Millî tarihin yeniden inşa sürecinde sabitler ve değişkenler: Bağımsızlık öncesi ve sonrası Azerbaycan tarihçiliğinde Osmanlı imajı (tarih ders kitapları çerçevesinde)

Abstract

Being one of the most influential areas having great influence on the development of historiography, especially in the last two centuries, national history writing has been the most effective means of creating political and cultural identity beyond recording of the vital events of the political, social and cultural life of the nations. During the last century national historiography in Azerbaijan has experienced ideologically, politically and culturally three different stages of its history: Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (1918-1920), Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (1920-1991) and Azerbaijan Republic (1991-). 71 years of Soviet and 28 years of the post-soviet period are the periodic limits of this research. Similarly to other nations, history of Azerbaijani Turks has been developed through the military, political, economic, social and cultural interaction with other nations. In this context, in terms of national historiography of Azerbaijan, Turkey was one of historically important figures that cannot be compared with other states. Taking into account its earlier and later stages as Seljuks and the Republic of Turkey, the Ottoman Empire took part within the history of Azerbaijan. The main purpose of this investigation is to determine the perception of the Ottomans in Azerbaijani historiography and to analyze the continuity and changes between these two periods of the national historiography. The relevant data from the history textbooks which were, and still are standard and compulsory by the Ministry of Education in schools of Azerbaijan in both the soviet and post-soviet periods will be evaluated qualitatively by applying content analysis method. Key Words: Turkish History, National Historiography, History Textbooks, Ottomans, Turkey, Azerbaijan Summary During the Soviet period, the Ottoman Empire was introduced as “occupying state” for Azerbaijan according to the policy of Soviet historiography. This image of the Ottomans has changed throughout the rereading process of the history after Azerbaijan gained its independency and the approaches that led to significant changes in the Ottoman perception were put forward. In the Soviet period history textbooks, the Ottoman Empire is mentioned as a foreigner who occupied the territory of Azerbaijan. The Ottomans, who occupied large lands in Europe, Asia and Africa, is the most fearful dream of Azerbaijan in the region, especially during the 16-17th centuries. The Ottoman-Safavids relations, which worsened in the Battle of Chaldiran, provided a good excuse for the occupation, and the Ottomans carried out invasion marches on the territory of Azerbaijan. During these marches the Ottomans murdered and enslaved tens of thousands of people, oppressed and persecuted Shiites and Christians, bankrupted the people because of heavy taxes, took to Turkey many scholars and craftsmen. As a result, the Ottomans became the most damaging state from which Azerbaijan suffered in political, economic and cultural terms. Although the Ottoman image in the history textbooks of the post-independence period overlaps with the Soviet period in some respects, it is often attempted to create a more moderate Ottoman perception throughout different approaches. The Ottoman-Safavid relations remain one of the most sensitive subjects of national historiography. The main reason of the Ottomans opposition against the Safavids is shown as excessive sectarian bigotry. The political intervention of medieval western diplomacy is also underlined in this dispute between the two major Turkish states. Thus, unlike in Soviet period historiography, the Ottomans are relieved of being unilaterally guilty of the event, and it is claimed that the real “other” is medieval western diplomacy, which seeks to prevent the development of the two Turkish-Muslim empires and exploits the sectarian difference. The Ottoman marches to Azerbaijan between the 16-18th centuries are seen as occupation in the historiography of the post-independence period, but it is emphasized that humanitarian behavior was applied in the tax policy against the Azerbaijani people by giving sources from the Ottoman registers. It is also emphasized that the Janissaries, with whom the Ottoman state could not cope, oppressed the people in different ways. The perception of Turkey for the last century both in the Soviet and post-Soviet period textbooks is also important in terms of reflecting on the current image of Turkey. According to the Soviet period textbooks, similar to the Germany’s policy on the Caucasus during the World War II, the Republic of Turkey also was continuing its occupation policy against Azerbaijan. It is also implied that, this policy of the Republic of Turkey was similar to the mission of its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, which reoccupied Azerbaijan during the World War I. In addition, it is underlined that the Republic of Turkey conducted its policy under the influence of the West, especially the United States, after it became a member of the NATO. On the contrary, the Ottomans is mentioned as “the brother Ottoman State” in post-independence period textbooks and its important services during the establishment period of the Caucasus Army of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918 is emphasized. Both the facts that the Ottoman Empire was the first to recognize the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and the Republic of Turkey was the first to recognize the Azerbaijan Republic in 1991, are presented to highlight the role of Turkey as the first ally of Azerbaijan in the region. Turkey also is presented as the closest supporter of Azerbaijan in the region about its most important national cases such as the regaining of Karabakh and solving the Armenian issue. Beyond its current powerful position in international politics, as well as its emerging economy which makes Turkey the first ally to Azerbaijan among neighboring countries, it is brother country to Azerbaijan in accordance with “one nation two states” statement. In conclusion, although many approaches in Azerbaijan historiography about the Ottoman perception have been radically changed, some of them have been continued in the main subjects of national historiography such as the territorial integrity and defense of the homeland. One of the major deficiencies of the historiography of both periods reflected in the textbooks is that it provides insignificant information on cultural interaction between Azerbaijan and Turkey. This problem, which is a natural consequence of the fact that national historiography is still explained through more political-military history issues, is in fact an obstacle for the whole picture to be seen in bilateral relations.