608

A GLIMPSE INTO THE WORLD OF MUHAJIRS: CIRCASSIANS IN
OTTOMAN SYRIA (1864-1910)

Keywords: Refugees, Circassians, Quneitra, Late Nineteenth Century, Ottoman
Empire
This thesis examines the settlement process of Circassian refugees who were exiled
to the Ottoman Empire due to Russian oppression. This study aims to investigate
Circassian refugee contribution to the transformation of the Quneitra district in
the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century. In this context, I argue that
Circassian refugees turned the district of Quneitra, where they were strategically
settled, into an urban centre by changing it politically, socially and economically.
In particular, the first-generation refugee groups settled in the region engaged with
new commercial and agricultural activities that enabled them to adapt effectively to
their settled environment. Circassian refugees, who integrated themselves into local
administration and education with the support of the state, became a permanent
component of the region. There is an intersection between the Ottoman administration’s
policy of settling the nomads in the area, which is one of its ultimate goals,
and the establishment of refugee villages. Refugees opposed the groups in conflict
with the state to ensure security and promote sedentarization in the region. This
thesis mainly aims to treat refugees as active actors. The petitions and newspaper
publications written by them were examined to increase the refugee’ visibility.
At the end of the study, it is suggested that Circassian refugees, who adapted to
the harsh conditions, transformed the Quneitra district, which had long been considered
unsafe and used only as pastureland for nomads, into one of the leading
administrative centres of the region within a few decades.
iv
ÖZET
MUHACIR DÜNYASINA BIR BAKIS: OSMANLI SURIYESI’NDE ÇERKESLER
(1864-1910)


Anahtar Kelimeler: Muhacir, Çerkesler, Kuneytra, Geç On Dokuzuncu Yüzyıl,
Osmanlı Imparatorlugu
Bu tez, Rus baskısı nedeniyle Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’na sürülen Çerkes muhacirlerin
yerlesim sürecini incelemektedir. Bu çalısmanın amacı Çerkes muhacirlerin yerlestirildikleri
yerlerden biri olan Kuneytra kazasının geç on dokuz ve erken yirminci
yüzyılda geçirdigi degisim üzerindeki etkilerini analiz etmektir. Bu baglamda,
muhacirlerin stratejik bir biçimde yerlestirildikleri bu bölgeyi siyasi, sosyal ve
ekonomik olarak dönüstürerek Kuneytra kazasını gelismis bir merkez haline getirdiklerini
iddaa ediyorum. Özellikle, bölgeye yerlestirilen ilk nesil muhacir grupların yeni
ticari ve tarımsal faaliyetlere baslamaları yerlestirildikleri çevreye etkili bir sekilde
adapte olmalarını saglamıstır. Devlet destegi ile yerel yönetim ve egitime kendilerini
entegre eden Çerkes muhacirler bölgenin kalıcı unsuru haline dönüsmüstür. Osmanlı
yönetiminin bölgede nihai amaçlarından olan göçebeleri yerlesiklestirme politikası
ile muhacir köylerinin yerlesimi arasında bir kesisim söz konusudur. Muhacirler,
bölgede güvenligi saglamak ve yerlesik hayatı tesvik etmek için devletle çatısan gruplara
karsı çıkmıslardır. Temel olarak muhacirleri aktif aktörler olarak ele almayı
amaçlayan bu tezde muhacir görünürlügünü arttırmak için onlar tarafından yazılan
dilekçeler ve gazete yayınları incelenmistir. Çalısmanın sonunda, zorlu kosullara
adapte olan Çerkes muhacirlerin uzun bir süredir tehlikeli olarak addedilen ve yalnızca
göçebelerin otlagı olarak kullandıgı Kuneytra kazasını birkaç on yıl içerisinde
bölgenin önde gelen idari merkezlerinden birine dönüstürdükleri önerilmektedir.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Selçuk Aksin Somel, for his patience,
support and guidance. I am grateful to the History programme of Sabancı University
for its academic and financial support. During the pandemic, one of the most
challenging situations was the access to resources. I have greatly benefited from the
knowledge and sources of Kafkas Vakfı and Samil Vakfı. I express many thanks to
Murat Duman from KAFDAV for providing various resources for my thesis. I am
grateful to Adel Abdulsalam Lash and Lina Shekhani, who made it possible for me
to access numerous Arabic sources from Syria.
I would not be the person I am today if it were not for the education and mentorship
given to me by my professors at the Department of History at Istanbul Sehir
University. I would like to express my endless gratitude to Engin Deniz Akarlı for
his valuable mentorship and support during my bachelor years. Tufan Buzpınar,
Yunus Ugur, Abdurrahman Atçıl, Abdulhamit Kırmızı, Ayse Basaran and Kahraman
Sakul, my professors, who have shaped me not only academically but also as
a person with their valuable lessons and personalities. I couldn’t have had a better
environment, and it was made possible by them.
I am grateful to my family for their unconditional love and support.
Above all, this thesis could not have been written without my beloved husband Halit,
who supported me in the most unbearable conditions during this difficult time.
vi
To Sam Sekeri
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. CIRCASSIAN MIGRATION TO OTTOMAN EMPIRE . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2. Settlement to Province of Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. OTTOMAN RULE IN THE SANJAK OF HAWRAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1. Definition of Geography and Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2. Consolidation of Ottoman Central Power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. CIRCASSIAN SETTLEMENTS IN QUNEITRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2. Settlement Policies of the Ottoman Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3. Settlement Process of Circassian Refugees in Quneitra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4. BETWEEN CENTRE AND PERIPHERY: EMPIRE, LOCALS
AND CIRCASSIANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.1. Accelerated Inclusion of the Province of Syria to the Centre . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2. Civilizing the Savages: Integration of Local Syrian Population into
the Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3. Refugees Becoming Locals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.4. Circassian Relations with Druze and Bedouin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.4.2. State, Circassian and Druze in Quneitra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.4.3. Circassian and Bedouin Relations in Quneitra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5. CIRCASSIANS IN GOVERNMENT: NETWORKS, EDUCAviii
TION AND CIVIL SERVICE IN DISTRICT OF QUNEITRA . . . 68
5.1. Formation of Circassian Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.2. Education of Circassian Refugees in Quneitra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Households of Circassian Villages Under Ottoman and French
Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1. The Settlement Pattern of Circassian Villages in Greater Syria 26
Figure 3.2. The Circassian Village in Bireyka Built on Ancient Ruins . . . . . 35
xi
INTRODUCTION
In the winter of 1878, Syrian ports hosted thousands of Circassian refugees from
Rumelia. These numerous arrivals would be transferred to interior regions of the
Province of Syria for their final settlements. For Circassians, this was a re-experience
of what happened nearly twenty years earlier. They were exiled from Russia, and
they settled in Rumelia by Ottoman authorities. However, they had to re-live the
same brutal process of the exodus. After tragic losses, their arrival to this new
foreign land was just with limited possessions and a group of Circassian dispatched
to the semi-arid lands of Hawran. Within the region of Hawran, the district of
Quneitra was a principal area that numerous Circassian refugees were settled in the
second half of the nineteenth century. The changing aspect of this region with the
Circassian’s presence is noteworthy. These new settlements significantly influenced
the region with the technologies attributed to them and the complex relations they
formed.
The Ottoman migration literature includes numerous works since this phenomenon
was a crucial issue in the last century of the empire. Refugee movements around
the empire have been investigated based on mainly archival sources. However, early
literature tends to discuss migration movements in a descriptive manner. While
these sources form a basis for migration studies with their extensively detailed narratives
and statistics of demographics, they also include some repetitive inferences
regarding Ottoman policies of migration processes. In this regard, refugees are described
as having been employed in pursuit of various policy aims in the empire such
as populating empty lands to increase proper land use, stabilizing areas under the
influence of nomads, and providing security in the provinces. Most of them were
Muslims and also proved to be beneficial for Islamization policies.1 This discourse
1Karpat produced various works regarding migration and demographics: “Avrupalı Egemenliginde Müslümanların
Konumu: Çerkeslerin Sürgünü ve Suriye’deki Iskanı,” Çerkeslerin Sürgünü (21 Mayıs 1864)
(Ankara 1993); Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Etnik Yapılanma ve Göçler, (Istanbul: Timas Yayınları, 2017);
Osmanlı Nüfüsu: 1830-1914, (Istanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, 2003); Studies on Ottoman
Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays, (Brill, Leiden, 2002). Abdullah Saydam,
Kırım ve Kafkas Göçleri: 1856-1876, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1997).
1
has been continuing in recent scholarship except of few works.
Another prominent feature of this body of literature is the victimization and passivation
of refugees. Especially the Muslim refugees have been depicted as merely
the sufferers of Russian expansionist policy and passively used in the hand of the
Ottoman Empire.2 The depiction of refugees as being victims of the states overshadowed
their contributions to the settled society. Moreover, authors with migrant
origin contributed to this narrative with their subjective approach.3 However, this
body of literature offers a rich database of refugee identity over generations and
enables the examination of transformation within this framework.4
Since the refugees were distributed to nearly all regions of the state, numerous
monographs have been written on this subject.5 These micro studies have mostly
been based on Ottoman archives. Many of these works lack critical analysis of the
issue and have been written mostly descriptively. The subjective narrative is also
present in these works. Although Ottoman archives are the main and only primary
source for most of these authors, some studies have combined different British,
French, and Russian archival sources.6
Migration studies, on the whole, appear to have evolved into a more comprehensive
area in the last decade. Likewise, these migration movements have begun to be
investigated in conjunction with other aspects of the Ottoman Empire rather than
2Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922, (Princeton:
The Darwin Press, 1995). Erdal Tasbas, Halifenin Gölgesine Sıgınanlar Göçler ve Muhacirin-i Islamiye
Komisyonu, (Berikan Yayınevi, 2017).
3Izzet Aydemir, Göç: Kuzey Kafkasyalıların Göç Tarihi, (Ankara, 1988); Bedri Habiçoglu, Kafkasya’dan
Anadolu’ya Göçler, (Istanbul, 1993), Nihat Berzeg, Gerçek Tarihi ve Politik Nedenleriyle Çerkes Sürgünü,
(Ankara, 1996).
4Izzet Aydemir, Çerkes Aydınları, (Ankara, 1991). Sefer E. Berzeg, Kuzey Kafkasya Göçmenlerinde
Besteciler, Ressamlar, Hattatlar, (Ankara: Kuzey Kafkasya Kültür Dernegi, 1971); Gurbetteki Kafkasya,
(Ankara : Safak Matbaacılık, 1987); Kafkas Diasporası’nda Edebiyatçılar ve Yazarlar Sözlügü, (Samsun,
1995).
5Some recent works: Nebi Gümüs, “1835 Yılı Nüfus Defterleri Isıgında Ahıska’dan Artvin ve Acara’ya
Göçler”; Mümin Yıldıztas, “Sile’ye Kafkas Muhacirlerinin Iskânı”; Hakan Asan, “Kafkasya’dan Ergani’ye
Yapılan Göçler: Balahor Köyü Örnegi Üzerine Bir Degerlendirme,” Uluslararası 1877-1878 Osmalı-Rus
Savası’nın 140. Yılında Kafkas Göçleri ve Etkileri Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, (Istanbul: 2019). Ahmet
Oguz, “Osmanlı Devletinin Son Döneminde Anadolu’ya Gelen Muhacirler ve Muhacirlerin Göç Ettigi Bazı
Sehirlerdeki Iskân Politikaları,” Uluslararası Toplum Arastırmaları Dergisi, 2019; Yakup Ahbab, “93 Harbi
Sonrası Bulgar Muhacirlerinin Üsküp Sancagı’nda Iskanı,” Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2016;
Murathan Keha, “1877-1878 Osmanlı Rus Harbi’ne Kadar Yasanan Kırım Kafkas Göçleri Ve Erzurum’un
Durumu,” Ekev Akademi Dergisi, 2013; Muammer Demirel, Artvin Ve Batum Göçmenleri (1877-1878
Osmanlı – Rus Savası’ndan Sonra),A.Ü Türkiyat Arastırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2009.
6Musa Sasmaz, “Immigration and Settlement of Abhasians in The Ottoman Empire on British Documents,
1864-1867,” OTAM 13, Ankara 2003; Nazan Çiçek, “’Talihsiz Çerkeslere Ingiliz Peksimeti’: Ingiliz Arsiv
Belgelerinde Büyük Çerkes Göçü (Subat 1864-Mayıs 1865),” AÜ. SBF Dergisi, 2009; Jülide Akyüz-Orat,
“Kafkaslardan Arap Topraklarına Kafkas Muhacirleri,” 1864 Kafkas Tehciri: Kafkasya’da Rus Kolonizasyonu,
Savas ve Sürgün, (Istanbul: Balkar Ircica, 2014); Georgy Chochiev, “1867 Abhaz Göçüne Dair Birkaç
Rus, Osmanlı ve Ingiliz Belgesi,” Kafkasya Çalısmaları - Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 1, 2015.
2
solely handling with the migration concept.7 The concept of migration dealt as a
continuum between empire to nation-state.8 Another recent emphasis has been on
the institutional evolution of the Ottoman Empire paralleling the migration flows.9
Building on this evolution in the literature, other researchers have combined this approach
with social engineering and internal colonization models. This new approach
viewed the second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth
century as a continuation of the Ottoman institutional response to these demographical
movements.10 The utilization of the internal colonization approach marked a
shift in historiographical interest from the center to provinces of the empire. The traditional
view of refugees as victims and devoted by-products of state policies began
to be challenged with this shift. The newer view of Refugees has sought to see them
as agents of change rather than passive components of the society. Their allegiances
and conflicts with nomads, transformation of property relations, and contributions
to the state economy have begun to be studied in recent scholarship.11
Regarding the Province of Syria, the migration studies have been very limited and
largely based on Ottoman archives.12 This insufficiency can be attributed to the
language barrier of Ottoman scholars and inaccessible conditions of Middle Eastern
archives. Descriptions of the migration process and settlement policies have been
the main objective of these works. However, a recent focus has been given to the
7Resat Kasaba, A Moveable Empire: Ottoman Nomads, Migrants, and Refugees, (Seattle, Washington:
University of Washington Press, 2009).
8Arsen Avagyan, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu ve Kemalist Türkiye"nin Devlet-Iktidar Sisteminde Çerkesler, (Istanbul:
Belge Yayınları, 2004); Nedim Ipek, Imparatorluktan Ulus Devlete Göçler, (Trabzon: Serander
Yayınları, 2006).
9David Cuthell, “The Muhacirin Komisyonu: An agent in the transformation of Ottoman Anatolia,
1860–66,” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 2005); Basak Kale, “Transforming an Empire: The Ottoman
Empire’s Immigration and Settlement Policies in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,” Middle
Eastern Studies, 2014; Hakan Yavuz, War and diplomacy: Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78 and the Treaty
of Berlin, (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2011).
10Nesim Seker, “Forced Population Movements in the Ottoman Empire and the Early Turkish Republic: An
Attempt at Reassessment Through Demographic Engineering,” European Journal of Turkish Studies 16,
2013; Ella Fratantuono, “Producing Ottomans: Internal Colonization and Social Engineering in Ottoman
Immigrant Settlement,” Journal of Genocide Research 21, 2019.
11Ulrike Freitag et al. , eds., The City in the Ottoman Empire: Migration and the Making of Urban Modernity,
(London; New York: Routledge, 2010); Nora Elizabeth Barakat, An empty land? Nomads and Property
Administration in Hamidian Syria (PhD diss., University of California, 2015); Vladimir Hamed-Troyansky,
“Circassian refugees and the making of Amman, 1878–1914,” International Journal of Middle East Studies,
2017.
12Kemal Karpat, “The Status of the Muslim under European Rule: The Eviction and Settlement of the
Çerkes,” in Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays, (Leiden: Brill,
2002); Berat Yıldız, "Emigrations From The Russian Empıre To The Ottoman Empire: An Analysis in
The Light Of The New Archival Materials," (Master’s thesis, Bilkent University, 2006). Oktay Kızılkaya
and Tolga Akay, “Kafkasya Muhacirlerinin Suriye Vilayetine Iskânı ve Karsılasılan Zorluklar,” International
Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic 8, no. 2, 2013; Julide
Akyüz-Orat, “Kafkaslardan Arap Topraklarına Kafkas Muhacirleri," 1864 Kafkas Tehciri: Kafkasya’da
Rus Kolonizasyonu, Savas ve Sürgün, (Istanbul: Balkar Ircica, 2014); Kemal Saylan, “Suriye Vilayeti’ne
Göç Eden Kafkas Muhacirlerinin Iskan ve Iase Meselesi,” Geçmisten Günümüze Göç III, (Samsun: Canik
Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları,2017.
3
identification of refugee agency in European historiography. Refugees’ relations,
responses, and contributions to Ottoman society, economy, and urbanization have
been studied in greater detail with the usage of various archival sources.13
Existing literature concerning the Circassian refugees subject is limited. Ottoman
migration historiography primarily consists of regional monographs and several essential
book projects that are wide in scope. These monographs are essentially
descriptive and lack a comprehensive study. Another issue in previous related work
is the highly state-centred approach to emigration processes. Therefore, the current
literature does not indicate an inclusive method and excludes the refugee perspective.
In addition to these issues, few studies have been conducted concerning the
resettlement of refugees in the Province of Syria. However, this study tries to distance
itself from the traditional view of refugees as victims and devoted by-products
of the state by adopting the view of the refugees as agents of change rather than
passive components of society.
This thesis focuses on the Circassian settlements of Quneitra situated within the
region of Hawran. Rather than employing a one-sided and descriptive perspective,
various roles were taken by Circassian refugees acknowledged in the study. In order
to focus on the agency of refugees, their active participation in state institutions
and the creation of Circassian networks were taken into account. To support this
perspective, the refugee petitions written by Circassians analyzed within the frameworks
of state and local relationships. Therefore, this study aims to as the primary
objective of this study empowers the refugee voices and indicate their contribution
to the settled regions by employing these methods.
The first chapter of the thesis deals with the general outlook of the process of Circassian
deportation to the Ottoman Empire and later specifically to Ottoman Syria.
Then it narrows down to the political conditions that led to the second deportation
from Rumelia. Further in the chapter, the main reasons for the Circassian resettlement
policy in Greater Syria are discussed as the demands of foreign powers and
the available vast lands in the region. Chapter Two indicates the political and social
conditions of the Hawran region before the Circassian settlements. Especially in
the second half of the nineteenth century, the intensification of the implementation
of centralization policies narrated through the foreign powers, local population and
state relations.
The third chapter provides a closer examination of the Circassian settlements of
13Seteney Shami, "19th Century Circassian Settlements in Jordan," in Studies in the History and Archaeology
of Jordan 4, 1992; Shami and Hannoyer, Amman Ville et société/Amman. The City and its Society,
(Presses de l’Ifpo, 1996); Vladimir Hamed-Troyansky, “Circassian refugees and the making of Amman,
1878–1914,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 49, no.4, 2017.
4
Quneitra. In order to grasp the main conditions refugees settled, the chapter starts
with the geographical features of the Jawlan region where the district of Quneitra
situated. Later, the Ottoman policies of populating the uncultivated agricultural
lands and creating a regional force against the local semi-independent powers are
analyzed in parallel to the settlements of Quneitra. The last part of the chapter
provides a detailed look into the settlements created by Circassian refugees through
the last decades of Ottoman rule.
The fourth chapter begins with the continuation of Ottoman centralization policies
that strengthened with the Circassian settlements and depicted the role of Circassians
in this matter. Further, it provides a depiction of the state’s perspective on
refugees and shows that they were classified similar to the local population. The
second part of the chapter focuses on the integration of Circassians into the region
and becoming a strong component of the region. It details the identity formation
of Circassians with a comparative analysis of their previous practices and the new
ones. The rest of the chapter indicates detailed accounts of Circassian relations with
Druzes and bedouin. This section argues that the Circassians disrupted the formation
of a possible Druze union in the region. While the relations with Druzes formed
paralleled to the state, bedouin ones were much complex. Although Circassians and
Bedouins conflicted, they allied against the common enemy when necessary. Later,
Circassians even came into conflict with the state due to their relations with the
bedouin.
The last chapter concentrates on the Circassian networks. Their active role in the
administration of the district of Quneitra reveals in the province’s yearbook analyses.
Other than the administrative relations, their active effort to form a Circassian
network through associations within the empire is another focus of the chapter.
Circassians of Quneitra was highly connected with the other Circassian groups of the
empire and established a branch of the association in their district. Afterwards, the
importance of the newspaper published by Circassians for the representation of the
refugees’ perspective was examined from the passages of Quneitran Circassians on
the newspaper. The last part investigates the integration of Circassian refugees into
Ottoman education and their entrance to Ottoman bureaucracy over state education.
Yearbooks of the Hamidian era, archival documents and newspapers published by
Circassians as the primary sources constitute the backbone of this study. The yearbooks
of Syria covers thirty-two years and will be used effectively to evaluate the
evolution in the administrative division of the Hawran, perception of the state towards
the region and the integration of inhabitants in the last decades of the nineteenth
century. Since a wide range of yearbooks from 1285/1868 to 1318/1900 is
5
available for analysis, the development of the province and the contribution of Circassian
refugees in this process will be discussed in detail. The archival sources rely
on Ottoman and British archives. Especially, the Druze uprisings will be evaluated
from the British reports. The Guaze newspaper published by Circassian Union and
Support Association and the petitions in Ottoman archives will be used to reveal
the refugee voices.
Secondary sources of this thesis will be supported with the chronicles of Ahmed
Cevdet and the travelogue accounts of the time. The works of Kemal Karpat presents
rich demographic accounts of migration to the empire and relates this issue to the
Islamization of the Ottoman lands. In comparison, Lewis Norman and Eugene Rogan’s
works emphasised the sedentarisation process of Ottoman Arab lands. Resat
Kasaba again focused on the mobility of the Ottoman subjects and portrayed the
transformation of the state’s attitude to a limiting policy towards this mobility.
Mainly these perspectives will be supported with the surveys were conducted in
Greater Syria by missionary activists. The primary survey that will be used in
detail is the work of Gottlieb Schumacher, alongside the reports of the Palestine
Exploration Fund.
This thesis positions the Circassian refugees within the framework of migration
history. While the population movements were prevalent in the nineteenth century,
the distinctive characteristic of the Circassian one is that their mobility was an exile.
The Circassian community objected to the mass displacement of the populations
intentionally stimulated by the imperial forces. Russia began to clean the Caucuses
from the inhabitants that were regarded as possible threats to the state. This
policy continued as the assimilation of Caucasian population by forced conscription
and conversion. On the other hand, the Ottoman Empire needed a workforce in
cultivation and military this need created the promotion of Circassian migration to
the Ottoman lands. Therefore the Circassian migration to the Ottoman Empire
continued until the first decades of the twentieth century.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman state emphasised agricultural
production throughout the empire. In the Province of Syria, this policy could
only be possible by opening vacant or bedouin’s grazing lands to agriculture and
eliminating the nomadic lifestyle. This study investigates the last decades of the district
of Quneitra under Ottoman rule to understand the relationship between refugee
settlement and the policies mentioned above. This microhistory focuses on the portrays
of nomadism, rebellion, power struggles of different groups within the empire,
and how the Circassian refugees took a position to survive in all these forces. This
thesis contributes to the historiography of Ottoman Syria by taking a glimpse at the
6
district of Quneitra district, an inadequately studied area. This region constitutes
a vital place with its proximity to Damascus, fertile soils and inhabitants subject to
foreign intervention. Furthermore, the region’s transformation from a barren land to
a populated and prosperous area is noteworthy. The Circassian refugee settlements
of the region made this transformation possible as the active actors in the region,
and this argument forms the basis of this thesis.
7
1. CIRCASSIAN MIGRATION TO OTTOMAN EMPIRE
1.1 Introduction
Migration flow to the Ottoman Empire had begun at the end of the 18th century
with the Crimean refugees. Russian expansionist policy was the main reason for this
movement.14 However, after the Crimean War (1853-1856) a new phase has started
in the Caucasus. Russian policy shifted from simply destruction of the resistance
points to a well-organised removal of the local population from the mountainous
region by evacuating the regions and colonise them with the trusted population.15
Consequently, migration from the Caucasian region became intensified the following
years after the war. While the Russification and Christianization of the local
population continued, migration to the Ottoman Empire reached its peak in 1864.16
Early migrations did not encounter many obstacles from the Ottoman side. The
only necessity was to becoming a subject of to sultan and respect the Ottoman
laws.17 The main reason for this was the state’s need to fill the lack of manpower
in agriculture and military fields. However, in the late nineteenth century, with the
territorial losses and ongoing mass migrations, this liberal policy changed to a more
strict one.18 With the emergence of separatist movements within the empire, the
evolution towards a homogeneous society began, which made the immigrants’ iden-
14Kemal H. Karpat, Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Etnik Yapılanma ve Göçler, (Istanbul: Timas Yayınları, 2013),
162.
15Marc Pinson, “Ottoman Colonization of the Circassians in Rumeli after the Crimean War,” Études Balkaniques
3, (1972): 71.
16For further information on Russian policies see; Nedim Ipek, Imparatorluktan Ulus Devlete Göçler, (Trabzon:
Serander Yayınları, 2006), 31-36. Arsen Avagyan, Çerkesler: Osmanlı Imparatorlugu ve Kemalist
Türkiye’nin Devlet-Iktidar Sisteminde, (Belge Yayınları, 2004), 22-23.
17Karpat, “Ottoman Immigration Policies and Settlement in Palestine,” Studies on Ottoman Social and
Political History: Selected Articles and Essays, (Brill, Leiden, 2002), 785.
18Basak Kale, “Transforming an Empire: The Ottoman Empire’s Immigration and Settlement Policies in
the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,” Middle Eastern Studies, (2014): 259-261.
8
tity visible to the state. This recognition of population identity led to the distinction
of refugees as desired and undesired ones.
The migration from Caucasus became en masse after 1858 and intensified after the
Russian pressure upon the indigenous population to settle in the Kuban region or
flee to Ottoman lands. After 1864 migration did continue not in a massive form but
with small groups until the first half of the twentieth century.19 The total number
of Caucasian refugees fled to the Ottoman Empire is estimated between 1 to 1,5
million.20 These groups were initially settled in Anatolian and Rumelian regions.
Among them approximately 200,000 refugees were settled in the Vilayet of Danube
and most of the rest settled in various parts of Anatolia.21 This first phase of the
settlement process was realized in these two regions; however, small numbers were
also transported to the Province of Syria. Earliest settlements in that region started
in the 1870s. Initially, a group of Dagestanis were settled in the sanjaks of Hama
and Balqa in 1871.22 In the following year around 1,000 refugees arrived in Hama,
Homs and Quneitra and several more groups settled in following years.23 However,
we observe a dramatic increase of Caucasian refugee settlements in the Province of
Syria from 1878 onwards.
The procss of refugee settlement was related to various internal and external factors.
The Russian government wanted refugees to be settled as far as possible from their
border regions and was uncomfortable about places that were easily accessible for
repatriation, such as the Black Sea shores. The ideal place for the refugee settlement
would be the area between Diyarbakır and Erzincan for the Russian government;
however, the Ottoman state objected to this request since the roads from the ports
to the interior parts were inadequate for transportation. Other foreign powers were
also involved in the settlement process. Not just Ottomans but also Russians were
considering possible problems regarding various potential regions for settlement.
Regarding the Syrian lands, France intervention in the process was an issue.24 Furthermore,
Jerusalem was excluded from refugee settlement because of its delicate
19Bedri Habiçoglu, Kafkaslardan Anadoluya Göçler, (Istanbul: Nart Yayıncılık, 1993), 74-84.
20Avagyan, 60.
21Pinson, 75.
22Ayniyat Defteri, 1141, no: 905/700 in Habiçoglu, 172.
23TNA. FO 424/68 No.213 in Bilal Simsir, Rumeli’den Türk Göçleri, vol. I, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Yayınları, 1968), 360-361.
24Georgy Chochiev, “1867 Abhaz Göçüne Dair Birkaç Rus, Osmanlı ve Ingiliz Belgesi,” Journal of Caucasian
Studies 1, (2015):109-111.
9
status caused by excessive foreign intervention in the region.25 Economic difficulties
have been added to these problems, and Rumelia was chosen as a settlement area
with its easy accessibility via sea route.
Consequently, the political atmosphere of the Balkans directly influenced the settlement
process. Turmoil in 1876 started with the rebellion of Herzegovina, Bulgaria
and Montenegro, followed by a war with Serbia, and resulted in the Constantinople
Conference. One of the conference decisions was the removal of Circassian refugee
settlements from Rumelia and proposed an additional ban on future settlements to
the region.26 The Russian expansionism in the Balkans was conducted under the
name of pan-Slavic solidarity. The war resulted in a catastrophic loss of a significant
part of the Ottoman Balkan region and deportation of many Muslims from
Bulgaria.27 The number of Muslim refugees who departed from the Balkans has
estimated between 1 to 1,5 million,28 and an average of 300,000 of them were Circassians.
