235
https://doi.org/10.35469/poligrafi.2021.276 Poligrafi, no. 101/102, vol. 26, 2021, pp. 235–260
T H E  C O N S T R U C T I O N  O F 
T U R K E Y ’ S  C I R C A S S I A N S  A S  A 
D O C I L E  M I N O R I T Y
U I a ş  S u n a t a
Introduction
Remembrance can be regarded as a social as well as a personal inci-
dent. More precisely, remembering “our” past is a social activity.1 Halb-
wachs coined and initially developed the term “collective memory,” re-
ferring to a body of knowledge about a past shared by a social group in 
a given present time.2 In other words, it is a “representation of the past 
embodied in both historical evidence and commemorative symbolism.”3 
Assmann also determined that “human memory is ‘embodied’ in living 
personal memories and ‘embedded’ in social frames and external cul-
tural symbols (e.g., texts, images, and rituals) that can be acknowledged 
as a memory function insofar as they are related to the self-image or 
‘identity’ of a tribal, national, and/or religious community.”4 Moreover, 
Schwartz argued that it is socially constructed to serve the recent needs 
of the group such as identity belonging, social cohesion, and group 
continuity.5 Furthermore, Wertsch and Roediger underlined that it is 
1  Celia B. Harris, Helen M. Paterson, and Richard I. Kemp, “Collaborative recall and col-
lective memory: What happens when we remember together?,” Memory 16, no. 3 (2008): 
213‒230, https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701811862.
2  Maurice Halbwachs, Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire (Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan, 1925).
3  Barry Schwartz, Abraham Lincoln and the forge of national memory (Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press, 2003), 8.
4  Jan Assmann, “Communicative and cultural memory,” in Cultural Memories (Springer, 
Dordrecht, 2011), 15‒27.
5  Barry Schwartz, “The reconstruction of Abraham Lincoln,” in Collective Remembering, ed. 
David Ed Middleton and Derek Ed Edwards (London: Sage Publications, 1990).
P o L I g R A F I
236
not a static process, but covers “contention and contestation among 
people.”6 
There are various forms of collective memory which constitute oral 
history. Assmann and Czaplicka defined “communicative memory” or 
“everyday memory” as a form of collective memory differing from other 
fixed and materialized forms.7 Collective memory is based on the his-
torical perceptions of those who make up a social group and are also 
affected by intergenerational dynamics and the evolution of the related 
oral narratives. Moreover, there are discrepancies in how memory works 
among different people. The creation and transfer of memory affected 
by different factors also impacts the writing of history. official histori-
cal records that tend to be different from the oral historical narratives 
of diasporic and minority groups are a version of history embraced by 
the victorious of a society as well as by its ruling elite. Alternatively, 
oral history, which has the potential to bring different perspectives on 
historical incidents, should not be overlooked. Still, collective memory 
in oral history is not independent from individual memory, but collec-
tive memory is memory shared by all group members.8 Hence, typical 
narratives in the oral history of any given social group are significant 
indicators in socially constructing group identities. Structural contexts 
mainly shape the social construction of minority,9 or diasporic identi-
ties; but the related social group as an agent activates collective memory 
and becomes involved in its own social construction. The social repre-
sentation of history with the collective memory of diasporic and minor-
ity groups mostly concentrates on collective traumas.10 In this study, we 
6  James V. Wertsch and Henry L. Roediger III, “Collective Memory: Conceptual Foun-
dations and Theoretical Approaches,” Memory 16, no. 3 (2008): 318‒326, https://doi.
org/10.1080/09658210701801434.
7  Jan Assmann and John Czaplicka, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” New Ger-
man Critique 65 (Sping‒Summer 1995): 125‒133, https://doi.org/10.2307/488538.
8  Eviatar Zerubavel, Social Mindscapes: An Invitation to Cognitive Sociology (Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 1999).
9  Stephanie J. DiAlto, “From ‘Problem Minority’ to ‘Model Minority’: The Changing Social 
Construction of Japanese Americans,” in Deserving and Entitled: Social Constructions and Public 
Policy, ed. Anne L. Schneider and Helen M. Ingram (SUNY Press, 2005), 81‒103.
10  See Arthur g. Neal, National Trauma and Collective Memory: Major Events in the American 
Century (ME Sharpe, 1998); Aleida Assmann and Sarah Clift, Shadows of Trauma: Memory and 
the Politics of Postwar Identity (Fordham University Press, 2016).
T H E  C O N S T R U C T I O N  O F  T U R K E Y ’ S  C I R C A S S I A N S  A S  A  D O C I L E  M I N O R I T Y
237
examine the social construction of Circassian diasporic/minority iden-
tity in Turkey in relation to the historical deportation from their home-
land through their collective memory. The Russian expansion in the 
19th century brought about a massive forced migration of the indig-
enous peoples of the north Caucasia to the ottoman Empire. Regard-
less of their ethnic groups such as Adyghe, Abkhaz-Abaza, or Ubykh, all 
north-western Caucasian peoples in diaspora are generally lumped to-
gether under the name “Circassians.” Circassians are the peoples whose 
ancestors were forced to migrate from their native lands due to the 
Russian-Caucasian Wars. In the ensuing years Circassians were subject 
to several more forced migrations, but in this study we will examine the 
deportation most refer to as “the exile.”11 At that time, in 1864,12 the 
ottoman Empire admitted the Circassians into their territory. Accord-
ing to the reception and settlement policy of the ottoman Empire, Cir-
cassian exiles were mostly relocated to Anatolia (Turkey), Syria, Jordan, 
Palestine, and the Balkans. While nationalist uprisings and World War 
I were weakening the Empire, Circassians showed their appreciation to 
the ottomans for being granted permission to live in resettled regions. 
