist elite is emphasized a number of times throughout the paper (especi-ally in the sections on the writers and state support). Yet, it is obvious thatnot all the sectors of the ruling elite were in complete accord with the scien-tific racist elite (moreover, not all sectors of the scientific elite were racist).In fact, the attitudes towards race and national identity during the nation-building period were heterogeneous and were shaped and reshaped overand over again (most frequently by the same cadres). This is one part of theanswer.

The other part, related to the first one, is the lack of coherence andconsistency in early Republican nationalist ideology. The ideologues of theRepublic were quite ambivalent in formulating the ‘truths about the nation’(this indecisiveness can also be traced in other policies such as educationalor economic ones). It is possible to find many instances of controversy. First,


civic definitions of the Turkish nation opposed ethnoracist ones. Second,differing racist assumptions informed notions of Turkishness and otherness.Furthermore, political cadres both strongly supported the Review and itsrace-based exclusionary arguments of Turkishness and also prepared theFirst Turkish History Congress, where the Turkish origins of all humanityand civilization were strongly emphasized.

Therefore, it can be claimed that in Kemalist official discourse the Turkishnation was not only defined by social norms of culture and ethos, but alsoby ethnic and racial characteristics. Its position vis-a-vis others, then, wasnot only one of integration and equality; it was one of superiority andmagisterial advantage as well. By the same token, while the civic version ofnationalism attempted (for quite a long time) to integrate26 ‘minorities’, theethnoracist side directly considered them as inferior aliens. These ‘differingfaces of Turkish nationalism’ (which can be likened to a Janus-face) broughtabout differing interpretations of the minorities of the country. This ambiv-alence satisfied different branches of the ruling elite.

Comments on ‘Other Races’

The non-Muslim peoples of Istanbul are not the only ‘others’ that theTurkish Review of Anthropology treats. In different articles many minoritygroups are considered to be inferior to the ‘Turkish race’. The article ofS, evket Aziz Kansu, on the prognathism index,27 is an example of this:

Ophryon, the length of the face, is found to be small among the Turks of Anatolia, whileit is larger among Kurds, Armenians, Tatars, and Lazs. . . . This finding shows that Turksof Anatolia have a broad head [brachy] and a relatively small face. This characteristicis in favor of the general evolution of this human group [Turks] in contrast to the others.(Kansu, 1930: 13)28

In a 1939 article, written by Melih Kınay on the ‘peasant children’ of theGedikli Secondary School for Noncommissioned Officers (Ankara), it isstated that long heads (dolichocphalie) and thin faces are found in themountainous regions of Erzurum, Sivas, and Kırs,ehir. Additionally, accord-ing to research on skin color, dark-skinned children are found in Yozgat,Kırs,ehir, Erzincan, Kars, Karaköse, and Urfa. Kınay, at the end, argues thatdark-skinned children, especially of mountainous regions, do not fit into thetypical category of Turkish race that is identified with a brachycephalic headand a small face. This is a typical example, in which Kurds are definedlatently as inferior peoples (Kınay, 1939: 79).

In ‘Comparative Analysis’, the authors presented introductory para-graphs on the historical and anthropological condition of ‘the other races’before presenting the numerical data and relevant tables. These sections, inwhich a summary of the ‘racial characteristics’ of Greeks, Jews, andArmenians were given, are not based on the research undertaken by the


writers of the article. Rather, the authors thought there was no need to‘repeat the perfect anthropological investigations for these above-mentionedfour races’ and it was ‘enough to mention the well-known writers who hadbeen occupied with determining the characteristics of these’ (Berkol et al.,1926a: 8).29 The authors state that the information on these ‘other races’ wascompiled from the current body of literature, although no detailed referenceis given (apart from the names of the scholars). The main message that theseevaluations attempt to convey is that, as opposed to the purity and homo-geneity of the Turkish race, these ‘other races’, which were in fact the non-Muslim minorities, cannot be considered as full-fledged races.

Before dealing with the ‘other races’, a short introduction to the ideas of‘pure race’ and ‘real race’ can be useful to understand the complex natureand construction of racism as the most extreme end of the continuum ofnationalist discourse.

Mongrels

The Turkish Review of Anthropology was following a eugenic strain ofthought in which the emphasis on racial purity was so strong that it can beinterpreted as a kind of blood fetishism. Due to the obsession of having apure, ‘clear’ race, ‘mongrels’ were declared to be the most inferior species.Some observers claimed that they had found the hybrids of white and blackraces to be inferior to blacks (MacAuliffe, 1929: 20). In contrast to adulter-ated blood of Europe and Americas (‘It is no longer possible to speak aboutpure races in Europe’: Berkol et al., 1927b: 6), the authors of the Reviewwere proud of the ‘pure blood’ of Asia Minor, which was never contami-nated by the blood of the inferior races throughout its evolution: ‘it is there,it is in Anatolia that the Turkish race recognized the elected ground. It isthere that continues to run its purest blood, far from the contacts that coulddebase the race’ (Berkol et al., 1925: 8).

The authors mention that Levantines could not be included in theircomparative study on the races of Istanbul, since these should be countedamong the ‘indeterminate’,30 adulterated races. Furthermore, while theauthors claim that they have the measurements concerning 720 Levantineson one page, they declare on the next that they will not be using these dueto the indeterminate status of the race in question. Possibly, the measure-ments at hand challenged the presumptions of the authors and were thusdiscarded in order to keep ideological–theoretical consistency.31

Another interesting fact is that, although we have information about themeasurements concerning the ‘other races’ (2200 Greeks, 1600 Armenians,1340 Jews, 720 Levantines or mongrels were measured from amongstudents), the article provides no information about where the figuresconcerning the ‘Turkish race’ were collected. The authors investigate the‘Development of the Turkish Element’ in the first article, declaring that


their ‘first measurements were made on more than 4000 individuals’32 butdo not provide any further information about the source of these data(Berkol et al., 1926a: 9).

It is apparent in the following quotation that the Levantines wereconsidered inferior and adulterated. The authors, by referring to the mixedand indeterminate origins of the Levantines, tried to imply that they wereof bad stock—probably this was the most degrading word for the national-ist ‘anthropological circles’ of the time.

An Albanian who comes to the Orient marries a Bulgarian, or a Syrian, or a Romaniangirl; a British, or a French, or an Italian marry a woman from this country. All theseunions are possible. . . . the children of these marriages constitute the Levantine race.These preserve a certain nationality in their records; but after two or three generationsnone of the members of the so-called French Levantine family set foot on the Frenchsoil. Levantines reside in the cosmopolitan city of Péra, as opposed to pure, well-behaved, and calm Istanbul. . . . The name Levantine should be addressed to the hybridsof the indeterminate race, who had been settled in this country for quite a long time.(Berkol et al., 1926a: 6)33

The Greeks

While commenting on the Greeks, the most strongly emphasized point isthe difficulty of tracing and finding the origins of this ‘race’. According tothe authors, the Greeks of Istanbul are ‘the descendants of a mongrel race’.It is repeatedly emphasized that these people have no connection witheither the Greeks of Athens or the Roman Empire. This kind of a ‘falseconsciousness’ on the side of the Greeks is due to mixing the matter oflanguage with that of race, which is also practiced by the ill-foundedtheories of certain historians. The writers’ ultimate conclusion is that theGreeks are a mongrel people, which had come into being as a result ofsuccessive and varied mixtures, whose proportions could not be scientifi-cally established.