29
1.2 Settlement to Province of Syria
Circassians became refugees again nearly two decades after their initial experience.
The population within the Balkans were transferred to Anatolia and Greater Syria.
During this process the settlement policy of the Ottoman state was influenced by
the foreign powers. Russia was again highly involved in the process and had several
requests concerning the Circassian refugee settlement within the Ottoman lands.
After 1878 they removed Circassian settlements in the Balkans, and they requested
them to be settled in Syria and Anatolia. However, eastern Anatolia was excluded
from the settlement process because of its proximity to the Russian border. Hence,
the Ottoman government accepted not to settle Circassian refugees beyond Erzin-
25Ipek, 62.
26Ismail Uzunçarsılı, “Tersane Konferansı’nın Mukarreratı Hakkında Sûra Mazbatası,” Tarih Dergisi 6,
(1954): 123-131.
27M. Hakan Yavuz with Peter Sluglett, War and Diplomacy: the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 and the
Treaty of Berlin, (Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 2011), 1.
28Justin McCharty, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922, (Princeton:
Darwin Press, 1995), 90. See also Karpat, Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Etnik Yapılanma ve Göçler, 184.
29Habiçoglu, Kafkasya’dan Anadolu’ya Göçler, 150, See also Izzet Aydemir, Göç: Kuzey Kafkasyalıların Göç
Tarihi, (Ankara: Gelisim Mabaası, 1988), 136. Nihat Berzeg, Çerkes Sürgünü: Gerçek, Tarihi ve Politik
Nedenleri, (Ankara: Takav Matbaacılık, 1996), 164.
10
can, Tokat, Amasya, and Samsun.30 Another decisive move was made by the Greek
authorities. They objected to the idea of placing refugees close to their borderlands,
such as Ioannina.31 The king of Greece applied to the Great Powers while in Petersburg
tried to discourage the Ottoman state from this project.32 Besides external
powers, there were internal factors that influenced the settlement policy. Since this
was the second wave of the mass migration movement, Anatolia was already loaded
up with refugee settlements. By this time, central Anatolian provinces like Sivas,
Ankara, and Konya were insufficient in terms of available lands to create mass settlements
for refugee groups.33 These factors caused the state to turn towards Arab
lands, and settlements in the Province of Syria increased rapidly.
The allocation of refugees from Rumelia had its difficulties both for refugees themselves
and for the state. Thousands of refugees had to be brought together in port
cities like Varna, Salonica and Constantinople. The state wanted to dispatch them to
designated places as soon as possible, and foreign powers assisted the whole process
using means like ships and food aid. Ports of Beirut, Acre, Tripoli and Latakia were
the initial destination for refugees departed from the ports of Rumelia. In February
1878, a total of 4,500 Circassians arrived at these port cities and left for their
settlements in interior parts.34 According to French reports, more than a thousand
Circassians arrived in Beirut on 6-7 March 1878 to settle near Damascus; however,
the harsh weather conditions worsened the already inadequate transportation conditions
and caused immigrants to be stuck in port cities.35
Moreover, Circassians had a bad reputation that followed them from Rumelia. Especially
with its Christian population and French interest in Beirut, this port city
was quite suitable for disturbances. Some Circassians possessed church ornaments,
jewellery and vases, which led them to be seen as looters. The disorder and delay
were added to Circassians’ negative image in the port city and led to numerous
issues within the city population.36 Nevertheless, several reports have also stated
30Kemal Karpat, Ottoman Population, 1830-1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics, (Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 69, Ipek, Imparatorluktan Ulus Devlete Göçler, 62.
31TNA. FO 424/61 No. 116 in Simsir, 211.
32BOA, HR. TO. 122/77 in Ugur Ünal, Osmanlı Belgelerinde Kafkas Göçleri II, (Istanbul: Basbakanlık
Devlet Arsivleri Genel Müdürlügü, 2012), 287.
33Many Ottoman officials’ correspondences mention the lack of lands in Ankara, Gelibolu, Biga, and Sivas.
See Habiçoglu, 153-155.
34Karpat, “Avrupalı Egemenliginde Müslümanların Konumu: Çerkeslerin Sürgünü ve Suriye’deki Iskanı,”
80.
35Simsir, 363.
36Simsir, 368. For a similar complaint present in the British reports see Simsir, 336.
11
that the process of resettling refugees has been moving smoothly. From a British
report, the consul in Beirut stated that the newspaper articles that put the Circassian
refugees under suspicion are faulty, and the allegation of kidnapped Bulgarian
girls who supposedly were sold by Circassians does not reflect the truth. In fact,
there was just one Bulgarian girl within the group who intended to marry a Circassian
named Ismail. In the end, in total, 2,500 refugees departed for Damascus
and Nablus from the port cities without causing any disturbances.37 Likewise, one
report from Tripoli states that within a month, 8,000 refugees arrived, and most of
them dispatched to interior regions with camels. While 1,500 refugees remained in
the port city, another 5,000 would arrive soon. Despite the extremely inadequate
conditions of refugees, there were no disturbances in the city.38 The negative opinion
against the immigrants was due to the negative propaganda that started in Rumelia.
Their actions against the Christians in Rumelia was exaggerated and distorted by
the press and this influenced Beirut’s population, which had a sizeable Christian
population and a history of sectarian conflicts.
In March 1878 Ottoman government issued a new immigration regulation to prevent
difficulties in the settlement process. According to the regulation, local governments
would provide carts and animal to refugees, and new villages would be formed with
the locals’ help. If this is not possible, the government would build the houses, and
the destitute and children under ten receive bread aid.39 Nevertheless, these measures
could not be adequately applied, and refugees faced harsh conditions during
transportation. Local governments could not always collect the necessary funds for
the refugees, and the poor condition of roads in the winter months put refugees in
a challenging position.40 Many have died on the journey. The ones that survived
stuck at port cities, and they took shelter in the mosques. In July 1878, a new group
of refugees arrived at Beirut, where 500 destitute refugees were already stationed.
These refugees planned to be sent to Acre, but the uncertainty about the ship type
caused refugees to be stranded at the coast of the city. After four days, they wanted
to take shelter in the mosques, but the locals refused this idea. Circassian refugees
opened the locked mosque doors with force and caused a fight in which many were
injured.41 After nearly twenty years in Rumelia, Circassian refugees endured similar
37TNA. FO 424/68 No. 247 in Simsir, 352.
38TNA. FO 424/69 No. 279 in Simsir, 404.
39BOA, Y. PRK. KOM. 1/26 in Ünal, 95.
40While 300.000 kurus were required for the immigrants per day, the same amount could be collected in
twenty days. See Habiçoglu, 144. Foreign ambassadors highly criticized the immigrants’ helpless situation
in the port cities, and the Ottoman state was blamed for its inability to manage the crises. See Simsir,
290-291, 404, 415.
41BOA, HR.TO. 205/21 (21 Saban 1295, 17 August 1878).
12
traumas and resettled in the Province of Syria.
After severe winter conditions, in August 1878, a new plan was prepared regarding
the 200,000 refugees piled up in Constantinople, Salonica, and Varna. Out of the
number of refugees, the government planned to send 25,000 Circassians to Damascus.
42 Apart from this project, the number of refugees who reached the ports of
Greater Syria between February and September, 1878 was 26,182.43 Sea transportation
was widely used to carry refugees, and later, using highways, they were placed
in the inner regions. 10,000 refugees sent to Hama in July, and later in August,
1,200 refugees sent to Homs from the port cities.44 More than 25,000 Circassian
refugees arrived in the Province of Syria during the year 1878.45
The refugee migration toward Syria continued after the chaotic year of 1878, but
this time the refugees originated either from Caucasus or Anatolia. A hundred
households were sent to Quneitra, while others were recruited as soldiers in 1882.46
At the end of 1889, Circassian refugees with a population of 1,950 were placed in
Haifa, but they perished due to the area’s adverse climatic conditions, and their
number dropped to 150 households. They were required to go to Amman and
Wadi al-Seer, where their relatives were settled previously.47 Since settlements were
established and sustained for a while by this time, refugees were able to make such
requests of location change. The emigration and settlement process proceeded in
small groups; 30 households from the Kuban (northwest Caucasus) were settled in
the province.48 Another 62 households sent to the district of Quneitra in 1901.49
This pattern of emigration continued from the Caucasus until 1914.50 The total
number of Circassian refugees settled in the Province of Syria might be estimated
as between 50,000 to 60,000.51
42BOA, Y. MMS. 59/2786 in Ünal, pp.103-106.
43Berzeg, 164-165
44TNA. FO 424/73 No. 89/1, and TNA. FO 424/74 No. 239 in Simsir, 542, 594.
45Norman Lewis, Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan, 1800-1980, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1987), 98.
46Ibid., 98.
47Kemal Saylan, “Suriye Vilayeti’ne Göç Eden Kafkas Muhacirlerinin Iskân ve Iase Meselesi,” in Geçmisten
Günümüze Göç III, ed.Osman Köse, (Samsun: Canik Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 2017), 436-437.
48BOA, HR.ID. 10/64 (20 Tesrin-i Sani 1326, 20 November 1910).
49BOA, MKT.MHM. 515/15 (12 Eylül 1317, 12 September 1901).
50Karpat, Ottoman Population, 69.
51Berzeg, 165. Karpat states that between the years 1878-1906, a total of 100,000 immigrants were settled
in the Province of Syria, and at least 38,000 of them were Circassians; in “The Status of Muslim Under
European Rule,” in Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays, ed.
13
Kemal H. Karpat, (Brill, Leiden, 2002), 671. Kushabiyev claims that the Russian consulates’ data in
Damascus and Beirut records that the number of Circassians who settled in Syria between 1878-1880
varies between 40,000 and 50,000; in “Suriye’deki Çerkes Toplulugunun Tarihinden,” Yedi Yıldız Dergisi
4, (1994): 19.Muhammad Khayr Mamsir estimates that approximately 40,000 Circassian refugees arrived
in the province between 1860-1912; in al-Mawsuu’ah al-tarikhiyah lil-ummah al-Sharkasiyah "al-Adighah":
min al-alf al-’ashir ma qabla al-milad ila al-alf al-thalith ma ba’da al-milad, vol. 4/2, (Amman: Dar Wa’il,
2009), 507.
14
2. OTTOMAN RULE IN THE SANJAK OF HAWRAN
2.1 Definition of Geography and Population
Although the borders of the Hawran region cannot be defined precisely, it roughly
stretches from Mount Hermon in the west to Jabal al-Druze in the east and Laja
plateau in the north to Ajloun in the south.52 The Sanjak of Hawran consists of the
districts, (kaza), Ajloun, Quneitra, and Jabal al-Druze in the first yearbook of Syria
published in 1868.53 Until the second half of the nineteenth century, this frontier
region relatively enjoyed a semi-autonomous rule. The absence of a central government
left the area under the control of local tribes.54 A critical event for the central
state was the pilgrimage season, which lasted thirty to sixty days and constituted a
source of major attention for the government.55 Aside from this occasion, direct rule
was relatively insufficient, and tribes gained the upper hand by filling the region’s
lack of authority. Therefore, the village population’s density remained constantly
low from the late sixteenth to the early nineteenth century.56
The geography of Hawran was suitable both for animal husbandry and grain agriculture.
While some regions were rocky, the rest of the region had fertile volcanic
soil suitable for agriculture.57 This feature made the region the prominent grain
52D. Sourdel, “Hawran,” The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, 1971, 292. Besim Darkot, “Havran,”
Islam Ansiklopedisi, 1977, 378.
53Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1285/1868, 56-57.
54Eugene L. Rogan, Frontiers of the State in the Late Ottoman Empire Transjordan, 1850-1921, (Cambridge
Unıversity Press, 2002), 23.
55L. Schatkowski Schilcher, “The Hauran Conflicts of the 1860s: A Chapter in the Rural History of Modern
Syria,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 13, no. 2, (1981): 159.
56Lewis, 19. Wolf-Dieter Hütteroth and Kamal Abdulfattah, Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan
and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Century, (Erlangen: Palm und Enke, 1977), 56-63.
57S. Tufan Buzpınar, "Havran" TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi.
15
supplier for Damascus.58 However, by the nineteenth century, the region considerably
came under the control of bedouin and Druze groups. Hence settled villages
and cultivation of land were relatively low. Prominent bedouin tribes were Wuld
’Ali and Rwala in the first half of the century. They spent the spring in northern
Hawran, benefited from the water and performed trade activities. The tribes were
in constant conflict with each other for the state-sponsored guardianship of the pilgrimage
route.59 Other small tribes were also present in the district, like Sardiya
and Sirhan. In springtime, around 100,000 bedouins camped in Hawran.60
Druzes were another prominent group, not just in Hawran but also in Greater Syria.
Their migration to the region started in the 18th century. Several political events
intensified the Druze movement. One was the rule under Ibrahim Pasha, the son
of the governor of Egypt, Mehmed Ali Pasha, between 1832 and 1840. The Druze
community did not get along with the Egyptian rule in Mount Lebanon. Since the
rule confiscated their property and they objected to conscription, many moved to
Hawran.61 The other crucial event was the clash with Maronites in Mount Lebanon.
The tension between the two groups intensified and transformed into a civil war in
1859-1860. Besides the main Druze tribes of the region like Janbolats, the prominent
Druze tribe of Hawran, the Atrashs, were involved in the civil war.62 As the
conflict grew, foreign powers intervened to the process. French interest had already
been present in the region through their support of Maronites. Consequently, another
Druze migration to Hawran occurred, whereas Mount Lebanon became an
autonomous administrative region as mutasarrifate. The Druze power in Mount
Lebanon declined significantly, and the mountain to be called by their name in
Hawran (Jabal al-Druze ) became their new political centre.63
58Sourdel, 378.
59Norman Lewis, “The Syrian steppe during the last century of Ottoman rule: Hawran and Palmyrena,”
in The Transformation of Nomadic Society in the Arab East, ed. Martha Mundy and Basim Musallam,
(Cambridge University Press, 2000), 34-35.
60Schilcher, 164.
61Engin Deniz Akarlı, The Long Peace Ottoman Lebanon, 1861-1920, (University of California Press, 1993),
22-24.
62Leila Tarazi Fawaz, An Occasion for War: Mount Lebanon and Damascus in 1860, (University of California
Press, 1994).
63Kais M. Firro, "The Ottoman Reforms and Jabal al-Duruz, 1860-1914," in Ottoman Reform and Muslim
Regeneration: Studies in Honour of Butrus Abu-Manneh, ed. Itzchak Weismann and Fruma Zachs,
(London: I.B.Tauris, 2005), 151.
16
2.2 Consolidation of Ottoman Central Power
The implementation of direct rule in Greater Syria became intensified in the second
half of the nineteenth century. The application of Tanzimat reforms in the provinces
accelerated the process of centralization that started earlier. One main aim of the
reform movement was strengthening the Ottoman administration to integrate the
provinces within the Tanzimat framework. Throughout the nineteenth century,
various policies were implemented to achieve this objective. Initially, coercion and
negotiation were the two strategies that stood out. After the state administration
established, the government performed further reforms. Through Vilayet Law of
1864, the municipal councils were established in each district. Between six to twelve
representatives were elected for the councils, and one member directly appointed by
the government.64 In such a manner, the state encouraged the local population to
be involved in the administration and enabled reforms to be embraced in the frontier
regions. Further, the state strengthened its presence at the edges by establishing
road and telegraph networks. Also, opening schools ensured the integration of the
state ideology into society. As a result, the state’s direct control in the life of the
individual was increased with this agenda.65
The control over the Province of Syria was essential for several aspects. First, the
vilayet was strategically positioned in a critical region in terms of Islam. Since
the pilgrimage road passes through this region for centuries, direct control over the
region was a matter of political legitimacy for the Ottoman sultan. Moreover, the
foreign powers’ threats and the decreasing power of Ottomans in the Balkans shifted
the state’s attention to Asian and Arabian lands.66 Prior to the 1860s, the state
undertook various policies in the region. Establishing a stable military force in the
region would increase public security, and with this, a suitable environment was established
for the implementation of additional reforms. Therefore, the first attempt
was to increase the authority of the commander in chief (müsir) of the province.
Until the 1860s, the commander in chief had several significant duties like tax collection,
keeping the bedouin in check and increasing the administrative authority
against the ulema.67 On the other hand, the compulsory conscription policy contin-
64Carter V. Findley, “The Evolution Of Provincial Administration, ” in Palestine in the Late Ottoman
Period: Political, Social, and Economic Transformation, ed. David Kushner, (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 14.
65Rogan, 12-13.
66Moshe Ma’oz, Ottoman Reform in Syria And Palestine 1840-1861: The Impact Of The Tanzimat On
Politics And Society, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 30-31.
67Ibid., 40.
17
ued to be implemented in the region. While carrying this policy, numerous revolts
occurred against the practice. Notably, the hostile reactions that came from the
Druze could not be suppressed, and the Druze immigration from Mount Lebanon
to Hawran extended due to the lack of state power in the province.68
Substantial changes in Greater Syria began in the 1860s following the international
crisis of Lebanon and Damascus. With the severe conflict between Druzes and
Maronites in the Mount Lebanon, the region became open to the intervention of
foreign states. Fuad Pasha, one of the leading reformers of the Tanzimat era, was
sent to Syria in 1860 with exceptional powers by the porte for the cessation of
clashes and punishment of the perpetrators of the Christian massacre in Damascus.
During his service in the province, Fuad Pasha tried to limit the foreign power’s
intervention and increase the central authority. To met these ends, he actively used
the policies of punishment and conscription from the early days of his duty. He
performed numerous death sentences, exiles and imprisonment on the criminals of
the Damascus massacres. One policy that would become permanent in the province
was the conscription of the settled population. This practice was carried out every
year, and recruits were stationed within the province.69 Since the inhabitants of the
region mainly were consisted of armed groups, the state had to form solid military
units. This was a vital move in order to ensure direct rule through conscription and
taxation.
The following years witnessed the application of the Vilayet Law. With the new
regulation, provinces came to be divided into sub-province (sanjak), district (kaza),
commune (nahiye) and village (karye). According to the vilayet system central
government directly appointed top officeholders. Every district had three central
bodies consisting of a governor, mufti and judge, plus an administrative council
selected among local representatives.70 The visibility and strength of the center
began to reach into provinces. After this regulation, holders of both local and central
authority gained certain powers over the region, and centralization continued not
only by coercion but also with negotiation and inclusion.
Officers appointed to the governorship of Syria mostly remained in their posts for
brief periods. However, right after administering Vilayet Law, the appointment of
a reformist governor to the region for five years provided the stabilization of the
state policies. Mehmed Rashid Pasha served as the governor of Syria between 1865
68Firro, 150.
69Max L. Gross, “Ottoman Rule in the Province of Damascus, 1860-1909, Volume 1” (PhD dis., Georgetown
University, 1979), 37-43.
70Rogan, 48.
18
and 1871, and he was the longest-serving governor of the province in the nineteenth
century. The decisive application of the Tanzimat administrative structure in the
province started in this period. Initially, the governor took an appeasing approach
towards the bedouin tribes and Druzes in the region. Specific regions were assigned
to tribes like Wuld Ali, Banu Sakhr and Ruwala for grazing their livestock.71
Regarding the Druze of the region, the Atrash clan was the most prestigious among
the others. After the Druze migration to Hawran mountain, the region transformed
into Jabal al-Druze. Following the continuous revolts against the state, the Atrash
clan was granted the right to collect taxes in Hawran, and they strengthened their
position in the area. Rashid Pasha’s administration took this cooperation even
further, and Ismail al-Atrash was appointed as the governor of Jabal al-Druze in
1866.72 In the first years of his duty, he followed policies to increase the Ottoman
control in Hawran.
Effective establishment of the official administration and implementation of the
Tanzimat reforms were the priority for the long-lasting governorship of Rashid
Pasha. To this end, he was in contact with other governors of the region, and a
joint plan was prepared to control the Bedouins. Consequently, Rashid Pasha met
with Ahmet Cevdet, the governor of Aleppo and Ibrahim Dervis, the marshal of the
fifth army in Hama, to lay a plan for the efficient control of the region.73 After the
meeting, to increase the state authority and security in the region, the Hama decree
was formed and accepted by all parties on 6 May 1867.
When the regulations are further examined, the view of the state towards the inhabitants
of the region becomes visible. Throughout the text, bedouin communities
are depicted as detrimental to the settled population. While Bedouins are accused
for systematic animal theft, the state presents itself as the saviour.74 Since the
nomads were the leading cause of the destruction, the Ottoman state was undertaken
the duty of protecting the settlers. The protective role of the state was
conducted through mobile troops. The administration intended to implement a
similar approach in the desert area of the Province of Syria based on the previous
accomplishments in the Province of Aleppo.
71Gross, 125.
72Firro, 191.
73Cevdet Pasa, Tezakir 21-39, ed. Cavid Baysun, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1986), 216.
74Me’mur-ı muhafaza ve imarı oldugumuz Suriye ve Haleb vilayetlerinin bir vakitten beri giriftar oldukları
hasar-ı urbandan tahlisiyle servet ve ma’muriyetce müste’id oldukları mertebeye isalleri için lazım gelen
hususatın müzakeresi zımnında Hama’ da birlesilerek.. Ibid., 218.
19
The second half of the nineteenth century witnessed an intense centralization movement
by the government. Initially, under the leadership of Dervish Pasha, commander
of the Fourth Army, and Cevdet Pasa a special troop called Fırka-ı Islahiyye
was formed to subdue the nomadic tribes in southern Anatolia. Significantly, during
the Crimean War, the lack of soldiers recruited from the nomadic population
made disobedience even more visible in the eyes of the authorities.75 Successful
campaigns conducted by the Fırka-ı Islahiye realized the expansion of state control,
in the region of Kozan. A similar approach was applied in Greater Syria, where we
see Cevdet Pasha appointed as the governor of Aleppo after his campaigns in Anatolia.
However, along with the centralization movement, an ideological approach
towards nomadic populations, whose visibility would increase in the following years
in official reports, legitimized the settlement process.
Cevdet Pasha, referring to Ibn Haldun, stated the phases of community life in his
voluminous history. For him, nomadic tribes represented the lowest point of society
with their limited activities based on essential needs and reproduction. This group
was followed by settled peasantry and urban population, which produced proper
sciences and arts. Thus, the highest level of civilization could only be formed under
a proper state system. Consequently, the population of a civilized state would feel
secure and overcome the fear of assault.76 In line with such a perspective towards
civilized society, the content of Hama regulations displays the practical application
of this ideology by state authority. In the following decades, as centralization policy
continued, numerous officials would emphasize transforming the bedouin tribes into
a settled populations.
The Hama regulations had another noteworthy aspect concerning the region of
Hawran. Since the region was deemed as crucial as the other districts of the province,
same measures were stated to be taken in Hawran as well. Overall, the Province
of Syria and Aleppo were seen as the regions that failed to reach their true potentials
due to bedouin damage. The ultimate solution to this problem could only be
achieved if the state assumed the saviour role and prevented the destructive powers
in the region.77 Since the ultimate benefit for the state comes from the agricultural
lands, sedentarization of the population was the administration’s main agenda. The
discourse of a fertile and undiscovered Greater Syria, as presented in the Hama regulations,
would be the dominant narrative of future administrations. Therefore, the
75Yusuf Halaçoglu, "Fırka-ı Islâhiyye" TDV Islâm Ansiklopedisi, 2021.
76Ahmed Cevdet, Tarih-i Cevdet, Volume I, ed. Mehmet Ipsirli, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları,
2018), 17-18.
77Cevdet Pasa, Tezakir 21-39, 218.
20
Hama regulation reveals the initial indications of this continuity of governance.
The Sanjak of Hawran was highly fertile in grain production and was seen as a
region with high economic potential. Even though grain used to be cultivated in
many regions of Greater Syria, the Hawrani one was quite rich in protein and had
higher yields compared to other regions.78 By the 1850s, the high grain production
of Hawran had already been involved with the foreign trade market. The economic
opportunity that became more evident in the grain trade led to the proliferation of
agricultural areas. With high grain prices, grazing decreased, and land colonization
for agricultural production became widespread.79 Besides, land registration was
encouraged by Rashid Pasha. With the extension of the Land Code of 1858, large
fields of Hawran registered through auctions.80 Therefore, Hawran region stood out
with this potential of commercial activities within the Greater Syria.
The government of Rashid Pasha highly adapted a cooperation policy with the local
powers of Hawran. The administration negotiated both with the Druze and bedouin
sheikhs to enforce central control in the area. To meet this end, the Atrashs, the
leading Druze family of the time, were appointed as the governor of Jabal Hawran.81
In the case of the bedouin tribes, he started military expeditions on Hawran. Afterwards,
with the support of subjugated tribes and Druzes, he advanced further south
towards the region of Transjordan. While the initial attempt to subdue the bedouin
included methods of coercion, later, the bedouin sheikhs began to collaborate with
the state. This collaboration of local powers was based on the need for the legitimization
of sheikhs within their tribes. Formerly in the lack of central authority,
bedouin sheikhs did not hold a distinctive position or had a secure place in the
chiefdom. Therefore the direct Ottoman rule created an opportunity for the sheikhs
to ensure their positions as tribe leaders.82 Thus, the sheikhs that cooperated with
the administration enjoyed new resources while securing their positions. This new
wealth made the sheikhs more prominent within the tribe. On the other hand, the
Sublime Porte strengthened its authority in the region through the relations with
tribal chiefs. Therefore, collaboration with the administration became a lucrative
tool both for the leaders and the state.
78L. Schatkowski Schilcher, Families in Politics: Damascene Factions and Estates of the 18th and 19th
Centuries, (Stuttgart: Steiner-Verlag-Wiesbaden, 1985), 77.
79Lewis, The Syrian Steppe, 39.
80Schilcher, 103.
81Firro, 191.
82Yoav Alon, “Sheikh and Pasha: Ottoman Government in the Syrian Desert and the Creation of Modern
Tribal Leadership,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 59, no. 3 (2016): 459-460.
21
The succession of expeditions and collaboration both in Hawran and Transjordan
led to the creation of new administrative sections. The first yearbook of Syria published
in 1868 shows the four central district of the Hawran region consisted of the
Hawran, Ajlun, Quneitra and Jabal al-Druze.83 With the inclusion of the Hawran
region in the Ottoman administrative system, the visibility of the state in the region
continued to strengthen. However, following the effective five-year tenure of Rashid
Pasha, short-term governors served in Damascus for the next decade. The crisis in
central government influenced this chaotic pattern in governor tenures after 1871.
When Mahmud Nedim Pasha took the grand-vizierate after the death of Ali Pasha,
the prominent figure of the Tanzimat era, he adopted a new provincial policy. After
conducting a survey on provinces, Mahmud Nedim warned governors to focus more
on justice and education than to publish newspapers and yearbooks. Further, the
provincial system was criticised for granting the governors with extensive authority
that would transform them into vassal princes. After these criticisms, Mahmud
Nedim Pasha increased the shifting of officials to prevent the strengthening of any
possible rivals to himself. With his practices, the provincial offices became the pawns
of the political games for the central authority in this period.84 Therefore, the political
struggles between the Sublime Porte and the ministers resulted in instability
which affected the affairs of the provincial administration. The overthrow of Abdulaziz
was followed by an ill-fated succession of Murat V. The early years of the
reign of Abdülhamid II witnessed a war with Russia and, in between, a constitution
introduced and lasted for two years.85
The province of Syria welcomed eight governors within nine years. Between 1871 and
1880, only two governors, Subhi and Midhat Pashas, could serve for two years. Other
governors were reappointed to other provinces after a year or a few months.86 During
this decade, Druze leader Ibrahim al-Atrash formed a secure relationship with the
local government and a relative peace period prevailed in the region. However,
parallel to the rising authority of the Druze, central power was weakened in the
region. Even though several military expeditions continued to send against the
bedouin uprisings, their harassment upon the settled population continued, and
83Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1285/1868, 57.
84Roderic H. Davison, Reform in The Ottoman Empire 1856-1876, (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press 1963), 167-170.
85Gross, 168-170.
86Subhi Pasha (1871-1873), Halet Pasha (February 1873- September 1874), Asad Pasha (September 1874-
February 1875), Ahmed Hamdi Pasha (1875- Mey 1876), Nashid Pasha (June 1876- February 1877),
Ziya Pasha (February 1877- June 1877), Cevdet Pasha (February 1878- November 1878), Midhat Pasha
(November 1878- August 1880). Gross, 174-255.
22
Hawranis came to request protection by Druzes.87 At the end of the 1870s, during
the Russo-Ottoman war, two prominent Ottoman figures of the time, Cevdet and
Midhat Pashas, were appointed to Syria as governors consecutively. Both governors
wanted greater control and military force to suppress Druzes, while Midhat was
more determined to enforce coercion to impose his authority. However, in 1879
the British intervened in the affairs favouring the Druzes, and extensive criticism
led to the dismissal of Midhat Pasha from the governorship.88 While this turmoil
took place, thousands of refugees from the Balkans had to be transferred to Greater
Syria.
