Theses on Kurdish Principalities and Transcaucasian Khanates

Dear Readers:

In historical writing, gathering information is as important as developing original theses based on that information. One of the most fundamental problems faced by university students today is that they content themselves with merely compiling information, failing to produce theses that involve interpretation, comparison, and discussion. Yet, history contains not only records of the past but also fields of ideas that can illuminate the questions of today and tomorrow. Developing a thesis means not only understanding a period or structure but also being able to critically evaluate it. In this article, I aim to draw attention to the constitutive function of thesis development in historical writing and offer new perspectives to students.

INTRODUCTION

In this article, I wanted to present to my readers seven fundamental theses developed on the Kurdish Principalities and Transcaucasian Khanates, which existed as semi-independent entities in the border regions of the Ottoman and Iranian empires in the 18th and 19th centuries. The historical, cultural, religious, and linguistic dimensions of these two political structures are woven not only with similarities but also with structural differences. However, the most important point is the potential of each thesis developed about these structures to shed light on contemporary issues of identity, representation, and cultural memory.

From the mid-18th century to the second half of the 19th century, numerous semi-independent political structures ruled in the border regions of the Ottoman and Iranian empires. These structures exhibited remarkable flexibility both internally and in their relations with the central powers to which they were affiliated. Kurdish principalities were subordinate to the Ottoman Empire, while Transcaucasian khanates were first subordinate to the Zend Shiite Kurdish State and then to Iran under the Qajar Dynasty. Both political systems had obligations such as paying taxes and providing military support during wartime in their respective regions, while largely maintaining autonomy in their internal affairs.

This article aims to compare Kurdish principalities and Transcaucasian khanates from historical, political, religious, linguistic, and cultural perspectives. Interestingly, despite belonging to different cultures, languages, and geographies, these two structures disappeared from the stage of history at approximately the same time due to the wave of centralization brought about by modernization processes. This similarity demonstrates the common fate of communities living on the borders of empires and their exposure to similar mechanisms of oppression.

The theses to be discussed are:

1. The Silent Victims of Centralization


2. No Written Language, No History


3. The Tension Between Religious Structure and Political Representation


4. Different Languages, Same Fate


5. A Mirror Between Tanzimat and Turkmenchay


6. Identity Constructed Through Absence


7. Cultural Memory and Political Destruction

The vast majority of Kurdish principalities were religiously affiliated with the Sunni-Shafi'i sect. Madrasahs, mosques, and religious scholars were organized under the influence of this sect. Especially in the Botan, Hakkâri, and Baban principalities, Shafi'i ulema were highly respected, and religious legitimacy was provided through this tradition. Naqshbandi and Qadiri Sufi orders were also widespread within these structures. This religious structure established a bond between the people and the bey, and also shaped relations with the Ottoman center.

Kurdish principalities, ruling under the Ottoman Empire, were located in regions such as Botan (Cizre), Hakkâri, Baban, Soran, Haydaran, Hesenan, and Sinjar. These principalities were generally founded on tribal leadership, solidifying their local legitimacy through popular support, Islamic authority, and traditional heritage. The Ottomans benefited from these principalities in functions such as border protection and tax collection, without directly intervening in their affairs. Especially with agreements made in the 16th century, the autonomy of these structures was officially recognized.

However, in the 19th century, with the Tanzimat reforms, the process of centralization accelerated. Bedirhan Bey's rebellion against the Ottomans in Botan in 1847, followed by his defeat and exile to Crete, is one of the most important turning points symbolizing the end of this autonomous period. By the 1850s, many Kurdish principalities had been dissolved, and central administration was established by appointing governors and district governors in their place.

THESIS 1: THE SILENT VICTIMS OF CENTRALIZATION

Although affiliated with different empires, Kurdish principalities and Transcaucasian khanates were liquidated in the same period for similar reasons, demonstrating that centralization processes transformed into a universal despotic model. The centralization policies initiated after the Tanzimat Edict (1839) in the Ottoman Empire targeted autonomous Kurdish structures in the east. Similarly, the khanates in northern Iran were liquidated by Russia after the 1828 Treaty of Turkmenchay. In both cases, centralization, legitimized by the discourse of modernization, meant the elimination of local powers.

THESIS 2: NO WRITTEN LANGUAGE, NO HISTORY

The political structures of the principalities and khanates were not only a form of governance but also carriers of oral and written memory. With the collapse of these structures, literary production was severed from its traditional centers, and local memory became fragmented.

The madrasah system and intellectual circles that developed during the period of Kurdish principalities made possible the construction of Kurmanji as a written language. Especially during the Emirate of Botan, Ahmedê Xanî's work "Mem û Zîn" was not merely a love story but a philosophical text carrying the first sparks of Kurdish national consciousness. Similarly, Melayê Cizîrî's mystical poems paved the way for intellectual depth in the Kurmanji language. The environments in which these works were produced were made possible directly under the patronage of political principalities.

In the Transcaucasian khanates, due to the official status of Persian, literary production in local vernaculars remained quite limited. However, cultural production was still vibrant thanks to the divans, bards, and folk tale traditions found in the urban centers of the khanates. When the khanates disintegrated, this literary tradition also dispersed; a long period of disconnection between vernaculars and writing began. For example, Mehdiqulu Khan Vefa, who lived in the Karabakh region in the 18th century, produced works in Azerbaijani as a divan poet. This tradition gave way to a long silence when Russia began to directly administer the region.

When political structures disappeared, not only were they centers of power, but also the institutions that carried literary production were lost. This weakened the connection of peoples with historical writing and led to fragmented identity narratives.