What are the Greeks of Istanbul from the anthropological point of view? Are they therepresentatives of the native race settled on the Straits since the ancient times? Arethey the residues of populations transplanted in Istanbul, at the time of its foundation?Are they the descendants of a mongrel race, born out of the arrival of various raceswhen Byzantium was the large crossroad of the East and when barbarians came fromfar away countries and were allowed to settle on the coastline of the Golden Horn?Without doubt, it belongs to each of these a bit. Although the Greek contemporariesof Istanbul still call themselves, amongst them, ‘Romanoi’, they could never claim to bethe descendants of the Greeks of Athens, less still of the Romans. In fact, the Byzan-tine Empire was Greek only in name. If we still call it that, as explained by Rimbaud,the historian, it is only because the Greek dialect was accepted as the official languageof the Church and the State.

It is a common error to confuse a human race with a community speaking the samelanguage.

For art, as for the race, it is useless to seek a unity, or a direct affiliation in the oldempire of Byzantium. Actually, these people . . . were the result of successive affixes


and varied mixtures, whose proportioning could not be scientifically established. . . .Therefore, the Greek contemporaries of Istanbul are thus only a mongrel, resultingfrom the mosaic of races superposed in Byzantium and having preserved their Byzan-tine origins, only in the remote memory of a more or less deformed dialect. (Berkol etal., 1926b: 5–6)34

The Jews

According to the authors, the defining characteristic of the Jews of Istanbul,similar to that of the Greeks, was that they were a human group displayingno sign of homogeneity. The most important fact, referred as the proof ofJewish ‘inferiority’, was their heterogeneity with respect to their origins.According to the authors, the anthropological research pointed out that itwas impossible to talk about a ‘Jewish Type’, since their essential (racial)characteristics varied among the several Jewish societies of differentcountries, in terms of head shape, length, skin color, and so on. The writersconclude that, despite the acceptability of a religious or social group, ‘Jewishrace’ is an unfounded concept in zoological terms (as defined by racialtheory):

By the anthropological surveys carried out in many countries, it is observed that thegeneral Jewish type, all over the world, does not present any trace of homogeneity. Andin the countries considered, it is noticed that essential characteristics, such as thecephalic index, physical length, skin color, vary in amazing degrees. As Pittardconcludes, ‘According to the zoological meaning of the word, a Jewish race does notexist. Jews, without doubt, constitute a very sacred and coherent religious and socialcommunity, but the elements that constitute it are inhomogeneous with respect to theirorigins. (Berkol et al., 1926b: 28)35

By arguing for the complete hybridization and mixed characteristics ofespecially the Greeks and the Jews, the authors were, in fact, contradictingthemselves. As I have quoted above, they were initially arguing that anyinhabitant of the country could point out (without mistake) the race of thepassing person. This inner conflict of ideas is a reflection of the nationalis-tic orientation of the scholars. They wanted to argue both for the obviousphysical difference of the races of Istanbul (a simple definition of racism),and the inherent inferiority of the ‘other races’. However, they probablycould not realize that their theory of inferiority was centered on the hetero-geneity of the group, which challenged the previous ‘easy diagnosis’ idea.

The Armenians

Speaking of the Armenians, the authors remained hesitant in denying the‘racial purity’ of this group, and mentioned that, both in terms of theirorigins and of essential, specific characteristics, the Armenians can benamed as a ‘real race’ that was quite ancient, indeed.


The Armenians constitute a pretty definite, real race, with respect to their origins andanthropologically specific characteristics. Some of them are settled in Istanbul for a verylong time, and some others have only recently come. This nation comes from the regionsof Ararat and their emigration had not only ended in Istanbul, but went to all direc-tions around the world. This is a quite ancient race. According to several historians,much before they had settled in the eastern parts of the Asia Minor, they lived for along time in Babylon. (Berkol et al., 1926b: 17)36

While it was claimed on the one hand that the ‘Armenian race’ is anancient one, having survived until today with its anthropological character-istics intact, the authors still found certain deficiencies and also called thisgroup ‘inferior’. They underlined a number of ‘weaknesses’: being exposedto many invasions and thus being forced to live under the domination ofdifferent peoples; the geographical dispersion of the population; the wide-spread use of Turkish language; and the variety of religious beliefs.

The historian Pittard tells us that: ‘A few countries were more often invaded thanArmenia. After having lived under Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Arab, and Mongoliandomination, the Armenians are divided today between Turkey, Russia and Persia. . . .Contemporary Armenians generally speak the Turkish language. Their proficiency inthis language is on the degree of perfection.’ The presence of Armenians, who speakTurkish more fluently than their mother language, Armenian, is mentioned.

Generally, they do not profess the same religion. Some are Gregorian, Catholic, othersare Orthodox, and some others belong to religions more or less common and recog-nized. From that respect, they are similar to the Syrians, whose sectarian split has beenquite divided. (Berkol et al., 1926b: 17)37

The authors referred to these ‘deficiencies’ in order to claim that,although the Armenians as a race preserved their blood ties, they lacked thereligious, linguistic, and social unity necessary to be considered a genuine‘nation’. The authors were covertly emphasizing that the Armenians weredeprived of the elements necessary for statehood, according to nation-stateideology of the early 20th century.

As is obvious from the stance of the authors, the relationship betweenrace, nation, and nation state was ambivalent. While this racist scientific eliteattempted to fuse the idea of pure race with the nation and nation state,they put forward further requirements for state and nationhood when the‘Turkish race’ faced competition. The reluctance of the authors to considerthe Armenians as a nation can be explained by this rivalry. The formulationthat a nation was more than a racial group was related to pragmatic politi-cal choices (and directives). The young Republic was born with the fear ofan independent Armenia in Eastern Anatolia (especially due to the idea ofthe right to self-determination), together with the threat of losing westernlands to the Greeks. The atmosphere of the collapse and dissolution ofempire was definitely alive and for that reason, as well, the scholars of theReview were at pains to deny the right to self-determination to those, whowere, in their minds, threatening the territorial unity of the new Republic.38


Moreover, the ‘many faces of Turkish nationalism’ also play a part. TheTRA acknowledged language, religion, and culture as elements of being anational Turk. Therefore, the writers thought that race was necessary butnot sufficient to constitute a nation.

Measuring Techniques

The authors of these three articles employed certain measuring techniques(anthropometry), which were typical of physical anthropology at that time.They did so in order to reach conclusions about the anthropological charac-teristics and physical development of ‘other races’ of Istanbul (namely,Armenians, Greeks and Jews) compared to the Turks. Main units of analysiswere weight, physical length, and chest perimeter. However, as means ofcomparison only the first two were used and no evaluation and discussionwere made on the chest perimeter.

