Introduction

In any given nation, literary texts have their origins in oral narratives. Although some of these narratives are eventually transcribed, many others are lost and fade into oblivion. Nevertheless, these works constitute the bedrock of a nation’s intangible cultural heritage. They play a crucial role in comprehending the life perspectives and worldviews embedded in the genetic fabric of that nation, shedding light on its emotional and intellectual landscape. In this regard, Turkic languages stand out as contemporary languages boasting numerous written works, spanning from the Orkhon Monuments (Tekin, 2008) in the 8th century to the present day. Since the 19th century, scholars from diverse countries, including Turkey, Russia, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States, have engaged in extensive research on Turkic literary works. Thousands of studies have been conducted, focusing not only on accurate transcription, the rectification of reading errors, and proposing new interpretations but also on etymological investigations, critical editions of texts, and the compilation of dictionaries and indexes. While these efforts are undeniably necessary and fundamental, they fall short (Sarı, 2020). This is because the analysis of these literary works, which mirror the Turkic worldview, should also encompass social and cultural perspectives.

The majority of previous studies on Shajara-i Tarākima, much like other Turkic historical texts, have primarily concentrated on tasks such as the discovery of the manuscript, introduction of its versions, examination of linguistic and orthographic features, correction of reading and comprehension errors, and translation of the work into contemporary language and dialects (see, for instance, Toumanskiy, 1897; Kononov, 1958; Ergin, n.d.; Gurbanov, 1991; Ölmez, 1991; Ölmez, 2019; Ölmez, 2020; Zahidoğlu, 2014; Keskin, 2017; Aydoğdu, 2018). To address this gap, the present study adopts an ethnocultural and sociological perspective in approaching Shajara-i Tarākima, aiming to discern the cultural dimensions of Oghuz migration.

Examining the historical relationship between Oghuzes and migration reveals that migration holds a significant place in Oghuz history (Çobanoğlu, 2013). A line from Shajara-i Tarākima questions the extent of Oghuz migration:

Oghuz ili köçip çekip yörümedük yol bar mu, ivin tutup olturmaduk yurt bar mu? (Kononov, 1958: text 62, trans. 68). ‘Is there a road Oghuz has not traveled or a land where they haven’t settled?’

Many Oghuz were nomadic in the 10th century, spending summers in northern pastures and returning to the Lower Syr Darya in winter. Their leaders spent winters in Yangi Kand (Sümer, 2007). Oghuz maintained a nomadic lifestyle in their homeland, not individually moving to summer and winter quarters. Instead, each tribal leader gathered with their tribe to spend summers together and winter in mountainous areas, camping along riverbanks (Sümer, 1967). Throughout history, Oghuz migrated to various regions, including the coasts of the Caspian Sea, north of the Black Sea, the Balkans, Iran, Syria, Palestine, Anatolia, Kerman, Iraq, and more (Sümer, 2007).

As seen, the migration phenomenon holds a central position in Oghuz’s social life. In this context, this study aims to analyze Oghuz’s attitudes toward the migration phenomenon by focusing on the concept of migration described in the 17th-century work Shajara-i Tarākima. The primary goals of this study are outlined as follows:

  • To ascertain the factors behind migrations in Shajara-i Tarākima.

  • To recognize the outcomes of migrations in Shajara-i Tarākima.

  • To scrutinize the migration integration approaches implemented in Shajara-i Tarākima.

The article continues with a theoretical background section focusing on the concepts of migration and migrants, the reasons and consequences of migration, and integration models. The methodology section describes the approach taken in the study. The findings section explores the reasons, consequences, and integration models identified in Shajara-i Tarākima. In the discussion section, the findings are compared with modern historical information, concluding with the results section.

Before delving into the theoretical background, it is essential to provide brief information about the terms Turk, Oghuz, and Turkmen. This is crucial because, for readers unaware of the content, it might appear as if the study is solely about the migrations of the community we currently refer to as Turkmen.

Regarding the term Turk, during the 6th century, within the Turkic tribes, the designation Turk was specific to a particular tribe. A the eradication of the Juan Juans by this particular tribe, the Turks founded the Kok-Turk Khaganate (552–744), consolidating and uniting various other tribes in their vicinity. This led to the expansion of the meaning and usage of the term Turk, becoming a general term for all Turkic tribes (Kafesoğlu, 2014). The Orkhon Inscriptions, the first Turkic written source mentioning the term Turk, reveals that various groups such as Turgish, Basmils, Dokuz Oghuz, Otuz Tatars, On Oks, Oghuz, and Sirs were considered Turks, showcasing the broadening scope of the term to encompass different tribes (Durmuş, 2017: p. 43). The Dokuz Oghuz, a significant community around the Tula River during the 7th–8th centuries under the rule of the Gokturks, remained important during the Uyghur period (745–840) (Sümer, 1967). However, the fate of these Dokuz Oghuz is uncertain. In the 10th century, the Oghuz living around the Syr Darya rivers differed from the Dokuz Oghuz and belonged to the On Oks. These Oghuz played a crucial role in establishing the Seljuk and Ottoman Empires, contributing significantly to Turk and world history. Unlike other Turkic tribes such as Uyghurs, Karluk, and Kipchak, who faced Mongol influence, the Oghuz managed to preserve their culture, actively sustaining the identity of the Turks (Sümer, 1967). The term Turk, used since the Kok-Turk era, continues to be employed today for various communities and states centered around Turkey, descended from the Oghuz lineage (Durmuş, 2017: p. 45).