87Firro, 195-196.
88Engin Deniz Akarlı, “Abdülhamid’s Attempt to Integrate Arabs into the Ottoman System,” in Palestine
in The Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social and Economic Transformation, ed. David Kushner, (Brill,
1986), 82-83
23
3. CIRCASSIAN SETTLEMENTS IN QUNEITRA
3.1 Introduction
The Quneitra district was located in the northernmost part of the Sanjak of Hawran.
The yearbook of 1868 records the region as one of the four districts of Hawran.
This district consisted of the nahiyes of Havle, Siar, Cevlan, and Zaviye under the
administration of kaimakam Ibrahim Edhem Efendi.89 Geographically, Quneitra
was part of Jawlan (present-day Golan), an area relatively more fertile than the
rest of the Hawran. [see Figure 1] The region is encircled by Mount Hermon in the
north, Lake Tiberias in the west and Raqqad of Jordan valley in the east. Thanks to
the volcanic mountains in the north, the soil is very productive not just for grazing
but also for growing wheat, barley and maize.90 Additionally, compared to Hawran,
Jawlan has a greater forest reservoir. In particular, Quneitra is located in a region
with high and regular rainfall. Besides, the area consists of numerous streams and
rich in water sources.91 Thus, the district was highly ideal for agriculture and had
significant potential for commercial activities.
Prior to Circassian settlement in the region the district of Quneitra had three nahiyes
and twenty-three villages. Although each village had quite different household rates,
the total number of households was approximately 600.92 Porter noted in 1868 that
though in Quneitra, "the soil is fertile and covered with luxuriant grass.. but the
land is without an inhabitant." His observations continued with al-Fadl’s presence,
89Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1285/1868, 57.
90Gottlieb Schumacher, The Jaulân: Surveyed for the German Society for the Exploration of the Holy Land,
(London: Richard Bentley and Son, 1888), 14.
91Adib Sulayman Beg, aljawlan dirasat fi aljughrafiat al’iiqlimia [The Golan: Regional Geographic Study],
(Paris, 1983), 16-17
92Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1288/1871, 271-273.
24
the largest and prominent tribe of Jawlan, with their tents.93 While Rashid Pasha
tried to resettle the area in his five-year office term, however, after his tenure in
1872, Burton noted that thefts and harassments against the settled population were
causing them to abandon their sites. After these disturbances, "Kunayterah, is
completely abandoned" he wrote.94 Therefore, despite its productive lands, the
District of Quneitra had a limited settled population even after the centralization
efforts in Hawran. The area was used mainly by Bedouins who wanted to graze their
herds seasonally.
The deserted area of Greater Syria differentiated from the coastal one in various
aspects. The coastal region meant a stable and settled pattern with high strategic
ports for trade. In comparison, the inner land differed with the climate and population
type. While the coastal region had an annual rainfall of more than 500 mm,
interiors just received a rainfall of 200 m, which fell just in winter. At the same time,
the transitional zone received an average of 350 mm rainfall in a year and enabled
the cultivation both in winter and summer without irrigation. In interior regions,
the settled population was scarce, and the bedouin tribes had high autonomy.95
On top of these, the threat of the Druze rose significantly for the state since the
events of 1860. The British and the French could intervene in state affairs through
manipulating the Druze issue; therefore, the state had to be very cautious in this
matter.96 The Circassian refugees were just situated between the coastal and the
desert regions, which was also inhabited by Druzes. Especially, in Jawlan and Transjordan
the pattern of Circassian settlements formed a barrier along the transitional
zone. One main aim was to seperate the populated and fertile coastal parts from
semi-independent barren lands.97 In this regard, Quneitra was an ideal district for
the refugee settlement. First, although the land was very fertile, it has only been
used by the al-Fadl and other tribes for grazing. Second, it was closely situated
to Majdal Shams, where a high Druze population resited. Lastly, its proximity to
Damascus made it ideal for creating a society loyal to the central authority in this
region.
93Josias Leslie Porter, A Handbook for Travelers in Syria and Palestine, (London: J. Murray, 1868), 439-440.
94Richard F. Burton, Unexplored Syria, (London: Tinsley Brothers, 1872), 179-180.
95Lewis, 1-3. The distinction of regions is based on the definitions of Norman Lewis.
96Sabahattin Samur, “Sultan II.Abdülhamid Yönetimi ve Havran Dürzileri,” in Sultan II. Abdülhamid Sempozyumu:
20-21 Subat 2014 Selanik, Bildiriler Vol.1: Ic ve Dis Siyaset, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu,
2014), 86.
97Lewis, 100-101, Aydemir, 144.
25
Figure 3.1 The Settlement Pattern of Circassian Villages in Greater Syria
Source: Lewis, Nomads and Settlers, 100, Aydemir, Göç: Kuzey Kafkasyalıların Göç
Tarihi, 144.
3.2 Settlement Policies of the Ottoman Empire
Since the initial strategic place for Circassian settlement was Rumelia, Greater Syria
was not a primary destination before the late 1870s. Later with the turmoils in the
Balkans, refugees once again had to be replaced. At once not just the Anatolian
lands but also Greater Syria became a part of the central region of the empire.
Ottoman Empire pragmatically settled the Circassian refugees to the areas in which
they can be more benefited.
British colonel, Wilson, reported on behalf of the Circassian refugee settlement in
1880 that Circassians are physically strong and prone to education. They have
already been proven to be able peasants in Anatolia. Circassians would be the empire’s
power if they were ruled by a strong hand and treated fairly.98 The Circassian
refugees had enough potential to adjust themselves to the new lands. In addition to
these features, their religious identity was made them an ideal population to integrate
into the empire. Therefore, the state could benefit from the refugee population
with an appropriate plan not only in agricultural activities but also in other areas
of the state. While in the Tanzimat era, state promoted the Ottomanism after the
significant territorial losses and Muslim migration from these lands began to change
this policy. Especially during the Hamidian period, when the emphasis was placed
98TNA. FO 424/106 No. 186, 20 May 1880.
26
on the Islamic character of the empire, the refugees acquired a different identity for
the state. The focus on Muslim identity influenced migration policies. In 1887, after
lengthy discussions in thirty-nine meetings on migration, the government decided to
accept all Muslim refugees that suffered under a non-Muslim state. The committee
decided for each province to have its immigration committee. Most importantly, it
was decided to establish a High Immigration Commission under the chairmanship
of the sultan.99 Sultan took the role of the saviour caliph for the refugees, and with
pro-immigration policies, the Ottoman sultanate desired to expand and legitimize
its rule.
Ottoman Empire considered various strategies for the refugee settlement process.
Previous to the Circassian refugee flow, the state had been already looking for peasants
from Europe to cultivate Rumelian and Anatolian lands. The rural population
was so scarce that for the newcomers, incentives like tax exemption promoted in
European newspapers in 1857.100 However, the refugee flow from the Caucasus reversed
this policy since these movements could be the new source for agricultural
activities in state lands. The state was careful to place refugees in rural areas rather
than urban centres.101 Both in Anatolia and later in Greater Syria, refugee groups
were settled in the pastoral lands of nomads. Even though the primary reason was
to create agricultural fields cultivated by refugees, the settlements were also used
against the nomadic tribes. This practice has been noted by Cevdet Pasha for several
regions in his Tezakir. For example, against the Afsar tribe in the Uzunyayla region,
many Circassian refugees were settled in their summer pasture lands.102 Likewise,
Nogay refugees were settled in Çukurova, where the threat of tribes was severe, and
the local population suffered from insecurity. These refugees were trying to reconstruct
the region while protecting themselves from the tribes.103 Further in Greater
Syria, there were not enough soldiers in the Hama and Salamiyah areas. When the
bedouin tribes did not pay their taxes and resorted to banditry, the administration
was taken military measures against the problematic tribes by using the refugees.104
Another critical area where the Circassian population wanted to be used was in
99Karpat, “The Status of the Muslim Under European Rule: The Eviction and Settlement of the Çerkes,”
662-663.
100Karpat, Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Etnik Yapılanma ve Göçler, 359-60.
101BOA, Y. PRK. KOM. 3/24 in Ugur Ünal, Osmanlı Belgelerinde Kafkas Göçleri I, 117.
102Tezakir 21-39, 157.
103Ibid., 124.
104BOA, I.SD. 35/1765 in Hakan Asan, “Devlet, Asiret ve Eskıya Baglamında Osmanlı Muhacir Iskân Siyaseti
(1860-1914),” Göç Arastırmaları Dergisi 2, no.3, (2016): 51.
27
local troops. Ottoman Empire had long been suffered from the lack of human
resources in military forces. After the Crimean War, the problem of recruiting
enough troops for the army once again emerged, and one of the main reasons seen was
the reluctance of the nomadic tribes to enlist their male youth for the Ottoman army.
The refugees again were used pragmatically in this sphere of the state. Since the
Caucasian population stood out with their warlike and strong characteristics, this
was an exceptional opportunity for the state. If this population properly transformed
into loyal Ottoman subjects, the state could restore the army. One of the central
policies to implement state authority in Greater Syria was the forming and situating
of as much as local troops in deserted regions.105 Like Kurdish forces, the Circassians
were incorporated into the armed forces in interiors of Greater Syria against the
bedouin and Druze populations. One of the best examples of this practice is Mirza
Wasfi’s campaigns against the Bedouin. He was one of the leading Circassian figures
of the time and used the Quneitra as his central base for the operations.106 He
organized attacks on behalf of the state both against the bedouins and the Druzes
in Transjordan. However, we observe this practice not just in Greater Syria but
also in East Anatolia. In 1904, 250 gendarmes of Circassian origin were recruited
in Bitlis to form a new battalion to have a firmer hand in the issues of Kurdish
groups.107 Thus, Circassians held the duty of gendarmerie and filled the shortage
of soldiers caused by the non-enlisted local population in the areas that the state
had limited authority. They formed the armed forces that could be used against all
groups opposing the central authority.
In April 1878, when the refugee movement was at its peak, the state issued the
Regulation for Settlement of Refugees (Muhacirin Iskanına dair Nizamname) concerning
the settlement process. Accordingly, in each district, new refugee villages
would be formed, and locals would be help in the building process. The neediest
adults would receive half okka of bread per day, while children under ten receive 100
dirhams. Moreover, the government would provide various subsidies to refugees who
settled to be farmers. These subsidies included one pair of oxen per two households
and one-time aid of five kilos seed to each one. Since Circassians lived within tribe
system, large tribes were to be divided in the settlement process. However, if the
refugees fell apart from their relatives, the smaller group was permitted to unite
105Ibid., 666.
106Muhammad Khayr Haghanduqah, Mirza Basha Wasfi: kitab watha’iqi: marhalah min tarikh bilad al-Sham
min khilal watha’iq Mirza Basha, (Amman, 1985).
107Nadir Özbek, “Policing the Countryside: Gendarmes of the Late 19th-Century Ottoman Empire (1876-
1908),” International Journal of Middle East Studies 40, no. 1, (2008): 56.
28
with their relatives.108 This rule continued to be practised for the next decades and
became one of the main principles of the migration administration system. As a
result, this practice allowed refugees to have flexibility in choosing places to settle.
Under these conditions, specific criteria came into being for the places chosen by the
state for immigrant settlement. The first necessary condition was that the regions
given to immigrants had the status of state (miri) land. Secondly, the settlement
land must have the necessary features for refugees to survive, such as arable lands,
water sources and forests.109 Throughout the process of refugee settlement in the
Quneitra region the abovementioned policies were practised. For cultivation, state
(miri) lands were distributed to families based on their size. The household consisted
of three members was given 70 donum,110 four to five members were given
100 donum, and 150 donum were given to families with more than five members.111
As this settlement policy proved to be successful, the state began to establish new
villages on these land grants. In November 1888, Circassians located in Wadi al-
Ajam (present-day Qatana) were decided to be transferred to Quneitra and form a
new village named Sevketiye.112 This practice was also implemented in Transjordan.
A new province as Amman being its centre, was planned to be established
with the Circassian settlements. Each town at least had to consist of 500 households
as against the bedouin attacks. Occasionally Circassian tribes became divided
or separated from their leaders in the settlement process; however, in regions predominant
of Bedouins, the state considered settling refugee populations with high
quantities.113 The official document written by Kamil Pasha114 in October 1878
concerning the project for the establishment of Amman reveals the central policies
of the state regarding the refugee settlement in the deserts of Greater Syria. Accordingly,
while the settlement would be carried out gradually at first, a total of 200
households would be settled. Since the Bedouins were dominant in the region, the
settlement process must be done immediately. The expected outcome of establish-
108BOA, Y.PRK.KOM, 1/26 in Osmanlı Belgelerinde Kafkas Göçleri I, 96.
109Kamal Jalouqa, “Büyük Suriyede Çerkes Göçmenlerin Durumu 1870’den Günümüze,” in Anavatanlarından
Sürülüslerinin 150. Yılında Çerkesler, ed. Erdem Ünlü and Murat Duman, (Ankara: Kafdav Yayınları,
2015), 159.
110A Donum is an Ottoman unit of land measurement equal to 919,302 square meters.
111Adib Sulayman Beg, 346.
112BOA, DH.MKT 1569/103 (19 Tesrin-i Sani 1304, 1 December 1888).
113Dawn Chatty, “Refugees, Exiles, and Other Forced Migrants in the Late Ottoman Empire,” Refugee Survey
Quarterly 32, (2013): 44.
114Kamil Pasha (1832-1913) was born in Cyprus. He hold the position of mutasarrıf in Syria, Beirut, Aleppe,
Jerusalem. Later, he became the Grand Vizier of Abdulhamid II. See Atilla Çetin, “ Kıbrıslı Kâmil Pasa”
TDV Islâm Ansiklopedisi, TDV Islâm Arastırmaları Merkezi, 2021.
29
ing a new administrative unit with refugee settlement was for the Bedouins to force
them abandon their tent-dwelling lifestyle. The final order to implement this policy
was to offer lands for Bedouins to have them settle down. The ones who insist to
continue their traditional lives must move into the interior deserts.115
Financial and equipment aids for refugees were another issue that the state emphasized.
The Circassian refugees consisting of 62 households and 662 inhabitants that
settled in Quneitra, will receive a monthly aid of 6,870 kurus. Each household 1,500
kurus will be granted for the expense of livestock, seeds and pieces of equipment.116
However, state aids have not always been progressed smoothly. The most common
problem was that the administration sent the aids on time. The telegraph of
Mehmed Nazım Pasha, governor of Syria, about the delay of the aid payment of 57
households placed in Hasbaya village reveals the destitute situation of refugees. The
administration was not sent sufficient allowance for daily provisions, the construction
cost of houses and equipment. This delay caused refugees to be left without
shelter and food in the area, and authorities were concerned that the continuation of
this situation may cause diseases among the group.117 One other issue was regarding
the possible confusions during the times of massive refugee flows. In September
1878, 33,996 kurus requested from the administration for a group of Circassians and
Dagestani refugees to settle in Quneitra. However, the office wanted to inspect the
group whether they were among the newcomers or not. After the inspection, it was
understood that the group came two years earlier. The issue of whether this amount
would be given or not was presented to the sultan, and he decided to grant 33,396
kurus for refugees.118 The state tried to provide all types of support to the refugees
for cultivating the land and restoring the region through the settled population.
115Ve Amman ve Ayn Zerka ve Salt ve Cerash taraflarına beser yüz haneli muhacir beldeleri bila teskil
bunlardan ikiser yüz hanesi celb ve iskan olundukda bil-ahire diger haneler arazisinde dahi peyderpey
muhacir gelerek bes yüz hane arazisi imla edilir. Ve bunları baska sair münasıb mevki’lere dahi muhacir
karyeleri bu vechicle teskil edilir ve oltaraflarda ’urbanın arazisi ziyade ve fazla oldugundan emr-i kat’iyle
ve sur’atle ve icraatle mezkur muhacir karyeleri çün arazi ifraz olunmalı. Ve mezkur yeni vilayetdeki urban
dahi çadırlarının terkiyle seri’an iskan etmek ve iskan etmeyen mahallerinden çıkıp çöllere gitmek emr-i
kat’isi verilmeli. Halil Sahillioglu, “A Project for the Creation of Amman Vilayet (1878),” in Studies on
Ottoman Economic and Social History, ed. Halil Sahillioglu, (Istanbul: Ircica, 1999).
116BOA, MKT.MHM. 515/15.
117BOA, Y.MTV. 214/163 (25 Nisan 1317, 8 May 1901).
118BOA, I.DH. 760 (26 Eylül 1294, 9 October 1878).
30
3.3 Settlement Process of Circassian Refugees in Quneitra
Initial Circassian settlement to Quneitra formed in the early 1870s. However, the
number of refugees was around 400 souls. When compared with the high figures in
Anatolian villages, this number was quite limited. The exact numbers of Circassian
refugees settled in the district of Quneitra are hard to determine. However, the
refugee flow accelerated in the aftermath of the Russo-Ottoman war and continued
until the early 1910s. According to the yearbook of 1881, Hawran and Hama hosted
the highest number of refugees, with 3,000 souls.119 Jawlan was the area with the
highest number of Circassian refugees in Hawran.120 In 1887, from Elbistan, 113
households came voluntarily to located in the region.121 Further, in 1901 two groups
migrated to the district of Quneitra. Fifty-seven households placed in Hasbaya
village, while the other 62 settled in Hasine.122 Another placement in 1906 was
a large one with 1,949 households.123 The refugee flow continued, especially with
the refugees who wanted to live with their relatives who migrated to the province
of Syria. Circassians built or expanded the population of Quneitra, Mansura, Ayn
Zivan, Mumsiya, Cuveyza, Breyka, Bir Acam and Surman villages.124
The Ottoman policy of flexible relocation for the refugees resulted in numerous petitions
to move their initial settlements by the Circassians. The most prominent
excuse was the reunion with close relatives. This practice enabled refugees to mobilize
within the borders of the empire. There was a considerable movement through
Greater Syria as well. In 1891, a Circassian group of 162 households initially settled
in Adana filed a petition to be resettled with relatives in the Belka region of Syria.125
Since there were still available miri lands in the Hawran region where immigrants
can be settled, the authorities accepted the petition.126 A similar request made by
49 Circassian households who settled in Izmid in 1901. They requested to relocate to
119Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1298/1881, 264.
120Lewis, 98.
121BOA, DH.MKT. 1471/89 (12 Kanun-ı Evvel 1303, 24 December 1887).
122BOA, Y.MTV. 214/163., BOA, MKT.MHM. 515/15.
123Lewis, 101.
124Muhammad Khayr Mamsir, 511.
125Birinci kafilede Adanaya i’zam olunan 162 nüfus Kafkasya muhacirlerinin Suriye vilayeti dahilinde kain
Belka sancagında iska edilmis olan akrabaları nezdine i’zamına kendilerinin dahi orada iskanlarını istid’a
etmekde olduklarına... BOA, DH.MKT. 1814/86 (18 Subat 1306, 2 March 1891).
126...irsal kılınan telgrafnamede Havran sancagı dahilinde hala arazi-i emiriye bulunması ve orada muhacirin
iskanı muhassenat-ı mucib olacagı vechle muhacirin-i merkumenin iskan edilmek üzere i’zamı lüzumu gösterilmis
olmagla iktizasının icrasına himem-i ’aliyye-i daverinin derkar buyurulmak babında. Ibid.
31
Damascus, where their relatives reside. This petition was also accepted but with an
exception. The refugees themselves will cover all travel expenses.127 While in earlier
resettlement processes, the transportation costs covered by the government in this
example, it seems that some obstacles or conditions are gradually being imposed on
relocations that were seen as arbitrary.
Furthermore, the requests concerning the resettlement processes sometimes led to
disputes between local governments and refugees. In August 1902, a Circassian
group of 700 households temporarily settled in Pasinler and wrote a petition about
their destitute situation. They were complaining about how they could not receive
aids for four months. However, their main request was to be resettled in Syria.
Previously, their representatives went to Syria and agreed with the governor to be
resettled in an empty land, but the governor in Pasinler insisted on transferring them
to Bitlis. After the state’s investigation, it was understood that the authorities in
Syria granted the land for the refugees and informed the authorities in Erzurum.
Thus, the state allowed the Circassians to resettle in Syria on the condition of covering
their own travel expenses.128 The land investigation process done by Circassian
refugees reveals that they had a certain autonomy in the process of resettlement.
However, this autonomy was quite limited and led to the conflicts between state and
the refugees. The Ottoman Empire avoided any severe conflicts with the Circassian
refugee groups and attempted to resolve these complaints with a peaceful policy.
Within the Province of Syria, the Sanjak of Hawran was also a central destination
for the internal mobilization of Circassian refugees. Commonly in the petitions, the
main reason stands out as the desire to resettle with relatives. When appealing to
authority, the excuse of living with relatives was an effectual and legitimate one based
on the state’s immigration laws. However, the underlying reasons for this internal
mobilization differed on many occasions. In some cases, the excuse of kinship was
used as a pretext to migrate to areas that immigrants perceived as more beneficial
to live in. The annual report of the Province of Syria published in April 1889
reveals some reasons for mobility towards Sanjak of Hawran by Circassian refugees.
One reason that made the Hawran province attractive to settle was the absence of
conscription. The first settlers of the region were not obliged to perform military
service. Moreover, the Anatolian lands suffered from droughts for the last two
years, which added to the internal movement activities. The absence of conscription
became a pull factor for the refugee movement, and the droughts accelerated the
process by pushing the population. Thus, in the last two years, there was high
127BOA, MKT.MHM. 514 (19 May 1317, 1 June 1901).
128BOA, A.MKT.MHM. 520/8 in Osmanlı Belgelerin Kafkas Göçleri I, 532-535.
32
mobility of Circassian refugees from Anatolia to Greater Syria. Numerous large
groups were moving towards Sanjak of Hawran. However, according to the laws,
only the first settlers were exempted from military service. Therefore, the census
included the newcomers, and approximately seven thousand males were counted for
the conscription in the sanjak.129
The Ottoman Empire had been focusing on centralization policies in frontier regions
since the Tanzimat. This process carried along with the modernization of the state.
By this time, the state wanted greater control over its populations, whether through
nomadic tribes or refugee settlements. At the end of the nineteenth century, the
state began to involve more in individuals’ lives. The desire to have control over
population movements also involved the refugee movements. Mürur Tezkeresi was
the primary document for every individual over 20 years who wanted to move from
one district to another within the empire.130 It was also forbidden for the refugees
to move without the necessary documentation. 113 household Circassian refugees
from Aziziye and Elbistan arrived in Quneitra in 1887. Since they did not provide
any documentation and made this journey without permission, the local administrations
were warned to be more cautious about undocumented mobilities. Authorities
decided that the refugees to remain settled in Quneitra because it would be costly
to return them.131
Governor Mehmed Nazif wrote a more detailed report concerning the mobility of
refugees in November 1888. Three Circassian households came to Quneitra without
permission and claimed that they came directly through the line of Russia and Sivas.
However, in this scenario, they must have a passport or mürur tezkeresi. Since they
did not have any document, this meant that they were settled before, and this was
not their first settlement process. Thus, they cannot be registered as refugees and
given any land in the region.132 Governor further complained that the mobility
from Anatolia to Syria had been continuing for some time and causes struggles both
for the immigrants and for the local government. He was proposing that the civil
servants should show extra sensitivity to this illegal movement by basing his warning
on the law that forbids the abandonment of the initial settlement place of refugees.
129Havran Sancagı mükellefiyet-i askeriyye dahilinde bulunmadıgı cihetle mukaddemâ bu taraflara gelen
Çerkes muhacirleri livâ-i mezkûrda tavattun etmis ve hizmet-i askeriyeden muafiyet-i ser‘îasına bazı vilayâtda
iki sene evvel zuhur eden kaht belası da inzimâm ederek öteden beri Anadolu’da yerlesmis olan
Çerkeslerin fevc fevc Havran taraflarına geldikleri görülmüs... BOA, Y.MTV. 38/99 in Osmanlı Belgelerinde
Suriye, (Istanbul: T.C. Basbakanlık Devlet Arsivleri Genel Müdürlügü, 2013), 73-77.
130Christoph Herzog, “Migration and the state On Ottoman regulations concerning migration since the age
of Mahmud II,” in The City in the Ottoman Empire Migration and the Making of Urban Modernity, ed.
Ulrike Freitag and Malte Fuhrmann, (New York: Routledge, 2011), 121.
131BOA, DH.MKT. 1471/89.
132BOA, DH.MKT. 1585/57 (8 Kanun-ı Evvel 1304, 20 December 1888).
33
These strict rules and measures exercised against undocumented mobility reveal the
intention to intensify state visibility and control in individual lives. Now the state
could identify and control or stop movements that it saw as beneficial for the state
or not.133 Therefore, previous mobility flexibility was becoming limited for refugees
and this new policy aimed to restrict their movements within the state and, more
specifically, in the Province of Syria.
The district of Quneitra was a favoured region in Sanjak of Hawran by the Circassian
refugees throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The land was
fertile and close to Damascus when compared to the southern region of the province.
These favourable factors merged with Circassians’ resilience, and they have formed
12 large villages in the district. The expedition of Schumacher in 1888 in Jawlan depicts
the Circassian villages in great detail. The administrative centre was situated
in the village of Quneitra. The author notes that without the soldiers and officers,
the town’s population has consisted of 1,300 inhabitants, primarily Circassians.134
Further he continues, "Looking, too, at the towering hay-cocks, the swift, rattling
Circassian carts, the preparation of dried bricks from the fine earth of the neighbourhood,
and, above all, the cleanliness of the streets, one asks involuntarily, ’Am
I in the Jawlan?’."135 The emphasis on the order and industirious characteristics of
the Circassian villages is a recurrent narrative in travelogues’ works. Likewise, the
emphasis on the wheeled charts is stated as a brand new technology for the region.
Even though the Circassians were built seven villages, the newcomers had been continuing
the building process of new villages, and they were already introduced their
tools that entirely unknown to the region. An earlier account by Oliphant witnesses
the initial mass settlement in central Quneitra in April 1879.
The women and children were hoeing and weeding in the newly-made
gardens. The men were either hauling stone in creaking arabas drawn
by bullocks, a sight which must have been altogether new to the neighbouring
Bedouins, who had never seen a wheeled vehicle in their lives or
were building the walls of the houses.136
133David Gutman, “Travel Documents, Mobility Control, and the Ottoman State in an Age of Global Migration,
1880–1915,” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 3, no. 2, (2016): 351.
134Schumacher, 207.
135Ibid., 208.
136Laurence Oliphant, The Land of Gilead: With Excursions in the Lebanon, (London: W. Blackwood and
Sons, 1880), 45.
34
The new groups brought by the second wave of migration were building their new
settlements with the active participation of every member of the tribe by hoping
this would be their permanent settlement.
Figure 3.2 The Circassian Village in Bireyka Built on Ancient Ruins
Source: Schumacher, The Jaulân, 113.
Circassian villages continued to expand and flourished in the district of Quneitra.
Other villages were either increasing in population or some already populated widely.
Ayn Surman grew from 60 to 100 households in one year, and it consisted of 450
people.137 On the other hand, Bireyka, with 85 household and 425 inhabitants and
Mansura population with 400, were leading villages of Circassians in the Quneitra
district.138 Along with these numbers on the population of Circassian refugees,
there are several available resources to draw a general idea about the statistics of
refugees. The table below compares the censuses of Circassians under the Ottoman
and French rules.139
137Schumacher, 99.
138Ibid., 113, 218.
139Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1302/1885, 234., Orsam, Suriye Çerkesleri, Rapor No: 130, 2012, 15.
35
Table 3.1 Households of Circassian Villages Under Ottoman and French Rule
Village 1885
Households
1935
Households
Quneitra 128 400
Mansura 184 120
Mumsiya 17 50
Ayn Zivan 82 150
Cuveyza 23 100
Bireyka 80 150
Bir Acem 33 70
Reyhaniye 24 -
Hermon 82 -
Ayn Herman 28 -
Surman - 120
Ayn Surman - 30
Hamidiya - 30
Koçniya - 150
Faham - 20
Fazara - 10
Farac - 14
Ruhina - 25
Sandaniya - 10
Total 681 1,449
Despite the high resilience and adaptability, the Circassian population experienced
several adversities in the settlements that depopulated them. One reason preventing
their population from growing was the ongoing hostilities between the local population,
particularly the Druze. On various occasions, clashes between these two
parties ended up with high casualties. To illustrate, in a clash with Druzes, 56
Circassians stabbed to death, and their 14 houses burned down.140 In addition to
conflicts with local forces, the infectious diseases widespread in the empire at the
turn of the nineteenth century also affected the Circassian population of Quneitra.
In the early 1880s, various fatal infections were spreading in the Province of Syria.