During and after the collapse of the Empire, Circassians struggled for 
national independence from their host countries and became a found-
ing element of the newly established nation-states. Circassian peoples 
who did not want to lose their homes were once more highly motivated 
to protect their new abodes. Although they attempted not to lose their 
diasporic identity by preserving the habits of their former homeland, 
they belong to a minority in their new homes. After Kurds, Circas-
sians are the second largest ethnic minority of the Turkish Republic, 
established in 1923. In addition to their numbers, they are mostly used 
by the state in the process of Turkification in a discriminatory man-
11  There were also deportations during World War II, when around 600 thousand Chechens, 
the Ingush and Circassians were deported from the Caucasus to Siberia and Central Asia, and 
after their rehabilitation in 1956 approximately 50 thousand returned, which led to conflicts 
with the Russians who had taken over their territories.
12  Ulaş Sunata, “Büyük Çerkes Sürgünü’nün 151. yılı: Acılar, talepler ve isyan,” Al-Jazeera 
Türk, May 21, 2015, http://www.aljazeera.com.tr/gorus/buyuk-cerkes-surgununun-151-yili-a-
cilar-talepler-ve-isyan; Ulaş Sunata, “Çerkeslerin Kolektif Hafızası: 21 Mayıs ve Ötesi,” Birikim 
Dergisi Güncel, May 21, 2020, https://birikimdergisi.com/guncel/10111/cerkeslerin-kolek-
tif-hafizasi-21-mayis-ve-otesi.
P o L I g R A F I
238
ner. Despite their controversiality in the national discourse, Circassians 
are known for their high degree of loyalty towards Turkey. Social con-
structivist theory examines the foundation of shared assumptions about 
reality and reveals the development of meanings that are jointly rather 
than separately constructed.13 Public policies and discourses are critical 
to the social construction of minority identities and minority-majority 
relations, and mostly play out by highlighting the differences between 
“model minorities” and “problem minorities”.14 In this work, I prefer 
to use “docile minority” rather than “model minority”, since the major-
ity benefits from the binary opposition of minorities – either model or 
problem – by underlining “deserving and entitled” and the minority 
has more than a passive role in this social construction by addressing 
their group identity needs. This paper is related to the transmission of 
memory among Circassians regarding their stories of diaspora to the 
present and their mutual destiny in “becoming the docile minority” in 
their host societies. The main focus of this study is the social construc-
tion of the Circassian minority in Turkey. 
In 2014‒2015, I led a project entitled “Diasporas in Turkey: The Ex-
ample of North-Eastern Caucasus,” funded by the Scientific and Tech-
nological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) (113K833). For this 
project my team and I performed a nation-wide study in a total of 12 
cities, 23 districts and about 50 villages near the cities and created a 
considerable qualitative dataset including 129 oral history interviews 
with Circassians in Turkey. For this analysis, I re-read the transcripts 
of these interviews related to their immigration, reception and resettle-
ment, and instrumentalization. I then examined critical oral historical 
narratives from the related dataset via content analysis in order to de-
termine features of the minority identity construction with its historical 
milestones and to understand their relationship with the majority as 
well as with other minorities in Turkey. 
13  Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, “Social construction of reality,” in Encyclopedia of Communication 
Theory, ed. Ingrid Volkmer, Stephen W. Littlejohn, and Karen A. Foss (California: SAgE Pub-
lications, 2009).
14  DiAlto, “From ‘Problem Minority’ to ‘Model Minority’,” 81‒103.
T H E  C O N S T R U C T I O N  O F  T U R K E Y ’ S  C I R C A S S I A N S  A S  A  D O C I L E  M I N O R I T Y
239
Circassians’ Migration to the ottoman Empire
As the autochthonous people of North-Western Caucasus, Circas-
sians lived in their homeland located near the Kuban River and which 
stretched from the Kerch Strait on the shores of the Black Sea to Anapa 
and Tuapse north of the Caucasus Mountains. The Russian-ottoman 
War of 1676‒1681 had been won by the Russians, who then claimed 
the land on the shores of the Black Sea. In 1700 the Istanbul Treaty was 
signed between the Czardom of Russia and the ottoman Empire and 
the Russians captured the Azov fortress. This served to increase Rus-
sian-Circassian tensions. Afterwards, the greek Independence move-
ment sparked the start of the next Russian-ottoman War. It ended with 
the signing of the Edirne Treaty in 1829 and lead to the legal separation 
of Circassia from the ottoman administration. When the ottomans 
gave the Circassian fortresses on the Black Sea coast to Tsarist Russia as 
a part of the Edirne Treaty, the Russian occupation of Circassia gained 
legitimate ground in the international arena. Circassians who fought 
the ottomans in the war were forced to leave their homeland. Circas-
sians were either to be sent to the arid steppes of Russia as prisoners 
of war or were forced to migrate to the ottoman Empire. Although 
Circassians resisted Russian occupation in the so-called Caucasian War 
of 1817‒1864, the departures from their homeland, which started as 
small groups during the war, were a mass migration until the end of the 
19th century. During this period, Russian troops systematically evacu-
ated the villages in the Caucasus and the Russians colonized the Cau-
casus territory; to Circassians, this was done for the purpose of ethnic 
cleansing, and therefore almost all Circassians still call it the “Circassian 
exile,”15 or “Circassian genocide.”16
15  Nihat Berzeg, Çerkes Sürgünü (Ankara: Takav Matbaacılık, 1996).
16  Walter Richmond, The Circassian Genocide (Rutgers University Press, 2013). 
Historical Circassian lands were called Kuban and Terek oblasts until the end of Tsarist Russia 
and separated into two administrative units called Krasnodarsky Krai and Stavropolsky Krai 
and four autonomous governments ‒ Adygea, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, and 
Abkhazia in the Soviet era. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, Abkhazia left the 
Russian Federation as an autonomous republic under georgia and later declared independence 
to fight for its status as a separate country.
P o L I g R A F I
240
Shenfield determines “the number who died in the Circassian catas-
trophe of the 1860s could hardly, therefore, be less than one million, 
and may well have been closer to one and a half million.”17 Moreover, 
it is estimated that about 1.5 million Circassians had to leave their 
homeland,18 although there have been varying estimates of the numbers 
affected by the exile. It has been claimed that more than 500 thousand 
people were directly killed by the Russians.19 In addition, it has been 
calculated that at least one third of the Circassian immigrants died on 
the road and in their places of exile due to starvation and epidemics. 