In fact, it was curious that the article under analysis was mainly writtenwith reference to the findings on the body height and weight of the childrenbut did not take into consideration cephalometric measurements (brainshape or size)—a typical preoccupation of racist scientists. In fact, thesesame writers subsequently published other articles in the Review usingvarious measuring methods of physical anthropology, including crani-ometry and cephalometry. We know that, by the first issue, the writers wereaware of the measurement techniques and the necessary gadgets:

The anthropological instrumentation is well developed since the enterprise of Broca.However, in the crowd of instruments proposed for the Somatic Anthropology, a greatnumber is useless. . . . Compasses, some precise cephalometers or craniometers, simplegoniometers, constitute the essential instruments. (Berkol et al., 1925: 8)39

The authors also declared that the best measurements were those takenon the skeleton and the cranium, since they were the most precise. It wasalso claimed that only the study of the cranium made it possible to estab-lish the principal limits of the racial groupings (Berkol et al., 1927a: 10–14).Yet, the very first craniometrical study undertaken by the same writers,focusing on the racial characteristics of the Turks (the cranial index and alsovarious points on the skull were measured) was published only after late1927 (again a serial article published in October 1927, March 1928, andMarch 1929).

A possible explanation for the lack of cephalometric measurements inthe article under analysis may be the limits of the new Turkish Institute ofAnthropology with respect to measurement instruments. In other words, itseems probable that the Institute could acquire cephalometers and/or cran-iometers only around late 1927, after which they were widely used.


Height

In the third and last part of the article series, the course of development ofthe physical height of children between the ages of 10 and 16 werecompared. Boys from different age groups were measured and the averagewas calculated. In order to be able to make comparisons, the average figureof each age was listed in a table and ‘the average degree of development’was computed. Without declaring the reason why, having a higher averagelength was considered to be a sign of superiority and it was repeatedlydeclared that the ‘inner power of development’ of Turkish children washigher. For instance, in comparing the height of the Greek children with theTurkish ones, it was found that, until the age of 12 the heights of both wereequal. However, it is declared with pride that at the age of 16 Turkishchildren were measured to be 5 cm taller than the Greek children. Such adifference made the authors ask whether the Greek child had a kind of‘retarded evolution’ . Similarly, Armenian children were also measured tobe shorter than the Turkish ones. The authors claimed that this discrepancy,though insignificant in younger ages, accentuates in time to the degree that‘even in the adult state, their physical length remains shorter than that ofthe Turk’.

With the same line of reasoning, Turkish children were also compared toFrench children, by using the findings calculated by Leon MacAullife on‘the degree of development of the French individual’. According to thecomparison made by the authors, at the age of 10 French children weretaller than Turkish ones (134 cm as opposed to 131 cm) and this differenceremained intact until the age of 15, when equality in length was established.From that moment onwards, Turkish children started to have a higheraverage height than that of the French. This was interpreted as a vital differ-ence by the authors and they attempted to account for the issue. They finallysuggested that the Turks had a ‘more vigorous maintenance of health’,which in context of their physical–racial anthropology simply meant thatthe Turks had a better genetic standing, eugenically.

Here is a worthy phenomenon to get the attention of the biologist. Although the Frenchindividual is taller than the Turkish one up to the age of 15, after that age the Turkdisplays a higher stature. A priori, if the influences of the environment that the biolo-gists and anthropologists frequently put forward were exerted in a rigorous way, itseems that the Turkish child, placed in a climate hotter and more favorable than theParisian climate, had to develop and grow more quickly. However, it does not happenlike that. Thus there is a factor which escapes us. Can this issue be attributed to a strongernourishment or a more vigorous maintenance of health? (Berkol et al., 1927a: 13)40

Weight

The same method was also followed considering the comparative study ofthe weight of the children. The average weight of the children between the


ages of 10 and 16 were calculated for each age and their pace of growth(weight gain) was compared. As with the attitude adopted in the compari-son concerning body length, weight gain and its speed were evaluated assigns of ‘success’ in terms of racial superiority.

In these various series, the greatest weight pertains to the Turkish child . . . This growthtakes place especially between the ages of thirteen and fifteen when the Turkish childgains between ten and eleven kilograms. . . . In the French child, the growth of weightmakes a sudden increase around the age of thirteen, but this upward trend does notpersist as in the case of the Turkish child and quickly falls and decreases. In fact, theaverage weight of the Turkish child and youth is always in obvious excess compared tothat of French. (Berkol et al., 1927a: 14–15; my emphasis)41

Although the actual figures do not present obvious differences betweenthese four groups, the authors could still come up with differential resultsfor them. The average of the measured weights (Table 1) and the degree ofincrease are summarized below (Table 2).

According to the interpretation of the authors, the Greek children (as inthe case of their height) have inferior rates of weight gain and start gainingweight only after the ages of 14 and 15. The Jewish children were also saidto have retarded development as their weight started to rise only after theage of 15. The physical growth of the Armenian children did not showsudden increases and followed a more gradual (but limited) development.It is clear how these comments differ from the one dealing with the‘development of the Turkish child’.


Table 1: Age and average weights

Turkish French Greek Armenian Jewish

10 30.2 27.0 28.5 30.1 29.611 33.0 28.0 31.1 31.2 31.612 36.2 30.1 34.6 34.6 34.313 39.5 33.5 39.2 39.2 38.814 44.9 41.5 42.8 43.1 42.315 50.2 44.0 49.0 48.2 49.016 53.5 50.0 51.6 52.4 52.4

Table 2: Increase

Turkish French Greek Armenian Jewish

10 to 11 2.8 1.0 2.6 1.1 2.011 to 12 3.2 2.1 3.5 3.4 2.712 to 13 3.3 3.4 4.6 4.6 4.513 to 14 5.4 8.0 3.6 3.9 3.514 to 15 5.3 3.5 6.2 5.1 6.715 to 16 3.3 6.0 2.6 4.2 3.4

In the Greeks, a certain delay is observed in the abrupt progress, as we have alreadymentioned. The Greek youth gain approximately 7 kilos between the ages of 14 to15.The same observation is also true for Jewish individuals, who display a growth spurtaround the ages of 14 to 15. For the the Armenian youth, the progress and the growthis gradual, and one does not come across the sudden advance that is observed in thechildren of other groups. (Berkol et al., 1927a: 15, my emphasis)42

The crucial point for the authors was the fact that the Turkish child wasalways heavier than his/her counterparts belonging to ‘other races’ living inIstanbul.

The crucial point is that the Turkish child always displays a much higher weight thanthe children of the different races, settled in Istanbul. Will this superiority be visible inadulthood? Is it significant from the anthropological point of view? These are all ques-tions that we will try to answer in time, we will be content, for the moment, to recordand point out the several results that we have obtained. (Berkol et al., 1927a: 16)43

A purely physical difference, such as the observation that Turkishchildren weigh more, was expressed with the concept ‘superiority’. This mayshed light on how the authors of the article were thinking within the contextof ‘inferior vs superior races’. In fact, the authors admit that it is still unclearwhether this difference will remain intact in the future and whether it issignificant in anthropological terms. These two contradicting attitudesreveal the authors’ nationalist prejudices and their claims to positivism, or,more properly, scientism. Another finding that the authors approached withattention was the striking difference of the pace of development betweenParisian children and the children of Istanbul. Although the authors firstfocused on possible differences in nutrition as a reason for these disparities,they nevertheless came up with a quite interesting interpretation. Studentsfrom ‘secondary schools’44 of Istanbul were measured in order to undertakethis research. This was used to explain the differences between the childrenof these two cities, since it meant that the sample was made up of a ‘distin-guished group of people’. The writers were, in fact, arguing that the researchin Istanbul was conducted within a sample of higher representatives of the‘races in Istanbul’. Since intelligence or mental capacity (which werethought to be required to pursue higher studies) were presented as beingcorrelated to the physical characteristics (quick growth of physical lengthand weight, etc.), it can be deduced from their interpretation that theconcepts such as evolution, progress, superior races, and eugenics wereintermingled in the minds of these anthropologists.