In Quneitra, typhus and malaria caused numerous casualties. Only in September
1883, 154 people died of malaria and the reason attributed to the poor weather con-
140Dürzilerin zükur ve inas elli altı nüfusu bıçak ile katl ve bir kisiyi cerh edüb on dört bab-ı hane ihrak
eyledikleri ve kendülerinden de yirmi nüfüsun öldügü mahalinde alınan ma’lumata... BOA, Y.A.HUS.
299/40 (26 Mayıs 1310, 7 June 1894).
36
ditions of the region.141 An addition of 47 refugees settled from Sivas to Quneitra,
again killed by malaria. Even though the state sent a doctor to the region, the
destitute situation of poor refugees could not even afford the medical costs, and the
governor wanted these expenses to be covered by the province.142 Later, the district
quarantined due to the typhus epidemic, and in the early days of the quarantine,
more than 40 people reported dead.143 These casualties decreased the population
of Circassians, who were already had a small number in the region. However, it is
possible to conclude that the district of Quneitra, which had very few settlements
prior to the Circassian settlement, was turned into an administrative centre where
urban life became a permanent aspect of the region.
141Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1301/1884, 238.
142BOA, I.DH. 01101 (28 Agustos 1304, 9 September 1888).
143BOA, DH.MKT. 1549/48. (10 Eylül 1304, 22 September 1888).
37
4. BETWEEN CENTRE AND PERIPHERY: EMPIRE, LOCALS
AND CIRCASSIANS
4.1 Accelerated Inclusion of the Province of Syria to the Centre
Although Syria has long been categorized among the warm countries,
making this assumption based on the general view is considerably mistaken.
Some regions are low and forested, and some are high and mountainous.
While highlands experience heavy snowfall, lowlands could have
features of springtime. To witness every season, one must travel for some
time in the region. 144
Almanac of Syrian province published in 1880 starts with this information about
Greater Syria. After its first publication in 1868, yearbooks of the Province of Syria
began to be written in more detail starting in 1878. Not just the province but
also sanjaks and districts had details about the lands, population and construction
projects carried by the administration. This practice can be related to the able
governors of the time. First, Cevdet, then Midhat Pashas, held the governorship
of Syria as being the capable officers. Especially, Midhat Pasha was the one that
successfully applied the new provincial reforms in the Province of Danube. The
creation of agricultural credit cooperatives began with his reforms and later practised
in Syria.145 In 1880 Ahmed Hamdi Pasha appointed as the governor of the province
and held the position for five years. He was one of the two governors that kept
the post that long. Therefore, along with qualified and consistent governors, the
character of the yearbooks evolved into a more comprehensive one.
144Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1297/1880, 82.
145Davison, 152-157.
38
The narration of the passage indicates the changing perspectives over Greater Syria.
Since Bedouins predominantly occupied the internal regions of Greater Syria and the
parts far from the coastal areas were neglected by the state. Therefore, there were
common prejudices against the internal regions. The administrators were opposed to
the biased idea of Greater Syria as being a barren desert. Adding to this persuasion,
the yearbook continues with numerous evaluations and plans for the flourishing of
the province. Further in the text, the region’s commercial activities stated as "far
from its actual potention".146 The immediate solution to improve commercial activities
was constructing roads between cities of cultivation and trade. Overall, the
almanac had a tone of promotion regarding the potential of Greater Syria. If the
hostile and deceptive generalizations against the province could be overcome, this
frontier region could be transformed into a prospered and integrated part of the empire.
The Province of Syria represented as a pearl of undiscovered importance. This
positive orientation was undoubtedly was related to the rapidly changing territorial
boundaries and demographics of the empire.
The Province of Syria played a vital situation in the integration of Arab lands into
the central system. While the shredding frontiers of the empire witnessed forces
to stand against like Russians in the Balkans, the state faced local tribes in the
Arab lands that were much more simple to compete with. Moreover, the Ottoman
sultan had various symbolic powers to used upon the local population. One and
the most legitimate one was the status of the caliphate. The sultan profoundly
utilized his figure as the caliph since one central policy in the region was to increase
the legitimization of the Ottoman caliphate in the eyes of the Arab subjects. While
refugees placed in the area strengthen the caliph’s symbolic presence, the state must
have applied further improvements to the region. Under these terms, the location
of Syria was linked to the integration and protection of the Hijaz region. Besides,
Greater Syria was under the great attention of foreign powers. This interest was not
present through a military force but instead practised as a soft power over minorities
of the region. Maronites were under the protection of the French, and further, the
Algerians settled in Syria were granted French citizenship.147 British interest in
Druze population and Russian expansionist policy in Jerusalem was the primary
signifiers for the Ottomans to accelerate their authority in the region.
The failure in the Balkan provinces turned the empire’s attention to the remaining
Anatolian and Arab lands. The loss of vast resources in the Balkans had to be
146Fakat sanayi’ ve ticaretin su hali ne kadar mucib-i memnuniyet ve sayan-ı takdir olsa bile yine kıta’nın
ehemmiyet ve kabiliyet-i mahsusasıyla asla münasıb bulunmadıgından.. Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye,
1297/1880, 80.
147Tufan Buzpınar, “Ahmed Cevdet Pasa’nın Suriye Valiligi (Subat-Kasın 1878),” Türk Kültürü Incelemeleri
Dergisi 9, (2003): 40.
39
compensated with new ones, and to met this end, the ongoing centralization policy
in the Arab provinces escalated. Ahmed Cevdet clearly states that the wealth of
Syria, Aleppo and Adana could make up the losses of the empire if appropriately
managed.148 Since the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire was not a priority
of Great powers after 1878. Berlin Treaty made it certain that most non-Muslim
groups in the Balkans gained their independence and were no longer the concern of
Ottomans. This loss resulted in the Muslim majority population formed by Anatolian
and Arab lands. As a result, Abdulhamid II adopted the policy of Islamization
within and outside of the empire.149 A correspondence between Ahmed Cevdet and
Abdulhamid II reveals the mindset of the new policies. Cevdet states that even
though Turks are the backbones of the empire, Arabs must be valued equally because
they possess Islam’s language. He also points out the officials’ humiliations of
the Arabs by calling them fellah. If this attitude towards Arabs change, only then
could they become an integrated part of the empire and experiences in the Balkans
would not repeat in Arab lands.150
Another critical application of Islamist policy of Abdulhamid’s reign was on migration
movements. Refugee flows from the lost lands gradually transformed the
caliphate into a universal shelter for Muslims. The growing Sunni Islamic line of
the state also influenced the immigration policies. Previous migration policies that
were relatively liberal gradually became more strict with the parallel of the Islamist
policy. The land losses transformed the empire into a more homogeneous one in a
religious context since the non-Muslim populations were becoming independent from
the empire. The increasing uniformity in the religious structure also affected the
central policies on migration accordingly.151 In 1905, a ship full of refugees arrived
from Batum to Trabzon and among them non-Muslims were identified. However,
the official administration stated that only the Muslim population is accepted from
Russia; based on a prior decree, the non-Muslim ones could not seek refuge in the
empire.152
Indeed, with the encouraging policies, the Muslim migration continued for decades
by the masses that wanted to protect their religious freedom under the Muslim
148Engin Deniz Akarlı, “Abdülhamid II’s Attempt to Integrate Arabs,” 75.
149Kemal Karpat, The Politicization of Islam: Reconstructing Identity, State, Faith, and Community in the Late Ottoman State,
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 183.
150Akarlı, p.77.
151Basak Kale, “Transforming an Empire: The Ottoman Empire’s Immigration and Settlement Policies in
the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,” Middle Eastern Studies 50, no. 2, (2014): 260.
152Ismet Binark, Osmanlı Devleti ile Kafkasya, Türkistan ve Kırım Hanlıkları Arasındaki Münâsebetlere Dâir
Arsiv Belgeleri: 1687-1908 Yılları Arası, (Ankara: T.C. Basbakanlık Devlet Arsivleri Genel Müdürlügü,
1992), 93.
40
caliphate. The petitions of Caucasian refugees reveals this objective explicitly. A
Circassian refugee group entered the empire in 1883, and their leader showed his
gratitude with a letter to authorities. He appreciated the just treatment of the
caliph and the state. He stated that they emigrated to protect their religion and
honour, and it was only possible under the state of the Ottomans.153 As a response
to this reality, Muslims of the empire tried to be united under the name of Islam
and the caliphate. The rise of Muslim subjects by migrations undeniably affected
the sultan to create loyal subjects and strengthen his legitimacy.
Abdulhamid believed in creating a close patronage link to integrate local actors into
his rule to incorporate the provinces. The policy of coercion upon the provincial
actors highly backed with direct inclusion of them in the administration. Center
created a close and steady relationship with the notables by hoping that this will
improve the state’s legitimacy before the local population. Abdulhamid II was
personally involved in this process. He invited tribe leaders to Istanbul and rewarded
them with official titles. Abdullah Pasha al-Saud handled this policy as being a
mediator between the state and bedouin tribes. The leader of the Ruwala tribe was
persuaded to meet with the sultan in Istanbul, and after his statement of obedience,
he received a Mecidiye medal.154 This policy has aroused considerable interest
among other tribes. Tribe leaders wrote numerous petitions to the mediator for
the same ceremony with the sultan. Besides, medals were also given in provinces
for several reasons. A negotiator who solves the conflict between two groups took
mecidiye medal. In the yearbooks of 1898 and 1899, an extensive list of the persons
awarded with medals can be found. Members of the Fadıl tribe, the leading tribe of
the Hawran region, got many medals in these years.155
The inclusion of bedouin tribes into the state system continued with education.
One particular example was the establishment of Tribal School (Asiret Mektebi) in
Istanbul in 1892. The school’s first regulation specifies that the aim is to educate
the children of bedouin tribes that are clever and members of the most respected
tribes.156 The primary purpose was to integrate the bedouin tribes into the state
system and create a new Ottoman-Arab identity. This policy was both paralleled
with the ottomanism and Islamization movement of the period. "Over the five years,
students were expected to master classical Arabic and Ottoman Turkish and were
153Ibid., 87.
154Rogan, 85.
155Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1316/1898, p.301., 1317/1899, 325.
156Eugene L. Rogan and Alisan Akpınar, Asiret, Mektep, Devlet: II. Abdülhamid’in Asiret Mektebi (1892-
1907), (Istanbul: Aram Yayıncılık, 2001), 79.
41
taught three years of French and two years of Persian. They were given a grounding
in the Islamic sciences, the humanities (particularly geography and history), and
arithmetic."157 This education offered a more advanced study than a local secondary
school level. The intense language courses sided with natural sciences would be the
best education a tribal member could get. The courses and the atmosphere of
the capital city would increase the embracement of state values by the students.
However, the intended quota was never were filled since the prominent families were
unwilling to send their children to the capital. After a rebellion with the excuse
of bad food in 1907, Asiret Mektebi is closed down.158 Although the schools did
not attract the expected attention, they ensured some integration of tribal members
into the state system. The number of admitted students in the first three years was
88, and 45 of them continued their education in Harbiye and Mülkiye schools, while
the present evidence shows that 20 of them became officials in their hometowns.159
In the Hamidian era, the strengthening of central authority in Greater Syria was
continued with the integration of the local population into the state system. Initially,
the state tried to change the Ottoman official’s mindsets toward the region to a
favourable attitude. Later, in line with the policy of Islamism, the emphasis on
the caliphate was increased. The acceptance of Muslim refugees strengthened the
image of the Sultan as the caliph. Thus, he became the protector of the oppressed
Muslims around the world with his strong position. Lastly, the local population
were included in the state system through education and political ties. Therefore,
after the losses of Balkan provinces, the state intensified the integration process of
Greater Syria and implemented various policies in the region.
4.2 Civilizing the Savages: Integration of Local Syrian Population into
the Empire
Concerning the population of Hawran region the yearbook of 1880 starts with;
The population of the Hawran is consist of tribes and a gang of Druzes
who are still in the state of savagery and nomadism, and their occupa-
157Eugene L. Rogan, "Asiret Mektebi: Abdulhamid II’s School for Tribes (1892-1907)," International Journal
of Middle East Studies 28, no. 1, 1996, 92.
158Ibid., 100.
159Ibid., 100-103
42
tion is farming. The country is becoming more stripped of the causes of
progress and the institutions of civilization every day. Despite this deprivation,
nature has given Hawran such a rare virtue not only in Syria
but perhaps in many parts of the world; it’s a very fertile and fruitful
land.160
Regarding the perspective of the state, one can draw two critical points from this
passage. First is the portrayal of tribes and Druzes as being savages, not just nomads.
The savagery causes the region to become gradually uncivilized each day.
The Ottoman state was obliged to save this region by eliminating these factors.
Second, even with all this backwardness, the region had a highly positive advantage
as the most fertile place on the planet. This exaggerated narrative shows the administrators
intend to convince the audience that the region is worth investing in.
The intense sedentarization process was related to the re-claiming of the lands where
central authority was absent or highly weak. The state wanted to integrate the far
edges of the empire with the centre and created a legitimization tool while doing it.
Only with a settled society could the province fulfill its potential and compensate
for the losses of former resources for the empire.
The process of intense integration of the Province of Syria supported and legitimized
with the narration of civilizing the population. The contrast was between
the civilized and uncivilized or medeniyet and bedeviyet. The settled population
was the first step to be counted as a civilized one, whereas the Bedouins were at
the lowest stage of civilization. Even though this view originated in the concepts of
Ibn Khaldun, Ottoman elites added his terminology with the contemporary ones.
Ibn Khaldun’s dichotomy was based on the terminologies of hazariyet and bedeviyet
nineteenth-century Ottoman elite added or replaced hazariyet with medeniyet. For
example, Ahmed Cevdet used them both in his views of society. For him, a society
can evolve from nomadism to civilization.161 Hazariyet literally meant "the settled";
on the other hand, medeni meant "city". However, the term medeniyet was first used
in Takvim-i Vekayi, dated from 1831. The main aim of the passage in the official
newspaper was to support the centralization movement by implementing civilizing
measures.162
160Havranın ekseriyesi ’asair-i sakine ile taife-i Dürziyeden mürekkeb olup ahalisi henüz hal-i vahset ve bedeviyetde
bulunup kar-u mesguliyetleri dahi zira’ate münhasır oldugu cihetle memleket her güne esbab-ı
ma’muriyet ve asar-ı medeniyetden ari isede mamafih tabiat su mahrumiyete mukabil Havran’a diger
cihetden öyle bir meziyet-i aliye ihsan buyurmusdur ki hakikat-ı nazırı yalnız Suriye vilayetince degil
belki dünyanın pek çok taraflarınca nadir bulunur o da arazisinin gayet münbit ve mahsuldar olmasıdır.
Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1297/1880, 215.
161bedeviyyetten hazariyyet ve medeniyyete. Ahmed Cevdet Pasa, Tarih-i Cevdet, Volume I, 116.
162ûsûl-i medeniyete tesebbüs. Özgür Türesay, “The Ottoman Empire Seen Through the Lens of Postcolonial
Studies: A Recent Historiographical Turn,” Revue d’histoire Moderne et Contemporaine 60, no.2, 2013, 5.
43
As a western term, medeniyet or civilization had its roots in French Enlightenment.
According to Schaebler, the civilization movement occurs due to encounters with
others and these confrontations are the essential components of modernity itself.163
These forces of modernization that influenced the European states also affected the
Ottomans. However, the expansion of modernity should not be seen as a mere imitation
of the Western one. Instead, every state developed their concepts and attitudes
on modernity and the idea of civilization. On the other hand, the meaning of bedeviyet
had also been transformed into a multi-layered one. The core implication
of the term was nomadism; however, an eminent magazine used the word as being
barbarity by stating that not a single good trait of the bedouin can be seen as a
virtue vis-à-vis the greatness of civilization.164 The term bedeviyet ve vahset coined
by Deringel as nomadism and savagery, continued to be repeated in various official
texts.165 It was the primary term of the reports regarding education and sedentarization
policies. The only way to obtain a prosperous empire the population had
to be a settled one. Since the nomadic population cannot be taxed or conscript
and the fertile lands were wasted for grazing, the settled population was the most
favourable one for the centre’s benefit. Therefore, the nomads were demonized and
accused of the backwardness of the regions.
On the other hand, the scope of the word savagery extended over time and not just
referred to nomadism. When considering the Province of Syria, its connotation even
included Druzes and Circassian refugees, both of which were settled communities
at the time. According to one official document issued in July 1904, every Druze
and Circassian child must learn the rules of Islam and must be brought under the
civilization.166 The state aimed to form an integrated population that embraced
the principal ideals of the centre. This policy extended to the edges of the empire
for creating a loyal society. One other reason for this civilizing narrative was to
eliminate the foreign powers in the region. Great Powers were already present in
Greater Syria not just through issues of the minority but also with their schools,
163Birgit Schaebler, “Civilizing Others: Global Modernity and the Local Boundaries
(French/German/Ottoman and Arab) of Savagery,” in Globalization and the Muslim World: Culture,
Religion, and Modernity, ed. Birgit Schaebler and Leif Stenberg, (Syracuse, N.Y: Syracuse
University Press, 2004), 3.
164Ibid., 18.
165Selim Deringil, "They Live in a State of Nomadism and Savagery": The Late Ottoman Empire and the
Post-Colonial Debate,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 45, no.2, (2003): 317.
166...mevcud mekteb-i ibtidaiyeye ’ilaveten icab eden köylerde lüzümu kadar mekteb-i ibtidaiye ve merkez
livada dahi bir bab rüsdiye mektebi ta’sis ve küsade ve sairenin eskal-i lüzumu Havran mutasarrıflıgına
is’ar olunacagı ve liva-i mezkur dahilinde bulunan ve henüz hal-i bedeviyetde olan ’urban ile muhacirin-i
Çerakesinin ve Dürzilerin tedricen daire-i medeniyetle idhali ile bulundukları hal-i vahset ve cehaletden
kurtarılmaları... BOA, DH.MKT. 866/57 (19 Haziran 1320, 2 July 1904).
44
religious braches and construction projects.167 This intense influence of the foreign
powers created a competition with the centre. Therefore, the Ottoman state had
to fight against the impact of the Great Powers. Education and religion were the
most important spheres of influence; thus, the central state began to promote these
aspects base on their ideology. Since the concept of modernity forced every state
to transform itself into a new structure, consequently Ottoman elite had to pursue
similar steps for its population both to integrate and preserve it.
The civilizing narrative was not unique to the Arab inhabitants of the empire. This
narrative was not an issue of creating a peculiar Orient for the Ottoman elite. In
this respect the state differed from the western colonial powers by its definition over
cultural difference. For the Ottoman elite, culture was the main arena of difference.
The culture of nomads created the savagery, not their race as being an Arab or
a Kurd. Besides, the state could reduce this savagery with the implementation of
Tanzimat reforms.168 Indeed, with the formation of Fırka-ı Islahiyye, the Anatolian
Turcoman nomadic population were targeted to be sedentarized like the bedouin.
A valuable source of this process on the Anatolian tribes is the already mentioned
Tezakir of Cevdet Pasha. While writing a great detail about the sedentarization
process and the demographic characteristics of the regions, Cevdet Pasha uses the
term state of savagery and nomadism (hal-i vahset ve bedaviyet), referring to the
population of the Çukurova region.169 In the following years, the same policy transferred
into Greater Syria. When Cevdet Pasha became the governor of Aleppo, he
cooperated with the governor of Syria to eliminate the damages of bedouin in the
region. Hence, the principal objective of the civilizing narrative was to create a
population that possessed the ideals of the state and every group that oppose this
new concept of modernity categorized as the savages.
Furthermore, the population that was categorized as "savage" were among the citizens
of the empire. The state did not cast out the local forces from the administration
like in British or French colonialism. On the contrary, every segment of
the region was to a certain extent represented in the provincial as well as municipal
councils. During the constitutional periods members of the parliament from
the provinces represented their localities and were treated equally in the Ottoman
167James A. Reilly, “Ottomans in Syria: “Turkish Colonialism”, or Something Else?,” in Comparing Colonialism:
Beyond European Exceptionalism, ed. Axel T. Paul and Matthias Leanza, (Leipzig: Leipziger
Universitätsverlag, 2020), 282.
168Thomas Kuehn, Empire, Islam, and Politics of Difference Ottoman Rule in Yemen, 1849–1919, (Leiden:
Brill, 2011), 93.
169Tezakir 21-39, 160.
45
parliament as citizens of the empire.170 Moreover, the state did not work on the
imposition of Turkish ethnic identity but on strengthening the Muslim population
against the Christian citizens of doubtful loyalty. To meet this end, the Arab population
were tried to be integrated into central administration in several ways.171
As a result, the main difference between the Ottoman elite and colonist was their
ultimate objective toward the local people. While the Ottoman elite felt superior
to locals, its goal was to eliminate cultural differences and create the same level of
civilization within the empire for integration. On the contrary, the colonist wanted
to keep the difference with their colony to maintain exclusion.172
The primary responsibilities adopted by the state to close this cultural gap was to
invest in the reconstruction of the region and impose the values of the state on the
local population by promoting education. Several statesmen were also pointed the
reforms necessary for the development and integration of Arab lands. Osman Nuri
Pasha, the governor of Hijaz and Yemen, addresses the region’s civilizing narrative
and its components. In his report, he lists a detailed guideline concerning the
civilizing process. Main steps towards the establishment of a civilized society could
be made possible by the organization of administrative divisions, the construction of
government buildings and military establishments reflecting the glory of the state,
the establishment of courts of law, the spread of education and the acquisition of
progress in trade and professions, the increase in revenues and the construction of
roads.173 The stages of reforms in the Arab lands mostly followed this guideline,
intentionally or not.
The economy of Hawran was depended on the cultivation and grain trade. Hence, the
main occupation of the peasants was the agriculture of grain. The increased presence
of the European market in the region shifted the trade into port cities rather than
Damascus. For long distances, camels transported grains to Nablus, Jerusalem,
Jaffa, Haifa and Acre.174 Logistics was the main component of a profitable trade
system, and this one had numerous downsides. Thus, a new tramway planned to be
constructed between Damascus and Hawran in 1879. The report of the plan stated
that this fertile region could not be benefited enough since there were no roads, other
than ancient Roman ones, both to port cities and Damascus. Whole transportation
170Türesay, 160.
171Reilly, 283.
172Türesay, 16.
173Deringil, 327.
174F. A. Klein, “Life, Habits, and Customs of the Fellahin of Palestine,” Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly
Statement, (1883): 45.
46
carried by camels, and this meant that half of the profit wasted on transportation
expenses. Moreover, the transport was coming to a halt in the winter because of
muddy soil.175 A decade later, another report shows the progress of construction in
the Province of Syria. The state could not finalize three road construction projects
through Damascus to Hawran, Hama to Damascus and Latakia. The reason was
the incompetent engineering, and it costed the workers’ productivity. While the
new engineers were requested from the centre, their arrivals were postponed, and
the roads could not be finished as planned. Therefore, in 1889 twenty-nine bridges
and thirty-four km roads constructed in the region.176
The Ottoman central administration adopted an intensive reform and integration
policy with the Tanzimat era. This process intensified after the significant loss of the
state lands. The remaining grounds were the only places that the state could turn
into. Hence, the presence of the central state increased its visibility not just with
enforcement but also with investments. Both in Anatolia and the Arab lands, the
people, whether nomads, settled or refugees, sought to be transformed into modern
citizens in line with the views of the state. For the Ottoman elite, the incorporation
of frontiers meant the recovery of new resources, preventing foreign influences
in the regions and creating loyal citizens against the possible rebellious tendencies.
To this end, the state tended to implement policies that were the necessary conditions
of modernity. While promoting the settled lifestyle, state education expanded
and infrastructure strengthened. As a result, the frontier regions were exposed to
similar categorizations and experienced standard policies to be transformed into a
homogenous community.
4.3 Refugees Becoming Locals
As Circassians arrived in Quneitra, they began the process of settling down and
gradually became locals through environmental adaption, new technologies, and
participation in the economic sphere. Laurence Oliphant, in his book The Land of
Gilead published in 1880, wrote these in his travel to Quneitra:
Ismael Agha, Circassian chief, said that there were altogether about
3,000 Circassians in Kuneitereh and its vicinity, who, although they had
175I. MM S, 62/2932 in Osmanlı Belgelerinde Suriye, 176.
176Y. MTV, 38/99, Ibid., 75.
47
only been there a few months, they are already establishing themselves in
comparative comfort. They were grouped in seven villages, all of which
they had themselves built, and had brought enough property with them
to purchase a few cattle so that they were not in absolute want, though
some of them were very poor.177
As Oliphant observes, poverty was rampant among some groups in Queitra, especially
in the early stages of their arrival. While the poor continued to be supported
by the government, the majority of the Circassians seemed to overcome the traumas
of their second deportations and adjust the new lands granted to them. As it is evident
from the ruins of the ancient Roman site Jawlan, the Circassian refugees rapidly
adapted to the environment and used it to their benefit. For instance, archaeological
scholars studying housing materials at Jawlan have observed that Circassians used
ruined ancient stones for house building.178 The resilient character of Circassians
enabled them to create their localities from scratch. In total, the Circassians built
twelve villages across Quneitra. Travellers to the region repeatedly praised these
villages for their order and cleanliness. However, Circassians of Quneitra did not
isolate themselves from other Circassian refugee settlers in the Province of Syria.
When the refugees arrived in Quneitra, the conditions of proper roads were quite
limited in the district and only the ancient paths from the Roman period were in
use.Because, the constant usage of carts was one of the most prominent features of
the Circassians. The roads of Circassian villages were either improved or created
by the refugees to create a suitable spatial area for their carts. These cart roads
connected the Circassian towns in Greater Syria and enabled refugees to build a
collective society.
Especially after 1878, the intense settlement process populated the deserted regions
of Greater Syria. In every region, Circassians formed numerous villages. The passage
from the travel of missionary scholar Masterman179 that visited the Transjordan in
1902. He wrote as follows:
The Circassians of Kuneitra, Jerash, and Amman have connected their
colonies by means of cart roads. As we approached Jerash, we came
across a cart, much like an ambulance wagon, accompanied by over a
177Oliphant, 51.
178Gottlieb Schumacher, Across The Jordan: An Exploration and Survey of Part of Hauran and Jaulan, 1889,
167.
179Yaron Perry and Efraim Lev, “Ernest William Gurney Masterman, British Physician and Scholar in the
Holy Land,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 138, 2006.
48
dozen well-mounted Circassians, which was bringing a Circassian bride
all the way from Kunieitra, through Jerash to ’Amman.180
The instant he witnessed indicates the close ties that formed between refugee settlements.
The apparent road patterns suggest that the refugees actively built their
villages based on the potential networks they would create. This pattern also indicates
their awareness of surrounding regions. In the light of this information, it can
be said that refugee settlements were been aware of each other since earlier periods.
Thus spatial features of the towns became a crucial aspect of the topography of the
region and helped to connect them as a community.
The identity formation of Circassians in this new land that was alien to them was
the starting point of these firm relations. Originally Circassians were a tribal society
composed of numerous tribes, such as the Abzakhs, Adyghe, Kabartey, and Shabsug.
Each tribe consisted of a leader, nobles, commoners and slaves. This social class
distinction was very sharp, and marriage out of class was not possible.181 However,
in the settlements of Ottoman lands, the identities of the Circassians encountered
new dimensions. In particular, the centralization policy towards tribal bonds posed a
challenge to this traditional social features. The large tribes were divided into groups
or separated from their leaders and settled in different areas.182 Only the refugees
that had kinship bonds could move to areas where their relatives had settled.183
Another challenge for Circassian identity was the matter of slavery. Unlike its clear
position towards the African slave trade, the Ottoman state took only a vague
position on the Circassian slave trade in the Ottoman Empire. While the state did
not permanently prohibit the Circassian slave trade, it had always pursued policies
that encouraged emancipation to end slavery.184 In the midst of heavy refugee flows,
the identities became blurred. The government already struggled to track slaves’
status, a problem made more difficult with the addition of thousands of refugees.
This vague situation created new opportunities for slaves, and some denied their
status as a slave to receive land from the Ottoman state. When combined with
the inexplicit policies of the state, this issue started a new conflict zone between
180E. W. G. Masterman, “Miscellaneous Notes Made During a Journey East and West of Jordan,” Quarterly
Statement, Palestine Exploration Fund, 1902, 300-301.
181Mirza Bala, “Çerkesler” Islam Ansiklopedisi, Volume 3, (Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basımevi, 1977), 375-378.
182Dawn Chatty, “Refugees, Exiles,” 44.
183BOA, Y.PRK.KOM, 1/26 in Osmanlı Belgelerinde Kafkas Göçleri I, 96.
184Hakan Erdem, Osmanlıda Köleligin Sonu 1800-1909, (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2004), 151. Ehud R.
Toledano, The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Suppression: 1840-1890, (New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1982).
