The ethnocultural and sociological analysis of migrations documented in Shajara-i Tarākima (Turkmen genealogy)

The study argues that historical Turkic texts, often analyzed primarily for linguistic features, also contain rich ethnocultural and sociological data. Focusing on the 17th-century Shajara-i Tarākima (a Turkmen Oghuznāma variant), the research examines how migration is portrayed and what it reveals about Oghuz/Turkmen cultural patterns. Migration occupies a central place in Oghuz history and identity. The study aims to: (1) ascertain the factors behind migrations in Shajara-i Tarākima; (2) identify the outcomes of these migrations; and (3) scrutinize the integration approaches/migration policies portrayed. The Introduction also clarifies the terms Turk, Oghuz, and Turkmen, outlining their historical usage and evolution to avoid confusion about the population under study. This contextualization underscores the importance of reading Shajara-i Tarākima not merely as legend but as a source reflecting social realities and worldview among Oghuz/Turkmen groups.

The theoretical framework surveys core concepts and models in migration studies. Definitions of migration vary; the IOM views it as movement across borders regardless of duration and reasons, encompassing refugees, displaced persons, economic migrants, and more. Typologies distinguish migrations by destination (national/international), duration (temporary/permanent), scale (individual/group/mass), legal status (regular/irregular), and reasons (voluntary/forced). Definitions of immigrant also vary by duration criteria (e.g., UN’s >1 year). The review outlines historical causes of migration—natural disasters, famine, epidemics, wars, political instability, discrimination, and economic factors—as well as commercial drivers. Consequences include biological and cultural interaction, urban and economic development, and broader socio-political transformations. Integration/acculturation models are reviewed: (1) one-dimensional acculturation (Gordon), emphasizing assimilation and heritage loss; (2) policy models (De Haas, Castles, Miller): selective inclusion, assimilationist, multiculturalism; and (3) Berry’s bidimensional model, differentiating strategies of immigrant groups (integration, assimilation, separation, marginalization) and of larger societies (multiculturalism, melting pot, segregation, exclusion). These models frame how Shajara-i Tarākima’s migration episodes can be interpreted in terms of causes, consequences, and integration dynamics.

Design: Qualitative historical research focused on answering “what happened in the past,” employing document analysis only (no interviews/observations). Primary Source: Shajara-i Tarākima by Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur Khan (1659–1660), a Chagatai Turkic chronicle of Oghuz/Turkmen genealogy and history. Seven known manuscript copies exist (Leningrad; Tashkent T, T1, T2, T3; Ashgabat A, A1). Editions used: Kononov (1958; primary annotated edition), with cross-references to Ölmez (2020) and Ergin (n.d.). Data Collection: Comprehensive review of Shajara-i Tarākima to identify explicit/implicit episodes related to migration in the earthly realm; metaphorical/afterlife uses and prophetic migrations (Noah and Mihlail) were excluded. Following UN criteria, only moves implying residence of at least one year were considered migration; short-term movements (e.g., war, hunting) were excluded. Unit of Analysis: Episodes, following Van Dijk’s definition as semantically cohesive discourse units with clear boundaries and thematic unity. Data Analysis: Miles and Huberman’s qualitative analysis framework—data reduction (summarization, coding, clustering), data display (texts/matrices), and conclusion drawing/verification with an open and skeptical stance. Episodes were categorized by research objectives: causes, consequences, and integration models; some episodes were cross-coded into multiple categories. Reliability/Validity: Expert review of coding and categorization; disagreements discussed to consensus; direct textual references provided to enhance validity. Descriptive counts: 17 migration episodes identified; 13 with causes, 12 with consequences, and 4 with integration model content (see Table 2 in the paper).