The emergence of the term Turkmen should be noted, initially attributed to the Oghuz Turks by other ethnic groups. The term Turkmen first appeared in 11th-century Byzantine chronicles (Eremeev, 1971). Non-Turk Muslims, particularly Arabs, used the term Turkme” to refer to Muslim Oghuz elements within empires led by the Seljuks and their successors, distinguishing them from non-Muslims (Kellner-Heinkele, 2000: p. 682). In other words, after the Oghuz embraced Islam, non-Muslim groups referred to them as Turkmen, differentiating Muslim Oghuz from their non-Muslim counterparts (Sümer, 1967), a view first proposed by Fuat Köprülü based on Mahmoud al-Khashghari (Kafesoğlu, 2014). Muslim Turks did not immediately adopt the term Turkmen attributed to them and continued to use the term Oghuz for an extended period. However, especially after the 13th century, it is observed that the term Turkmen gradually replaced Oghuz, which started to fade from usage (Sümer, 1967). A Russian chronicle dated 1223 mentions some tribes identifying themselves as Turkmen (Polyakov, 1973). Despite this, in the 15th century, Turks living from the Danube to the Syr Darya considered themselves a single tribe and took pride in being descendants of the Oghuz (Sümer, 1967). During the period of the Seljuks and Ottomans, historical sources referred to urban and settled Oghuz as Turk and nomadic ones as Turkmen (Koca, 2003: p. 53, cited in Durmuş, 2017: p. 44), where Turk indicated urban and educated, while Turkmen implied ignorant and nomadic.

The term Turkmen, originally used to refer to Muslim Oghuz, has evolved into a collective term for various Turkic tribes spread across the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Near East since the Middle Ages. The Turkmen term is currently applied to various Turkic tribes residing in countries such as Turkmenistan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and elsewhere (Kellner-Heinkele, 2000: pp. 684–685; Dinç & Çakır, 2008: p. 33). These tribes, known today as Turkmen, are remnants of the Oghuz who migrated westward under the leadership of the Seljuks in the 11th century (Saray, 1988: p. 661).

Concerning the etymology of the term Turkmen, it has been suggested that it is derived from the Persian word Turk-mânand “similar to Turk”, although this view has faced criticism. The prevailing view in recent years is that the—men suffix in Turkmen is an augmentative or intensifying suffix. This approach argues that Turkmen means ‘real Turk’, ‘pure-blooded Turk’, or ‘genuine Turk’ (Kafesoğlu, 2014; Golden, 1992: pp. 212–213; Kellner-Heinkele, 2000: p. 682; Sümer, 2012: p. 607).

Theoretical framework

Migration and immigrant

Migration, a universal phenomenon with enduring significance throughout human history, has gained increased importance in recent years. Individuals have voluntarily or forcibly migrated, individually or collectively, due to economic, political, social, or natural factors. Migration exerts significant effects on the socio-economic conditions of origin, transit, and destination countries. Due to its diversity, the subject of migration attracts the attention of various disciplines within the humanities, such as sociology, psychology, medicine, literature, linguistics, education, politics, and economics.

There is no complete consensus in the literature on the term migration. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM, 2019: p. 22), migration refers to the movement of the population within national or international borders. According to this definition, migration encompasses a broad population movement where individuals or groups relocate, regardless of the duration, structure, or reasons. Among these individuals, there are refugees, displaced persons, economic migrants, and those relocating for family reunification, among other purposes.

The definition proposed by historian Karpat (2013: p. 136), characterizing migration as the “Movement from the palace of origin to the palace of destination” is noteworthy. However, this definition overlooks the socio-economic, political, and cultural dimensions of migration. It may not be sufficient on its own to evaluate the concept of migration since it can lead to different definitions depending on the disciplinary approach employed. Indeed, Canatan (2020: p. 29) argues for considering migration as a factor of societal change and evaluating it from this perspective.

Fundamentally, migration can be understood as a movement of population and displacement. This mobility can be voluntary or compulsory, national or international, temporary or permanent, individual or collective. As Faist (1998: p. 47) pointed out, migration can be categorized based on destination country (national-international), period (temporary-permanent), scale of flow (individual, group, mass), legal status (legal-illegal), and reasons (voluntary labor migration or forced refugee migration). Additionally, migration can be subject to various classifications based on different criteria such as the migration movements, migrants, and the destination.

Individuals who carry out migration movements are appropriately referred to as immigrants. However, there is no universally accepted definition for the term immigrant either. Factors such as the reasons, duration, and route of migration need to be considered in this definition. Furthermore, while it is acknowledged that migrants change in location, there is no consensus on how long they should be considered as immigrants after this relocation. Some researchers suggest that individuals residing abroad for more than three months can be labeled as immigrants (Faist, 1998: p. 42). However, the United Nations defines individuals residing in a foreign country for more than a year as immigrants (IOM, 2019: p. 37). This definition ensures the distinction between concepts such as immigrant, tourist, businessperson, etc.