49
emirs and slaves. Former slaves who wanted to preserve their new emancipated
status and emirs who did not want to lose their slaves took up arms, and clashes
over identities took place.185 Meanwhile, in frontier zones, the traditional life of
the Circassian society was more permanent. The emirs had their slaves until the
explicit prohibition of Circassian slavery that occurred just after the Young Turk
Revolution.186 In March 1910, Circassian emirs from Quneitra petitioned to state
for information about the status of their slaves. They wanted to get information
about the official applications they should make in this regard.187 The dynamic
policies towards Circassian slavery in the state led to changes in the identity of
traditional Circassian society. The hierarchical identities established before began
to be shattered, and the new order in Ottoman lands started to create new centres
of power within Circassian settler societies.
After their mass migration experiences, both to the Ottoman Empire and within it,
these various Circassian tribes with strict traditional social characteristics formed
new identities and relations in their settlements. In creating these identities, new
tribal relations and status of slaves caused the blurring of the old traditional structures.
Unlike previous practices in their homeland, a distinctive feature of the
Circassians was their refugee status in Ottoman lands. The shared identity as being
displaced and settlers brought together the diverse groups in language, dialect, region
and social rank.188 Circassian refugees of Greater Syria were perceived as the
instruments and representatives of the state by locals. Because they were the minorities
of the region, refugees had to build networks and common identities against the
possible threats. They created interconnected villages with their unique technologies,
which led to building relations based on their common refugee identity. Thus,
in Ottoman Syria, a new Circassian society based on the shared experiences during
the displacements was born, which became a part of the region and challenged the
local forces with their tribal networks.
Since most of the regions chosen by the government in which to settle refugees were
sparsely inhabited before Circassian resettlement, the refugees became direct agents
of the central government in the area. The central authority was implemented
and controlled through refugees. Authorities used these empty lands to shape and
govern the regions, and the refugee settlements were the prominent instruments
185Ufuk Tavkul, “Osmanlı Devletinin Kafkas Muhacirlerinin Kölelik Kurumuna Yaklasımı,” Bilig 17, (2001):
47.
186Erdem, 190.
187BOA, DH.MKT. 2800/76 (6 Nisan 1325, 19 April 1909).
188Seteney Shami, “Historical Processes of Identity Formation: Displacement, Settlement, and Self-
Representations of the Circassians in Jordan,” Iran and the Caucasus 13, no. 1, (2009): 147.
50
of integration and social engineering.189 In order to carry out this role, refugees
engaged with several identities in their settlements. Circassians of Quneitra had
taken the role of the gendarme for the Ottoman government, similar to the role
that other Circassians playes in the empire. In frontier regions, the government
pursued a central policy of installing armed forces to maintain central authority and
combat uprisings by local parties. However, prior to the migration of Circassians,
local administrations suffered from troop shortages to form these units. This deficit
was filled by the Circassians and new regiments were positioned in the district.
Travelogues commonly referred to the military identities of Circassians. As one
account stated that;
"...the colonists occupy most of the Government positions in the Kada
of Jawlan; their young men serve in the regular army, in the Circassian
regiment at Damascus, or in the "Corps de Gendarmerie" (the mounted
police or zaptiehs), a detachment of which is stationed at Kuneitrah.”190
Later, the district of Quneitra even became a base for these regiments. Circassian
commander Mirza Pasha, who served under the Ottoman army in the Balkans and
Greater Syria, was a leading figure of Circassian regiments. In the Druze revolt
of 1895, he formed and led the voluntary Circassian units against Druzes under
state orders.191 During these conflicts and later during the battles with the bedouin
in Transjordan, Quneitra turned into a central base. The Circassians, with their
advanced weaponry, transformed themselves into potent elements of war efforts in
the region.192
Apart from involvement in military forces, the Circassians adapted themselves to the
economy of the region. Initially, Circassians identified as farmers in the economic
sphere. In Quneitra, the main agricultural products were wheat, barley, sesame,
white millet and wool.193 Circassians not only engaged in cultivating these agricultural
products but also introduced various new tools and techniques that were
unknown to local farmers. One of the most well-known innovations introduced by
189Ella Fratantuono, “Producing Ottomans: Internal Colonization and Social Engineering in Ottoman Immigrant
Settlement,” Journal of Genocide Research 21, no.1, (2019): 23.
190G. Schumacher, “Notes From Jedur,” Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1897, 192.
191Haghanduqah, 42.
192TNA. FO 424/184 No. 799, 6 December 1895.
193In Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye the crops of the Quneitra region in 1878 are given in kilograms as follows;
Hınta 8.000, Sa’ir 10.000, Sisam 5.000, Beyaz Darı 20.000, Yün 6.000. 147.
51
the Circassians was the cart. It was used in the transportation of crops, bricks
for house building and timber trade. Refugees also brought other, more traditional
agricultural methods with them, such as the sickle, which was used for the collection
and shaping of hays.194 Circassian settlements were situated alongside water
sources, and in Quneitra, they were the only group that used a wind-powered pumping
system to draw water from wells.195
In addition to agricultural production, Circassians engaged with animal husbandry.
Other than sheep, they were well-known for owning cows, and they were identified
with this feature.196 Circassians extended the agricultural lands of the state by
applying their traditional methods originated from their homelands. The yearbook
of 1887 describes the Circassian contribution in Quneitra as follows: “although the
central district is not large and developed enough, the Circassian immigrants had
settled there are industrious in agriculture and infrastructure, so the region had been
growing consistently.”197 This praising description of the Circassians had repeated
for a decade in the following yearbooks. Circassian participation in agriculture
and animal husbandry enriched the region, earned praise from the government, and
introduced new methods to increase productivity. In a way, they shaped this foreign
nature with their characteristics and created a new cultural fusion within Greater
Syria.
Even though Circassian refugees were mainly regarded as agriculturalists, they were
also active participants in the trade networks of the region and even created new
trade netwroks of their own. With enlargement brought on by Circassian setllement,
the district of Quneitra expanded to include vast forest areas. A large proportion
of the trees was consisted of oaks.198 Circassians began to exploit the forest both
for the timber and to create agricultural lands. They became the leading actors in
the timber trade, which with their carts, they efficiently managed and sustained.
Schumer stated that the timber was used in house roofs and it was provided by
Circassians.
194Adib Sulayman Beg, 353, Muhammad Khayr Haghanduqah, al-Sharkas, asluhum, tarikhuhum, ’adatuhum,
taqaliduhum, hijratuhum ila al-Urdun, (Amman, 1982), 62.
195Shmuel Avitsur, “Wind Power in The Technological Development of Palestine,” in Palestine in The Late
Ottoman Period: Political, Social and Economic Transformation, ed. David Kushner, (Leiden: Brill,
1986), 242.
196Adib Sulayman Beg, 336.
197Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1303/1887, 247.
198Kuneytra: Ormanın Kıt’ası 5, Hektarı 10.000, Escarın cinsi Pinar ve Sendiyan ve kısm-ı ‘azami mese.
Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1315/1897, 315.
52
...the roofs being formed of tree-trunks brought from the forests of Northern
Jawlan. These are supplied by the Circassians, who are in the habit
of driving all over Hawran, in their heavy two-wheeled carts drawn by a
team of oxen. They manage to make their way, across country over the
rubbish-heaps and the stones, with a heavy load of timber, which they
bring from the forests of their adopted country in Jawlan, and sell in the
villages.199
The mobility of Circassians was not limited to the timber trade. They also benefited
from their kinship networks in other parts of the Ottoman lands. The settlements
in Transjordan were closely tied with the Quneitra in terms of social and economic
relations.To the west, the Circassians of Quneitra also built trade networks with
Anatolia. The close proximity of Quneitra to Damascus presented additional opportunities
for Circassian traders. With their connections in Anatolia, Circassians established
a trade network between Quneitra-Damascus and Anatolia.200 The goods
from Anatolia brought to Quneitra, and the commercial activities of Circassians contributed
to the district’s economy. Due to this efficient trade system, every street in
Quneitra had shops filled with goods. The dynamic mobility provided by their carts
merged with Circassian settler connections in Ottoman lands, helping refugees to
establish new branches of industry in the region. Another active occupation of Circassians
was the weaving methods. The wool in Quneitra was used to produce sayak
a special kind of wool fabric. Sayak was originally manufactured in the Balkans and
later brought to Quneitra by Circassian refugee women.201 Thus, experiences in the
Caucasus and the Balkans transformed the Circassians into a multi-faceted society.
They built their identities on these collective experiences by adapting the knowledge
they acquired in the exile to the region where they settled.
Circassian refugees in the district of Quneitra changed the portrait of the area. Just a
decade after arriving, the large Circassian settlements in Quneitra started to flourish
a marked change from the state of the region prior to Circassian arrival. Circassians
adapted to this foreign land and combined their expertise with the sources in the
region. Throughout their exile and displacements, they seized the opportunity to
form new identities. As a result, they formed a distinct society with practical characteristics
to transform the available materials to their advantage. However, this
199Schumacher, Across The Jordan, 167-168.
200“Hawran,” al Muqtabas, November 7, 1910. in Raja Jamal Abu Hassan, The Settlement and Economic
Development of Hawran 1860 – 1914: A Reconsideration of Motives and Forces, (MA Thesis, American
Unıversity of Beirut, 2017), 62.
201Dahil kazada mensucat kısmından Çerkes köylerde elvan-ı muhtelifede yünden bir nev’ sayak ‘imal
edilmekde isede nefaset ve ciyadetce Rumeli sayagı raddesinde degildir. Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye,
1317/1899, 274.
53
regional development could not just be attributed to the Circassian endeavour. The
settled community benefitted from the support of the Ottoman state in the social
and political arena. These settlements in frontier regions were placed to serve the
interests of the central government. Thus, the Circassian settlements were situated
as the agents against the unruly elements of the Syrian desert. While expanding
the central authority, Circassians became the primary source of troops for the gendarme
and mostly sided with the state against the hostile local figures. Although
relations between the state and Circassians seemed to be based on mutual respect
and interest, this relationship was considerably more intricate than it seemed.
The initial refugee settlements received various exemptions from the government.
They were not obliged to pay taxes or participate in conscription for a fixed period.
202 Taking part in local troop units was on a voluntary basis. In frontier
regions, refugees had these concessions for a more extended period due to the limits
of central authority. In Hawran, they had been treated similar to the local population
and were not conscripted. However, in the next decades following the Circassian
settlement, this policy began to change. In the early 1900s, with the further extension
of authority, the administration wanted to increase its revenues and expand tax
collection in Hawran. In 1905, commissions were sent to the region for the census of
households and animals. The Circassians and tribes of Quneitra were the primary
targets for this process.203 Circassians, accustomed to living with tax concessions
for decades, opposed this census. Per the state’s expectations, the Circassians, as
loyal servants of the state, had to consent to its demands under all circumstances.
However, those who adjusted to the local conditions also began to adopt the local
attitudes. On some occasions, they behaved on the basis of their own benefits rather
than those of the state.
Nazım Pasha, governor of Syria, described this occasion with his report to the central
government in great detail. He states that the Circassians hitherto were not obliged
to pay taxes or conscription just like the local population since their settlement;
however, the continuation of these concessions is now against the interests of the
treasury.204 However, the Circassian chiefs prevented the commissions sent to the
region from taking censuses. As a consequence, a gendarme unit sent to the districts
to persuate the Circassian and bedouin chiefs to comply with the state’s tax policy.
202Refugees were exempt from taxes and military service for six years in Rumelia and twelve years in Anatolia.
Karpat, Ottoman Migration, 786.
203BOA, Y.PRK.UM. 77/38 (25 Eylül 1321, 8 October 1905).
204Havran sancagına merbut olup öteden beri Havran ahalisi gibi mükellefiyet-i ’askeriyeden müstesna tutulan
Kuneytra kazasında ol-vakt iskan edilen birçok muhacirin-i Çerakise dahi ahali-i kadime misüllü müstesna
tutuldukları gibi hayvan-ı ehliyye ta’dadı dahi icra edilmemis ve bu halde su suretle devamı menafi’-i
hazineye münafi düsecegi derkar bulunmus... Ibid.
54
Further, it was demanded that the Circassian chiefs who was responsible for the
mischiefs be arrested and brought to the central province.205 During his report, the
governor’s description of the event reveals the state’s perception of the Circassian
refugees.
Circassian chiefs opposed the situation and dared to display some disobedient
behaviours. The government made great sacrifices to settle the
immigrants. While they were given enough land and seeds for agriculture,
they opposed the census, like those who were ungrateful to blessings.
This attitude will also have a harmful effect on the local population
and must be corrected immediately.206
The governor was displeased by the actions of the Circassians. Since they were seen
as the instruments of the state in frontier regions, any disobedience could not be
tolerated. They were categorized as ungrateful207after the sacrifices the state made
for them. At the same time, this attitude was typical in the region. The distinction
lied in the former relations that the state formed with the Circassians. Similar
expectations were not applied to the local population. Instead, the government
had concerns that if Circassians, their loyal citizens, opposed them, other local
groups could also adopt this attitude. To solve this disobedience, thegovernment sent
gendarmes and arrested the Circassian chiefs. Therefore, Circassians’ adaptation of
local attitudes was suppressed with a policy of coercion, which the state frequently
used against the local population.
The state was successful in solving the problem. After the arrest of the tribal chiefs,
the Circassians expressed their regret by going to the Quneitran government and
asked for forgiveness. This incident reveals that Circassians possessed multiple identities
rather than a sole one as the Ottoman empire’s loyal instrument. Despite the
Ottoman policy of creating a loyal class out of refugee settlements, the refugees did
not always obey this invisible loyalty contract. Not only Circassians of Quneitra but
also other settled groups in Ottoman lands had various conflicts with the state.208
Like every group, the Circassians acted according to their own interests, even when it
205...emr-i tahririn behemehal icrası hakkında mikdar-ı kafi jandarma sevkiyle rüesayı Çerakise ve Urbana
nesayih-i müessire icra... sa’i bilafesat olan rüesayı Çerakisenin heman derdestleriyle merkez vilayetine
i’zamları lüzumu mahaline bildirilmesi üzerine... Ibid.
206Ibid.
207küfran-ı ni’met
208For the conflicts of other immigrant groups with the state, see Selim Deringil, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı
Imparatorlugu’na Göç Olgusu Üzerine Bazı Düsünceler,” in Prof. Dr. Bekir Kütükoglu’na Armagan,
(Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, 1991).
55
conflicted with the interest of their presumed “saviour”, the Ottoman state. Overall,
the Circassian population in Quneitra has contributed significantly to the integration
and development of the region. They have created multiple identities during
their exiles and reflected them on the region’s social, political, and economic aspects.
Lastly, they took an active role in shaping their environment rather than
being passive instruments of the state.
4.4 Circassian Relations with Druze and Bedouin
4.4.1 Introduction
The initial Circassian settlement in 1873 was a small one, but the settlements expanded
with the arrival of large refugee groups at the end of the decade. This new
settlement process existed in parallel to the state’s integration and centralization
policies in the region. Even the settlement locations were allocated to divide between
the prosperous coastal area and desert area dominated by Bedouins where
central authority was limited. Despite the scarcity of settled population in Jawlan,
the region was being seasonally used by the bedouin tribes for grazing their flocks.
After the implication of the Land Code of 1858, the state claimed the unregistered
lands and granted them to refugees. Thus, the local population perceived Circassians
as intruders placed by the state. In addition, the new settlers did not accept
to give any harvest share or protection fee to the Bedouin. These attitudes that
were in stark contrast to the local settlers proved their connections to the state and
caused them to be seen as government agents.209 In 1895, Lee clearly stated the
policy created through the Circassians.
The Sultan, then, in degrading the Bedawin and lessening their numbers
on the one hand, is creating in their stead settlers that will sooner
or later push them further into the desert, or compel them to adopt
the same means of earning their living that they themselves possess...
we find them full of complaint-of the soldiers, Circassians, and Government.
They cling more tenaciously to their land, and resist by force any
encroachment.210
209Rogan, Frontiers of the State, 75.
210G. Robinson Lees, “Across Southern Bashan,” The Geographical Journal 5, no. 1, (1895): 5-6.
56
In the following decades, Circassians transformed themselves into an integrated society
of the region. They became the chief enemies of bedouin and Druzes of the
region. They had formed alliances with diverse local groups while protecting their
self-interests. Circassian settlers made alliances with other bedouin groups against
the Druze and quickly adapted to the region’s changing dynamics. Rather than
being the passive actors of the region, they established interest groups and inserted
themselves into domestic affairs.211 While Circassians were becoming active actors
of the frontier, they were also exposed to hostilities from leading local forces and
had to form new relations to protect themselves. These new relations re-established
in the region with the settlers would radically change the semi-independent life of
local forces.
4.4.2 State, Circassian and Druze in Quneitra
After the events of 1860 in Mount Lebanon, the Druze population of Hawran gradually
increased. The population and their authority in the region grew so much so
that even the region was named Jabal al-Druze after them. Unlike the Bedouin,
the Druze tribes were settled communities, but they were almost semi-independent
like the other inhabitants of the region. The centralization policies of the state
influenced their autonomy and caused severe conflicts with the central authority.
One strategic feature was the existence of advanced spatial networks among Druze
communities in Greater Syria. Although these networks were damaged from time to
time due to the conflicts among prominent Druze families, they became challenging
opponents of the Ottoman authority when the common enemy was found. Another
aspect that made the Druze population a threat against the Ottoman Empire was
the influence of Britain. The Druze community regarded Britain as their primary
guardian and considered themselves to be under British protection. Therefore the
British had a peculiar interest in the policies concerning the Druze in the empire.
During the conflicts with the Ottoman state in 1896, one British consular report
stated that "...the confident belief, engraved in the mind of every Druze, that the
British Government will exert their influence, as they have always done..".212 The
government wanted to eliminate this influence by means of exerting its authority on
the Druze population.
211Isa Blumi, Ottoman Refugees, 1878–1939 Migration in a Post-Imperial World, (London: Bloomsbury
Publishing Plc, 2013), 49.
212TNA. FO 424/188 No. 247, 7 September 1896.
57
In the district of Quneitra, Majdal Shams was the one large village populated by
Druzes. It was situated along the way between Mount Lebanon and Jabal al-Druze.
Meanwhile, in Lebanon, most of the Druze population were concentrated in the
district of Shuf, with a population of 40,000 inhabitants.213 With these regions,
the Druze network between Mount Lebanon and Quneitra in the northernmost side
of Hawran was formed. Connecting these two places were two other large Druze
villages, Hasbaya and Rashaya, on the western foot of Mount Hermon. Thus, Majdal
Shams served as an intermediary location in the northwestern part of the district of
Quneitra and linked the region with the Jabal al-Druze in the south. This connection
was also the concern of Ottoman officials. The district governor of Hasbaya wrote
a complaint concerning the possible afflictions that the Druzes of Majdal Shams
may execute against the people of Hawran and demanded that a gendarme unit
be sent to the region to counter this problem. Further in the document, governor
emphasized how Druzes assembled and turned the region into a centre of banditry
with their mischief.214 In order to prevent this situation, he suggested that a subdistrict
should be formed by adding nine more villages from Quneitra and three
villages from Wadi al-Ajam to Majdal Shams in July 1883. Furthermore, he added
that a governor and unit of gendarme should permanently be present to keep the
order.215 Especially in the time of conflicts, Majdal Shams was a critical town with
its size and population. Therefore, the Ottoman government, similar to other areas,
wanted to extend its power and prevent a possible Druze unity in future strifes.
Circassian refugees were settled closely to this particular Druze village in Quneitra.
Similar to the other inhabitants of the region initially, the two groups had a conflicted
relationship. In a few decades, they were became the prominent rivals of the
region. Against the Druze, Circassians became the protector of the state’s interest,
and in every chance, they attacked the Druzes of Majdal. Since Circassians regarded
as intruders by the Druze, the enmity was mutual.216 The first instances between the
two were mostly on land disputes. One Druze petition written from Majdal Shams
claimed that the Circassians attacked them several times and killed more than fifty
men and that ongoing problem forcing them to reside at the Mount Hermon. The
213Firro, 171.
214Kuneytra kazasına merbut Mecdel Sems karyesi Dürzilerinin toplanıp Havran kurra-ı ahalisine bir sarkıntılık
icra eylemeleri melhuz oldugundan bahisle bu misillü hâlât-ı nâbecânın vuku’ına meydan verilmemek
üzere bir bölük süvari jandarmasının olhavalide seyyar bulundurulması lüzumu Hasbeya kazası kaymakamlıgından
is’ar olunmakdan... BOA, SD. 2274/41 (22 Haziran 1299, 4 July 1883).
215Mecdele kurbiyeti bulunan ve Kuneytraya tabi’ olan kurradan dokuz ve Sam sancagına tabi’ Vadi el-Acem
kazalarından üç ki cem’an on iki köyün mezkur Mecdel Semse ilhakıyla karye-i mezkurenin bir nahiye
teskiline rukub ve nüzule müktedir bir müdür ta’yiniyle me’anına yarım bölük jandarma verilerek orada
daimi suretle bir heyet-i hükümetin mevcut bulundurulmasıyla havali-i merkumenin devam-ı emn-ü asayisi
müvafık-ı hal ve maslahat bulunmus idügüne.. Ibid.
216Schumacher, The Jaulan, 59.
58
Syrian governor responded to this petition by defending the Circassians and stated
that the reason for the attack was, in fact, self-defence.217 These conflicts mostly resolved
with the interference of gendarme and remained as isolated conflicts between
these two groups of the region. However, the following decades witnessed the escalation
of the conflicts. In September 1894, a petition from Quneitra reported that a
gang under the leadership of ten Druze of Majdal Shams attacked and plundered a
Circassian house and assaulted his family. This situation aroused other Circassians,
and in a conflict that ensued, 100 Circassians died. In addition, the report claimed
that these groups had close connections with Druzes in Lebanon, and they planned
to attack the Circassians as an alliance in advance.218
The inclination to collective action was extended even to the high-level Druze officials.
The governor of Shuf and his relatives were accused several times for their
provocative actions to ignite strife between Druzes and Circassians.219 In January
1895, the Muslim inhabitants of Shuf compiled a joint petition that described these
incitements and pointed on the injustice made on Circassians. Mir Mustafa Raslan,
the governor of Shuf, was accused of inciting the Druzes of Majdal Shams against
the Circassians of Mansura and causing their houses to be burned down. Further,
the compensations for the casualties of Circassian was charged as 1.000 Ottoman
liras. Mir Mustafa organized the Druzes of Shuf to grant this sum for the Druzes of
Majdal Shams. This attempt was a clear sign of supporting the Druzes to provoke
and encourage them against the Circassians for the petitioners.220 This Druze coalition
formed against the Circassians in Jawlan led to a gradual rise of tension in the
region and drove the Circassians to form counter alliances in the following years.
When the state’s policies to extend centralization in the region became more noticeable,
Druze opposition against the state became intensified. Consequently, with the
increase of the conflict between the state and the Druze, the encounters with the
Circassians escalated and took a new form. The leading Druze family, the Atrashs,
had the governorship of Jabal al-Druze. However, following the death of Ibrahim
217BOA, BEO. 420/31486 (7 Haziran 1310, 19 June 1894).
218on sahsın müstemirran Devlet-i ’Aliyye ’aleyhinde fesad ve ‘isyan tertibiyle mesgul olup ma’iyyetlerindeki
’avanelerince kat’-i tarik ve selb-i rahat-ı ebna-yı sebil kastıyla oraya buraya i’zam-ı fitne ihdasına elverisli
bir mesele ihdasına ikdam etmekde oldukları dahi merkumlar Çerkes muhacirlerinin birinin hanesine
hücum bulabildikleri esyalarını gasb ve hareminin ’ırzına tasallud etdiklerinden ve su vuku’da bir de hetk-i
’ırz meselesi zuhur etmesiyle Çerkesleri ’umumen heyecana getirip muhafaza-yı ’ırz ve can için müdafa’aya
mecbur edip zaten ta’arruza hazır bulunan Dürzilerle vuku’bulan ’arbedede Çerkeslerden 100 kisinin vefatına
sebebiyet verdikleri.. BOA, BEO. 481/36005 (10 Eylül 1310, 22 September 1894).
219BOA, Y.A.HUS. 305/41 (25 Temmuz 1310, 6 August 1894).
220Kuneytra kazasının Mansura nam karyesiyle civarlarında bulunan karyelerde sakin biraderlerimiz Çerkes-i
Islamiyelerini katl ve hanelerini tedmir etmekle Mecdel Sems ahali-i Dürzisini tahrik ve igva eden Cebel-i
Lübnan mutasarrifiyet-i celilesi dahilinde Suf kazasının kaymakamlıgı Mir Mustafa Raslan oldugu bizde
muhakkak ve müekked olmustur. BOA, DH.MKT. 292/54 (10 Receb 1312, 7 January 1895).
59
el-Atrash, the new governors were Damascane Muslims directly appointed by the
state. This policy change deteriorated the delicate relations with the state. In 1895
the Ottomanization of Hawran intensified, and authorities were determined to enforce
conscription on inhabitants.221 The major conflicts between the state and the
Druzes took place based on this policy change. At the same time, the Druzes would
not willingly accept these sanctions and began to prepare for resistance. “Signals of
convocation [for war] by means of great bonfires; the signals started up from Jabal
al-Duruz, were perceived in Qunaytira [region] where they have been repeated on Jabal
ash-Shaykh [Hermon] and from there they were transmitted to the Lebanon.”222
During these conflicts, Circassians were influential in the defence of Quneitra. The
immediate impact was made on the Druze communication line in Greater Syria.
While the Druzes of Majdal Shams struggled with the Circassian attacks, an effective
Druze alliance could not be built through the regions of Mount Lebanon and
Jabal al-Druze.
While the Ottoman troops march towards the Jabal al-Druze from Damascus, the
possible opposition by the Druze villages along the way was apparent. In Jawlan,
Majdal Shams was the main threat for the marching troops and Circassians frequently
attacked Druzes during state campaigns in the region. For example, in early
December 1895, Circassian irregulars attacked the village of Hina and killed many
Druzes. As a counterattack, Druzes attacked the Circassian village of Mansura but
were defeated by the Circassians numbered 1,500 men and lost 150 men themselves.
On this event, Memduh Pasha, appointed commander by Constantinople, arrived at
Majdal Shams and took the region with little fighting.223 During these conflicts, Majdal
Druzes complained about the harassments of Circassians with referring to their
casualties of two hundred men.224 Further, with the alliance of bedouin and Kurdish
tribes in the Jawlan, the Druzes of Majdal Shams were suppressed who were forced
to retreat to Mount Hermon.225 In this way, despite the army’s high casualties due
to inadequate food and weather problems, Majdal Shams was occupied.
Under severe winter conditions, sickness and difficult transportation of equipment
on muddy soil worn out the army. On the other hand, the Druzes could not be
united and lacked proper leadership, which led to their failure to achieve significant
221Firro, 28-31.
222MAE, CPC, Turquie-Damas, vol. 17, telegram; Drummond-Hay to Ambassador, 8 November 1895. in
Firro, 32.
223TNA. FO 424/184 No.797, 4 December 1895.
224BOA, I.MTZ.CL. 7/314 (21 Tesrin-i Sani 1311, 3 Aralık 1985).
225TNA. FO 424/184 No. 866, 12 December 1895.
60
progress. Under these conditions, an agreement signed in February 1896 with the
terms of surrendering of rifles, and acceptence of conscription, land registration and
tax payment by the Druze community.226 However, in the process of title registration
in summer, Druzes and the local Arab population still resisted the process.227
After the agreement between Arabs and the state the Druzes could not advance in
conflict and expressed their inconveniences in Hawran. One prominent issue was that
the Circassian abuse that were continuing since the events of winter 1895-96.228 The
state aimed to destroy the Druze community with surrounding loyal groups. This
policy would help the obedinence of Druzes to the central authority. Circassians,
with their gendarme, was one prominent group that helped the government to subdue
the Druzes in the region. In September 1896, the Druzes accepted the defeat
and consented to pay taxes. In fact, Circassian raids caused heavy losses for the
Druzes in Leja in the conflicts. Nevertheless, they were hesitant in the matter of
conscription; if the other local groups did not perform it, they would be outrun by
them, and their chance of survival would be at great risk.229
Circassian refugees always were sided with the Ottoman state against the Druzes
in Hawran. The process of the expansion of Ottomanization of the Druze people
strengthened with the Circassian assistance. Notably, in the Majdal Shams region,
the strong Druze presence was destroyed, and in times of heavy battles with the
state, the unity of Druzes was blocked. Even in times of peace, the Circassians
suppressed the Druze groups and prevented their recovery. Thus, the state actively
used the groups in the region against the Druzes, rather than only making military
interventions with its army. The Circassians, who already had numerous problems
with the Druzes, quickly adapted to this policy and, acting to their own advantage,
also plundered the villages emptied by the Druzes frequently. As a result, while
the state succeeded to expand its authority on Druzes, the Circassians strengthened
their place as a prominent local force of the region.
4.4.3 Circassian and Bedouin Relations in Quneitra
The bedouin population of Hawran essentially lived as nomads, unlike the settled
Druze groups. This nomadic custom was the leading issue for the state to impose
226TNA. FO 424/186 No. 285, 24 February 1896.