According to the information obtained from general Katraçev from 
the Russian consul in Trabzon, the death toll is as follows: an average 
of 7 out of 70 thousand Circassians died en route to Batumi; almost 80 
percent of the 25 thousand people travelling to Trabzon; and between 
180 and 250 people died daily, an average of 200 people from the 110 
thousand coming to Samsun; out of 5 thousand an average of 40 to 
60 people died on the road to Trabzon, Varna and Istanbul.20 The re-
nowned Dutch author van Lennep, who had been in Samsun in 1864, 
wrote what he had observed regarding the immigrants; malaria spread 
very quickly among migrants as they adjusted to a new climate and an 
average of 700‒800 immigrants died on a daily basis.21 He went on to 
say that the survivors were sent to other ports and cities. 
In fact, almost all Circassians read the Caucasian War as an invasion 
of the Caucasus between the years 1817‒1864 by the Russian Empire 
with “tragedies of loss and sorrow.”22 It seems Circassian lands were 
17  Stephen D. Shenfield, “The Circassians: A Forgotten genocide?,” in The Massacre in His-
tory, ed. Mark Levene and Penny Roberts (New York and oxford: Berghahn Books, 1999), 
154.
18  Seteney Shami, “Circassian Encounters: The Self as other and the Production of the 
Homeland in the North Caucasus,” Development and Change 29, no. 4 (october 1998): 
617‒646, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00093.
19  Almir Abreg, “Tehlike Çanları ve Umut Arasında Adıgeler,” in Geçmişten Günümüze Kaf-
kasların Trajedisi (Istanbul: Kafkas Vakfı Yayınları, 2006), 43.
20     Shenfield, “The Circassians: A Forgotten genocide?”
21  Henry John Van-Lennep, Travels in Little-Known Parts of Asia Minor: With Illustrations of 
Biblical Literature and Researches in Archaeology (London: W. Clowes and Sons, 1870).
22  Madina Tekueva, Marina gugova, Elena Nalchikova, and Andrey Konovalov, “The Mean-
ing of Death for Adygs during the Years of the Caucasian War,” Journal of History Culture and 
Art Research 7, no. 4 (2018): 313‒323, https://doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v7i4.1852.
T H E  C O N S T R U C T I O N  O F  T U R K E Y ’ S  C I R C A S S I A N S  A S  A  D O C I L E  M I N O R I T Y
241
captured by Tsarist Russia and cleansed of Circassians as a result of 
“Russian colonization.” Also, the Russians’ annexation of the North 
Caucasus and the indigenous peoples of that area resulted in the ethnic 
cleansing of the Circassians. on May 21, 1864, Russian Czar Alexander 
II announced the end of the war. However, that day is a black page in 
the history of the indigenous peoples of the Caucasus. Similarly, 1864 is 
referred to as the year of exodus of Circassians from their homeland, the 
year of Circassian exile and genocide, even though the process spanned 
years. For them, May 21 also symbolizes the forced departure from 
their homelands, meaning exile and genocide. The memorial as a ritual 
for facing the history of Circassian displacement and remembering the 
related sorrows marks the anniversary of the shared memory of the Cir-
cassian peoples. 
Although it started in small groups in the 1820s‒1830s, it would 
not be wrong to say that the migration movements from the Caucasus 
to the ottomans took place in two waves, 1850‒1876 and 1877.23 In 
the first wave, most of the Caucasian refugees journeyed by sea through 
the Black Sea ports (Samsun, Trabzon, Sinop, Batumi, Akçakoca, gire-
sun, Fatsa, İnebolu, Ereğli, Ayancık and Şile) and Istanbul; and some 
were scattered through Anatolia through Batumi and Kars. Caucasian 
migrants settled mainly in the regions of giresun, Sivas, Kayseri, An-
kara, Bolu, Sakarya, Kocaeli and İstanbul to the coasts of the Middle 
Black Sea and the West Anatolia region. Among these regions, Samsun, 
ordu, Sakarya and Bursa are the important settlement areas. Still and 
since their early time in the ottoman Empire, the Adyghe population, 
Circassians, in Turkey have mainly lived in the Uzunyayla region. Uzu-
nyayla is a large plateau chain in the Central Anatolian region. It lies 
from northern to southern Turkey and partly covers Sivas, Kayseri, and 
Kahramanmaraş. There are about 80 Circassian villages and annual Cir-
cassian festivals in Uzunyayla.24
In the oral history fieldwork conducted in 2014, we came across 
similar narratives about the emigration of Circassians from Russia and 
23  Ferhat Berber, “19. yüzyılda Kafkasya’dan Anadolu’ya yapılan göçler,” Karadeniz Araştır-
maları 31 (2011): 17‒49.
24  Ulaş Sunata, “Diasporanın Sosyokültürel Hafızası olarak Çerkes Köyü,” in Sosyokültürel 
Yönleriyle Çerkes Toplumu, 9‒48 (Ankara: Kaf-dav Yayınları, 2015). 
P o L I g R A F I
242
the early resettlement which took place during the ottoman period. 
For example, one typical narrative is as follows:
The first arrival was from Batumi, by boat, in 1865. From Russian prov-
inces. During the wars with the Russians. once they learned their secrets, 
they could not make it there, they were forced to flee to Turkey, because it 
is an Islamic country. They came from Batumi, over Trabzon, by ships and 
boats. Back then, these places were a part of Ünye. once they arrived to Ünye 
they said, “we came to settle here, show us a land.” They told them, “go and 
find any place you like and let us know.” They found here, they settled here. 
For a long time, I mean for how many years they stayed here. They came 
to see that there are a lot of mosquitoes around. This time they went to the 
province (eyalet) again. They said “we wake up sick when we sleep at night. 