No matter what their origins are and what race they are belonging to, the children wholive in Istanbul always display a more or less specific difference in weight compared tothe Parisian children of their age. . . . What is the reason for this lack of equality? Canit be resulting from a different kind of nourishment? Or is it because we have carriedout our investigation only on the students of secondary schools, in other words on adistinguished group of children? (Berkol et al., 1927a: 15)45


Conclusion

In reviewing the first research project of the Turkish Review of Anthropol-ogy, ‘The Comparative Analysis of the Turkish Race and Other RacesLiving in Istanbul’, what probably attracts the most attention is the dichoto-mous expression of the ‘Turkish race’ and ‘other races’. In the article, thecontent of ‘the other’ is clarified: the Greeks, the Armenians, the Jews, andthe Levantines—although the latter were finally left out of the analysis. Itseems that the expression ‘other races’ had two principal meanings. On theone hand, it defines the Turk as the reference point—the standard, thenormal—such that throughout the article one side of all the comparisonswas always the ‘Turkish race’ and there was no comparison of the Greekswith the Armenians or the Jews with the Greeks. The aim, it seemed, wasto show how different these ‘other’ races were from the Turks, even as, inreality, they lived side by side. In the context of the article and of racism,this presumed difference refers to quite negative implications such asbelonging to an inferior race, being in the lower steps of the evolutionarychain, lacking the ability to constitute a homogeneous race, lacking purityin terms of origins, failing to have uniform racial characteristics, and so on.

The second meaning that can be deduced from the expression, the ‘otherraces’, though closely related to the previous one, is one of the dichotomyof landlord vs tenant. Some phrases that the writers use, such as ‘the permis-siveness of the dominating Turkish Race’ or ‘the Turk, who is the master ofthe country’, reveal their belief that ‘the founding element’ of this nationstate was the Turk. The reason why the Armenians, the Jews, and the Greekswere deprived of this privilege was explained within a quite scientific termi-nology, referring to the racial or national incapacities and deficiencies ofthese peoples.

The party ideologue and justice minister (1924–30) Mahmut Esat Bozkurtsupported this dichotomy in a more direct attitude in 1930, claiming thatthere was only one place for those who were not ‘genuine Turks’:

This party [Republican People’s Party], by the works it accomplished heretofore,restored to the Turkish nation its position that is essentially the master. My idea, myopinion is that . . . the master of this country is the Turk. Those who are not genuineTurks can have only one right in the Turkish fatherland, and that is to be a servant, tobe a slave. (Hakimiyet-i Milliye [National Sovereignty Newspaper], 1930)46

Here we see a dominating and exclusionary discourse of Turkish national-ism being elaborated. In the discourse of the Turkish Review of Anthropol-ogy, it is obvious that the ‘Turkish race’ (posited as the dominant group ofthe country) have a sense of proprietary ownership of the nation andnational identity. Thus, national identity and nationalism are conceptualizedin ethnically exclusionary terms.

Yet, it is necessary to treat this ethnic-racial accent as only one of the facesof Turkish nationalism. There were also religious, linguistic, and cultural


aspects of nationalism, which put forward other necessary qualities. In otherwords, although the concepts race, nation, and nation state were intricatelylinked in the context of a particular version of Turkish nationalism, it is alsopossible to find evidence for the existence of further requirements to haveaccess to the membership to the nation.

Second, I have argued that the racialist stance of the nationalist ideologydid not become visible only in practical affairs, granting, for example, privi-leges to Turks and discrimination against the others. The scientific racistelite of the Review prepared the theoretical grounds, by which the Turkishrace was presented as the main builders of the Turkish nation.

Third, the article stresses how, in the course of establishing the tyrannyof nationalism over science (or rather pseudoscience), the newly foundedstate also utilized anthropology to translate ideological arguments intoscientific facts. In other words, the Review used the language and method ofscience to legitimize racism.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to anonymous readers of Cultural Dynamics for their enlighteningcomments.

NOTES

1. Ahmet Yıldız’s research is valuable in the sense that it analyzes ethnic discrimi-nation in legal texts.

2. ‘Türkü ve Türk heyet-i ic, timaiyesini tetkik gayesini istihdaf eden müesseseyekıymetli mesaisinde muvaffakiyet temenni ederim efendim.’ All translationsare the author’s.

3. Paul Pierre Broca (1824–80) studied Medicine in Paris. Very early he becamea professor of surgical pathology at the University of Paris. He was also apioneer in the study of physical anthropology. He founded the AnthropologicalSociety of Paris in 1859, the Revue d’Anthropologie in 1872, and the School ofAnthropology in Paris in 1876. He contributed to cranial anthropometry bydeveloping new craniometers and numerical indices.

4. Georges Ferdinand Papillault (1863–1934) defended his dissertation, Sur laSuture Métopique, in 1896. Papillault’s initial research was solely focused onphysical anthropology. In 1898, he wrote Étude Morphologique de la Base duCrâne. In 1902, he published the findings of his research on 200 corpses, underthe title, L’Homme Moyen de Paris. He started working in Broca’s Laboratoired’Anthropologie de l’École des Hautes Études when it was under the directionof Dr Topinard and Dr Manouvrier. In 1897, he was the prepateur of the labora-tory. In 1927, he became its director.

5. Eugène Pittard (1867–1962) was an important figure among those who special-ized in physical anthropology (and phrenology). His books include: Les Crânes


Valaisans de la Vallée du Rhône (1909–10), Les Races Belligérantes (1916), LesRaces et l’Histoire (1924), Les Tziganes ou les Bohémiens (1932), La Castrationchez l’Homme et les Modifications Morphologiques qu’elle Entraîne (1934). Healso wrote various articles that were published in the Turkish Review of Anthro-pology, either translated or in French.

6. The subject of her PhD thesis was the racial characteristics of the Turkishpeople, analyzed with anthropometric measurements. In 1937, a wide-ranginganthropological survey was carried out. Afet Inan argues that her study was themost important anthropological survey undertaken in Turkey. She claims thata total of 64,000 people from both sexes were measured by 10 different workingteams, the members of which were gathered from among civil and militarydoctors, medical servants, and teachers of physical education. It took 6 months(19 June–31 Dec. 1937) to finish the study (Inan, 1947).

7. Eugen Fischer (1874–1967) was a supporter of the National Socialist GermanWorkers Party (NSDAP). Fischer was invited to German Southwest Africa asan anthropologist to study the Herero. He wrote the famed book Principles ofHuman Heredity and Racial Hygiene in which he claimed that the Herero wereanimals and that the German race was superior. He also published HumanHereditary Teaching and Racial Hygiene. The book became one of the standardworks of German racialism. In 1925, Dr Fischer was the director of the KaiserWilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Genetics and Eugenics. AfterAdolf Hitler gained power in 1933 he got Fischer appointed as Rector of theUniversity of Berlin.