227TNA. FO 424/187 No. 186, 19 June 1896.
228TNA FO 424/188 No. 54, 7 July 1896.
229Ibid., No. 247, 3 September 1896.
61
its authority on the region. The Circassians were settled in the pastoral lands of
Bedouins, and this limited their mobilization. Thus, they regarded the Circassian
refugees as the government’s instruments that helped them restrain the traditional
life of the Bedouins. The conflicts with Bedouins emerged in connection to land
tenure. However, after the integration of Circassians to Hawran, the two groups
improved their relations. They formed alliances against common enemies and even
created close social relations with intergroup associations.
The bedouin tribes’ perception of Circassian refugees had negative connotations.
Since many tribes had to move from their lands due to Circassian settlements, the
identification of new settlers as intruders was common. The state wanted to transform
bedouin tribes into civilised Ottomans like the other inhabitants of the frontiers.
The Circassian expansion in the region was desired and strategically applied
by the state. Against this policy, bedouin tribes essentially were given two options;
they would either turn into a settled society or retreat into the depths of the desert.
During his observations in Jawlan, Schumacher noted his bedouin guide’s reproach
on Circassians when they visited a former tribal land as, "Ah ya Tcherkes! ’Woe to
you Circassians,’ called out my Bedawin at this explanation, ’You rob us of all of our
memorials, our consecrated places, and drive us back into the stony wilderness, but
Allahu Akbar!"230 This grievance was natural because various tribes had to abandon
their long-held lands and accused the Circassians for it.
The Na’im tribe established between Jawlan to Nawa in Hawran, systematically
pushed eastward to abandon the fertile lands of Jawlan to Circassian settlements.231
Some Turcoman tribes in northern Quneitra suffered from a similar fate due to the
expansion of Circassian settlements in the region; they were driven to the region’s
southern parts.232 Without a doubt, these were notable successes for the state in the
progress of integrating the region. Circassian settlements served as an effective tool.
Even though the central government’s support was the main component of their
achievement against the edouin tribes, characteristics of the Circassians also complemented
this advantage. The warlike features of the Circassians were emphasized
nearly in all accounts that mention them.
The Circassian knows nothing of trembling, whoever approaches. They
are trained to arms from their youth. Their weapons are vastly superior
to those of the Arab, and every man of them is a dead shot with the rifle.
230Schumacher, 69.
231Ibid., 89-90.
232Ibid., 189.
62
They have established for themselves a reputation for perfect fearlessness,
determined courage in conflict, and relentless severity in exacting
vengeance when injured. Men think twice before attacking them.233
The presence of the Circassians, together with the privileges bestowed by the state,
created a new poweful force in the region. They were attested to weaken the ultimate
authority of the bedouin tribes in deserted regions. Circassians, who had to fulfil
this task to maintain their own existence, combined their fearless character with the
advantages they were given and frequently clashed with the Bedouins of the region.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, the leading largest bedouin tribe of
Jawlan was the Fadl. They were using the fertile lands of Quneitra in summer for
grazing their animals. However, as early as the Circassians settled in the region, the
two communities were clashed for the area’s resources. In August 1880, after two
years of the mass settlement of Circassians in Quneitra, a fight broke out between
a bedouin from the Fadl tribe and a Circassian about the right to water cattle at
a spring. The Circassian shot the other’s cattle, and himself was shot dead by
the bedouin. This collision led to a tribal conflict with the involvement of several
hundred men. While Circassians lost fourteen men, the Fadl had ten casualties.234
Another land dispute was reported by the petition of the tribe of Kasrin. The
petition sent by the Muhammed Talat and Ahmed Ibrahim on behalf of the tribe
stated that the Kasrin tribe was using the land of Tevziye village for over thirty
years, and it was registered in state records. However, they wanted to be removed
from the land since the Circassians of Quneitra were given the same area.235 They
demanded from the state to resolve this mischief.
Essentially, the complaints were mutual. Circassian refugees of Quneitra petitioned
the government about the atrocities the local population made upon them.236 Moreover,
Circassians tended to sustain their interests in land disputes. To give an example,
in June 1909, the Adl tribe, who came early to the pastoral lands due to the
drought, states that Circassians of Quneitra stole a few hundred camels and took
them to the village of Marjeyoun for sale. Against a possible retaliation of the Adl
tribe, the government ordered the camels to be found and returned immediately. A
unit of gendarme that was not composed of Circassians was sent to the region to
233W. Ewing, “A Journey in the Hauran,” Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1895, 64.
234TNA. FO 424/107 No. 89, 20 August 1880.
235BOA, DH.MKT. 541/54 (2 Temmuz 1318, 15 July 1902).
236BOA, DH.MKT. 1010/71 (7 Eylül 1321, 20 September 1905).
63
ensure the order.237
One notable dispute that became serious occurred between Circassians of Mansura
and the Fadl tribe in 1903. As usual, the problem started as a land dispute, but
it grew into a significant issue, reached as far as Sublime Porte and posed a vital
difficulty for the local government actors. The chief of the Circassian community in
Mansura, Mehmed Rashid, wrote a petition on 9 March 1903 about how the tribe
of al-Fadl illegally took their fields. The prominent chief of the Fadl tribe was Mir
Muhammed al-Fa’ur, and he took various positions in the administration of Quneitra
for decades. He was accused of extortion of the Circassian lands with mischiefs in
the Syrian government. When the Circassians opposed giving up their field under
their possession for twenty-seven years, a conflict started between two groups and
sixty-four Circassians were murdered.238 As Rashid stated in his petition, he went
to the governor of Syria, Nazım Pasha, and expressed his complaints about this
injustice. Although the governor understood the situation and stood by the Circassians,
Husrev Pasha, the gendarmerie commander, had a greater influence in the
province. When the governor assigned two gendarme officials to examine the matter
in Mansura, Rashid claimed that Husrev Pasha sent word to the Fadl chief to burn
their own huts made of palm leaves and blame the Circassians.239 After Following
this accusation, some Circassians were imprisoned by the orders of Husrev Pasha.
Realizing that he could not resist the injustices in the provincial administration,
Mehmed Rashid found the solution by applying it to the Sublime Porte.240
Further in the petition, accusations against Husrev Pasha were continued. In order
to get the medals and rewards awarded by the state for the resolution of conflicts, he
made agreements with the tribal chiefs and pretended that he resolved the conflicts
that he started by setting the two tribes against each other.241 These allegations
237BOA, DH.MKT. 2861/21 (15 Haziran 1325, 28 June 1909).
238...tasdik edilen hudud dahilinde olup 27 seneden beri Mansura nam karye-i mezkur Çerkeslerinin sebatları
altında bulunan tarlaları alıp oranın meshur ’asairinden Fazıl ’asireti reisi seyhleri Mir Muhammed el-
Fa’ur ’asiretine verilmek ve bu yüzden her vakt gibi istifade etmek için vali-i vilayeti türlü hile ve desise
ile kandırarak Çerkesleri tazyik ve ’asaire koltuk vererek ’asair-i merkumun Çerkes karyesine hücumuyla
Çerkeslerden 64 kisiyi katl ettirdigi... BOA, SD.2296/17.2 (11 Subat 1319, 9 March 1903).
239Hüsrev Pasa mezkur ’asiret reislerine haber göndererek hurma yapraklarıyla m’alul kulubelerinin bir iki
tanesini ihrak etsinlerde Çerkesler yakdılar ve karyemize hücum etdiler diyerek vali-i vilayete telgraf keside
etsinler deyu tenbih eylemesi üzerine keside eyledikleri telgrafa vali pasa hazretleri dahi dogru zannıyla
zaman-ı vuku’atı ta’yin edilenden evvela yanımızda bulunup bir lahza yanlarımızdan ayrılmayan mazlum
Çerkesleri habse ilka etdirildi. Ibid.
240Hüsrev Pasanın re’yine vali dahi muhalefet edemeyecegi ve simdiye kadar Suriye vilayet-i celilesinde
görülmemis bir büyük — muhakkak oldugu ve pasa-yı müsarünilehin zulm-u garazına ahali tahammül
edemeyerek galeyana geleceklerini anlasılması üzerine dersa’adete ’avdete mecburet gelinmisdir. Ibid.
241Hüsrev Pasa hazretlerinin efa’latı bundan ’ibaret olmayıp kendisini hükümet-i seniyeye isgüzar göstermek
suretiyle rütbe ve haysiyetini arttırmak ve hemde nakden istifade etmek üzere ’asair reisine rütbe ve nisan
aldıracagını va’d ederek iki ’asireti birbirine bozusdurarak aralarında ihtilal çıkarmak ve ihtilali izale ettim
diyerek mazlumanın dökülen kana karsı iftiharane istifadesiyle mesrurane pasalık pasa-yı müsarünileyhin
en güzel ef’alindendir. Ibid.
64
reveal how despite being loyal servants of the state, the Circassians could in fact
oppose the local government, primarily due to certain injustices in domestic politics.
When the local administration was unable to resolve the issue, Circassians
applied to the Sublime Porte with the belief of receiving proper justice. Thus, this
petition was written on behalf of the Mansura Circassians, which expressed the loss
of rights due to the cooperation of the local administration with the tribes. Since
this situation turned into a serious problem, the Mansura Circassians were forced to
turn to the Sublime Porte. As a result of a detailed examination done by the Syrian
administration, a decree was published on 7 June 1903.
With the investigation of accusations, the administrative council of Syria found
Circassians guilty. However, contrary to the claims, it was concluded that the region
was registered on the Fadl tribe, and Circassians illegally expanded beyond their
area’s borders. In order to support its claims, the council presented the documents
that defined the water and land borders, which were agreed upon by al-Fadl and the
Circassians back in July 1883. Moreover, the claims of Mehmed Rashid were denied,
and it was alleged that he was a fraud and could not be the representative of the
Circassians. In fact, the Circassian Hacı Süleyman was on his way to Sublime Porte,
and he encountered Mehmed Rashid, who exiled from the Province of Hudavendigar.
Rashid convinced Süleyman that he could take the land from the Fadl tribe, and
upon this promise, he collected 150 kurus from Circassians of Mansura. Believing
in his deceptions, the Circassians attacked the tribe, burned their houses and killed
their men. Thus, the Fadl tribe were usurping the land was not accurate, and in
fact, the Circassians constantly attacked the Fadl tribe to seize their land.242
As a solution to the problem, although the region they wanted could not be given
to the Circassians because it was registered on Algerian settlers and Ali Pasha,
15,000 acres of territory in another region would be given to those in need. If they
oppose this region and do not want to settle down, they could go to Zerqa, where a
new refugee group was settling.243 The decree was finally presented to the Sublime
Porte. Therefore, while the Circassians of Mansura claimed that the Fadl tribe
violated their rights, local administration could not resolve their problem. Later,
they tried to apply to the Sublime Porte to complain about both the Fadl tribe and
the corruptions in the local government, but they could not reach an efficient result
because the local government stood by the Fadl tribe and Husrev Pasha and ruled
242’Arab el-Fazılın yed-i zabt ve istila eyledigi katiyen bi-esas olup bilakis bazı Çerkeslerin sunun bunun
igfalatına kapılarak ’urban-ı merkume arazisine tecavüz ve ta’addi ve bazen dahi ihlal-i asayise badi olabilecek
darb ve cerh ve ihrak ve mezru’ata sevk-i mevasi gibi cüret-kerane ma’lumata ta’addi eyledikleri
anlasılıp... BOA, SD. 2296/17.1 (25 Mayıs 319, 7 June 1903).
243...mezkur Mansura karyesi civarında Garir el-Büstan ve Garir el-Camusi namında ve takriben 15.000 dönüm
kadar vüs’at-ı cesametinde iki kıt’a malul-i miri arazi bulunup bunlardan lüzum-u mikdarı muhacirin-i
merkumeden araziye sahihen muhtaç oldukları anlasılacaklara... Ibid.
65
out the Circassians. Thus, apart from the issue’s content, it is understood that how
the relationship between Circassians and the state was fragile and prone to change
depending on the regional balance of power. In this power struggle, the Circassians
also sought all the shares they could get from the region. However, the conflict of
interests made them confronted with the state, and they could not always benefit
from being the state’s privileged community.
Nevertheless, the conflicts did not turn into great enmities that would permanently
make the bedouin and Circassians foes. One reason was their acknowledgement of
the Druzes as the common enemy. Bedouin tribes were not as detached from the
state as much as Druzes. Notably, the Fadl tribe’s loyalty to the state is regularly
attributed in archival documents. During the conflicts with the state, even though
they sometimes supported the Druzes in the first place, later, the Sunni Arab population
permanently changed sides and clashed on the side of the state.244 While
Druzes were supported by the foreign powers and separated by their sect from the
Circassians and Sunni Arabs, the relationship between these three groups was shaped
based on these differences and was considerably diverse. Circassians actively formed
alliances with the local Sunni Arabs against the Druze opposition. These alliances
expanded their relations to other spheres of life. After two decades of their initial
settlement, Circassians even started to intermarry with the Arab population.245
The incorporation of Circassian power to the Hawran allowed the creation of new
centres of power. The alliance with the state strengthened the application of centralization
policy and ensured the security of the region. While the travellers suffered
dramatically from bedouin attacks and thieves during their journeys, the expansion
of state authority eliminated these issues.246 In Jawlan, Circassians drove away the
bedouin from the region, and the bedouin possessed a small area in the northwest
of Jawlan.247 Although they have been considered as the group that the Ottomans
used as an instrument, the Circassians became the active actors of both the centre
and the periphery. The presence of the Circassians, together with the privileges
bestowed by the state, changed the profile of the region. They weakened the ultimate
authority of the bedouin tribes and contributed to forming a stable society.
They had diverse identities as a frontier community. While representing the sultan’s
authority in the region in the name of Islam, they did not remain silent about
the injustices they experienced. They reacted against every action they perceived
244TNA. FO 424/188 No. 53, 25 June 1896.
245Schumacher, “Notes from Jedur,” 192.
246Schumacher, 51.
247Ibid., 52.
66
as unfair, and they rebelled by adopting the essential feature of the region. They
tended to preserve their interests in the region by allying with different groups.
67
5. CIRCASSIANS IN GOVERNMENT: NETWORKS,
EDUCATION AND CIVIL SERVICE IN DISTRICT OF
QUNEITRA
5.1 Formation of Circassian Networks
The exile of Circassians from their homelands to the Ottoman Empire changed the
various aspect of traditional Caucasian society. In this new realm, the identities were
created on shared experiences and relations. An essential trait for being considered a
leader in these new Circassian settlements was one’s connections with the resources
the tribe needed. Circassians gathered around the leaders that could form bureaucratic
networks or had the knowledge of Turkish.248 Indeed, Ismail Aga, the leader
of one of the first large Circassian settlement in Quneitra, was familiar with Turkish.
249 Even though the refugees were settled as groups with their relatives, they
lost countless members during the journey. The remaining ones formed their own
new societies to act collaboratively. This community building was made to maintain
their traditional social structure and stand together against other powerful tribes in
the region.
After the implementation of Vilayet Law of 1864, as a frontier district Quneitra
had administrative councils (meclis-i idare) and regular courts (mahkeme-i bidayet).
Over the years, new administrative bodies were established in the region, like the
education department (maarif subesi) or the chamber of agriculture (ziraat odası).
The administrative centre of the district of Quneitra was situated in the town of
Quneitra, which was greatly populated by Circassian refugees. Consequently, Circassian
refugees were highly engaged in this political sphere of the district of Quneitra.
They tried to integrate themselves further into the system and actively participated
in administrative positions. While initial networks were created through the military
248Shami, 147.
249Oliphant, 49.
68
forces with the creation of Circassian gendarmes, later Circassian leaders occupied
various places also in local administration.
Over the yearbooks of the Province of Syria, the administrative roles undertaken by
the Circassians can be followed. The first appearance of a Circassian in the administrative
council of Quneitra coincides with the year 1885 when Circassian Mehmed
Bey was appointed to the position of deputy judge (naib). The council, along with
Mehmed Bey, consisted of Ismail Efendi as the fiscal director (mal müdürü) and
two correspondence clerks (tahrirat katibi). In the body of the municipal council,
Dagestani Ali Efendi was among the five members.250 Furthermore, the chief of the
Fadl tribe, Mir Muhammed al-Fa’ur, was a member of the court and, in the following
years, would reside in various offices of administration.251 The appearance of
Circassians in administration gradually increased over the next decade. Especially
in the education department, Circassian dominance stood out. While in 1887, two
Circassians, Ali Rıza Efendi and Dagestani Imam Abdul al-Hac Efendi held the
office, two years later, we see Circassian Imam Hüseyin Efendi appointed together
with them.252
Until the 1890s, the Circassian representatives in the Quneitran administration could
not keep their positions for long terms. They were replaced within one or two years.
However, beginning from the 1890s, certain Circassian leaders held their positions
for years. One prominent figure was Mufti Ali Rıza Efendi. In 1891 he became
appointed as the mufti of the district of Quneitra and held this position at least for
nine years.253 The last yearbook of 1900 also shows Hacı Ali Rıza Efendi as mufti.254
Along with the position of mufti, he was also present in the education department
with his official title. According to the Vilayet Law of 1864, each district would have
three elected members within the administrative council. The selection process was
conducted through the body of elders. While the Ottoman subjects over eighteen
years with a minimum tax payment of fifty kurus annually selected the council of
elders, this council selected the elective member of the administration. However,
the administrative officers’ eligible candidate list was directly prepared by the state,
and the council of elders had to elect from that list of names.255 The person chosen
250Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1302/1885, 188.
251Ibid. 187.
252Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1303/1887, 195.
253Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1307-1308/1891, 131. See Appendix 6.
254Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1318/1900, p.215.
255Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 147-148.
69
among the Circassians with these elections was Pakmiz Bey. He were an elected
member of the administration assembly from 1895 to 1900.256 The chief of the Fadl
tribe Mir Muhammed Fa’ur was also a permanent elected member in the assembly.
The leading political figures of the tribal groups represented their tribes in the administration
of the district. Circassian refugees integrated themselves into every
aspect of Quneitra. They did not restrain themselves in the military forces and
made their way to the region’s administration. Ali Rıza Efendi continued his position
as the mufti nearly for a decade while Pakmiz Bey was elected by the Circassian
community for five years to represent them in the administrative council. Many others
held several positions, but Circassians mainly occupied the body of education.
These positions created new opportunities for the development of communal network.
However, this was the same for other tribes of Quneitra. As the Circassians
of Mansura claimed when they had a significant conflict on land tenure with al-
Fadl, the bedouin tribe had a notable influence on Husrev Pasha. Therefore, the
administrative positions did not guarantee the support of Damascus administration.
However, despite the general view of Circassians as only being the soldiers of the
Ottoman Empire, they also entered into the administration, not just the first generation
but also the second generation, with their high education rates, to become
civil servants in Greater Syria.
In Quneitra, Circassians formed numerous networks through marriages, economic
and political activities. These relations created new identities for Circassian communities
throughout the empire. Back in the Caucasus, the class and tribal divisions
that existed in their traditional practices were replaced by a single identity, as
refugees in Ottoman lands. Like the settlements of Quneitra, other Circassian groups
in Transjordan or Anatolia did suffer from local tribes and thus had to preserve their
group identity.257 The pre and post-Ottoman adversities bound the Circassian communities
and formed a collective society. After their initial settlements, the next
generations acted on these identifications. This educated generation with a high
self-awareness managed to create a new Circassian association based in Istanbul.
After the reign of Abdulhamid II, the support for Circassians accelerated and expanded
by the new government. Just after reinstating the constitution in 1908,
Fuad Pasha, as himself being a Circassian, requested the emancipation of Circas-
256Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1312-1318/1895-1900.
257For conflicts of Circassians with local population in Anatolia see Hakan Asan, Devlet, Asiret ve Eskıya
Baglamında Osmanlı Muhacir Iskân Siyaseti (1860-1914),” Göç Arastırmaları Dergisi 2, no.3, 2016. Oktay
Özel, “Muhacirler, Yerliler ve Gayrimüslimler: Osmanlı’nın Son Devrinde Orta Karadeniz’de Toplumsal
Uyumun Sınırları Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler,” Tarih ve Toplum Yeni Yaklasımlar 5, 2007.
70
sian girls in the palace from Abdulhamid.258 Thus, the signal of changes in policies
on Circassians was presented just before the end of the Hamidian regime. The
Young Turk cadres consisted of numerous Circassian members, and after the revolution,
this influenced the policies toward the Circassian communities. The period
of the Unionists was the most dynamic period for the development of the North
Caucasians and described as the golden age of Circassians.259 Several initiatives
caused the social and political transformation of the Circassian society in this era.
The most important and influential step was establishing Circassian associations,
which aimed to revive and endorse the education, culture, and cooperation among
Circassians. The leading one of these organizations was the Circassian Union and
Support Association (Çerkes Ittihat ve Teavün Cemiyeti), established in 1908 and
headed by Fuad Pasha. The organization founded in Istanbul, and its primary purposes
were educating the Circassians, supporting trade among them, ensuring the
allocation of cultivated lands and the constitutional administration’s protection. To
this end, the association founded many schools, newspapers and magazines.260
The establishment of Circassian associations led to the greater integration of the
Circassians. Countless members from different regions of Ottoman lands united
and collaborated under this organization. Moreover, with newspapers, the perspectives
and problems of Circassian society became visible. In 1911 the first Circassian
newspaper started to be issued in Istanbul under the name of Guaze (guide). The
newspaper was published in Turkish and Circassian, written with Arabic alphabets.
261 Numerous writers raised in different parts of the Ottoman lands united
under this newspaper and had the opportunity to express their views as an exiled
community. One prominent figure for Circassians of Quneitra in this association
was Ahmed Nuri Tsago. He was born in 1891, and after his rüsdiyye education in
Quneitra, he went to Damascus Idadi School. He completed his education in Istanbul
with a degree in political science. He was an active member of the Circassian
organization, and for the community, he had written several books. The leading
ideal of the members of the Circassian society was to reclaiming of their homeland.
Leaving their homeland meant losing their identity, and for reviving it, they wanted
to reconnect with Caucasia. Hence, the Circassian Union and Support Association
was sent a group of Circassians back to Caucasia. Ahmed Nuri was among them,
and he maintained the cultural and intellectual exchanges between Istanbul and
258Erdem, Köleligin Sonu, 185-186.
259Avagyan, Çerkesler, 129.
260Ibid., 130-133.
261Ibid.133.
71
Caucasia.262
The influence of the Circassian Union and Support Association was expanded even to
frontier regions through its members. The Guaze reached and read in Greater Syria
by Circassian settlers. One branch of the association was established in Quneitra
in July 1911. This pleasant news was published in Guaze with great detail. The
opening of the branch exercised after the Friday pray along with the recitation of the
Quran by Circassian Hafız Efendi. The association’s declaration was read together
with its Circassian translation in the presence of more than a thousand people.263
The establishment of a Circassian Union and Support Association branch indicates
how the Circassians of Quneitra were integrated with the central actors and did not
remain isolated in the frontier region. They built strong relations both with other
Circassian groups and the leading intellectual ones.
Circassians in Quneitra were eager to improve their society with education and
technology in every aspect of life. A Circassian chief in Bireyka stated his desire
to have a railroad near their village to Schumacher in 1888.264 This desire for
development was also expressed in the Guaze journal with a copy of the petition
sent by Circassians of Quneitra to the government. The letter was complaining
about the unfinished road between Damascus and Quneitra for twelve years. The
petition made emphasis on the importance of the road network of a region to develop
appropriately.265 However, despite continuous collecting taxes for the infrastructure,
this vital line could not be finished; moreover, the bridges previously built were
about the collapse due to neglect.266 The Circassians of Quneitra emphasised the
locational and natural importance of the region and requested the completion of the
road for better transportation, trade and connection. Circassians were conscious
about their situations and actively provided the improvement of their region by
pressing the government for cooperating with each other. A piece of news that
would provide a suitable example of collective action reported in the Guaze was the
262Tsagua Nuri, Adige Tarihi, (Istanbul: Arpa Yayıncılık, 2016), pp.4-6. Sefer E.Berzeg, Kafkas Diasporasında
Edebiyatçılar ve Yazarlar Sözlügü, (Samsun: Nart Yayıncılık, 1995), 247-250.
263Geçen Cuma günü Cuma namazından sonra resm-i küsadeti (resmi açılıs) kaza dahilindeki erbab-ı hamiyet
yapmak içün... Bini mütecaviz ictima’ iden zevata birinci sınıf d’ava vekili Mehmed Sa’id Bey tarafından
cemiyet-i merkeziyenin mufassal beyannamesi okunmus ve Çerkesce tercümesi irad edilmisdir. Bunu
mütea’kib Kuran ve mevlid-han-ı sehîr Çerkes Hafız Efendi taarafından ittihad ve te’avünün feva’idini
mübeyyin ayet beyanatı havi asr-ı serif ile mevlid-i hazret-i nebevi kıra’at edilmisdir. Guaze, No.13, 4 July
1911, 8.
264Schumacher, 114.
265Herkesin malumudur ki bir milletin baslıca terakkisinin mühim kısmını teskil iden mevaddın biri de yollardır.
Yolları muntazam olan bir memleketin gerek techizat ve alet ve edevat-ı ziraiyeyi celb itmek ve
gerekse sevkiyat-ı askeriye vesaire nokta-i nazarınca pek mühim bir kıymeti haizdir. Guaze, No.7, 18 May
1911, 3.
266‘’Kuneytra- Sam ‘’ sosesinin bu vecihle terk idilmesi acaba neden ilerü geliyor.Kazanın bedelat-ı nakdiyesi
kazanın yapılacak yolları dururken niçün diger kazanın sose yollarına sarf olunuyor. Ibid.
72
establishment of girls’ schools in Amman by the donation of Mirza Pasha and the
Circassian community.267
Consequently, the creation of this organization and Guaze newspaper helped to
strengthen the networks of Circassians in Ottoman lands. From now on the Circassian
communities all around the empire were linked to each other. The newspaper
propagated the importance of education, unity, solidarity and Circassian identity frequently.
Under these circumsitances it was more than natural for the Circassians of
Quneitra to get involved with the Circassian Union and Support Association. They
were the active settlers of the region, and they expanded their networks whenever
possible to adapt and later create a strong society in the edges of Syria. Therefore,
they were active agents in various aspect of the empire in politics, economy,
infrastructure and education. They adapted themselves into this new system they
were dispatched to and stood up to every struggle with their resilience as a group.
Their networks were reached out from the administration of frontiers to the empire’s
capital, and they used this opportunity to improve their regions. Consequently, the
uninhabited fertile area of Jawlan became identified with the dedication and industriousness
of Circassian settlers.
5.2 Education of Circassian Refugees in Quneitra
The Ottoman administration began to concentrate on education in the Province of
Syria following the implementation of the Tanzimat reforms in the region. After
the traumatic events of Mount Lebanon and Damascus in 1860, the state increased
its efforts to centralise Syria properly.268 The initial step was to establish the first
rüsdiyye schools of Damascus in 1861. Further, for the implementation of reforms,
the previous practice of financing education through endowments had to be revised
due to the corruption of its system. In Syria, the Muslim schools were run by
individual endowments, and this system transformed into a tool for the protection
of wealth rather than providing proper education.269 For this purpose, with the
opening of new schools, it was decided to establish a Directorate of Schools in
267Guaze, No. 4, 27 April 1911, 8.
268Selçuk Aksin Somel, "Sam’da egitim sorunu ve Tanzimat’ın Suriye’de geçerli kılınması meselesi (1861) (The
issue of education in Damascus and the application of the Tanzimat in Syria (1861))," Tarih ve Toplum
Yeni Yaklasımlar 8, 2009, 99.
269Ibid., 111.
73
Damascus.270
Another issue that led to the acceleration of Ottoman schooling in the Province of
Syria was the missionary schools. The local population, even the Sunni Bedouin,
was started to attend the foreign schools of the region. British and French missionary
schools had the chief influence on the local population. Druze notables were
profoundly eager to have Bristish funding for schooling.271 Jesuit and Protestant
missionary school activities increased through the nineteenth century in Greater
Syria. The most vigorous missionary activities were made in interior regions of the
Syrian desert by Jesuits. The church schools were also funded by them in Hawran.
Druzes, Shia Muslims and some bedouin tribes requested funding from France.272
Consequently, French opened nine schools by 1885 in Hawran.273
The influence of foreign powers was disturbed the state, especially on the Bedouins
who followed missionaries for financial concerns.274 In the face of this situation,
the state attempted to exert a series of measures. Against the French missionaries,
Hamdi Pasha requested a dozen teachers from the capital to educate the Bedouins
prone to be deluded by foreign propaganda in Hawran, Hama and Balqa. After
this request, the state emphasised the establishment of mosques and masjids along
with schools to teach Sunni Hanafi Islam.275 Moreover, the bureaucratic pressure on
missionary schools was increased by the government. In 1887, Nasid Pasha, governor
of Syria, informed the consulates that schools within the provincial borders and
operating without permission would be closed.276 The following year new governor
Nazif Pasha after a meeting with Druze sheikhs, agreed upon that the Druze children
would attend the Ottoman schools instead of the unlicenced Jesuit and Protestant
ones. In order to meet the need for schools in the region, it was decided to open
schools in five towns of Hawran.277
270Ibid., 115.