There is a strange sense of numbness. Show us someplace else.” This time, my 
father’s uncle, they were six siblings. grand Hadji Mövlet gets on his horse 
and finds Hamamözü in Amasya after a long journey. Hamamözü is similar 
to the region they left in terms of climate. There is no humidity. He goes and 
says, “I want to settle here.” They say okay “settle there.” They go and settle 
there and bring his other five siblings. only my father’s family stays here. It is 
a long journey to Hamamözü, so they stay back here. The rest of the siblings 
stay in Hamamözü. Here, the mosquitoes hurt them very much. They were 
broken from malaria, swamps and mosquitoes. Then some of them move to 
Harşit Creek… For example, my grandfather drank dirty water from Harşit 
Creek during the Russo-Turkish war, he came here and died. When my fa-
ther was 5‒6 years old. My father’s grandfather came from Caucasia. Hadji 
Hapuh. They were two brothers, Hapuh and Hatuh. […] Those who come 
after Hapuh stayed. For example, our lineage goes back to Hapuh. Hatuh 
remained in Russia. [They are still there!]. My uncle was captured by the Rus-
sians. My father’s uncle I mean. They kept him for seven years. […] (KA-063, 
Samsun, Woman, 80) 
As we see, Circassian collective memory includes suffering from 
great human loss. In spite of being forcibly removed from their home-
land, Circassians do not prefer to talk about their failure during the 
war, probably since they see their warriors as an integral part of Circas-
sian identity. Instead, they prefer to mention their feats of arms. As a 
matter of fact, the persecution narrative of Circassians is particularly 
dominated by loss linked to epidemics and road conditions. In other 
words, they remember their ancestors as forced immigrants who bat-
tled epidemics and the harsh conditions of the journey. It is still com-
T H E  C O N S T R U C T I O N  O F  T U R K E Y ’ S  C I R C A S S I A N S  A S  A  D O C I L E  M I N O R I T Y
243
mon for Circassian migrants to not eat fish as thousands of immigrants 
drowned in the sea as a result of sinking ships. Quotations below also 
display emphasis on challenges met while travelling or first settling in 
their new homes. 
They were talking about their journey from Caucasia with great difficulty 
my dear. Some of them were thrown overboard, some made their way here, 
some were stranded during the journey… Some made it from the land and 
some from the sea, based on their final destinations. They referred to the 
journey as very difficult my dear. Who would think otherwise? They left ev-
erything behind, my child, everything. Back there, their situation was better, 
but they had no money, no land, no property… They wandered off here on 
their own. Nevertheless, they came as a family, in good condition, Allah razı 
olsun (may god be willing). If we were in the same predicament, we would 
have starved to death my child! I mean we are not handymen, but they were 
farmers, they were good farmers. My grandfather was doing well. (KA-208, 
Bilecik, Woman, 82)
our grandparents said that 50 thousand Circassians died or were thrown 
overboard from ships during a 5‒6 month period where they stayed on the 
shores of the Black Sea on their way from Russia. We were told about these 
stories. (KA-105, Kahramanmaraş, Man, 69) 
They were broken from malaria, swamps and mosquitoes. (KA-063, Sam-
sun, Woman, 80)
It is said that people were broken from mosquitoes and malaria. Many of 
our people were broken from the disease. They died of untreatable diseases. 
Actually, my mother’s village, my father’s village, they relocated to three dif-
ferent places. They scattered to escape from floods and water. First settlers still 
live here. We are the 5th generation here. It continues. For 150 years. (KA-
053, Samsun, Man, 50)
Now our Circassians first settled in [the district] Niksar of the province] 
Tokat. My cousin talks about what he heard from his elders. Niksar was a 
mosquito-infested swamp back then. Some of our elders had died, they were 
distraught. They emigrated from there. on their way, they settled in Eğrap, 
which is a Circassian village. They did not like Eğrap either. Finally, they de-
liberated with some families from Caucasia and came here. This is a forested 
plateau, a beautiful place. That’s how they settled here, over 130 years ago. 
(KA-158, Sivas, Man, 71)
P o L I g R A F I
244
During our interviews, most of our respondents reported memories 
concerning the experiences of the first-settlers. It is apparent that a con-
siderable number of interviewees determined the movements around be-
fore they settled in their own village. It can be inferred that natural factors 
such as geography and climate played a significant role in this mobility. 
What I remember is that they went through many difficulties. But they 
moved to many places. They first settled in a village […] in Kahramanmaraş. 
From there, they moved to [another village]. They stayed there with [their 
beautiful] horses because the land was more fertile. […] I mean that’s how it is 
[laughs]. They moved around a lot. (KA-109, Kahramanmaraş, Woman, 76)
First, they came to Istanbul and stayed there for about 3‒4 months. They 
moved to Adana from there. They stayed a long time in Adana. Due to ma-
laria, it was swamp and reeds in Adana, Çukurova in those times, due to 
malaria many Circassians died. Afterwards – Circassians worked with horses 
– they came here and liked it. This is a plateau, beautiful and cold. Longer 
winters and shorter summers. They showed them some places. They did not 
like those. Then they came here. Abdülhamid gave them spacious land. That’s 
how Uzunyayla was gradually established. (M-055, Kayseri, Man, 58) 
Now for example, we cannot know the full history. If we are 70 years 
old, this is the village that was established 150 years, 170 years before. While 
we do not know how they got here but surely everyone came from Cauca-
sia. They collectively settled in a village ahead of here […]. These villages 
were dispersed from there. […] Everyone used to be in the village. (KA-105, 
Kahramanmaraş, Man, 69)
[...] My grandfather, they first went to a village near Kavak [district of 
Samsun]. They did not want it. our village is close to the creek. They settled 
there. My grandfather’s father came later. [...] (KA-036, Samsun, Woman)
They had a chance to select their destination, but this selection took 
time, as they moved several times. In this early period of resettlement in 
the new land, they escaped swamps, reeds, malaria and mosquitoes. In 
addition, they preferred locations which were forested, with plateaus, 
mountainous and green, like their homeland. 