• Dataset: 17 migration-related episodes identified in Shajara-i Tarākima; 13 episodes include causes (76%), 12 include consequences (70%), and 4 include integration model content (23%).
• Causes of migration: political pressure and conflict (e.g., Turkmen leaving Khwarazm during Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur Khan’s early rule and later returning); resistance to domination/assimilation and political disagreements (e.g., Ögürjik Alp’s sequential migrations); economic hardship/opportunity (e.g., Khizir Chora and Ali Chora prospering and attracting others; Qaraevli leasing fertile lands of Mount Abu al-Khan); criminal flight/asylum (e.g., murderer from Chagatai Arlat clan fleeing to Ulug Töpe); warfare and plunder (Mongol pressure causing Oghuz to move to Urganch; dual nature of looting leading to displacement and resettlement); strategic settlement policies for frontier defense (e.g., Qipchak settled along Tun and Atil by Oghuz Khan); internal disturbances prompting large-scale moves (e.g., Salur movements to Khorasan, Iraq, Iran; migrations under leaders Kilk Big, Qazan Big, Qaraman Big, etc.).
• Consequences of migration: rapid reorganization and state-building (e.g., migrants in Transoxiana establishing a new state with Yangi Kand as capital; remaining Oghuz in Urganch appointing Ali as khan); preference for permanent settlement in destination areas (e.g., Qipchak’s frontier settlement becoming homeland); demographic transformations (e.g., Mohammad Bakhtyar moving capital to Laktuni and resettling 10,000 Qalach); creation of new settlements (e.g., along the Amu River by Khizir Chora and Ali Chora); emergence of new tribes (e.g., Yamir, Burqas, Chagatai Qul stemming from migration/asylum events); development of new employment areas (e.g., camel raising on Mount Abu al-Khan).
• Integration strategies and policies: Evidence of selective inclusion by dominant powers (e.g., returning Turkmen under Abu al-Ghazi assigned roles—capable as civil/military staff, others as taxpayers only). High sociocultural similarity eases integration (e.g., Icki Salur marrying within Salur). Inter-tribal differences impede integration despite shared nationality/religion (e.g., Chagatai Arlat refugee permitted residence but faced marriage barriers; descendants labeled “Chagatai Qul,” signaling lower status). Lineage proximity facilitated privileged integration (e.g., Salurs’ acceptance into Sultan Malik Shah’s entourage). Overall, Oghuz migrants favored integration over assimilation and tended to settle permanently; when subjected to heavy assimilation pressures, weaker groups adopted separation or migrated; as minorities within larger societies, Oghuz often preferred segregation over multiculturalism or melting pot models.

Shajara-i Tarākima, as a Turkmen variant of the Oghuznāma tradition, blends oral history, mythic elements, and historical memory, offering insight into Oghuz social codes and political ideals. While containing exaggerations and legendary motifs, its narratives broadly align with documented historical processes. Corroborations include: significant Turkmen presence in Khwarezm in the early 17th century and their shifting relations with Abu al-Ghazi; Ögürjik Alp’s movements plausibly linked to 12th-century Qipchak-Qangli dynamics; settlement along the Amu Darya signaling sedentarization; Mongol plunder driving Oghuz migrations to Urganch; Salur migrations in the 17th century; and post-conquest state formation on the Sir River possibly tied to events after the Khitai conquest and Oghuz movements into Transoxiana. These correspondences support reading the episodes as culturally filtered reflections of historical migrations. The findings address the study’s questions by linking causes (security, economy, politics) to patterned consequences (state-building, settlement, demographic change) and by mapping integration strategies onto recognized models, thus situating Oghuz migration practices within broader migration theory.

The study demonstrates that Shajara-i Tarākima documents Oghuz/Turkmen migrations primarily driven by concerns for security of life and property, alongside economic motives, political pressures, criminal flight, warfare/plunder, strategic settlement policies, and internal disturbances. Migrants typically aimed for permanence, rapidly establishing political structures and new settlements, and at times generating new tribal formations and employment niches. In terms of integration, Oghuz practices reflect a complex pattern combining selective inclusion with elements of multicultural tolerance, favoring integration over assimilation. Under heavy assimilation pressure, weaker groups adopted separation or migration; as minorities in larger polities, Oghuz often preferred segregation to melting pot or multicultural models. Overall, the strategies inferred from Shajara-i Tarākima are consistent internally and align with historical evidence, highlighting the value of historical Turkic texts for ethnocultural and sociological analysis.

• Data derive solely from document analysis of a single primary historical text (Shajara-i Tarākima) via published editions; no interviews or observations were possible.
• Inclusion limited to earthly migration episodes implying residence of ≥1 year; short-term movements (e.g., warfare, hunting), metaphorical/afterlife usages, and prophetic migrations (Noah, Mihlail) were excluded by design.
• As an oral-history-based source, Shajara-i Tarākima contains legendary elements and potential exaggerations, which may affect literal historicity despite triangulations in the discussion.
• Coding decisions, while expert-reviewed, may still reflect interpretive judgments inherent to qualitative analysis.