8. In 1827, a new military school of medicine was opened to provide an educationbased on contemporary medical knowledge. In 1829 the language of educationin this school was changed to French. However, in 1870 Turkish was acceptedonce more as the language of education. Also around the same time, a civilschool of medicine was opened. After the constitutional period of 1908, thesetwo schools were unified and, as a consequence, Haydarpas,a Faculty ofMedicine was founded. Most of the professors of this faculty became famousprofessors of the Republican period.

9. The branch of biology that studies the microscopic structure of animal or planttissues.

10. Of course, it is possible to find a number of people throughout Europe who hadthe double titles of a doctor or a biologist or an anatomist and an anthropolo-gist at the same time. This was especially the case in the initial years of thedevelopment of physical anthropology in each respective country. Consider, forinstance, Paul Pierre Broca, Paul Topinard, and Francis Galton. The firstgenuine anthropologist, S, evket Aziz Kansu, joined the journal around 1930,after he completed his studies in the Paris Anthropology Institute of the Écoledes Hautes Études in 1929.

11. It may be necessary to mention here that, before the elections of 1927, the rightto determine all the candidates for the assembly was given to Mustafa Kemal,as the holder of the office of ‘general president’ (umumi reis). This may be asign of the smooth links between the state elite cadres and Nureddin AliBerkol, in terms of the support for the Kemalist ideology.

12. This ‘reform’ was one of the measures taken to establish a university that wouldsupport the principles of the Turkish Revolution. The main criticism on behalf


of the state was that the educational program of the Darülfünun could notproperly adopt, internalize, and therefore, disseminate the revolution. This‘reform’ was realized according to the report of Albert Malche (professor ofpedagogy from the University of Geneva) and it brought the university underthe unconditional tutelage of the Ministry of Education, since both the adminis-trative regulations and the appointments of the professors were to be made bythe Ministry. Moreover, the rector was installed as the representative of theMinistry in the university.

13. A title given in the universities of Turkey (before 1960) to professors who hadworked for at least five years with success. The title is granted due to the assign-ment of the authority of directing a chair.

14. It is possible to argue that the Kemalist rule started to gain the characteristics ofan authoritarian regime as early as the passing of the ‘Law on the Maintenanceof Order’ (Takrir-i Sükun Kanunu) of 1925, which made any kind of politicalopposition impossible. The political purges following the Izmir conspiracy in 1926were aimed at discrediting and elimination of all those whose status or influencemight enable them to challenge Mustafa Kemal’s authority. The regime wasdeclared a one-party state at the Third Congress of the Republican People’s Partyin 1931 and henceforth any kind of opposition either directed to the party or tothe state, since they were one and the same, was intolerable. With its revolution-ary cadres incorporated into the state, the party became the only and primarysource of authority to decide on social, economic, and cultural matters.

15. As a result of a wide purge, out of a total of 240 academics, 157 (71 professors,13 assistant professors, 73 research assistants) were removed from office.

16. ‘Hükümetin icraî yardımı olmasa idi bu tetkikat agleb (c, ok, pek) ihtimal gayr-i mümkün olur; her halde azim müs,kilata tesadüf ederdi. Maarif Müdüriyeti builmî tetkikata medar olabilecek kâffe (cümle, bütün) malumatı ita eylemeleri(vermeleri) hususunu bütün Istanbul mektepleri müdüranına hususi birsirkülerle emr ve teblig eyledi. Is,te bu suretle 2200 Rum, 1600 Ermeni, 1340Musevi, 720 Levanten yahut meleze, “gayr-ı muayyen ırka” dair erkâmât(sayılar) elde edebildik.’

17. ‘Istanbul’da birc, ok ırklar asırlarca, aynı s,eraitte (s,artlarda) yan yana inkis,af(gelis,me) edebilmis,lerdir. Adât (adetler) ve kavanin-i diniyye (din kanunları)bu muhtelif ırkların mümessilleri arasında gayr-ı kâbil-i mürur (gec, ilmesimümkün olmayan) mâniler tesis etmis,tir. . . . [S, ]imdiye kadar Istanbul’damevcut ve mümessil muhtelif ırklar has seciyelerini muhafaza ettiler. . . .Mamafih bu tedkikin daha bas,langıcından itibaren bizi mes,gul edecek olanmuhtelif ırklar Istanbul’da yüzlerce sene karıs,maksızın serbestc, e inkıs,afedebildiler ise bunun hâkim olan Türk ırkının müsaadekârlıgı sayesinde vukubuldugunu kaydetmek lazımdır. Memleketin efendisi olan Türk, yanında bilâ-mâni yas,ayan bütün bes,erî grupların inkıs,afını tevkîf (durdurma/engelleme)edebilirdi; onun tahammül ve hilmi (yumus,aklık) yanı bas,ında ve aynı semaaltında Ruma, Yahudiye ve Ermeniye seciyelerini ve biyolojik s,ahsiyetlerinimuhafaza ederek yas,amaga müsaade etti.’

18. In a three-part article on the effect of geography on the races, Lefebvre,Professor of Geography in the Darülfünun of Istanbul, argued that the physicalcharacteristics of human groupings are only narrowly dependent on the naturalenvironment (1927: 25).


19. ‘. . . birc, ok ırkların muvazi (paralel) olarak ve bilâ-ihtilat (karıs,maksızın)inkis,af eyledikleri bir muhitte bunların inkis,af ve tekâmül s,eraitini tayinetmek.’

20. ‘Bazı mebhâs-ül-bes,er (antropoloji) mütehassısları, muhitin, bir ırkın bedenîseciyelerini nihayet tadil eden bir tesiri haiz oldugunu iddia etmis,lerdir. . . .Maa-haza (böyleyken), aynı ve sade has seciyelerini zayi etmek suretiyleyas,ayan ırkların bu tecanüs (bir cinsten olma) “homogenisation”, ve tevhidiancak pek cüzi mikyasda (ölc, ü) haiz-i tesirdir gibi görünür. Rumlar, Yahudilerve Ermeniler burada Türk ırkının seciyelerini almaksızın uzun zamandan beriyas,ıyorlar. Vapurda, bir tramvayda bulunanları, köprü üzerinden gelip gec, enlerinazar-ı müs,ahededen gec, iriniz; bunda kimse yanılmaz; tanınmak ic, in bir feseihtiyac, yoktur; gerc, i s,imdi herkes s,apka giyiyor, maa-haza memleketten herhangi bir ferd, gec, en s,ahsın ırkını tayinde yanılmaksızın is,te size bir Yahudi, birRum, bir Ermeni! diyebilir. Binaenaleyh bir ırkın seciyelerinin derhal tes,hisemüsait olabilecek bir s,ahsiyetle mahfuz (korunmus,/saklı) kaldıgını kabul etmeklazım gelir.’

21. ‘Ne yazık ki bunların bir kısmı Ermeni ve bir kısmı da Rum kilisesine tâbibulunmakla ecdadlarının Ermeni ve Rumlarla hic, bir münasebeti olmadıgınıunutuyorlar; Rumluk ve Ermenilik davasına kalkıs,mak ic, in kandırılıyorlar.’