[...] because Adana is a bit warmer, our villagers did not want to go there, 
they preferred the plateaus, so they settled in our village. (KA-121, Adana, 
Man, 75)
T H E  C O N S T R U C T I O N  O F  T U R K E Y ’ S  C I R C A S S I A N S  A S  A  D O C I L E  M I N O R I T Y
245
They were given land first in Istanbul and then in Düzce. They refused. 
They came all the way here. Now there is a place […] in Adana. It was empty 
and they gave it to us. There were a lot of flies back then, mosquitos. our old 
hodja refused by saying that “you are letting us be preyed upon by the mos-
quitos.” Water was not clean. There is a nice spring called Akpınar here. They 
came to that spring and we have been living, we have been allowed to live, 
Alhamdulillah (praise be to Allah). (KA-103, Adana, Man, 79)
our arrival story, according to our elders, is a very broad one. We could 
not take it upon ourselves to learn it. But what we heard from hearsay is that 
Kabardians migrated to our village in 1864. They migrated to Düzce from 
Istanbul and to Kayseri from Düzce. our group has moved from Kayseri to 
Tokat. on their way from Tokat, they spent the night. It was the Silk Road, so 
it had water, plenty of greenery, appropriate weather. Just like the weather in 
Caucasia. our elders said “let’s settle here if the governor allows us.” They go 
down to talk to the governor with everything they have, their horses, the car-
riers, everything. They ask him that “we would like to settle here if you allow 
us.” The governor accepted and said okay. He advised them to discuss, deliber-
ate and cooperate to build houses. For example, this house is 112 years old. 
This is the earliest house that was built when we first settled here. Until this 
house was built, they lived in tents. They built the houses later. When they 
first settled, there were around 45‒50 households. But they were separated as 
time passed; right now the number is around 15‒20. This is how we coped, 
our way of settlement. (KA-010, Tokat, Man, 68)
our ancestors came here by dying, they settled here. As you can see, Cir-
cassian villages are always mountainous and away from the city. For example, 
there is a village […] where the wolves can come down during the night. They 
all lived in such places. […] (KA-026, Samsun, Kadın, 18)
There was nothing here darling, in terms of life, in terms of humans. It is 
mountainous… but not quite, it was bushes or thorny, but they nevertheless 
liked it. They cleared the land of course. Then people started to come; it be-
came a 45-household village. But very lively, very beautiful, respect and love 
towards one another… You know our Circassians, good and bad. They were 
a respectful people towards one another. We have had very good livelihood, 
very good friendships, neighbours my dear. of course, we had, I could not 
imagine otherwise [...] (KA-208, Bilecik, Woman 82)
According to Pul, due to epidemics and for security reasons, it was 
preferred to place immigrants in rural areas and on farms that belonged 
P o L I g R A F I
246
to foundations instead of city centers.25 During the first migration 
wave, 80 percent of the immigrants died due to epidemics and it was 
thought that in this second migration wave it would be better for the 
ottoman Empire to place the immigrants in the highlands.26 Still, Eser 
says that the barely established Circassian villages were replaced by large 
Circassian cemeteries due to climate change and epidemics.27
Kind Reception and Resettlement
The Circassian relocation was of great importance to the ottomans. 
The so-called “hüsn-ü iskan” (kind resettlement) is the key concept in 
the relocation of the Circassian peoples, which stood for an unprob-
lematic settlement. Due to the small number of immigrants up to the 
1850s, special institutions were not needed; housing was arranged by 
edict and municipalities were mostly left to deal with these works. 
However, increasing numbers necessitated the establishment of many 
committees, the first of which was İdare-i Muhacirin (Administration 
for Migrants/Refugees). The resettlement commissions worked closely 
with local administrators; in some areas, officers responsible for the 
settlement and also interpreters were appointed. The settlement of im-
migrants essentially consisted of providing them with land, subsistence 
allowances until they were permanently settled; and places where they 
could stay as guests. Taxes and military exemptions were granted until 
after their settlement. In order for the migrants to connect to the land 
and to be productive, they were given agricultural tools and animals. 
While preferential treatment diminished over time, the ottoman Em-
pire still provided shelter and grain for immigrants, agricultural land, 
seeds and oxen. In fact, Circassians describe the state as dealing with 
25  Ayşe Pul, “1877‒78 osmanlı-Rus Savaşı Sonrası Beykoz’da Muhacirler İçin İskân Yeri Ça-
lışmaları,” Tarih Okulu Dergisi (TOD)/ Journal of History School (JOHS) 6, no. 15 (2013): 165, 
http://dx.doi.org/10.14225/Joh265.
26  Ahmet Halaçoğlu, Balkan Harbi Sırasında Rumeli’den Türk Göçleri (1912‒1913) (Ankara: 
Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1994), 108.
27  Mehmet Eser, “Uzunyayla Bölgesindeki Çerkes Köylerinde Sosyo-kültürel Değişme,” in 
Türkiye Çerkeslerinde Sosyo-Kültürel Değişme (Ankara: Kaf Der Yayınları, 1999), 55‒142.
T H E  C O N S T R U C T I O N  O F  T U R K E Y ’ S  C I R C A S S I A N S  A S  A  D O C I L E  M I N O R I T Y
247
the settlement problems by providing positive responses to their de-
mands.28 
our ancestors would say when we first came here the governor told them 
“you want this land but think carefully. We can give you land in Kazva, in 
geras outside of Tokat, in Niksar, in Erbaa.” The elders went to investigate. 