271Caesar E. Farah, “Protestantism and British Diplomacy in Syria,” International Journal of Middle East
Studies 7, no. 3, (1976): 323.
272Emine Ö. Evered, Empire and Education Under The Ottomans: Politics, Reform, and Resistance from the
Tanzimat to the Young Turks, (London: I.B.Tauris, 2012), 113.
273Firro, The Ottoman Reforms, 210.
274Selçuk Aksin Somel, Osmanlı’da Egitimin Modernlesmesi (1839-1908), (Istanbul: Iletisim Yayıncılık,
2015), 290.
275Evered, 115-116.
276S.Tufan Buzpınar, “Suriye ve Filistin’de Avrupa Nüfuz Mücadelesinde Yeni Bir Unsur: Ingiliz Misyonerleri
(19. Yüzyıl),” Islam Arastırmalan Dergisi 10, (2003): 117.
277...Cebel-i Düruz’da bila-ruhsat mektebler küsad eden Cizvit ve Protestan rahiplerini de kabul ve çocuklarını
o mekteblere idhal etmeyeceklerinden hükümetçe tensib olunacak mahallerde mektep küsadıyla çocuklarının
ta’lim ve terbiyesine... BOA. Y.A Hus. 1305.12.17.216/60. in Samur, “Sultan II.Abdülhamid
Yönetimi ve Havran Dürzileri,” 87-88.
74
The schooling process of the population in Greater Syria implemented with an emphasis
on proper Islam, which was the Sunni one for the state. In Hawran, the
majority of the population consisted of Druzes and Bedouins. While Druzes possessed
a definite diverse sect from Sunnism, Bedouins exercised their own traditional
heterodox Islam. Therefore, the province’s population was labelled as in a stage of
savagery and ignorance, and education in Ottoman schools was the proper method
to eradicate this situation. For the state, schooling was an institution for social
discipline and modernization that was intensified throughout the nineteenth century.
278 Integration of bedouin into the state would be provided with the promotion
of Sunnification and loyalty to the caliphate and state through education with an
emphasis on the teaching of Ottoman Turkish.279 Another concern was the elimination
of administrative issues in the province. According to Cevdet Pasha, the
biggest problem of the Ottomans in the region was the language barrier. Because
of the officials who lacked knowledge of Arabic, the communication between the administrative
regions could not be carried out properly, and it was caused disruptions
in management.280 In this regard, the most significant advantage of the missionary
schools was that their curriculum included informal Arabic and modern languages
like French and English. Consequently, instead of local Muslims, non-Muslims occupied
various offices with their higher educational assets in the administration.281
Therefore, one primary purpose of Ottoman schooling was to acquire the Arabic
Language for the Muslim population.
Circassian refugees were not labelled separate from the Druzes or bedouin regarding
the schooling narratives of the state. Circassians were also practised far from the
proper Islam. They were unaware of the teachings of Islamic rituals, carried pork
and had a syncretic religion that resembles paganism and Christianity.282 These
practices were undoubtedly opposed the principles of Sunni Islam. Therefore, the
refugee population was also called in need of salvation from ignorance like other
inhabitants of the region. Thus, the first rüsdiyye in Quneitra established in 1881
and became the first Ottoman secondary school in the Hawran region.283 In 1885,
Quneitra had one secondary and two primary schools. While the secondary school
had thirty-two male students, the primary ones had one hundred and fifteen in total.
278Somel, 32.
279Ibid., 273.
280Buzpınar, "Ahmet Cevdet Pasa", 44.
281Somel, "Sam’da Egitim Sorunu", 112.
282Shami, 146.
283Ve bu kere Kuneytrada mekteb-i rüsdiye küsad olunmusdur. Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1298/1881, 248.
75
Later in 1887, the first and only girl’s school in Hawran was present in Quneitra with
twenty-five students.284 On the other hand, there were three non-Muslim schools
with one hundred and sixty students in the same district.285 Schooling of the region
was continued with an emphasis on the degree of civilization of the local groups.
In addition to the existing primary schools in Dar’a, Quneitra, Ajlun, Suwayda and
Ahire, it was decided to open new primary schools and open a secondary school in
the central province in July 1904. The purpose of the government was to eliminate
the savagery and ignorance of the Druzes, Bedouin and Circassian population and
civilize them through the teaching of Islamic principles on children.286
One document concerning the financial burden of schools that were established for
the Circassian refugees reveals the situation of educational affairs in the Province
of Syria. The request was directed to Sublime Porte by governor Nazım Hüseyin
Pasha. The Circassian population was continuously expanded with further migrations
in Hawran led to establishing schools for the refugees. However, the financial
conditions of Circassians could not provide necessary taxing for the teacher salaries
or building new schools. This financial lack led to teacher shortages and numerous
complaints made by the Circassian population concerning their children’s education.
Thus, the governor requested the financial help of the capital to cover educational expenses.
287 Indeed, the Circassian population was the most suitable group in Hawran
to participate in government schools. They had both a settled society and had the
closest ties with the government. In the early 1900s, their eagerness for education
can be observed from the Circassian association established in Istanbul. The active
participation of Circassians in schooling enabled them to raise numerous officer for
the state.
The second generation of Circassians received their education in government schools
and appointed as civil servants within the Province of Syria. Undoubtedly, the state
was benefited from Circassian officers in many ways. The fact that the officers of
this period knew Turkish and Arabic could have been a solution to the language
problem in the province. While the Circassians, who also spoke their mother tongue,
284Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1303/1887, 210.
285Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1302/1885, 240-243.
286Dar’a ve Kuneytra ve Aclun ve Süveyde ve Ahire kazalarında mevcud mekteb-i ibtidaiyeye ’ilaveten icab
eden köylerde lüzümu kadar mekteb-i ibtidaiye ve merkez livada dahi bir bab rüsdiye mektebi te’sis ve
küsada ve sairenin eskal-i lüzumu Havran mutasarrıflıgına is’ar olunacagı ve liva-i mezkur dahilinde bulunan
ve henüz hal-i bedeviyetde olan ’urban ile muhacirin-i Çerakesinin ve Dürzilerin tedricen daire-i medeniyetle
idhali ile bulundukları hal-i vahset ve cehaletden kurtarılmaları mekteb-i mezkurenin — se’air-i Islamiye
ve ma’arif-i ibtidaiyenin çocukda hüsn-i ta’limine vasıta olup... BOA, DH.MKT. 866/57.
287... mumaileyhin maasatının hükümetce tesviyesiyle muhtaç-ı ta’lim ve terbiye olan subyanın dahi ni’am-ı
‘ulum ve ma’arifden behremend-i istifade olmaları esbabının istihsali için her tarafından ale’t-tevâlî müracaatlar
vuku’ bulmaktadır. BOA, DH.MKT. 876/44 (16 Haziran 320, 29 June 1904).
76
might have helped in the placement of immigrants. In this respect, Circassian officers
could be used in different areas if needed. While numerous Circassians from Greater
Syria became officers, five of them registered from Quneitra. The first notable
officer was Ahmed Muhtar Efendi, born in 1881 as the son of Circassian mufti Ali
Rıza Efendi. He finished his primary and secondary schools in Quneitra. He after
attended the Damascus idadi school and graduated with high honours. While he
read and wrote Turkish and Arabic, he was familiar with Persian and French and
could speak Circassian. With these competencies, he was stood out among other
Circassian officials. On 21 April 1903, he was appointed to the town of Cevlan-ı
Garbi in the districts of Quneitra with a salary of 250 kurus.288 The administrative
networks of Circassians were apparent in the career of this father and son. Ali Rıza
Efendi as a refugee in this foreign land, made his way to Ottoman administration
as Mufti for a decade and strengthened this tie by educating his son to be an officer
of the state.
Saddedin Efendi was another Circassian refugee’s son born in 1881. His academic life
was followed the same path as Ahmed Muhtar. After he graduated from the rüsdiye
of Quneitra, he attended the Damascus Idadi School. He was literate in Turkish
and Arabic, also familiar with French and spoke his mother tongue Circassian. He
started his career in Daraa station of Hijaz railway with 150 kurus salary. Within
two years, he was promoted to civil service of the station with a 600 kurus salary.
However, after four years in this position, he had to quit his post due to ill health.
He was given several medals for his successful services.289 The rest of the three civil
servants completed their education in the rüsdiye of Quneitra, and unlike the above
officers, they did not attend the ibtidai school. Therefore, they were just literate
in Arabic and Turkish and could speak Circassian. They were not familiar with
French since they did not take ibtidai education in Damascus. Safer and Mehmed
Hızır Efendis were appointed to the town of Cevlan-ı Garbi in Quneitra with a salary
of 150 kurus, similar to Ahmed Muhtar.290 Ibrahim Hakkı appointed to the town
288Kazayı mezkurda sıbyan mektebinde mukaddema-i ’ulumu ve mekteb-i rüsdiyesinde müretteb dersleri
okuduktan sonra Sam mekteb-i ’Idadi-yi mülkiyesinde müretteb ’ulum ve fünun bi’t-tahsil a’la dereceden
iki kıt’a sehadetname almısdır. Arabi ve Türkçe tekellüm ve kitabet eyledigi ve Farsi ve Fransızcaya asina
idügü ve Çerkesce söyledigi tercüme-i hal varakasında mezkurdur. Bin üç yüz yirmi bir senesi Muharrem
el-Haramının yirmi üçünde 8 Nisan 319, 250 kurus maas ile Suriye vilayetinde Kuneytra kazasına muzaf
(baglı) Cevlan-ı Garbi nahiyesi müdiriyetine ta’yîn olunmusdur. BOA, DH.SAIDd. 109, p.427, (8 Subat
1329, 21 February 1914).
28920 Haziran 326 istifa etmis ve bulundugu müddet zarfında görülen hüsn-ü hidematına binaen 1 Kanun-i
evvel 321 tarihinde Hicaz demiryoluna mahsus madalyalar ile gümüs liyakat nisanlarının i’tasıyla taltif
edilmisdir. BOA, DH.SAIDd. 193, p.289, (2 Kanun-i evvel 1329, 15 December 1913).
290Kasaba-yı mezkurda sıbyan mektebinde mukaadema-ı ’ulumu ve mekteb-i rüsdiyesinde müretteb dersleri
okuyup 19 temmuz 313 tarihli sehadetnameyi almısdır. Arabi ve Türkçe okuyup yazdıgını ve Çerkesce
tekellüm ettigi tercüme-i hal varakasında mündericdir. BOA.DH.SAIDd.160, p.399, (8 Haziran 1325, 21
June 1909). BOA, DH.SAIDd. 148, p.231, (20 Tesrin-i Evvel 1323, 2 December 1907).
77
of Zaviye in Quneitra with a half salary of 75 kurus, and after one year, he received
a promotion and started to receive full salary of 150 kurus in the same town.291
The educational policies of the Hamidian regime regarded the Circassian refugees
as similar to the local population. Through government schooling, the state was
propagated with the notions of ideal Ottoman citizens. Circassian loyalty of the
state was tried to be strengthened through their integration to schools and administration.
While knowledge of Arabic was necessary for the province’s needs, the
Turkish language exposure was equally present in curriculums. Thus, it was aimed
that through the Turkish language, the Ottomanization of the frontier would be reconstructed.
A travelogue from 1907 regarding the language abilities of Circassians
stated that "...Many speak Turkish fluently, the elder ones some Russian, but their
ordinary tongue continues to be Circassian."292 This shows the degree of integration
of Circassian refugees into the Ottoman Empire. The Circassian tribes adapted to
the complex nature of this new land and acquired every necessity to survive. They
built strong connections with each other and later expanded these networks to the
central administration. They were prone to development, culture and education.
Despite their traumatic past filled with harsh replacements, Circassians adapted to
every aspect of the empire and established themselves as a powerful force among
other groups.
291Bir müddet Kuneytra kazası tahrirat kalemine mülazemetle bin üç yüz on sekiz senesi Sabanının yirmi
besinde 5 Kanun-i Evvel 316 75 kurus nısf maasla kaza-yı mezkur dahilinde Zahire? nahiyesi kitabetine
vekaleten ve zilka’desinin yirmi üçünde 1 Mayıs 317, 150 kurus maasla ta’yîn olmusdur. BOA, DH.SAIDd.
134, p.327 (5 Haziran 1322, 18 June 1906).
292A. Goodrich-Freer, In a Syrian Saddle, (London: Methuen, 1905), 105.
78
6. CONCLUSION
The last half-century of the Ottoman Empire experienced a massive migration movement
from the Caucasus. Approximately, 1 to 1,5 million Circassian refugees settled
within the empire. After the loss of Balkan territories, the mass dispatch of Circassians
from Rumelia to Greater Syria started, and in the following decades, this
mobility continued from the Caucasia. During these movements, the inner regions of
the Province of Syria lacked a proper settled lifestyle. Bedouin and Druzes were the
dominant inhabitants of the region. The state strategically settled the Circassians
among these forces to weaken their power and brought state authority to the region
through the refugee communities.
The district of Quneitra was one central region for Circassian refugee settlement.
The area was highly fertile and close to Damascus. Yet this fertile land was mainly
used by bedouin tribes for grazing their herds. The settlement was scarce, and the
existing ones were subjected to bedouin harassment. While the government aided the
first Circassian refugee groups in the following decades, refugees formed their trade
networks with their distinctive carts and highly got involved with agriculture and
husbandry. After the refugees stabilize their conditions, they started to get involved
with the local affairs. In this period state began to accelerate the centralization
policies in the region. The Druzes and bedouin were the primary subjects of this
process. However, to legitimize its policies, the state used the narration of civilizing
the inhabitants far from their conception of civilization. Later the Circassians were
included in this narration because of their unorthodox practices. While the civilizing
of Druzes and bedouin partially with enforcement, Circassians were introduced with
state education.
The Ottoman state had several objectives to resettle the Circassians in the Province
of Syria. The creation of a loyal population that could enforce the centralization policy
by balancing the local powers of the region would serve the interest of the state.
Therefore, the government settled the refugees to be used against the Druze and
bedouin population. At the same time, the uninhabited and uncultivated lands that
79
were used only for grazing opened to cultivation and created new economic incomes.
Indeed, the state achieved these goals. The Circassians of Quneitra were settled in
a semi-arid region of the province inhabited mainly by the semi-independent local
forces like Druzes and Bedouin. After two challenging deportations, the remaining
Circassian population tried to rebuild a permanent settlement for themselves.
At the end of the empire, the district of Quneitra had more than a dozen village
that the Circassians created. They introduced new technologies to the region like
carts and watermills. These were used extensively in agriculture and transportation.
They created economic relationships with Circassians in Anatolia and Transjordan.
Circassians carried the commercialization of timber in the region.
Circassian relations with the local population initially oriented on conflict for land.
However, in the next decades, these relations transformed based on the character of
the local group. Thus, while the Druzes became the perpetual enemies, the relations
with bedouin were open to change on the situation. In this respect, the Circassians
of Quneitra blocked the Druzes of Majdal Shams, which connected the Druzes of
Mount Lebanon and Jabal Hawran. Along with the Circassian gendarme, in time of
peace, the villagers exhausted the Druzes of the region with their attacks. During
these events, Circassians and bedouin were sided together. Further, they extended
their relations from political to social by intermarriages with the Arab population.
Therefore, the Circassian community initially strengthened its place within the local
groups and then acted on its interests in the region.
However, despite the general recognition, the Circassian refugees were not just passive
and loyal instruments of the state. They created their identities on the notion
of refugeedom since it was the broadest and applicable feature on every Circassian.
On this identity, the fragile conditions created by the state sometimes confronted
with oppositions by the Circassians. Especially the local administration and Circassians
had apparent conflicts. Since every actor of the district desired to have the
region’s highest interest, these interests occasionally conflicted. Circassian refugees
were on one side of this power struggle. While the state supported them in most
of the events, Circassians could not benefit from this favour under every circumstance.
Further, Circassians adopted local practices to oppose the government when
it was in their own interests. Moreover, the settlement policies of the state were
challenged by the refugees. While some groups could not adapt to the conditions
of Syria, they requested to move to Anatolian regions. However, there were also
numerous petitions for the resettlement to the Hawran region. The Circassians manipulated
the rule of permission to resettle along with the relatives. Many refugee
families requested to resettle in the Hawran region to benefit from tax and military
exemptions. Thus, the relations of the Circassians with the central and local ad-
80
ministration did not occur on a definite agreement between these parties; instead,
it also had its instabilities.
The Ottoman state used the Circassian refugees as a military force. They were recruited
to form local gendarmes against the insubordinate forces. In Quneitra, these
forces were efficient in extending the central power, notably against the Druze population.
Nevertheless, this position was not the only one occupied by the Circassians.
The leaders of the first generation inserted themselves into the local administration
system of Quneitra. Several Circassians took various positions in educational affairs.
Nearly for a decade, the Mufti of the district was also a Circassian leader. The second
generation was raised on these connections and received their local education in
Quneitra, where the first rüsdiyye of Hawran established. Many Circassian students
became Ottoman officials with Arabic and Turkish language assets and appointed
back into their hometowns or other regions of Greater Syria. This practice both
contributed to the lack of trained officers for the state and increased the integration
of Circassians into Ottoman administration.
Refugees settled in places that are influenced by semi-independent local powers.
They supported by the government and partook in not just military force but also
in administration. Despite the lack of financial support and the district’s environment,
Circassian refugees adapted themselves and became a prominent part of the
region. They shaped their surroundings with the political network, military force,
and education. In this respect, victimization of refugees is not a just or comprehensive
term to define historical refugee movements in the Ottoman empire. Even
though initially they were the victims of imperial forces, they were highly successful
in forming their way in new settlements. The Circassians of Quneitra were subjected
to two different displacements, but they successfully created their power in
the new settlement. In the end, they have become prominent figures that cannot be
dismissed in the area and influenced the political and social turmoil of the region.
In the first years of World War I, Circassians fought for the Ottoman Empire under
the leadership of Mirza Wasfi and protected the Hejaz Railway. However, after the
Great Arab Revolt in 1916, they had joined the rebels until the establishment of
France mandate. Under the mandate, Circassians allied with France and participated
in the army.293 In the Great Syrian Revolt of 1925, the rebels in Quneitra
were tracked down by the French, and the Circassian gendarme clashed with the
Druze rebels.294 The long feud between two groups since the first Circassian settle-
293Walter Richmond, The Circassian Genocide, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2013), 119.
294Michael Provence, The Great Syrian Revolt and The Rise of Arab Nationalism, (Austin: University of
Texas Press, 2005), 87-88.
81
ments to the region was continued to this era and affected the power struggles in the
region. Following the Syrian independence, Circassians requested autonomy from
the government but could only get the right of teaching the Circassian language in
their schools.
For the Circassians of Quneitra, who had been displaced already two times, this
new land was again could not be the permanent one. By the 1960s, Circassians
were the leading pioneers of prosperous Golan Heights with a population of ninety
thousand. However, their fate would put them back on the roads with the Six-Day
War in 1967. After the invasion of Israel, many fled to Damascus.295 The most
rooted place for Circassians of Syria was destroyed with this war, and they lost
the generations-long history and tradition of a refugee settlement. However, despite
the vanishing of the Circassian towns of the Jawlan, the last decades of Ottoman
rule achieved to establish a well-organized settlement in the region. Contrary to
their ill-fates, the Circassian community’s resilience and high adaptability enabled
them to take control of their surroundings. They were able to build a new society
from scratch, and they contributed to the Quneitra region until its invasion and
demolishment by Israel.
This thesis aimed to reveal the importance of refugees and the refugee regime created
by the Ottoman Empire. The focus on this small frontier region is significant enough
to understand how refugee contribution back by the government can transform a
desolate land into a town centre. Thus, Circassian society was examined with the
revisionary trend that had risen in migration studies. Refugees were considered as
active actors of the region where they were settled rather than passive instruments
of the state. In order to increase the representation of the refugees, the petitions
they wrote or the newspaper articles they published were included in the discussions.
This perspective enabled the production of a refugee focused study rather than a
state-centred one. By paying attention to these points, this thesis is only the first
step in filling the gap in the literature and constitutes a start for future studies.
295Richmond, 121-122.
82
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. ARCHIVAL SOURCES
Prime Minister Ottoman Archive (BOA), Istanbul
BOA, HR.TO. 205/21 (21 Saban 1295, 17 August 1878).
BOA, HR.ID. 10/64 (20 Tesrin-i Sani 1326, 20 November 1910).
BOA, MKT.MHM. 515/15 (12 Eylül 1317, 12 September 1901).
BOA, DH.MKT. 1569/103 (19 Tesrin-i Sani 1304, 1 December 1888).
BOA, Y.MTV. 214/163 (25 Nisan 1317, 8 May 1901).
BOA, I.DH. 760 (26 Eylül 1294, 9 October 1878).
BOA, DH.MKT. 1471/89 (12 Kanun-ı Evvel 1303, 24 December 1887).
BOA, DH.MKT. 1814/86 (18 Subat 1306, 2 March 1891).
BOA, MKT.MHM. 514 (19 May 1317, 1 June 1901).
BOA, DH.MKT. 1585/57 (8 Kanun-ı Evvel 1304, 20 December 1888).
BOA, Y.A.HUS. 299/40. (26 Mayıs 1310, 7 June 1894).
BOA, I.DH. 01101 (28 Agustos 1304, 9 September 1888).
BOA, DH.MKT. 1549/48 (10 Eylül 1304, 22 September 1888).
BOA, DH.MKT. 866/57 (19 Haziran 1320, 2 July 1904).
BOA, DH.MKT. 28/76 (6 Nisan 1325, 19 April 1909).
BOA, Y.PRK.UM. 77/38 (25 Eylül 1321, 8 October 1905).
BOA, SD. 2274/41 (22 Haziran 1299, 4 July 1883).
BOA, BEO. 420/31486 (7 Haziran 1310, 19 June 1894).
BOA, BEO. 481/36005 (10 Eylül 1310, 22 September 1894).
BOA, Y.A.HUS. 305/41 (25 Temmuz 1310, 6 August 1894).
BOA, DH.MKT. 292/54 (10 Receb 1312, 7 January 1895).
BOA, I.MTZ.CL. 7/314 (21 Tesrin-i Sani 1311, 3 Aralık 1895).
BOA, DH.MKT. 541/54 (2 Temmuz 1318, 15 July 1902).
BOA, DH.MKT.1010/71 (7 Eylül 1321, 20 September 1905).
BOA, DH.MKT. 2861/21 (15 Haziran 1325, 28 June 1909).
BOA, SD.2296/17.2 (11 Subat 1319, 9 March 1903).
BOA, SD. 2296/17.1 (25 Mayıs 319, 7 June 1903).
83
BOA, DH.MKT.876/44 (16 Haziran 320, 29 June 1904).
BOA, DH.SAIDd.109, p.427, (8 Subat 1329, 21 February 1914).
BOA, DH.SAIDd.193, p.289, (2 Kanun-i evvel 1329, 15 December 1913).
BOA.DH.SAIDd.160, p.399, (8 Haziran 1325, 21 June 1909).
BOA, DH.SAIDd.148, p.231, (20 Tesrin-i Evvel 1323, 2 December 1907).
BOA, DH.SAIDd.134, p.327, (5 Haziran 1322, 18 June 1906).
The National Archives of the United Kingdom, Records of the Foreign Office
(TNA FO), London.
TNA. FO 424/106 No. 186, 20 May 1880.
TNA. FO 424/107 No. 89, 20 August 1880.
TNA. FO 424/184 No. 866, 12 December 1895.
TNA. FO 424/184 No. 797, 4 December 1895.
TNA. FO 424/186 No. 285, 24 February 1896.
TNA. FO 424/187 No. 186, 19 June 1896.
TNA. FO 424/188 No. 247, 7 September 1896.
TNA. FO 424/188 No. 53, 25 June 1896.
TNA. FO 424/188 No. 54, 7 July 1896.
Ottoman Provincial Yearbooks
Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, 1285/1868, 1295/1878, 1297/1880, 1298/1881, 1301/1884,
1302/1885, 1303/1887, 1316/1898, 1315/1897, 1317/1899, 1318/1900.
Journals
Guaze, No. 13, 4 July 1911.
Guaze, No. 4, 27 April 1911.
Guaze, No. 7, 18 May 1911.
B. PRINTED SOURCES
1. Primary Sources
Binark, Ismet., ed. Osmanlı Devleti ile Kafkasya, Türkistan ve Kırım Hanlıkları Arasındaki
Münâsebetlere Dâir Arsiv Belgeleri: 1687-1908 Yılları Arası, Ankara: T.C.
Basbakanlık Devlet Arsivleri Genel Müdürlügü, 1992.
Burton, Richard F. Unexplored Syria, London: Tinsley Brothers, 1872.
Cevdet Pasa, Ahmed. Tarih-i Cevdet, I. Cilt, ed. Mehmet Ipsirli, Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu Yayınları, 2018.
84
Cevdet Pasa. Tezakir 21-39, ed Cavid Baysun, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi,
1986.
Chochiev, Georgy. “1867 Abhaz Göçüne Dair Birkaç Rus, Osmanlı ve Ingiliz Belgesi.”
Journal of Caucasian Studies 1, (2015): 103-158.
Ewing, W. “A Journey in the Hauran,” Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement,
(1895): 60-67.
Goodrich-Freer, Ada. In a Syrian Saddle, London: Methuen, 1905.
Haghanduqah, Muhammad Khayr. Mirza Basha Wasfi: kitab watha’iqi : marhalah min
tarikh bilad al-Sham min khilal watha’iq Mirza Basha, Amman, 1985.
Klein, F. A. “Life, Habits, and Customs of the Fellahin of Palestine.” Palestine Exploration
Fund, Quarterly Statement, (1883): 41-52.
Lees, G. Robinson. “Across Southern Bashan.” The Geographical Journal 5, no.1, (1895):
1-27.
Masterman, E. W. G. “Miscellaneous Notes Made During a Journey East and West of
Jordan.” Quarterly Statement, Palestine Exploration Fund, (1902): 299-301.
Oliphant, Laurence. The Land of Gilead: With Excursions in the Lebanon, London: W.
Blackwood and Sons, 1880.
Porter, Josias Leslie. A Handbook for Travelers in Syria and Palestine, London: J.
Murray, 1868.
Sahillioglu, Halil. “A Project for the Creation of Amman Vilayet (1878).” in Studies on
Ottoman Economic and Social History, editek by Halil Sahillioglu, 175-188. Istanbul:
Ircica, 1999.
Schumacher, Gottlieb. The Jaulân: Surveyed for the German Society for the Exploration
of the Holy Land, London: Richard Bentley and Son, 1888.
—————————–. Across The Jordan: An Exploration and Survey of Part of Hauran
and Jaulan, 1889.
—————————–.“Notes From Jedur.” Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement,
(1897): 190-195.
Simsir, Bilal. Rumeli’den Türk Göçleri, 1. Cilt , Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları,
1968.
Ünal, Ugur., ed. Osmanlı Belgelerinde Kafkas Göçleri I, II, (Istanbul: Basbakanlık
Devlet Arsivleri Genel Müdürlügü, 2012.
———————. Osmanlı Belgelerinde Suriye, Istanbul: T.C. Basbakanlık Devlet Arsivleri
Genel Müdürlügü, 2013.
85
2. Secondary Sources
Abu Hassan, Raja Jamal. The Settlement and Economic Development of Hawran 1860-
1914: A Reconsideration of Motives and Forces, (MA Thesis, American University
of Beirut, 2017.
Akarlı, Engin Deniz. The Long Peace Ottoman Lebanon, 1861-1920, University of California
Press, 1993.
————————–. “Abdülhamid’s Attempt to Integrate Arabs into the Ottoman System.”
in Palestine in The Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social and Economic
Transformation, edited by David Kushner, Leiden: Brill, 1986.
Alon, Yoav. “Sheikh and Pasha: Ottoman Government in the Syrian Desert and the
Creation of Modern Tribal Leadership.” Journal of the Economic and Social History
of the Orient 59, no. 3, (2016): 442-472.
Avagyan, Arsen. Çerkesler: Osmanlı Imparatorlugu ve Kemalist Türkiye’nin Devlet-
Iktidar Sisteminde, Istanbul: Belge Yayınları, 2004.
Avitsur, Shmuel. “Wind Power in The Technological Development of Palestine.” in Palestine
in The Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social and Economic Transformation,
ed. David Kushner, Leiden: Brill, 1986.
Aydemir, Izzet. Göç: Kuzey Kafkasyalıların Göç Tarihi, Ankara: Gelisim Mabaası, 1988.
Bala, Mirza. “Çerkesler” Islam Ansiklopedisi, Volume 3, Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basımevi,
1977.