Moreover, the connotation of the term varies across different societies. In this context, the statement by Swiss writer Max Frisch (1911–1991), “We called for labor, but people came”, is meaningful (Ayanoğlu and Bayam, 2020: p. 15). For example, in France, the term immigrant is often associated with workers, particularly those from North Africa. In Germany, the first thought when hearing immigrant is often of Turks (Kastoryano, 2000: p. 27).

In conclusion, considering the concepts of digital migration (Leurs, 2023), it is necessary to approach the subject with different perspectives to address the discussions and uncertainties surrounding migration.

Causes and consequences of migration movements

Migration movements are based on various factors. Adverse factors such as natural disasters, pandemics, famines, wars, political conditions, political instability, inadequate educational opportunities, harsh living conditions, and various impossibilities are among the fundamental reasons for migration. However, in modern times, migrations resulting from industrialization and entirely individual choices are also encountered.

Taking a general perspective on historical migrations, factors such as a decrease in food production due to drought, especially evident in the large migration of the Irish to America in the 1840s, can be considered primary causes. Additionally, religious and ethnic distinctions have also constituted the second main cause of historical migrations. For instance, the migration of the first Muslims from Mecca to Madina in the early 7th century (i.e., 622) is a notable example. Similarly, the departure of Muslims and Jews from Spain in 1492 was a migration based on religious reasons. Events like the migration of Muslim Serbs, Albanians, and Turks to Anatolia after 1878 or the migration of 7 million people after the separation of Pakistan and India in 1947 are examples of migrations due to political reasons in more recent history. Commercial activities, although affecting fewer people compared to other reasons, have also led to migration movements in history. For example, the trade colonies established by Indian merchants in Central Asia in the 16th century and trade colonies formed due to the widespread imperialism and colonialism in the 19th century are instances of such migrations (Karpat, 2013: pp. 75–80; Canatan, 2020: pp. 36–40).

Migration is one of the factors that most significantly influences social life. Events such as the Migration of Nations (350–800?), the migration of Turkic tribes from Central Asia to various parts of the world, the migration of Europeans to the Americas and Australia, or the migration of people from underdeveloped or less developed countries to North America and Western Europe have had profound effects on shaping the contemporary world. It can even be argued that almost all present-day states were founded by immigrants or their ancestors (Karpat, 2013).

The effects of migration can manifest in various forms. One of the most apparent consequences of migration is the interaction of various human groups biologically and culturally. Through migration, new forms emerge both biologically through marriages and culturally through communication. These movements have contributed to the cultural and scientific development of humanity (Canatan, 2020: p. 40).

Contrary to the general perception that migration often leads to negative outcomes, a cautious approach is required. In fact, in many instances, migration has yielded positive results. The nature of migration and variables such as geographical, political, or economic conditions can turn relations between migrants and the local population in positive directions. For instance, a city facing economic difficulties, like Leicester, significantly contributed to its economic development by increasing production and trade activities, particularly with the contributions of immigrants from India and Pakistan in the 1960s (Karpat, 2013: pp. 84–85).

Integration models for migration

The process of migration is always a challenging experience, profoundly affecting the population in the migration source (core region), transit areas (transit regions), and destination regions (target regions), especially the migrants themselves. These effects can vary in economic, political, social, and cultural dimensions. Migration is not merely the physical geographic change of populations; it is a process that alters all the networks of relationships surrounding the social lives of individuals and societies. Migrants bring not only their bodies and belongings but also their life experiences, habits, languages, memories, dreams, and cultures to the places they migrate to (Adıgüzel, 2016: p. 3).

The process following migration is often referred to as the acculturation process. To understand and explain this process, various models have been proposed (Künüroğlu, 2020: p. 4). One such model is known as the one-dimensional model of acculturation. This model views the acculturation process as adapting to a new environment and suggests that this adaptation over time may lead to a decline in ethnic heritage (Gordon, 1964). It was inspired mainly by the arrival of European immigrants in the United States during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Immigrants arrived without knowing American culture and language, but over time, they fully adapted to the new context. This adaptation often meant the loss of the original language and the occurrence of Americanization. In this acculturation process, religion was often the only aspect that remained unchanged. While many immigrants took pride in their ethnic heritage, their cultural ties were generally weakened (Van de Vijver, 2015).

De Haas, Castles and Miller (2003) have categorized the integration process into three models: the selective inclusion model, the assimilationist model, and the multiculturalism model. The selective inclusion model describes the inclusion of immigrant minorities into specific areas of society while denying them access to other areas (especially social assistance systems, citizenship, voting rights, etc.). The assimilationist model compels immigrants to somehow adapt to society. The multiculturalism model expects immigrants to adapt without being forced to give up their differences. Among these models, the multiculturalism model has been considered the most modern approach. It has been noted that this model is more dominant in the United States and Canada due to the organization of migration histories and experiences of immigrants in these countries. In other words, the openness of American and Canadian people to differences in the cultures of immigrants has influenced these approaches (Adıgüzel, 2016: p. 159).

