Carter Findley takes the road less travelled in The Turks in World History by delving into history through the lens of ethnicity. Rather than produce a narrative about the Ottoman Empire, modern Turkey, and its antecedents that is framed by a political or economic theme, the author instead covers a history of the Turkic people as a whole. He does not do so with the assumption that there is some pure essence of “Turkishness”, but instead uses the metaphors of a woven carpet and a caravan to express ethnicity as an intertwining of numerous historical influences into the story of a people who spread far across Europe and Asia. As such, the scholar attempts to provide a social understanding of his eponymous subject, even at times where historical records necessitate that he rely more on political developments. Given the work’s ambitions, and the nature of his argument, the historical narrative presented is broad, and thus a thematic overview is more appropriate to a summary than a review of any particular political entities that he covers.
Following an introduction that presents his overarching metaphors, Findley begins by looking at Turks – and their predecessors – prior to the arrival of Islam. His first chapter provides a broad overview of the Turkic-speaking people of the steppe and the influence of their nomadic origins and lifestyle on future generations. Chapter 2 heralds the arrival of what the author considers ones of the two major turning points in Turkic history: the advent of Islam. In his estimation, Islam did not obviate the previous elements of Turkishness, but instead complimented them and, in various adaptations, made itself indelible to the notion of a Turkish identity – hence the metaphor of the carpet.
Chapter 3 continues this examination and, most notably, begins to engage the Ottomans. One might expect, given the empire’s longevity and expanse, that his coverage of this topic would overtake the narrative, but the author does not allow this to happen and continues to engage other Turkic lands as he outlines the influence of ethnicity, nomadism, and Islam. The fourth chapter introduces his second turning-point in Turkish identity: modernity. While Findley of course defines his usage of the term, he does not dwell on this aspect and instead does more to engage it by unpacking its effects on Turkishness throughout history. Once again, he sees modernity not as something entirely transformative of ethnic identity, but as something complementary that integrated itself until it became an essential feature. While this section leans more heavily on the Ottoman Empire than the previous one, it continues to emphasize developments in other regions.
The author’s fifth chapter brings the narrative as close to the book’s publishing date – the mid-2000s – as possible by concluding its look into modernity’s relationship with Turkish ethnicity. His conclusion does a very good job of tying everything together, summarizing many key developments and all of the main themes in a relatively concise fashion. It serves as a fitting recapitulation to the book’s main purpose: telling the story of Turkish history in a different way and making a case for why one would seek to do so. This is not to say that Findley’s work represents a paradigm shift – the narrative is too broad for that – but it does uncover considerations that were less visible in the light of previous perspectives and provides a potential framework for deeper dives into any of the political entities that he discusses.
This does tie in, however, to my confusion on who the intended audience was, as the base narrative is not does not present much that would be revolutionary for specialists, yet the dryness of the language, as well as some of the terminology, would not be enticing to a more casual reader. Overall, while I did not feel the author’s metaphors drew me in, the parts of The Turks in World History that I found most enjoyable were those about which I had little prior knowledge. To me, this suggests that the story here has been presented better elsewhere, but I would still recommend it somewhat to anyone interested in a more ethnicity-based history that does not fall into many of the common traps of such works, as those readers might have appreciated the author’s metaphorical underpinnings, and suggested framework, more than I did.