The widespread use of the Kurmanji language as a written language is backed by principality-based political protection; the absence of this protection is the main reason for the cultural weakening of Zazaki. The development of the madrasah system in centers like Botan and Hakkâri laid the groundwork for figures like Ahmedê Xanî and Melayê Cizîrî to transform Kurmanji into a literary language. However, Zazaki-speaking communities, relying more on the ocak (hearth) system and oral culture, could not produce written works. If a Zazaki-dominated Kurdish principality had existed historically, this dialect would have been provided with both political protection and a written sphere of expression; thus, Zazaki could have maintained its existence as a much stronger literary and social language today.

THESIS 3: THE TENSION BETWEEN RELIGIOUS STRUCTURE AND POLITICAL REPRESENTATION

Alevi Kurds have historically lived densely in regions such as Dersim, Koçgiri, and Mazgirt; however, they have not been recognized in terms of political representation by the central authority. These communities, which established an internal social order through the ocak system, did not form principality structures, which weakened their relations with the center. If there had been a politically recognized and continuous principality structure based on Alevi Kurdish communities in history, this lack of representation would have been eliminated, and conflicts such as the Koçgiri and Dersim rebellions would most likely not have occurred. For political representation not only enables relations with the central government but also the negotiability of demands.

THESIS 4: DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, SAME FATE

The cultural and religious structure of the Transcaucasian khanates was highly diverse. The majority of the khans were affiliated with the Shi'i-Ja'fari sect and established close relations with Iran's Qajar administration through sectarian ties. However, the people under the dominion of these khanates did not have a monolithic structure. Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Georgians, Kurds, and Jews lived together in this region, each maintaining their own religious and linguistic identity. There was a considerable Armenian population in the Erivan and Nakhchivan khanates; Orthodox Georgians were found in regions close to the Georgian border. Kurdish communities generally belonged to the Sunni-Shafi'i sect and represented the majority in the Maku Khanate. This multicultural structure sometimes led the khanates to adopt more flexible administrative practices, but also made them more fragile in the face of centralization. The superior bureaucratic position of Persian hindered the development of local languages as written languages. This led to the fragmentation of local memory and cultural continuity.

THESIS 5: A MIRROR BETWEEN TANZIMAT AND TURKMENCHAY

The Ottoman Tanzimat reforms and Iran's loss of position against Russia after 1828 forced both empires to centralize. This process necessitated the suppression of local autonomies. Both states targeted semi-independent structures under the pretexts of "security" and "modernization." These policies suppressed the traditional forms of administration, cultures, and collective memories of the peoples.

THESIS 6: IDENTITY CONSTRUCTED THROUGH ABSENCE

Exile is not merely a physical removal, but also a historical void where collective identity is redefined, and resistance and belonging are reconstructed. Bedirhan Bey's letter from 1855 documents how this void transformed into a space of identity.

Bedirhan Bey's letter, addressed to British officials from Crete, is more than just a complaint written in exile; it represents the political memory and fragmentation of a people. In this text, Bedirhan expresses his loyalty to the Ottomans while also questioning how the state squandered its own servants. This contradiction is an expression not only of individual but also of societal trauma.

Throughout history, exile has created new identity spaces for many peoples. The balance of "autonomy in exchange for loyalty" established between the center and the periphery in the classical Ottoman period was broken after the Tanzimat; this rupture transformed into an identity trauma, especially for border communities like the Kurds. Bedirhan's letter is one of the few written documents representing this trauma. Therefore, letters of exile are not merely historical documents; they are also an attempt by those pushed to the margins of history to return to the center.

THESIS 7: CULTURAL MEMORY AND POLITICAL DESTRUCTION

Kurdish principalities and Transcaucasian khanates were not only political units but also cultural organisms. The abolition of these structures created a major rupture in the literature, music, belief systems, and historical writing of the peoples. Many elements were lost because oral culture could not be transformed into written culture. The fragmentation of cultural memory also brought about identity crises.

CONCLUSION

Political structures are not merely systems of governance, but also the ground for the production, preservation, and transmission of local culture. The abolition of both Kurdish principalities and Transcaucasian khanates created a serious rupture in the cultural continuity of the peoples living in these geographies. Madrasahs, divans, bard assemblies, and folk narratives that existed thanks to these structures either became dysfunctional or completely disappeared within the dominant administrative structure of the central state.

The development of Kurmanji as a written literary language among Kurdish communities ceased, while dialects like Zazaki were deprived of political representation and written protection. In Transcaucasia, vernaculars such as Azerbaijani, Armenian, and Kurdish were marginalized in the shadow of Persian and then Russian. The oral epics of the Armenian people, Georgian folk tales, Kurdish dengbêj narratives, and Azerbaijani folk poetry could not establish an organic link with the state, which created a discontinuity in cultural continuity.

This decline was not only at the linguistic level but also affected many cultural areas such as social memory, literature, music, belief systems, and architecture. Today, the struggle for the cultural rights and representation of these peoples continues; this proves that the loss of khanates and principalities is not only a historical but also a contemporary problem.

The seven theses I have discussed throughout this article have not only revealed the historical parallels and differences between Kurdish principalities and Transcaucasian khanates but have also highlighted the lasting effects of the disappearance of these structures. The abolition of both structures was not merely a political change but also meant the fragmentation of social memory. The void left by these structures in areas such as language, sect, literature, representation, and identity is still felt today.

Therefore, this article should be read not as a historical narrative, but as an attempt to question the past in order to understand the present. The tensions between semi-independence and centralization, local language and official language, traditional structure and modernization are not only matters of the past but also areas of discussion for today and the future.