Berry’s (1997; 2003; 2017) acculturation model, termed the two-dimensional model of acculturation by Van de Vijver (2015), is one of the fundamental models in this field. It categorizes immigrant groups into ethnic cultural groups and larger societies, asserting that these groups develop different strategies in the adaptation process. According to this model, ethnic cultural groups develop strategies called integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization, while larger societies develop strategies called multiculturalism, melting pot, segregation, and exclusion. In the assimilation strategy, an individual gives up preserving their own culture and adopts the majority culture. This strategy signifies a situation where the individual chooses to be fully integrated into the majority culture. Integration involves preserving both one’s own culture and the majority culture. This strategy indicates a situation where the individual aims to interact with both cultures and balance between them. Separation involves preserving one’s own culture and avoiding participation in the majority culture. This strategy represents a situation where the individual prefers to focus on their own culture. Marginalization involves losing both one’s own culture and the majority culture. This strategy represents a situation where the individual loses connections to both cultures. Multiculturalism represents a society model where different cultures coexist, and respect is shown for each other. In this model, cultural diversity is seen as an asset, and each culture is valued for its uniqueness. Melting pot represents a model where different cultures come together to create a single homogeneous culture. In this approach, different cultures blend, forming a common culture. Segregation represents a situation where different cultures are consciously kept apart. In this case, specific groups are isolated from others and live their lives separately. Exclusion represents the conscious exclusion of a specific group or individual from society. In this situation, a sense of belonging may not be given to a specific culture or group.

Methodology

This study has been designed employing the historical research design, which is one of the qualitative research methods. Historical research aims to answer the question, “What happened in the past?” It typically involves reading and analyzing documents from the period or conducting interviews with individuals who lived during that time to gather information (Büyüköztürk et al., 2018). Data collection methods used in historical research are generally categorized into four main types: “primary sources (such as original documents often found in public or private archive collections), secondary sources (scientific publications on the subject), running records (case notes, agency reports), and memories (such as autobiographies, memoirs, oral history)” (Danto, 2008). In this study, the data obtained are derived from a primary source, namely the document titled Shajara-i Tarākima. Since there is no opportunity to conduct interviews or observations focusing on the subject of the research, the information has been obtained solely through document analysis.

Data

The primary data source for this research is the genealogical record of the Turkmen people, known as Shajara-i Tarākima. This work was written in Chagatai Turkic by Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur Khan (r.1643–1663) during the years 1659–1660.

Seven known copies of Shajara-i Tarākima have survived to the present day, and these copies are coded as Leningrad (L), Tashkent (T, T1, T2, T3), and Ashgabat (A, A1) (Ölmez, 2020: 25–27). (see Table 1).

Table 1 The copies of the data.
Full size table

Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur Khan’s work, titled Shajara-i Tarākima, holds significance as a rich source of Oghuz history (Spuler, 1983; Kafalı, 1994). This manuscript is noteworthy for its subject matter, literary style, and historical-cultural value. Shajara-i Tarākima possesses an original character, drawing upon vivid rumors circulating among Turkmen tribes and lost pedigrees held by the Turkmen of that era (Sümer, 1959; Ergin, n.d.; Kafalı, 1994; Ölmez, 2020).

This work presents the Turkmen variant of the Oghuznāmas, which narrates the legendary history of the Oghuz Turks (Bayat, 2019; Jirmunskiy, 1974). In writing Shajara-i Tarākima, Abu al-Ghazi aimed to transform epic narratives into a historical text, similar to historian Rashid al-Din Fazlullah’s (1247–1318) approach (Gündüz, 2016: p. 15). Within this framework, the work likely contains valuable original information about events that probably occurred in the 15th century (Kellner-Heinkele, 2000: p. 684) and details about Central Asian Turkic history and the lineage of the Turkmen people (Kafalı, 1994).

According to famous historian Togan (1982: p. 125), who studied Rashid al-Din’s Oghuznāma (Smirnova, 1952), Abu al-Ghazi might have seen the section dedicated to the Oghuz in the first volume of Rashid al-Din’s Jami’ al-tawarikh (Thackston, 1998–1999) but did not have access to the second volume, which covers the history of the Oghuz and the Turks. Therefore, both works should be treated as independent sources in the exploration of the Oghuz Khan epic. Another researcher, Gündüz (2016: p. 16), suggested that Rashid al-Din and Abu al-Ghazi might not have seen the Uyghur-scripted version of Oghuznāma (Ağca, 2016) but could have extensively benefited from a similar manuscript of Oghuznāma, evaluating both works as different variants.

The reasons behind the composition of Shajara-i Tarākima are provided at the beginning of the work. Abu al-Ghazi stated that he wrote this work upon the request of Turkmen ‘ulamā, sheiks, and bigs. These leaders, considering existing Oghuznāmas unreliable, sought a new history to be written. Although being an Uzbek, Abu al-Ghazi accepted their request, acknowledging the Turkmen’s illustrious history (Sümer, 1959: pp. 389–390). This section is followed by a chapter titled Ādam alayhi’s-salāmnıng zikri ‘About Prophet Adam’ narrating events until the birth of Oghuz, son of Qara Khan. Following information about the Prophet Noah and his sons, the work then provides details on Oghuz Khan’s legendary life, battles, conquests, and death, as well as information on the history of the Oghuz, their tribes, Turkic tamghas, and related topics (Ölmez, 2020: pp. 31–33).