Back then those places were swamps and mosquitoes were plenty. our elders 
lived in airy, high places. They were living in clean air. When they saw the 
swamps and the mosquitoes, they refused. They said that this is the best place 
for us. What I am trying to say is that they were very kind towards us; they 
gave us what we wanted. According to what they say, we did not have any 
fights or quarrels. (KA-010, Tokat, Man, 68)
The fact that the administrators did not follow the settlements for a 
long time was a source of problems. Some administrators tried to solve 
problems independently. The financial obligations brought on by the 
settlements were covered by the state and local residents, philanthro-
pists and notaries were also asked for help. The names of philanthro-
pists were published in the newspaper to encourage others to donate. In 
the 1860s and 1870s, the increasing number of Circassian foundations 
also contributed to the resettlement of newcomers. Though it has been 
stated that local citizens helped the new immigrants in addition to state 
support, McCarthy, however, emphasizes the public’s discomfort at 
having to help “these predatory Circassians.”29 Most affected communi-
ties, particularly Avşars, ran from the Circassians saying that “Blue-eyed 
Circassians. What they wear is leather, what they eat is corn, their eyes 
are like the sky.” They say “A distinct beast has arrived. They would wear 
leather shalwar back then.” During the course of my fieldwork I often 
heard variations of this expression in various regions in Turkey.
In the context of relocation, it has been observed that settlement 
units were to be villages. The ottoman Administration for Migrants/
Refugees was more experienced during the second migration wave 
(1877) compared to the previous one. However, with the arrival of those 
previously settled in the Balkans, land shortages began to emerge. To 
28  Pul, “1877‒78 osmanlı-Rus Savaşı Sonrası Beykoz’da Muhacirler İçin İskân Yeri Çalışma-
ları,” 162.
29  Cited in Berber, “19. yüzyılda Kafkasya’dan Anadolu’ya yapılan göçler,” 17‒49.
P o L I g R A F I
248
organize the settlement, the İskân-ı Muhacirin Talimatnamesi (Regula-
tions for Settlement of Migrants/Refugees) was published including 10 
articles. The basic points emphasized were: settlements will be perma-
nent, help from the locals will be demanded and due to the land short-
age in rural areas, those who will be settled are those who have occupa-
tional skills. Migrants settled in urban centers in the second wave due 
to the increase in numbers and reactions from those who lived in the 
countryside, created migrant neighborhoods between the countryside 
and the city in Anatolian cities. In addition to the migrants who settled 
in small or abandoned villages, new settlements were also established 
for migrants. As can be observed in oral history narratives, the settlers 
thought that the lands that they were settling on were uninhabited and 
that they were establishing life on empty land. They mostly emphasize 
“this is our village.”
When the peoples of the North Caucasus came to the ottoman 
Empire, the Empire also met their need for soldiers and used them as 
a force against “separatist” minorities such as the Kurds, Balkan and 
Arab communities.30 A part of the Adyghe was used as a military force 
against both Armenians who were rising for an independent state and 
to protect the Russian border. Moreover, they had problems in the area 
in adapting to the predominant Kurdish tribes in the region; to obey 
orders, do military service, pay tribute and adapt to certain traditions. 
This situation came to an end in 1908 as a result of the Young Turk’s 
gaining control in the region. Whereas Caucasians settled in Western 
and Central Anatolia (mostly Abkhaz-Abazin and Adyghe) were living 
in better conditions.31
Hundreds of Circassian villages were populated on the vertical line 
from Samsun (northern Turkey) to Amman (Jordan). The location of 
villages was chosen in a line which borders diverse minority groups who 
were found to be an administratively problematic population in the 
30  Ayhan Kaya, “Circassian Diaspora in Turkey: Stereotypes, Prejudices and Ethnic Rela-
tions,” in Representations of the Other/s in the Mediterranean World and Their Impact on the 
Region, ed. Nedret Kuran-Burçoglu and Susan gilson Miller (Istanbul: The ISIS Press, 2005), 
229.
31  georgi Chochiev, “on the History of the North Caucasian Diaspora in Turkey,” Iran and 
the Caucasus 11, no. 2 (2007): 215, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25597334.
T H E  C O N S T R U C T I O N  O F  T U R K E Y ’ S  C I R C A S S I A N S  A S  A  D O C I L E  M I N O R I T Y
249
Empire.32 Importantly, Circassians also recognize the instrumentaliza-
tion of their ancestors by the ottoman Empire against the “rebellious” 
minorities such as the Avşar people, greeks and Armenians.
I do not know how they came but as exile. The Avşar people used to live 
here. When the Circassians came, they sent them someplace else. They them-
selves settled here. That’s how it happened. […] (KA-099, Kayseri, Woman, 
63)
Armenians used to live here, this was their settlement. We came whenever 
they left. (KA-161, Sivas, Woman 64)
There were Armenians here. Armenians were kicked out and the Ubykh 
people settled here. (KA-124, Kahramanmaraş, Woman, 75)
Armenians had to flee from here. I mean they were kicked out when the 
Circassians came. They kicked out the Avşars too. The Avşars were banished 
beforehand but our people kicked the Armenians as well as the Avşars out. 
(KA-179, Kayseri, Man, 85)
But the Avşars were using this place as a plateau. They would come during 
the summer, leave during winter. We did not have any issues with the Avşar 
people but Abdülhamid33 had some problems. The Avşars think we took the 
land away from them but that’s not the case. Abdülhamid placed us here, he 
gave us land. You know what the Avşar’s were? They did not do their military 
service, they were treasonous, they were spies, they avoided taxes. Abdülha-
mid declared “Hit them, do not let the Avşar people be.” Dadaloğlu34 said, 
“If the declaration belongs to the emperor, mountains belong to us.” They 
sought refuge in the Tauros Mountains. That’s how they managed to escape. 
They repopulated afterwards. otherwise they were broken just like the “15 
incidents” and Armenian incidents (laughs). But we do not have any quarrels 
with anybody. [Abdül] Hamid banished them. It has nothing to do with Cir-
cassians, it was the state who banished them. They declared “Do not leave one 
Avşar alive, put all of them through the sword.” They were massacred, they 
ran to the mountains. That’s how they managed to escape. (M-055, Kayseri, 
Man, 58)
32  Sunata, “Diasporanın Sosyokültürel Hafızası olarak Çerkes Köyü,” 9‒48.
33  Abdulhamid II, or Abdül Hamid II, Sultan of the ottoman Empire, ruled from 1876 
to 1909. During his reign, the ottoman lost the war with the Russian Empire (1877–1878), 
whereas he is remembered for his political decisions and modernization reforms and regular 
system as well as Pan-Islamism.