22. The cephalic index, devised by Anders Retzius (1796–1860), is the ratio of thelength to the width of the skull. When the ratio falls below 75 the skull is termeddolichocephalic, or long-headed, when it is between 75 and 80, it ismesocephalic, or medium-headed, when it exceeds 80 it is brachycephalic, orbroad-headed. The shape and size of the skull were considered to be the bestindicator of mental superiority of one race over another. The phrenologicaldictum ‘the bigger the better’ was generally accepted as the basis for theseconclusions.

23. A primeval Egyptian personification of air and breath; worshiped especially atThebes.

24. ‘Antropolojik tetkikler dini, siyasi saikler ve dil ayrılıgı dolayısıyla ayrı unsurlarhalinde görülmüs, Ermeniler vb. zümrelerin ve hatta mübadele edilen Rumahalinin dahi aynı ırk mens,einden geldiklerini göstermektedir.’

25. These groups are called minority, not because all of them were minorities innumerical terms, but because they were neither Muslims, nor Sunni Muslims,nor ethnic Turks (whatever this means), and so on.

26. The civility of this integration process (we can call this Turkification) is largelydoubtful, especially considering disrespect for difference and authenticity. Inthat sense, it is also possible to sense a different sort of ‘violence’ in the way theminorities are added to the majority.

27. The relative protrusion of the mandibles.28. ‘Ophryon iki kas,ın arasındaki noktadan c, eneye kadar yüzün uzunluguna

denir. . . . Anadolu Türklerinde kısa olan bu ölc, ü, ermeni, kürt, tatar, ve lazlardadaha büyüktür. . . . Bu hal Anadolu Türklerinin büyük bir kafa ve nispetenküc, ük bir yüz sahibi olduklarını göstermektedir. Bu da bu insan toplulugunungenel evrimi lehinde bir karakterdir.’

29. ‘Zikri gec, en dört ırkın burada mükemmel antropolojik tedkikini tekrarlamakmevzu bahis degildir; bunların seciyelerini tayin etmekle mes,gul olmus, olanbelli bas,lı müellifleri zikr etmek kafidir.’


30. Indeterminate in the anthropological context refers to someone whose originand present characteristics cannot be determined.

31. This ‘cleansing of the sample’ is practiced also at other instances. In a studyaiming to reveal the characteristics of the Turkish race, writers declare that‘more than two hundred craniums of the collection were eliminated from thisresearch, for various reasons’ (Berkol et al., 1928: 6).

32. ‘Ilk mesâhalarımız (ölc, üm) 4000’den fazla s,ahıs üzerinde yapılmıs,tır.’33. ‘S, arka gelen bir Arnavut bir Bulgar kızı ile, bir Suriyeli bir Romanyalı kız ile

evlenir; bir Ingiliz, bir Fransız, bir Italyan bu memleketin bir kadını ile izdivac,ederler. Bütün tesalübler (birles,me) mümkündür. Is,te kaide-yi umumiyyeharicinde . . . olan bu izdivac, ların c, ocukları Levanten ırkını tes,kil eder. Bunlarsicilde herhangi bir kavmiyeti muhafaza ederler; fakat iki üc, nesilden itibarenfilan Levanten güya Fransız ailesinin hic, bir mümessili Fransız topragına aslaayak basmamıs,tır. Levantenler saf, fatin (akıllı, uslu) ve sakin Istanbul’amukabil kozmopolit bir s,ehir olan Beyoglu’nda otururlar. . . . Levanten ismi . . .az c, ok uzun zamandan beri memlekette yerles,mis, gayr-ı muayyen ırkın melez-lerine tahsis edilmelidir.’

34. ‘Antropoloji nokta-yı nazarından Istanbul Rumu nedir? Edvar-ı kadimeden(eski devirlerden) beri bogazlarda yerles,mis, bulunan ırk-ı aslîyyenin mümessilimidir? Esna-yı tesisinde (kurulus,u sırasında) bu s,ehre nakledilen nüfusunbekayası mıdır (geriye kalanları)? Yoksa Bizans’ın s,arkın büyük müferrakı(zıttı, düs,manı) bulundugu ve c, ok uzak memleketlerden gelen barbarlarınHalic, sahillerine yerles,melerine müsaade edildigi bir devirde, bu muhtelifakvamın ittisalından (ulas,ma) dogmus, melez bir ırkın ahfadı (torunlar) mıdır?s,üphesiz birer parc, a bunların cümlesine de mensubdur. Asr-ı hazır IstanbulRumları aralarında kendilerine hala “Romanoï” namını vermelerine ragmen,Atinalı Yunanilerin ve hâlâ Romalıların ahfadı olduklarını asla iddia edeme-zler. Hakikat-i halde Bizans Imparatorlugu ancak ismen Yunanidir. Eger hâlâbu suret-i tevsimi (adlandırma s,ekli) muhafaza edebiliyorsak, müverrihRimbaud’nun izahı vechile Yunan lehc, esinin “Bizans devrinde” hem hükümethem de kilisenin resmi lisanı olarak kabul edilmis, olması dolayısıyladır. Bir ırk-ı bes,er ile aynı lisanı mütekellim (konus,an) bir tecemmüyü (cemaati, toplulugu)karıs,tırmak itiyad haline gelmis, bir hatadır. . . . Irk ic, in oldugu gibi sanat nokta-yı nazarından da eski Bizans Imparatorlugu’nda bir vahdet, müstakim (dogru,düz) bir teselsül (silsile ile ilerleme) aramak abestir. Hakikatte bu halk . . .derecesi gayr-ı kabil-i tayin müteakib teraküb (birbiri üzerine binme) muhtelifhalitaların (karma) mahsulü olmus,tur. . . . Binaenaleyh Istanbul’da yas,ayanRum Bizans’ta birbirine tevali (kesintisiz devam etme) etmis, bulunan akvammozayikinden müteferri (bir kökten ayrılan), mens,ei olan Bizans’tan ancakbozuk bir lehc, enin eski hatırasını muhafaza edebilmis, bir melezdir.’

35. ‘Muhtelif memleketlerde yapılan antropolojik taharriyat (aras,tırmalar)neticesinde umumi Musevi s,eklinin hic, bir tecanüs eseri göstermedigi ve nazar-ı itibara alınan memleketlere göre, alâmet-i kafaviyye (kafa büyüklügü), kâmet(boy), levn (ten rengi) gibi evsaf-ı esasiyyenin (aslî vasıfların) insanı s,as,ırtacakderecelerde tahavvülat (degis,iklik, dönüs,üm) arz eyledigi görülmüs,tür.Pittard’ın istintac eyledigi (neticelendirdigi) vechile, kelimenin mana-yı zoolo-jisiyle bir Musevi ırkı mevcut degildir. Museviler hic, s,üphesiz ki gayet kutlu,irtibat-ı tam (tamamen baglantılı) irae edilen (gösterilen) bir tarikat-ı diniyye


ve ictimaiyye tes,kil eylemektedir. Fakat bunu husule getiren anasır mens,eitibariyle gayr-ı mütecanisdir.’