Data collection

In this research, an examination is conducted on Shajara-i Tarākima, a significant historical document that provides insights into Oghuzes’ sociocultural life and worldview, focusing on the factors and outcomes associated with migration and integration models. The primary data source utilized for this study is the Shajara-i Tarākima authored by Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur Khan. The investigation relies on the annotated version of Shajara-i Tarākima, as prepared by Kononov (1958), given its status as one of the earliest and most comprehensive studies. Additionally, references from the editions by Ölmez (2020) and Ergin (n.d.) have also been incorporated.

Data analysis

In this research, the data underwent analysis based on the qualitative data analysis model proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994). According to their model, the analytical process involves three concurrent activities:

  • Data reduction

  • Data display

  • Conclusion drawing/verification

Data reduction encompasses the selection, focus, simplification, abstraction, and transformation of field notes and transcriptions through techniques like summarization, coding, topic identification, clustering, and memo creation. Data display involves presenting structured and condensed information, utilizing formats such as texts, matrices, graphs, charts, and networks to facilitate action and conclusion drawing. In the final phase of the analysis, the proficient researcher maintains a flexible stance on conclusions, exercising openness and skepticism, before arriving at final judgments. It becomes imperative to assess the validity, reliability, and plausibility of the meanings inferred from the data. In essence, the broader realm of “analysis” comprises these interconnected strands that unfold in parallel stages—before, during, and after data collection.

The unit of analysis was chosen as an episode, aligning with Van Dijk’s perspective (1981: pp. 177–178). The term episode is defined by the researcher as a logically connected series within discourse, linguistically characterized by a distinct beginning and/or ending, and further distinguished by possessing thematic unity. The researcher suggests that the semantic nature of episodes raises the possibility of their psychological relevance, serving as units in a cognitive model of discourse processing.

In the collection of examples, a single criterion aligned with the research objective has been adopted; namely, whether the examples encompass the concept of migration. However, the relationship between migration and the afterlife formed through metaphorical use has not been addressed; the study is confined solely to the relationship between migration and the earthly realm. Consistent with the United Nations’ notion that, for an act to be considered migration, residence in the migrated land should extend to at least one year, short-term travels such as going to war or hunting, for instance, have not been considered within the phenomenon of migration. Additionally, migrations involving the Prophets Noah and Mihlail have been excluded from the study as they fall outside the scope of the research.

Shajara-i Tarākima has been thoroughly reviewed by the researcher(s). Explicit or implicit episodes containing situations, events, or individuals related to migration have been identified. These episodes have been categorized into subgroups based on thematic similarities per the research objectives (i.e., cause, consequence, and integration models) and the data collection criterion (migration). This approach aims to simplify and abstract the data. The created subgroups were collectively revisited, revealing that some episodes could be included in more than one subgroup. In other words, a single episode might contain data about both the cause and consequence of migration (see Table 2).

Table 2 Distribution of the episodes.
Full size table

Following these classifications, particularly exemplary episodes that were deemed to best emphasize the theme from each subgroup were specifically noted. In the findings section of the study, an effort has been made to include all sample episodes whenever possible. The reported data were evaluated with a skeptical perspective, and then attempts were made to reach conclusions.

Reliability and validity of the study

To ensure the objectivity of the study, the analysis results were presented to an expert with domain-specific qualitative publications. At this stage, feedback was sought from the expert regarding whether the identified episodes by the researchers met the research criteria, in which subcategories they could be classified if they did, and whether the episodes agreed with the evaluation results. In other words, the expert was asked to evaluate all the processes of the analyses conducted by the researchers and to indicate the points where they did not agree. Discussions were held together to assess the feedback from the expert and attempts were made to reach a consensus. Additionally, in the findings section, direct references to the text were made to enhance the validity and reliability of the research.

Results

The causes of migrations

The causes of migrations in Shajara-i Tarākima encompass political pressures, economic factors, criminal activities, plundering and warfare, settlement policies, and internal disturbances. Examples illustrating each of these reasons will be sequentially discussed below, drawing from instances within Shajara-i Tarākima.

At the outset of Shajara-i Tarākima, Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur Khan recounts the military campaigns he led against the Turkmen while elucidating the motivation behind writing the book. These raids were prompted by the Turkmen’s allegiance to Abu al-Ghazi’s elder brother, Isfandiyar Khan, in the power struggles following the demise of Abu al-Ghazi’s father, Mohammed Khan (r. 1603–1623). Consequently, Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur Khan harbored a natural aversion to the Turkmen, in contrast to his elder brother Isfandiyar Khan, and the Turkmen were unwilling to accept his khanate. Upon ascending to the position of Khan, Abu al-Ghazi orchestrated the treacherous killing of several thousand Turkmen as a punitive measure against those who supported Isfandiyar Khan (Saray, 1998; Sümer, 1959). This narrative is corroborated in Shajara-i Tarākima, where Abu al-Ghazi details the departure of Khwarazm’s Turkmen upon his Khanate, relocating to areas near the Mangishlaq, Mount Abu al-Khan, and Tacan Rivers. Subsequently, they returned to Khwarazm and acknowledged his sovereignty (Kononov, 1958: text 4–6, transl. 3–4). The underlying cause for this migration is attributed to the political pressure exerted by Abu al-Ghazi on the Turkmen.