34  Dadaloğlu was a famous Avşar folk poet-singer.
P o L I g R A F I
250
They left Caucasia because the Russians were infidels. otherwise it is a 
beautiful place. They banished them through force. They gave them land as 
migrants. […) It is a warm swampy land. They gave it as a plateau. They came 
here because of the cold weather. […] Yamaç was an Armenian village. They 
were banished after they were forcibly settled. The government had a hand in 
it too. […] They established a village near the Circassians. Then they were sent 
way, exiled. Just like how we escaped from Russia, they escaped here. They did 
not go willingly. They were made to go. only one of them was left. A man who 
became Muslim later on. They married him to a Circassian. Hachurey. No one 
knew he was Armenian, not even himself. […] No matter what you are, you 
have to be Muslim. It is very bad to interact with non-Muslims. You cannot 
marry a Christian even if he is Circassian. It does not end with being Cauca-
sian, you must be Muslim after all. (KA-112, Kahramanmaraş, Woman, 72)
of course, they came here because they were Muslims. our mosque did 
not have a community (cemaat). We loved to pray. We would go to tarawih. 
Thank god we had lots of men, women and elders. (KA-133, Kayseri, Wom-
an, 80)
I heard that there were some infidels living here and that they kicked them 
out before settling here. I do not have much information. There were greeks 
on the upper side of the village earlier. They kicked those greeks out and then 
the Circassians settled. The Circassians kicked them out. Neither the Turks 
nor the Circassians embraced them. They always banished them. Then we 
acquired the lands. Their stone houses still stand today. Not only the Circas-
sians but the Turks as well. In hodja’s village there was a non-Muslim child 
working in construction and he was thrown off a building. They made them 
suffer very much. They devastated them, kicked them out. The elders are gone 
now, for example my aunt’s mother-in-law in Karapınar [district of Konya], 
she knew about these things. She also took part in the mistreatment of the 
non-Muslims. (KA-024, Samsun, Woman, 50)
[These areas were empty back then.] Actually, there is a fountain at the 
center of our village. This was when the Armenians lived here. The area with 
the fountain was called the “Fountain of Migrants” (Göçer Çeşmesi). The ones 
who travelled to the plateaus, hunters would spend a few days in that area. 
When our people were coming here, they gathered at Kuzutepe [village of 
göksun district of Kahramanmaraş]. When they were separating from there, 
they discovered this place. They came during the night. The sides we are see-
ing right now used to be forest areas. They cut down the trees during the 
night and built the house from wood. They settled by the fountain. Then the 
migrants and hunters were not able to come anymore. They were saying “the 
T H E  C O N S T R U C T I O N  O F  T U R K E Y ’ S  C I R C A S S I A N S  A S  A  D O C I L E  M I N O R I T Y
251
Circassians have occupied the fountain, they would kill us if go there.” That’s 
how they seized it. (KA-105, Kahramanmaraş, Man, 69)
Whereas the ottoman administration wanted to benefit from the 
“belligerent” temperament of the Circassian migrants in the military 
field, this temperament posed a threat to internal security on various 
occasions; discontent led to small-scale quarrels and the administration 
feared the possibility of bigger events and therefore tried to eliminate 
the attempts without using excessive force. There was an attempt at 
preventing through legislation the illegal activities of the immigrants, 
which grew in parallel with their discontent, via a ban on carrying il-
legal weapons. They were also obliged to sign papers that forced them 
to remain in place and their passports were confiscated. As a principle, 
the Administration for Migrants/Refugees frequently attempted to re-
settle noble Circassian families from their slaves if they had any.35 The 
migrants also voiced their threat of returning to Russia on several oc-
casions. Interviewees who think the state policy of scattered settlement 
was conducted on purpose, talk about some of their acquaintances with 
whom they managed to stay in touch over the years. 
My grandfather told me the stories of the exile with tears in his eyes. He 
would tell me Abkhazian wailings while telling me the stories. We were not 
able to understand but he would sometimes translate saying that “this is how 
much we suffered,” especially internal migration devastated them. He tells 
me they came from Kalanç but they know nothing about settlement. To go 
through another exile from Kalanç to Hurdaz was also tiresome. To be forced 
to separate in the country where you painfully sought refuge was very diffi-
cult. I am thinking that yes, we sought refuge here but why are they separat-
ing us. Because there were people separated from the same family. (KA-026, 
Samsun, Woman, 18)
35  Traditional Circassian society was broken into strict castes. The highest was the caste of the 
“princes” and the lowest were slaves. The Circassian slave class was significant to the ottoman 
Harem for several centuries, even before the Circassian influx around 1864. Although a declara-
tion of Sultan Mahmud II in 1830 gave freedom to white slaves – mostly Circassians, Circassian 
slavery and the slave trade for not only Harem but also agriculture partially continued until 
the Turkish Republic, established in 1923. For more details, see Ehud R. Toledano, “Circassian 
Slavery and Slave Trade - An ottoman Solution,” in The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Suppression: 
1840‒1890, ed. Ehud R. Toledano, 148‒191 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014).
P o L I g R A F I
252
When the Circassians came from Caucasia, they settled from one place to 
another. They were scattered to mountains; they were scattered to meadows. 
our grandfathers first came to Bursa. (KA-008, Tokat, Man, 85)
They were dispersed throughout Turkey. I guess with the mindset that if 
the Circassians are concentrated in one place, they would revolt. They were of 
course dispersed all around. The highest number was in Samsun during that 
time. I guess that number has decreased over the years. Pinarbaşi Kayseri for 
example. The highest number is there. Also, göksun. There are 20‒22 villages 
in göksun. Additionally, there are a couple villages in Antalya too. This is the 
Circassian policy that they followed. They did not send big groups of people 
to the same place. Düzce for example, there are a lot of Circassians there too. 