Berzeg, Nihat. Çerkes Sürgünü: Gerçek, Tarihi ve Politik Nedenleri, Ankara: Takav
Matbaacılık, 1996.
Berzeg, Sefer E. Kafkas Diasporasında Edebiyatçılar ve Yazarlar Sözlügü, Samsun: Nart
Yayıncılık, 1995.
Birgit Schaebler, “Civilizing Others: Global Modernity and the Local Boundaries
(French/German/Ottoman and Arab) of Savagery.” in Globalization and the Muslim
World: Culture, Religion, and Modernity, edited by Birgit Schaebler and Leif
Stenberg, Syracuse, N.Y: Syracuse University Press, 2004.
Blumi, Isa. Ottoman Refugees, 1878–1939 Migration in a Post-Imperial World, London:
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2013.
Buzpınar, Tufan. “Ahmed Cevdet Pasa’nın Suriye Valiligi (Subat-Kasın 1878).” Türk
Kültürü Incelemeleri Dergisi 9, (2003): 37-52.
———————–. “Suriye ve Filistin’de Avrupa Nüfuz Mücadelesinde Yeni Bir Unsur:
Ingiliz Misyonerleri (19. Yüzyıl),” Islam Arastırmalan Dergisi 10, (2003): 107-120.
———————–. “Havran” TDV Islâm Ansiklopedisi, TDV Islâm Arastırmaları
Merkezi, 2021, https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/havran
Chatty, Dawn. “Refugees, Exiles, and Other Forced Migrants in the Late Ottoman
Empire.” Refugee Survey Quarterly 32, (2013): 35-52.
86
Çetin, Atilla. “ Kıbrıslı Kâmil Pasa” TDV Islâm Ansiklopedisi, TDV Islâm Arastırmaları
Merkezi, 2021, https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/kibrisli-kamil-pasa
Darkot, Besim. “Havran” Islam Ansiklopedisi, 3. Cilt, Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basımevi,
1977.
Davison, Roderic H. Reform in The Ottoman Empire 1856-1876, Princeton, N.J: Princeton
University Press, 1963.
Deringil, Selim. “They Live in a State of Nomadism and Savagery”: The Late Ottoman
Empire and the Post-Colonial Debate.” Comparative Studies in Society and History
45, no.2, (2003): 311-342.
——————–. “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’na Göç Olgusu Üzerine Bazı
Düsünceler,” in Prof. Dr. Bekir Kütükoglu’na Armagan, Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakültesi
Basımevi, 1991.
Erdem, Hakan. Osmanlıda Köleligin Sonu 1800-1909, Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2004.
Evered, Emine Ö. Empire and Education Under The Ottomans: Politics, Reform, and
Resistance from the Tanzimat to the Young Turks, London, I.B.Tauris, 2012.
Farah, Caesar E. “Protestantism and British Diplomacy in Syria.” International Journal
of Middle East Studies 7, no. 3, (1976): 321-344.
Fawaz, Leila Tarazi. An Occasion for War: Mount Lebanon and Damascus in 1860,
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994.
Findley, Carter V. “The Evolution Of Provincial Administration.” in Palestine in the
Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social, and Economic Transformation, edited by
David Kushner, Leiden: Brill, 1986.
Firro, Kais M. "The Ottoman Reforms and Jabal al-Duruz, 1860-1914." in Ottoman
Reform and Muslim Regeneration: Studies in Honour of Butrus Abu-Manneh, edited
by Itzchak Weismann and Fruma Zachs, London: I.B.Tauris, 2005.
Fratantuono, Ella. “Producing Ottomans: Internal Colonization and Social Engineering
in Ottoman Immigrant Settlement.” Journal of Genocide Research 21, no.1, (2019):
1-24.
Gross, Max L. Ottoman Rule in the Province of Damascus, 1860-1909, Volume 1, (PhD
dis., Georgetown University, 1979.
Gutman, David. “Travel Documents, Mobility Control, and the Ottoman State in an
Age of Global Migration, 1880–1915.” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies
Association 3, no. 2, (2016): 347-368.
Habiçoglu, Bedri. Kafkaslardan Anadoluya Göçler, Istanbul: Nart Yayıncılık, 1993.
Haghanduqah, Muhammad Khayr. al-Sharkas, asluhum, tarikhuhum ’adatuhum,
taqaliduhum, hijratuhum ila al-Urdun, Amman, 1982.
Hakan Asan, “Devlet, Asiret ve Eskıya Baglamında Osmanlı Muhacir Iskân Siyaseti
(1860-1914).” Göç Arastırmaları Dergisi 2, no.3, (2016): 34-61.
87
Halaçoglu, Yusuf. “Fırka-ı Islâhiyye” TDV Islâm Ansiklopedisi, TDV Islâm Arastırmaları
Merkezi, 2021, (https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/firka-i-islahiyye).
Hamed-Troyansky, Vladimir. “Circassian refugees and the making of Amman,
1878–1914.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 49, no. 4, (2017): 605-623.
Herzog, Christoph. “Migration and the state On Ottoman regulations concerning migration
since the age of Mahmud II.” in The City in the Ottoman Empire Migration and
the Making of Urban Modernity, ed. Ulrike Freitag and Malte Fuhrmann, 117-134.
New York: Routledge, 2011.
Hütteroth, Wolf-Dieter. and Abdulfattah, Kamal. Historical Geography of Palestine,
Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Century, Erlangen: Palm und
Enke, 1977.
Ipek, Nedim. Imparatorluktan Ulus Devlete Göçler, Trabzon: Serander Yayınları, 2006.
Jalouqa, Kamal. “Büyük Suriyede Çerkes Göçmenlerin Durumu 1870’den Günümüze.”
in Anavatanlarından Sürülüslerinin 150. Yılında Çerkesler, ed. Erdem Ünlü and
Murat Duman, 157-161. Ankara: Kafdav Yayınları, 2015.
Kale, Basak. “Transforming an Empire: The Ottoman Empire’s Immigration and Settlement
Policies in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries.” Middle Eastern
Studies 50, no. 2, (2014): 252-271.
Karpat, Kemal H. Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Etnik Yapılanma ve Göçler, Istanbul: Timas
Yayınları, 2013.
———————–. “The Status of The Muslim Under European Rule: The Eviction
and Settlement of -the Çerkes.” in Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History,
Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays, ed.
Kemal H. Karpat, 647-675, Leiden: Brill, 2002.
———————–. The Politicization of Islam: Reconstructing Identity, State, Faith,
and Community in the Late Ottoman State, New York: Oxford University Press,
2001.
Kuehn, Thomas. Empire, Islam, and Politics of Difference Ottoman Rule in Yemen,
1849-1919, Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Kushabiyev, Anzor. “Suriye’deki Çerkes Toplulugunun Tarihinden.” Yedi Yıldız Dergisi
4, (1994): 18-21.
Lewis, Norman. Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan, 1800-1980, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987.
———————. “The Syrian steppe during the last century of Ottoman rule: Hawran
and Palmyrena.” in The Transformation of Nomadic Society in the Arab East, ed.
Martha Mundy and Basim Musallam, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000.
Ma’oz, Moshe. Ottoman Reform in Syria And Palestine 1840-1861: The Impact of The
Tanzimat on Politics and Society, London: Oxford University Press, 1968.
88
Mamsir, Muhammad Khayr. al-Mawsuu’ah al-tarikhiyah lil-ummah al-Sharkasiyah “al-
Adighah”: min al-alf al-’ashir ma qabla al-milad ila al-alf al-thalith ma ba’da almilad,
vol. 4/2, Amman: Dar Wa’il, 2009.
McCharty, Justin. Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-
1922, Princeton: Darwin Press, 1995.
Nuri, Tsagua. Adige Tarihi, Istanbul: Arpa Yayıncılık, 2016.
Ortadogu Stratejik Arastırmalar Merkezi, Suriye Çerkesleri, Rapor No: 130, Ankara:
Orsam, 2012.
Özbek, Nadir. “Policing the Countryside: Gendarmes of the Late 19th-Century Ottoman
Empire (1876-1908).” International Journal of Middle East Studies 40, no. 1, (2008):
47-67.
Özel, Oktay. “Muhacirler, Yerliler ve Gayrimüslimler: Osmanlı’nın Son Devrinde
Orta Karadeniz’de Toplumsal Uyumun Sınırları Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler.” Tarih ve
Toplum Yeni Yaklasımlar 5, (2007): 93-112.
Perry, Yaron, and Lev, Efraim. “Ernest William Gurney Masterman, British Physician
and Scholar in the Holy Land.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 138, (2006): 133-
146.
Pinson, Marc. “Ottoman Colonization of the Circassians in Rumeli after the Crimean
War.” Études Balkaniques 3, (1972): 71-85.
Provence, Michael. The Great Syrian Revolt and The Rise of Arab Nationalism, Austin:
University of Texas Press, 2005.
Reilly, James A. “Ottomans in Syria: “Turkish Colonialism”, or Something Else?.” in
Comparing Colonialism: Beyond European Exceptionalism, edited by Axel T. Paul
and Matthias Leanza, Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2020.
Richmond, Walter. The Circassian Genocide, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press,
2013.
Rogan, Eugene L. and Akpınar, Alisan. Asiret, Mektep, Devlet: II. Abdülhamid’in Asiret
Mektebi (1892-1907), Istanbul: Aram Yayıncılık, 2001.
Rogan, Eugene L. Frontiers of the State in the Late Ottoman Empire Transjordan, 1850-
1921, Cambridge: Cambridge Unıversity Press, 2002.
———————. “Asiret Mektebi: Abdulhamid II’s School for Tribes (1892-1907).”
International Journal of Middle East Studies 28, no. 1, (1996): 83-107.
Samur, Sabahattin. “Sultan II.Abdülhamid Yönetimi ve Havran Dürzileri.” Sultan
II.Abdülhamid Sempozyumu: 20-21 Subat 2014 Selanik, Bildiriler Vol.1: Ic ve Dis
Siyaset, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 79-94. 2014.
Saylan, Kemal. “Suriye Vilayeti’ne Göç Eden Kafkas Muhacirlerinin Iskân ve Iase Meselesi.”
in Geçmisten Günümüze Göç III, ed.Osman Köse, 433-442. Samsun: Canik
Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 2017.
89
Schilcher, Linda Schatkowski. Families in Politics: Damascene Factions and Estates of
the 18th and 19th Centuries, Stuttgart: Steiner-Verlag-Wiesbaden, 1985.
————————————–. “The Hauran Conflicts of the 1860s: A Chapter in the
Rural History of Modern Syria.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 13,
no. 2, (1981): 159-179.
Shami, Seteney. "19th Century Circassian Settlements in Jordan." in Studies in The
History and Archaeology of Jordan, Volume 4, 417-421. Amman: Department of
Antiquities, 1992.
——————–. “Historical Processes of Identity Formation: Displacement, Settlement,
and Self-Representations of the Circassians in Jordan.” Iran and the Caucasus 13,
no. 1, (2009): 141-159.
Shami, Seteney, and Hannoyer, Jean. Amman Ville et société/Amman. The City and
its Society, Presses de l’Ifpo, 1996.
Somel, Selçuk Aksin. Osmanlı’da Egitimin Modernlesmesi (1839-1908), Istanbul:
Iletisim Yayıncılık, 2015.
————————–. “Sam’da egitim sorunu ve Tanzimat’ın Suriye’de geçerli kılınması
meselesi (1861) (The issue of education in Damascus and the application of the
Tanzimat in Syria (1861)).” Tarih ve Toplum Yeni Yaklasımlar, no.8, (2009): 93-
132.
Sourdel, Dominique. “Hawran” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Volume III, edited by
B.Lewis, V. L. Menage, Ch. Pellat, J. Schach, 292-293. Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1971.
Sulayman Beg, Adib. aljawlan dirasat fi aljughrafiat al’iiqlimia [The Golan: Regional
Geographic Study], Paris, 1983.
Tavkul, Ufuk. “Osmanlı Devletinin Kafkas Muhacirlerinin Kölelik Kurumuna Yaklasımı.”
Bilig 17, (2001): 33-51.
Toledano, Ehud R. The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Suppression: 1840-1890, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1982.
Türesay, Özgür. “The Ottoman Empire Seen Through The Lens of Postcolonial Studies:
A Recent Historiographical Turn.” Revue d’histoire Moderne et Contemporaine 60,
no. 2, (2013): 127-145.
Uzunçarsılı, Ismail. “Tersane Konferansı’nın Mukarreratı Hakkında Sûra Mazbatası.”
Tarih Dergisi 6, (1954): 123-140.
Yavuz, M. Hakan, and Sluglett, Peter. War and Diplomacy: the Russo-Turkish War of
1877-1878 and the Treaty of Berlin, Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press,
2011.
90
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye 1297/1880, p.215-216.
Havranın ekseriyesi ’asair-i sakine ile taife-i dürziyeden mürekkeb olup ahalisi henüz
hal-i vahset ve bedeviyetde bulunup kar-u mesguliyetleri dahi zira’ate münhasır
oldugu cihetle memleket her gûne esbab-ı ma’muriyet ve asar-ı medeniyetden ari
isede mamafih tabiat su mahrumiyete mukabil Havran’a diger cihetden öyle bir
meziyet-i aliye ihsan buyurmusdur ki hakikat-ı nazarı yalnız Suriye vilayetince degil
belki dünyanın pek çok taraflarınca nadir bulunur o da arazisinin gayet münbit ve
mahsuldar olmasıdır bu derece deki hınta, sair, nohut, kusne, beyaz ve sarı darıdan
’ibaret olan mezru’anın baslıcası ve en âlâsı ki hıntadır yagmurların güzelce yagdıgı
sene nefs-i Havran ile Cidur kazalarında 1’e 80-90 ve asi senelerde 1e 50’den 65
kiloya kadar mahsul verip bu suretle bereketli ve bereketsiz seneler birbiri üstüne iki
milyon kiloya kadar hasılat oldugundan ve ahali ihtiyacat-ı zatiyelerini sair ve darı ile
idare ide geldikleri cihetle isbu hasıllar dahi kamilen Akka iskelesine Nablusa Sama
nakil ve ihrac kılındıgından memleket pek mühim bir zahire ticaretine malikdir.
Ikram-ı nakliyat için dâhil-i livadan Sama veya Akka’ya bir sose yolu yapılacak ve
ahali de Avrupalıların muntazam ’alet ve edavat-ı ziraatini isti’mala alıstırılacak
olunur ise livanın tarik-i ziraati fevkalhad tevessü ve o yüzdan hasıl olan ticaretde
bilnisbe tezayud ve terakki ederek olvakit Havran sahiha yalnız Suriyenin degil Asya
kıtasının dahi servet ve ticaretce en mühim mevkiinden olmak imtiyazını pek pek
kolaylıkla ihraz idebilir. Bir de Havranda bir nevi karatas madeni külliyet üzere
bulundugundan isbu tasdan cesim degirmen tasları ’imal olunarak Sam ve Sur ve
Mercayun vesaire tariklere nakil ve ihrac idilmekle livanın bu yüzden bir ticaret-i
mahsusası vardır. Nefs-i Havran ve Cidur nahiyesi livanın cihet-i simaliyesinde olup
elyevm kurâ seklinde bulunan Busra yahut Eski Sam medine-i kadimesinin harabesi
olhavalide kain oldugu gibi Cidur’un cihet-i sarkiyyesinde vaki’ Lacca nam mevkide,
ki aslı Melce olmak gerekdir, Izra’ ve Meshiye medinesinin asar-ı atikası mevcuddur.
Isbu Leca etraf ve havalisi gayet sa’ab olunur ve dairan ma’deverân 5-20 saatlik
mesafeyi havi kayalıklarıyla kusatılmıs bir sarp yer olup zikr olunan harabeler bir
91
cihetinin kenarında vaki’ ve derununda bagzı urban-ı vahsiye ile bir mikdar dürzi
sakindir.
Appendix 2: BOA, I.DH. 760 (26 Eylül 1294, 9 October 1878).
Suriye vilayeti dahilinde kain Kuneytıra kazasında iskan edilmis olan Çerkes ve
Dagistan muhacirlerinin öküz ve tohumluk bahlarıyla ta’yinat ve masarif-i saireleri
çün muktezi olan 33,900 bu kadar kurusun tertib-i mahsusundan i’tası istizan olunması
üzerine bu muhacirler eskiden gelip yerlesdirilmis olanlardan mıdır yoksa
bu def’a gelenlerden midir buralarının evvel emirde tahkik etdirilerek ’arz edilmesi
müteallik buyurulan idare-i seniyye-i cenab-ı mülükane iktiza-i ’alisinden olmasıyla
keyfiyeti Maliye Nezareti celilesiyle ledel-muhabere muhacirin-i merkumenin bu defa’
gelenlerden olmayıp doksan iki ve üç seneleri içinde gelip iskan edilenlerden bulundugu
anlasılmıs ve buna dair muhabereyi tezkire leffen ’arz ve takdim kılınmıs olmagla
istizan-ı sabık mucibince mezkur 33,000 bu kadar gurusun tesviyesi hususunun
nezaret-i müsarunileyhaya havalesi hakkında her ne vechle emr-i ferman-ı hümayuna
hazret-i sehinsahi seref- sünuh ve sudur buyurulur ise mantuk-ı münifi ittihaz edilecegi
beyanıyla tezkire-i senaveri terkim olundu efendim.
Fi 26 Eylül 94
Maruz-ı çaker-i kemineleridir
Reside-i dest-i ta’zim olan isbu tezkire-i samiye-i âsâfâneleriyle melfuf tezkire
manzur-u ’ali-i hazret-i padisahi buyurulmus ve istizan olundugu vechle meblagı
mezkurun tesviyesi müteallik ve seref-sudur buyurulan irade-i cenab-ı sehriyarı
mantuk-ı münifinden olarak mezkur tezkire savb-ı ‘âlî-yi sadaret-penahilerine i’ade
kılınmıs olmagla ol-babda emr-i ferman hazret-i veliyül emrindir.
Fi Eylül 94
Appendix 3: BOA, DH.MKT. 1585/57 (8 Kanun-ı Evvel 1304, 20 December
1888).
Dahiliye Nezareti Celilesine
Devletlü efendim hazretleri
Anadolu cihetinden hodbehod Kuneytraya muhacir geldigi istihbarat olunmak üzerine
mahallinden isti’lam-ı keyfiyet olunmus idi. Alınan cevapname Çerkes muhacirlerinin
kaza-ı mezkura 3 hane vurud ederek Rusyadan Samsuna ve oradan dahi
berren bu taraflara geldiklerini beyan etdikleri izbar olunmus ise de bunların ifadeleri
vechiyle dogruca Rusyadan geldikleri sahih olsa ellerinde pasaport veya murur
tezkiresi bulunmak lazım gelip halbuki is’ar-ı mahalliden anlasıldıgı üzere yedlerinde
92
hiç bir evrak olmadıgından bunların vaktiyle iskan olunmus oldukları mahalleri terk
ile gelmis olmaları kaviyen melhuz olunmus. Makam-ı âli-i nezaret-penahilerinden
seref-sudur eden evamir-i ’aliyye icabınca o makule hodbehod gelenlere muhacir
nazarıyla bakılmaması ve kendilerine arazi dahi i’ta olunmaması kaza-i mezkur kaymakamlıgına
yazılmısdır. Fakat Anadolu taraflarında Suriye havalisine muhacir vurudu
daimi el-vuku olmasıyla bunların fevc fevc buralara gelip kalması bir tarafdan
sefaletlerini ve diger tarafdan hükümetce enva’-i zayiat ve müskilata tesadüf olunması
mucib olmakda oldugundan ve vaktiyle bir mahalde iskan ile kendilerine arazi
verilmis olan muhacirinin bir müddet sonra diger tarafa nakl-i hane etmeleri esasen
taht-ı memnu’iyete alındıgı halde memnu’iyet-i mezkurenin muhafazasına ve her
nasıl yolcu olursa olsun yedlerinde murur tezkiresi olmayanların geldikleri mahallere
i’adesi kaziyyesine dikkat etmeyen memurların mesul olmaları tabi’i bulundugundan
ba’dema memnu’iyet-i mezkurenin ve murur-ı nizamenin bihakkın ve mütemadiyen
muhafaza hükmüne i’tina olunması lüzumunun Anadolu vilayet-i sahanesine emri
ihtarı meclis-i idare-i vilayet kararıyle arz olunur ol-babda emri ferman hazret-i
menlehül emrindir.
Fi 16 rabiülahir 306 ve Fi 8 Kanunievvel 304
Suriye Valisi
Mehmed Nazif
Appendix 4: BOA, DH.MKT.292.54.11 (10 Recebü’l-Ferd 1312, 7 Ocak
1895).
Dahiliye Nezaret-i Celilesi Makam-ı Samilerine,
Bu dürüst Osmanlı ve Sünni Islam kulları Cebel-i Lübnan Mutasarrıflıgı Suf
kaymakamı olan Emir Mustafa Rüslanın Mecdel Semsdeki Dürzileri kalkındırıp
güçlendirdigini belirledik. Mansura ve yanındaki Kuneytra ve Havran çevresinde
Suriye vilayetine ait yerlerde Müslüman Çerkes kardeslerimizin katledilmesi ve evlerinin
yıkılması için Dürzileri kıskırttı. Çerkeslerin öldürülmesi ve evlerinin yıkılmasının
diyeti olarak Suriye valisi tarafından Mecdel Sems ahalisinin 1000 lira
ödemesi kararı alındı. Suf kaymakamı Emir Mustafa’nın, Mecdel Sems Dürzilerine
yardım etmek ve gelecekte onun önemli meselelerine itaat etmeleri için bu paranın
Suftaki Dürzilerden toplanmasını istemesi delillerden biridir.
Ve biz dürüst kullara göre devlete baglılıgımız oldugundan cesaretimizi toplayarak
özellikle sultanın halkına istedikleri gibi zulm edebileceklerini sanan memurlar
tarafından yapılan bu fesadı kesmek için sahane makamınıza basvuruyoruz. Emr-ü
ferman hazret-i men lehül emrindir.
93
Fi 10 Recebü’l-Ferd 1312
Appendix 5: BOA, DH.SAIDd.193, p.289, (2 Kanun-i evvel 1329, 15
December 1913).
Sadeddin Efendi Kafkasya muhacirlerinden Kuneytrada iskan olunan müteveffi Hacı
Mehmed Efendinin mahdumudur.
Bin iki yüz doksan sekiz senesi Rebiülahirinin yirmi üçünde 10 Mayıs 297 Suriye
vilayetine tabi’ Kuneytra kazasında tevellüd etmisdir.
Mebadi-i ’ulumu Kuneytra ibtidai mektebinde kıraat etdikten sonra Sam mekteb-i
’idadi-i mülkiyesine duhul ve tedrisi mesrut olan ’ulum ve fünunu tahsil ile Eylül 318
tarihinde ba-sahadetname müntehi sınıfından çıkmısdır. Türkçe, Arapça tekellüm
ve kitabet ve lisan-ı maderi olan Çerkesce tekellüm eder ve Fransızcaya asina oldugu
tercüme-i halinde mündericdir.
25 Haziran 319 tarihinde Hicaz demiryolu Dera istasyonu mülazemetine dahil olmus
üç yüz yirmi bir senesi sabanın yirmi dördünde 15 tesrin-i sani 319, 150 kurus
maasla mezkur istasyon memuriyet mulazımlıgına tayin olunmus ve üç yüz yirmi iki
senesi Sabanın besinde 1 Tesrin-i sani 320 maasına 150 ve Zi’l-kadenin dokuzunda
1 Kanun-u sani 320, 100 ve üç yüz yirmi üç senesi Saferinin dokuzunda 1 Nisan 321
yine 100 kurus zam olunarak maası 500 yüz kurusa iblag ve Sevvalin on yedisinde
1 Kanun-i evvel 321 altı yüz kurus maasla mezkur istasyon memurluguna terfi’
edilmis ve Zilhiccesinin yirmisinde 1 Subat 321 mezkur altı yüz kurus maasla hattın
Hayfa idaresi teftis kalemi memurluguna nakil ve üç yüz yirmi bes senesi Recebinin
altısında 1 Agustos 323 maasına 50 üç yüz yirmi altı senesi Sevvalinin yirmisinde 1
Tesrin-i Sani 324 tekrar 50 ve üç yüz yirmi yedi senesi Sabanının yirmi dokuzunda
1 Eylül 325, 75 kurus zamayım vuku’bularak 775 kurus iblag olunmus ve ifa-yı
vazife etmekde iken vücuduna arız olan za’fiyetden dolayı üç yüz yirmi sekiz senesi
Recebinin besinde 20 Haziran 326 istifa etmis ve bulundugu müddet zarfında görülen
hüsn-ü hidematına binaen 1 Kanun-i evvel 321 tarihinde Hicaz demiryoluna mahsus
madalyalar ile gümüs liyakat nisanlarının i’tasıyla taltif edilmisdir.
Üç yüz yirmi dokuz senesi Rebiülevvlinin yirmi sekizinde 16 Mayıs 327, 266 kurus
sülsân maasla Kuneytra kazası tahrirat kitabeti vekaletine bil-tayin asilen vuruduyla
Cemazielevvelinin altısında 22 Nisan 327 infikak etmis ve Sabanın yirmi dördünde
6 Agustos 327 mezkur el-mikdar nısıf maasla tekrar kitabet-i mezkurda vekaletine
tayin olunarak muahharan asaleten digeri? tayin olunmasıyla üç yüz otuz senesi
Muharreminin on sekizinde 26 Kanun-i evvel 327 infikak eylemis Rebiülevvelin yedisinde
11 Subat 327, 400 kurus maasla Tafile kazası tahrirat kitabetine tayin Rebiül
saninin on yedisinde 22 Mayıs 328 maas-ı mezkurla Rasaya kazası tahrirat kitabetine
94
nakil olunmusdur.
Bulundugu memuriyetlerden dolayı mahallerinin istihsal eyledigi mezabit ve mekteb
sehadetnamesiyle nüfus-i tezkire-i Osmaniyesinin musaddaka-ı suretleriin asl
tercüme-i hal varakasıyla beraber mahfuz oldugu Suriye vilayeti sicil-i ahval komisyonunda
mevrud 22 Kanun-i sani 328 tarihli hülasasında görülmüsdür.
Fi 2 Kanun-i Evvel 329
95
Appendix 6: Administrative Division of Quneitra District, Salname-i
Vilayet-i Suriye, 1309-1310/1892.
KUNEYTRA KAZASI
Memurin-i Kaza Meclis-i I˙dare-i Kaza Mahkeme-i Bidayet
Kaymakam:
Muhammed Nuri Efendi
Reis:
Kaymakam Efendi
Reis:
Naib Efendi
Naib:
Abdulkadir Efendi
Azâ-yı Tabiiye:
Naib Efendi, Müfti Efendi
Mal Müdürü Efendi
Tahrirat Katibi Efendi
Azâ:
Mir Muhammed el-Fa’ur Efendi,
Hüseyin Efendi, Berekat el-Tahhan
Efendi, Yusuf Abdullah Efendi
Mal Müdürü:
Iskender Efendi
Müftü:
Ali Rıza Efendi
Azâ-yı Müntehibe:
Hacı Ahmed Efendi,
Ibrahim Sallum Efendi
Muhammed Cuma Efendi
Ibrahim Meleke
Bas Katib:
Hasan Efendi
Tahrirat Katibi:
Hafız Osman Efendi
Müstantik Muavini:
Nicola Efendi
Sandık Emini:
Habib Suyur Efendi
Mukavelat Muavini:
Ömer Talib Efendi
96
Maarif Subesi Belediye Meclisi Tahsilat Komisyonu
Reis-i Evvel:
Naib Efendi
Reis:
Sadullah Efendi
Reis:
Kaymakam Efendi
Reis-i Sani:
Müftü Efendi
Azâ:
Ökkes Aga,
Hasan Hammami Efendi,
Katib: Münhal
Azâ:
Mal Müdürü Efendi,
Mal Müdürü Muavini Efendi,
Tahrirat Katibi Efendi,
Jandarma Yüzbasısı
Abidin Efendi
Azâ:
Tapu Katibi Muhammed Efendi,
Çerakise Imamı Hüseyin Efendi,
Dagıstani Suayb Efendi
Vesait-i Nakliye-i
Askeriye Komisyonu
Reis:
Kaymakam Efendi
Azâ:
Meclis- Idareden
Hacı Ahmed Efendi,
Muhammed el-Hüseyin Efendi,
Said el-Hüseyin Efendi
97
Appendix 7: The decree of the Syrian Provincial Administrative Council
on the land dispute between Circassians of Mansura and el-Fadl tribe
BOA, SD. 2296.17.1
98
99
Appendix 8: The Arabic petition sent by Muslim population of Shuf.
BOA, DH.MKT.292.54.1
100
Appendix 9: Guaze, newspaper published by Circassian Union and Support
Association. No.13, 4 July 1911.
101
Appendix 10: Schumacher’s map of Jawlan, 1888
102