A section in Shajara-i Tarākima narrates the accounts surrounding Ögürjik Alp (Kononov, 1958: text 64–72, transl. 70–74). Due to the refusal of submission by the Bayindir tribe, rulers of Iraq, Ögürjik Alp was compelled to undertake migrations—first to Shamakhi, then to Crimea, and subsequently to Yayik, crossing the Atil with approximately a thousand tents. Following conflicts with the Qangli, Ögürjik Alp sought refuge in the Qara Khan region in Mangishlaq, settling there with a community of three hundred tents. Faced with continued threats from the Qangli, he further migrated to Mount Abu al-Khan (Kononov, 1958: text 67, transl. 72). The migrations of Ögürjik Alp can be interpreted as a response to resist both assimilation pressures and political disagreements.

Economic factors motivated certain migrations in Shajara-i Tarākima. Individuals grappling with economic hardships departed from their original locations, seeking better prospects elsewhere. Notably, the migration of Mama Bike’s freed slave’s offspring, Khizir Chora and Ali Chora, exemplifies economic considerations. These brothers relocated, enhancing their settlements and fostering prosperity. Consequently, impoverished individuals from neighboring areas also migrated to be in proximity to them (Kononov, 1958: text 75, transl. 76).

According to Shajara-i Tarākima, the Qaraevli tribe’s quest for a new employment area through migration is primarily rooted in economic considerations. The Qaraevli people sought to alleviate their economic problems by renting the fertile lands of Mount Abu al-Khan from the Ersari tribe (Kononov, 1958: text 78, transl. 77–78).

Seeking refuge in another country to evade punishment for a crime is a recurring historical phenomenon. In Shajara-i Tarākima, two events exemplify this occurrence. One such incident involved the Chagatai Arlat tribe residing in the Durun province of Khorasan. Following a fatal altercation at a drinking table where a notable of the tribe was killed with a knife, the perpetrator fled in fear for his life, seeking refuge with the Ulug Töpe people across the Amu River (Kononov, 1958: text 76, transl. 76).

Considering the plunder events in Shajara-i Tarākima as a form of war would not be inaccurate. The migration movements resulting from the described looting event, expressed through the derivatives of the verb to plunder, exhibit a dual nature. On one hand, the looted individuals, whether residents or landowners, abandon their homes and migrate to other locations. On the other hand, the looters settle in the lands they have captured. Essentially, the militarily stronger side dictates the shaping of the other side (Golden, 1992). The Mongols, who had their lands entirely seized by Oghuz Khan, were compelled to abandon their country (Kononov, 1958: text 17–18, transl. 42–43). Looting and wars are identified as the predominant reasons why a significant portion of the Oghuz population around the Sir River could not endure the Mongols’ plunder and migrated to Urganch (Kononov, 1958: text 57–58, transl. 66).

In Shajara-i Tarākima, another impetus for migration stems from the strategic placement of certain tribes under the governance of khans along the borders. The primary objective of this strategy was to fortify border security and facilitate raids and looting of neighboring countries. In this vein, Oghuz Khan strategically positioned the Qipchak tribe along the Tun and Atil rivers, situated along the border, to safeguard the country against potential threats from Oris, Ulaq, Hungarians, and Bashqirs (Kononov, 1958: text 19, transl. 43–44).

Internal disturbances played a pivotal role in precipitating numerous migrations in Shajara-i Tarākima, leading to the disruption of state order and jeopardizing the security of life and property within society. Some notable instances include:

  • Migration of a group of Oghuzes to Mangishlaq under the leadership of Kilk Big, Qazan Big, and Qaraman Big.

  • Migration of another group to Hisar Mountain under the leadership of Alicaq Big’s children.

  • Migration of the Yazir people to the vicinity around Durun in Khorasan.

  • Migration of Okhlu, Koklu, Agar, and Sultan people to Mount Abu al-Khan.

  • A sizable migration involving ten thousand tents from the Salur people, led by Dingli Big, initially to Khorasan and subsequently to Iraq and Iran (with some eventually returning from Iraq and migrating to Mangishlaq) (Kononov, 1958: text 61–62, trans. 68).

Consequences of migrations

The establishment of numerous states by the Turkmen throughout history is intricately linked to their nomadic societal structure, characterized by a highly adaptable reorganization (Golden, 1992). Analyzing the migrations detailed in Shajara-i Tarākima from this perspective reveals that the Turkmen promptly instituted a new administrative organization (state structure, administration) following migration, as evidenced in various instances within Shajara-i Tarākima.

One notable example involves Turkmen who, defeated by the It-Bachana tribe, migrated to Transoxiana (Kononov, 1958: text 41, transl. 42). Subsequently, these migrant communities, pressured by neighboring tribes, arrived at the Sir River’s edge and expeditiously established a new state with Yangi Kand as its capital (Kononov, 1958: text 42–43, transl. 57). Another instance is highlighted when, following the migration of most Oghuzes unable to withstand Mongol pressure to Urganch, the remaining Oghuzes formed a new administrative structure, appointing one of them, named Ali, as their khan (Kononov, 1958: text 57–58, transl. 66).

In scrutinizing the migrations in Shajara-i Tarākima, it becomes apparent that the migrating Turkmen regarded their destinations not merely as temporary residences but as permanent dwellings, at least initially, despite occasional departures. Numerous examples in Shajara-i Tarākima underscore this perspective. Notably, Qipchak, as previously mentioned for another reason, solidified its sense of homeland by settling along the Tun and Atil rivers under Oghuz Khan’s directive (Kononov, 1958: text 19, transl. 43–44).