36. ‘Ermeniler mens,e, antropolojik evsaf-ı mahsusalarıyla gayet muayyen hakikibir ırk tes,kil ederler. Bir kısmı Istanbul’da c, ok uzun zamandan beri yerles,mis,,diger bir kısmı yeni teraküb (birbiri üzerine binme) eylemis,tir. Bu kavim Araratmınatıkından (bölgesinden) gelip, ceht-i âzimetleri (göc, leri, yolları) yalnızIstanbul degil kürenin (yerküre, dünya) kâffe-yi aktarıdır (taraflar). Bu gayeteski bir ırktır. Bazı müverrihlere nazaran Asya-yı Sugranın (Küc, ük Asya)s,arkında yerles,meden evvel uzun zamanlar Babil’de tavattun (yurtlanma)eylemis,lerdir.’

37. ‘Müverrih Pittard diyor ki: Ermenistan kadar istilaya maruz kalmıs, pek azmemleket vardır. Asurî, Iranî,Yunan,Arap ve Mogolların müteakib tahakküm-lerinden gec, erek elyevm (bugün) Türkiya, Rusya ve Acemistan arasındataksim edilmektedir. . . . Hal-i hazır Istanbul Ermenileri umumiyetle Türkc, ekonus,urlar. Bu lisana vukufları mütekâmil bir derecededir. Türkc, eyi lisan-ımâder zatları (kendi ana dilleri) olan Ermeniceden daha fasih (düzgün)konus,an Ermenilerin mevcudiyeti zikr edilmektedir. Heyet-i umumiyece aynıdinin salikleri (dine mensub) degildirler. Bir kısmı Gregoryen, Katolik, birkısmı Ortodoks ve nihayet bazıları da az c, ok umumi ve tanınmıs, edyana(dinler) mensubdurlar. Bu cihetden inkisam-ı (bölünme) mezhebleri sonderece ayrılmıs, bulunan Suriyelilere benzemektedirler.’

38. Having Armenian claims to autonomy in mind, Mustafa Kemal made a speechto the people of Adana in 1923, in which he directly challenged Armenian terri-torial dreams: ‘The Armenians have no rights whatsoever in this beautifulcountry. Your country is yours, it belongs to the Turks (Memleketiniz sizindir,Türklerindir). This country was Turkish in history; therefore, it is Turkish and itshall live on as Turkish to eternity . . . Armenians and so forth have no rightswhatsoever here. These bountiful lands are deeply and genuinely the homelandof the Turk’ (Arsan, 1959: 126).

39. ‘Broca’nın. . . . tes,ebbüsünden beri antropolojinin tetkik ve mütalâa vesaiti c, oktavsi eylemis,tir. Maa-haza (böyleyken) Cismani [bedenî] Antropoloji ic, in teklifkılınan alet edevat yıgını meyanında birc, okları faydasızdır . . . Perkarlar, birkac,mikyas-ı re’s, yahud dakik-i mikyas-ı kıhıf, mikyas-ı zevaya esas aleti tes,kil eder.’

40. ‘Is,te biyolojistin nazar-ı dikkatini celbe deger bir hadise. On bes, yas,ına kadarFransız ferdi Türk ferdinden daha cüsseli oldugu halde, bu yas,tan sonra en uzunboyu Türk irâe ediyor (gösteriyor). Bidâyet-i emirde (bas,langıc, ta) biyolojist veantropolojistlerin ekseriya ileri sürdükleri vasat tesîrâtı, icrâ-yı fiil eylemis,olsaydı Paris ikliminden daha sıcak ve müsaid biriklimde nemâ ve inkis,af edenTürk c, ocugunun daha c, abuk büyümesi icab ederdi. Hâlbuki mesele hic, deböyle degil. s,u halde bizce mechul bulunan bir âmil mevcud demek. Acaba bumesele daha kuvvetli bir tagaddî (beslenme) veya daha sıkı bir hıfz-ı sıhhateatfedilebilir mi?’

41. ‘Bu muhtelif silsilelerde en fazla sıkleti Türk c, ocugu irâe [etmektedir]. . . . s,uhalde bu tezâyüd (büyüme/kilo alma) en ziyade on üc, ilâ on bes, yas,larındamahsûs olup bu devirde Türk c, ocugu veznen on ilâ on bir kilo kazanmaktadır. . . Fransız c, ocugunda tezâyüd-i vezn on üc, yas,ına dogru ânî bir hamle irâe,fakat Türk c, ocugundaki gibi devam göstermeyip süratle tedennî (gerileme) vetenâkus (azalma) ediyor. Filhakika vasatî sıklet hususunda Türk c, ocuk ve genci


Fransızdan daima as,ikâr bir fazlalık göstermektedir . . .’ All italics are mine inthis and the following citations from the Turkish Review.

42. ‘Rumlarda da evvelce is,aret eyledigimiz ânî terakkî hamlesini biraz muahhar(gec, ) olarak müs,ahede ediyoruz. Rum genci 14 ilâ 15 yas,larında yedi kilo kadarbir tezâyüd-i vezn (kilo artıs,ı) gösteriyor. Musevî es,hâsında bu hal aynıyla vâkiolup 14–15 yas,ına dogru büyük bir tezâyüd görülüyor. Ermeni genc, lerindeterakkî ve nemâ (büyüme) tedrîcî (azar azar) olup diger grup c, ocuklarındagörülen ânî hamleye tesadüf olunmamaktadır.’

43. ‘[M]ühim nokta ise Türk c, ocugunun Istanbul’da tavattun (yurtlanmıs,,yerles,mis,) eylemis, bulunan sâir tecemmü c, ocuklarından daima daha yüksek birsıklet irâe eylemesidir. Bu tefevvuk (üstünlük) sinn-i kuhûlette (eris,kinyas,larda) nümâyân (görünür) olacak mı? Antropoloji nokta-i nazarından birkıymeti hâiz midir? Bütün bunlar bilâhere cevab vermeye c, alıs,acagımız suallerolup hâl-i hazırda yalnız elde eyledigimiz muhtelif netâyici kayd ve is,aretleiktifâ edecegiz.’

44. ‘Mekâtib-i tâliye’: these schools stand in between primary (iptidai) anduniversity-level (âlî) schools. They are generally described as secondary (idâdî).The level of these schools is generally equal to that of high schools or lycées.

45. ‘Mens,eleri ve mensub oldukları ırklar ne olursa olsun Istanbul’da yas,amaktabulunan c, ocuklar aynı sindeki Parisli c, ocuklardan daima az c, ok mahsûs birfark-ı vezn irâe ediyorlar. . . . Bu adem-i müsâvâtın (es,itsizlik) sebebi nedir?Acaba bas,ka s,ekilde bir tegaddîden (beslenme) mi ileri geliyor? Yoksatedkikâtımızı tâlî mekâtib talebeleri yani mümtaz (sec, kin) bir zümre c, ocuklarüzerinde icra eyledigimizden mi nes,’et (kaynaklanma) ediyor?’

46. Speech by Mahmut Esat Bozkurt, made following the 1930 Agrı uprising of theKurds in his election district, Ödemis,.

REFERENCES

Aktar, Ayhan (1996a) ‘Trakya Yahudi Olaylarını “Dogru” Yorumlamak’ (Interpret-ing the Jewish Incidents of Thrace Right), Tarih ve Toplum 155: 45–56.

Aktar, Ayhan (1996b) ‘Cumhuriyetin Ilk Yıllarında Uygulanan Türkles,tirme Poli-tikaları’ (The Turkification Policies that were Carried out in the First Years of theRepublic), Tarih ve Toplum 156: 4–18.