Migration significantly influences the lives of both sending and receiving communities, manifesting diverse impacts on political, demographic, and sociocultural characteristics in the destination areas. Shajara-i Tarākima recounts that Mohammad Bakhtyar altered the capital of the Bihar region upon conquering it, relocating to the city of Laktuni and subsequently resettling ten thousand people from the Qalach tribe (Kononov, 1958: text 23–24, transl. 46–47). Consequently, a demographic transformation ensued in the newly acquired territory.

Additionally, the narrative in Shajara-i Tarākima describes how the children of Mama Bike, the freed slave of Ersari Bay’s widow, Khizir Chora and Ali Chora, established new settlements along the Amu River (Kononov, 1958: text 75, transl. 76). This occurrence exemplifies another social consequence of migration: the establishment of new settlements post-migration.

One of the most significant outcomes of migration is the emergence of new tribes. Shajara-i Tarākima elucidates that the Yamir, Burqas, and Chagatai Qul tribes trace their origins to migration events. The Yamir lineage, for instance, originated from a man of the Ichki Salur tribe seeking refuge among the Durun-based Salur tribe after committing murder in Mangishlaq (Kononov, 1958: text 71, transl. 74). Similarly, the Burqas people’s lineage is based on a boy adopted by an Ishiq Ismail of the Salur tribe, found as a one-year-old amidst the remnants of Timur Tugli’s migration (Kononov, 1958: text 71–72, transl. 74). The Chagatai Qul tribe also emerged from the generation of an individual who sought asylum among the Ulug Töpe people following a murder committed in the Durun province of Khorasan (Kononov, 1958: text 76, transl. 76).

Furthermore, migration can give rise to new areas of employment, fostering novel means of communication and events among people. For instance, Turkmen Janibek Khan resettled some of his men on Mount Abu al-Khan, renowned for its suitability for camel raising (Kononov, 1958: text 77, transl. 77), thereby creating a new employment area for his community.

The strategy of integrating migrations

The process of integration in the realm of migration studies pertains to the mandatory coexistence of at least two communities due to migration, with significant consequences for both migrants and the local population (Agbayani-Siewert, 1994).

Primarily, it can be inferred that weaker tribes in a country, adapting to dominant tribes or states, experience more advantages and comfort compared to the migration scenarios in Shajara-i Tarākima. An intriguing example is the early days of Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur Khan’s khanate. At that time, Turkmen who fled from Khwarazm and later returned were employed by Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur Khan, with the capable ones serving as civil servants or soldiers (maʿiyyat), while the less favorable ones were not accepted into military or state service but were designated solely to pay taxes (raʿiyyat) (Kononov, 1958: text 4–6, transl. 35–36).

Analyzing the events in Shajara-i Tarākima, where sociocultural similarities such as race, language, and religion are high among interacting societies or individuals resulting from migration, reveals that the adaptation process is facilitated when similarities are pronounced. However, even when there are no significant differences in religion, language, and ethnic origin among peoples in the migration movements in Shajara-i Tarākima, a process of integration still occurs among the communities. To support this observation, two cases in Shajara-i Tarākima, where individuals had to leave their tribes due to committing murder, will be examined. The first example, as mentioned earlier, involves an Icki Salur from Mangishlaq migrating to the Salur people in Durun due to a committed murder. He later married a girl from Salur and continued living with them (Kononov, 1958: text 71–72, transl. 74). In this case, integration was not a significant issue, as both parties belonged to the Salur tribe. Conversely, a person from the Arlat clan of Chagatai, seeking refuge in the Ulug Töpe tribe to save his life after committing murder, faced challenges in getting married. Ulug Töpe allowed him shelter but initially hesitated to give him a daughter. Although they eventually permitted the marriage, the offspring were named Chagatai Qul, emphasizing their difference in status (Kononov, 1958: text 76, transl. 76). This event underscores the difficulty of integration when migrants are from a different tribe, despite being of the same nationality. The use of the term qul, meaning “servants or slaves” and carrying a connotation of contempt, is noteworthy.

Another noteworthy event in Shajara-i Tarākima on this subject involves the Salurs, who migrated years ago when Sultan Malik Shah, from the Qiniq tribe of the Oghuz, conquered Iraq and Iran and established Isfahan as the capital. The Salurs claimed to be originally from Turkestan and the Salur people when presenting themselves to Sultan Malik Shah (Kononov, 1958: text 61–62, transl. 68). This lineage proximity facilitated the Salurs’ seamless entry into the Sultan’s entourage, turning the integration process into an advantage compared to the local population.

Discussion

Shajara-i Tarākima, as mentioned above, encompasses the Turkmen variant of the Oghuznāma. Oghuznāmas contains oral and written texts related to the cosmic origin, calendar, origin myths, epics, poetic fragments, proverbs, and the emergence of the Oghuz people. These texts have played a significant role in elevating the national spirit among nomadic and semi-settled Turkic tribes. Oghuznāmas also included oral examples that constituted the unwritten laws of the Oghuz Turks. In comparison to other historical works, Oghuznāmas provides more detailed and comprehensive information about the ideal of a world-dominating Turkish state. Oghuznāmas offers detailed insights into the settlement structure of Turkish tribes in the army, their seals, titles received during feasts, and positions in the council, complementing pre- and post-historical sources. Therefore, Oghuznāmas is a form of oral history that provides firsthand information about the codes of historical memory and the genealogy of the Oghuz people (Bayat, 2019).

Hence, it is crucial to acknowledge that the information presented in Shajara-i Tarākima is derived from oral narratives of the Turkmen people, encompassing both factual and fictional elements. Despite the presence of exaggerations and surreal components, the events described in the book generally align with the Turkmen worldview. The enduring presence of these narratives in Turkmen society underscores their cultural significance.

An assessment of the historical authenticity of certain narratives in the work can be attempted. For instance, Shajara-i Tarākima mentions that when Abu al-Ghazi assumed the role of Khan in Khiva, the Turkmen in Khwarezm left but later returned and accepted his rule (Kononov, 1958: text 4–6, trans. 3–4). Historical records indicate a substantial Turkmen population in Khwarezm during the 1620s, comprising Salur and Ersari tribes (Bregel, 1981). Another section (Kononov, 1958: text 64–72, transl. 70–74) discusses Ögürjik Alp, placing the event around the 11th or 12th century based on Abu al-Ghazi’s timeline. Turkmen historian Sümer (1959) suggests a 12th-century timeframe, possibly related to Qipchak-Qanglies’ displacement of Turkmen communities.

The narrative involving Mama Bike’s stepsons settling in the Amu Darya’s old river bottom in the 16th century is acknowledged by Central Asian Turkic historian Bregel (1981: pp. 25–27) as a sign of Turkmen transitioning to a settled lifestyle. Economic difficulties of the Qaraevli people leasing lands (Kononov, 1958: text 78, trans. 77–78) may have occurred in the 14th century, highlighting agriculture’s limited role in Turkmen economic life at the time (Bregel, 1981).

The claim that most Oghuz around the Sir River migrated to Urganch due to Mongolian plunder aligns with historical literature (Bregel, 1981). Similarly, the Salur people’s migration to Khorasan, Iraq, and Iran (Kononov, 1958: texts 61–62, trans. 68) may have taken place in the 17th century, as the Salur and Ersari tribes left their locations around that time, creating a vacuum filled by other tribes (Bregel, 1981).

The establishment of a new state by migrant communities at the Sir River’s edge (Kononov, 1958: text 42–43, transl. 57) may correspond to events after the Khitai conquest of Mongolia (924), potentially linked to the Nayman movement. Abu al-Ghazi’s reference to Sultan Sanjar and the Hata king’s attack aligns with historical events of the 8th century, reflecting the Oghuzes’ migration to Transoxiana (Golden, 1972).

In conclusion, events in Shajara-i Tarākima maintain connections to historical occurrences but transform the collective imagination over time, aligning with the Oghuz worldview. Consequently, the interpretations in this work mirror the Oghuz perspective.

Conclusion

Shajara-i Tarākima is a cornerstone in Turkic historical literature, illuminating the epic history of the Oghuz. Within this text, valuable insights are gained into the Oghuzes’ worldview, placing particular emphasis on the pivotal theme of migration, which serves as a cornerstone in their historical narrative. Through a meticulous examination of Shajara-i Tarākima, various reasons precipitating Oghuz migrations surface, encompassing political pressures, economic factors, criminal activities, looting, wars, settlement policies, and internal disturbances.

The prevalent sentiment underpinning these migrations is undeniably one of apprehension. Primarily, this apprehension manifests as concerns regarding survival and sustenance, epitomizing the Turkmen’s intrinsic nomadic nature. Consequently, it can be posited that Turkmen, grounded in their historical nomadic background, refrained from migrating in the modern sense unless compelled by compelling circumstances.

However, when compelled to relocate, the Turkmen exhibited remarkable resilience, transforming the new lands into a place they could call home. In essence, despite the necessity of leaving their ancestral homelands, the Turkmen showcased a preference for permanence in their newfound abodes, opting to stay unless faced with compelling reasons to move once again. Notably, a recurrent response to migration among the Turkmen involved the swift establishment of political unity, often culminating in the selection of a new leader or khan to guide them through the challenges of their migrated existence.

Upon evaluating migrations in Shajara-i Tarākima from the perspective of migration policy integration, it becomes evident that Oghuz migration patterns form a complex model, encompassing a blended approach of the selective inclusion model and the multicultural model, which are integral components of their integration. In essence, this migration integration model adopted by the Oghuz entails rewarding those who resemble dominant tribes or states, while those who resist conformity are not overly suppressed, often receiving relative tolerance.

The research suggests that Oghuz, being ethnocultural groups, display resistance to assimilation strategies but are inclined towards integration strategies. Consequently, weaker Oghuz tribes subjected to excessive assimilation strategies by dominant tribes or states tend to adopt a separation strategy, often finding the solution in migrating elsewhere. Conversely, when Oghuz find themselves part of larger societies, they seem to prefer a segregation strategy over multiculturalism or melting pot strategies. In conclusion, the strategies employed by the Oghuz in Shajara-i Tarākima not only exhibit internal consistency but also align harmoniously with their actual historical experiences.