Arsan, Nimet, ed. (1959) Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’ün Söylev ve Demec, leri, 1906–1938,vol. 2 (Speeches and Statements of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk). Ankara: Türk TarihKurumu.

Barzun, Jacques (1965) Race: A Study in Superstition. New York: Harper & Row.Berkol, Nureddin Ali, Nes,et Ömer Irdelp, Aime Mouchet, Süreyâ Ali Kayacan and

Ismail Hakkı C, elebi (1925) ‘Bir Türk Antropoloji Tetebbu Merkezi IbdânınLüzum ve Faidesine Dair’ (On the Necessity and Benefits of Establishing aTurkish Center of Anthropological Investigation), Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 1(Oct.): 5–11.

Berkol, Nureddin Ali, Nes,et Ömer Irdelp, Aime Mouchet, Süreyâ Ali Kayacan andIsmail Hakkı C, elebi (1926a) ‘Türk Irkı ile Istanbul’da Yas,ayan Diger IrklarınMukâyesevi Tetkiki’ (Comparative Analysis of the Turkish Race and Other RacesLiving in Istanbul), Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 2 (March): 5–18.


Berkol, Nureddin Ali, Nes,et Ömer Irdelp, Aime Mouchet, Süreyâ Ali Kayacan andIsmail Hakkı C, elebi (1926b) ‘Türk Irkı ile Istanbul’da Yas,ayan Diger IrklarınMukâyesevi Tetkiki II: Es,has ve Efradın Inkıs,af ve Nemâsı’ (ComparativeAnalysis of the Turkish Race and Other Races Living in Istanbul II: Developmentand Growth of Individuals), Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 3 (Sept.): 5–39.

Berkol, Nureddin Ali, Nes,et Ömer Irdelp, Aime Mouchet, Süreyâ Ali Kayacan andIsmail Hakkı C, elebi (1927a) ‘Türk Irkı ile Istanbul’da Yas,ayan Diger IrklarınMukâyesevi Tetkiki III: Tevsii’ (Comparative Analysis of the Turkish Race andOther Races Living in Istanbul III: Expansion), Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 4(March): 10–19.

Berkol, Nureddin Ali, Nes,et Ömer Irdelp, Aime Mouchet, Süreyâ Ali Kayacan andIsmail Hakkı C, elebi (1927b) ‘Türk Irkı Hakkında Antropoloji Tedkikâtı’(Anthropological Investigation on the Turkish Race), Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası5 (Oct.): 6–16.

Berkol, Nureddin Ali, Nes,et Ömer Irdelp, Aime Mouchet, Süreyâ Ali Kayacan andHamza Vahit Gögen (1928) ‘Türk Irkının Antropolojisi Hakkında, (Mâ-ba’d)’(On the Anthropology of the Turkish Race, Continuation), Türk AntropolojiMecmuası 6 (March): 5–14.

Berkol, Nureddin Ali, Nes,et Ömer Irdelp, Aime Mouchet, Süreyâ Ali Kayacan andHamza Vahit Gögen (1929) ‘Türk Irkının Antropolojisi Hakkında Notlar’ (Noteson the Anthropology of the Turkish Race), Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 7(March): 6–12.

Birinci Türk Tarih Kongresi (1932) Kongrenin Zabıtları, Konferanslar, Münakas,alar(First Turkish History Congress: Minutes, Conferences, Debates). Istanbul: MaarifVekâleti.

Greenfeld, Liah (1995) Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Hakimiyet-i Milliye (National Sovereignty) (1930) ‘Ödemiþ’te Nutuk’ (Speech inÖdemis,) (19 Sept).

Inan, Afet (1947) Türkiye Halkının Antropolojik Karakterleri ve Türkiye Tarihi:Türk Irkinin Vatani Anadolu, 64.000 Kis,i Üzerinde Anket (AnthropologicalCharacteristics of the People of Turkey and Turkish History: Anatolia, TheFatherland of the Turkish Race, Survey of 64.000 People). Ankara: Türk TarihKurumu Basımevi.

Kansu, S, evket Aziz (1930) ‘Umumi Prognatisma ve Türk Kafalarının Prognatisması’(General Prognathism and Prognathism of the Turkish Heads), Türk AntropolojiMecmuası 9 (March): 5–18.

Kansu, S, evket Aziz (1940) Türk Antropoloji Enstitüsü Tarihc, esi (A Short History ofthe Turkish Institute of Anthropology). Istanbul: Maarif Matbaası.

Kınay, Melih (1939) ‘Ankara Gedikli Ortaokulu Talebelerinden 200 Erkek C, ocukÜzerinde Antropometrik Bir Tetkik ve Neticeleri’ (An Anthropometric Investi-gation on 200 Boys from Ankara Gedikli Secondary School for NoncommissionedOfficers and its Results), Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 19–22 (Sept.): 176–86.

Kiris,c, i, Kemal (2000) ‘Disaggregating Turkish Citizenship and Immigration Prac-tices’, Middle Eastern Studies 36(3): 1–22.

Kushner, David (1968) ‘Expressions of Turkish National Sentiment during the Timeof Sultan Abdulhamid II, 1876–1908’, PhD thesis, University of California, LosAngeles.


Kushner, David (1979) Türk Milliyetc, iliginin Dogus,u, 1876–1908 (The Emergenceof Turkish Nationalism, 1876–1908), tr. S, evket Serdar Türet, Rekin Ertem andFahri Erdem. Istanbul: Kervan Yayınları.

Lefèbvre, [Monsieur] (1927) ‘La Géographie et le problème des races’ (Geographyand the Problem of Races), Türk Antropoloji Mecmuası 4 (March): 20–47.

MacAuliffe, Leon (1925) ‘Morfolojiya-yı Bes,er’ (Human Morphology), TürkAntropoloji Mecmuası 1 (Oct.): 12–20.

MacAuliffe, Leon (1929) ‘S, ahsiyet ve Veraset’ (Personality and Heredity), TürkAntropoloji Mecmuası 7 (March): 13–37.

McDowall, Donald (1996) A Modern History of the Kurds. London: I.B. Tauris.Mardin, S, erif (1999) Jön Türklerin Siyasi Fikirleri, 1895–1908 (Political Thoughts of

the Young Turks, 1895–1908). Istanbul: Iletis,im Yayınları.Parla, Taha and Andrew Davison (2004) Corporatist Ideology in Kemalist Turkey:

Progress or Order? Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Yıldız, Ahmet (2001) Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyebilene: Türk Ulusal Kimliginin Etno-

seküler Sınırları, 1919–1938 (How Happy to be Able to say I am Turk: Ethno-Secular Boundaries of Turkish National Identity, 1919–1938). Istanbul: Iletis,imYayınları.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

NAZAN MAKSUDYAN is completing her dissertation in History at the SabanciUniversity, Istanbul. Her research interests include Turkish nationalism and itsintricate relationship with racism, welfare politics, and charity in the late OttomanEmpire. Her dissertation is on the orphans and orphanages of the late OttomanEmpire. Address: Nazan Maksudyan, History Graduate Program, SabanciUniversity, Istanbul, Turkey. [email: [email protected]]


The Turkish Review of Anthropology and the Racist Face of Turkish Nationalism

Documents

Transcript of The Turkish Review of Anthropology and the Racist Face of Turkish Nationalism