(KA-105, Kahramanmaraş, Man, 69)
one of my sisters-in-law is in Istanbul, the other is in Dalaman, the other 
is in Eskişehir, two of them are in Bozüyük; they are all over the place. (KA-
208, Bilecik, Woman, 82)
Since they were made to settle in various places, there are either one or two 
pure Circassian villages left. Let me say they are being mixed as well. (KA-49, 
Samsun, Woman, 27)
They were scattered all over the place. (KA-161, Sivas, Woman, 64)
Six thousand people came to Istanbul at first. They were scattered all over 
Turkey from that point. For example, Pinarbaşi, Yozgat or Samsun and Ad-
ana. That means either the government or the Circassians themselves wanted 
it so. I cannot know that for sure. (KA-121, Adana, Man, 71)
As I said, first they were settled according to the preference of Circas-
sians, they were allowed to move places similar to Caucasia. [However] they 
were then dispersed with the aim of keeping them separate. They were placed 
amongst Turks and Laz people36 to prevent them from unification. (KA-130, 
Kahramanmaraş, Man, 71)
A Docile Minority Construction for the Republic of Turkey
The ottomans, reluctant to lose the Balkans to Russia’s Pan-Slavism 
goal, first placed the Circassian communities as a force in this region. 
Almost half of the immigrants of the 1850s‒60s (the majority are the 
36  Laz people, or Lazi, is another ethnic group in Turkey indigenous to the Black Sea region.
T H E  C O N S T R U C T I O N  O F  T U R K E Y ’ S  C I R C A S S I A N S  A S  A  D O C I L E  M I N O R I T Y
253
Adiges and Abazins) were placed in the territory of present-day Bul-
garia, Serbia, Macedonia and northern greece, against local liberaliza-
tion movements.37 After the defeat in the Russian-ottoman War in 
1877‒1878, many Caucasians resettled to Anatolia, Syria and Palestine. 
Chochiev stated that the reason behind this was the pressure the otto-
man Empire received from European countries. Caucasians still live in 
the lands left from Yugoslavia today. 
With the idea of Pan-Turkism, Circassians gained new social sta-
tus in 1908 through the Young Turk Movement. With the transition 
from autocratic management to constitutional regime, the Young Turks 
granted equal rights to every ottoman State citizen, regardless of their 
ethnic or religious ties. At the same time, minorities received cultural 
and political freedoms. Circassians played an active role in the ideologi-
cal and organizational preparations during this process.38 According to 
Chochiev, there was a motive for these preparations: The Caucasus is 
in a region that separates Turks from Asia Minor and Central Asia. 
The idea of Pan-Turkism would not be possible without including this 
region. Thus, encouraging Caucasian people to embrace Turkish ideas 
and allowing them to play a role in the processes became one of the 
government’s most powerful pieces of propaganda. With the support of 
the Muslim Caucasians, the Young Turks demonstrated the importance 
they gave to the Circassian minority at every opportunity.39 At the same 
time, those whose ancestors had been migrants were localized through 
the utilization of religion and nationalization in order to create a docile 
minority. This idea was constructed by the ottoman Empire and to 
ensure order within the Empire and the Circassian minority, as well as 
to use them as a buffer in areas where other minorities were also settled 
in through the use of religious and nationalist propaganda. Circassian 
collective memory underlines their service to Islam and their belonging 
to Turkey as follows:
37 Chochiev, “on the History of the North Caucasian Diaspora in Turkey,”214.
38 Chochiev, “on the History of the North Caucasian Diaspora in Turkey,”217.
39 Chochiev, “on the History of the North Caucasian Diaspora in Turkey,”218.
P o L I g R A F I
254
our arrival story is clear. We came during the 1860s. We first settled in 
Merzifon Tavşandağ. Then they came here and settled. They did farming, they 
served the country and the people. They served Islam. (KA-028, Tokat, Man)
They say that “this land is ours.” I mean to say that “they kicked us out and 
they settled you here.” They are fighting back against it. But three villages in 
Uzunyayla belong to the Avşar people. The rest were generally Turkmen and 
Alevi villages. Actually, the ottomans put us there as a buffer zone. Because 
Avşars and Alevis were not getting along, so they put us there as a barrier. It cut 
the tensions like a knife. The ottomans were actually smart with this. I mean 
they knew what they were doing. But it worked for us too because we worked 
with horses and these are all forested areas. (KA-097, Kayseri, Man, 64)
Circassians were used by the political and military elite to help cre-
ate an ethnic and culturally homogenous society, subjecting them to 
the nation-state creation process in the 1920s.40 Turkification policies 
were reinforced by Turkish history theory, “Sun-Language Theory” and 
educational laws.41 In his study, Tekinalp42 has identified ten ways to 
incorporate non-Turkish ethnic minorities into the political system 
through the example of Turkish Jews.43 These include the Turkifica-
tion of names, speaking Turkish, praying in Turkish at synagogues, 
Turkification of schools, sending children to Turkish schools, taking 
part in national events, living alongside Turks, including themselves 
in collective life, performing duties for the national economy, being 
aware of their rights. It is possible to say that besides non-Muslims, 
these conditions include many ethnic minorities such as Kurdish and 
Circassian communities. That is, Circassians in Turkey are confronted 
by the dominance of Turkishness and Islam in every aspect of life: the 
40  Kaya, “Circassian Diaspora in Turkey,” 217‒240; Ulaş Sunata, Transnational Solidarity of 
Circassians in-between Caucasus and Middle East, Conflict and Forced Migration (Studies in 
Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 51) (Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 2019), 71‒88, https://
doi.org/10.1108/S0163-239620190000051004.
41  This linguistic pseudoscientific hypothesis, known as the Sun-Language Theory, developed 
in the early period of the Turkish Republic and proposed that all human languages are descen-
dants of one proto-Turkic primal language (İlker Aytürk, “Turkish Linguists against the West: 
The origins of Linguistic Nationalism in Atatürk’s Turkey,” Middle Eastern Studies 40, no. 6 
(2004): 1‒25, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4289950). 
42  Metin Tekinalp, Türkleştirme, trans. Ö. ozankaya (Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001 
(original work published in 1928)). 
43  Kaya, “Circassian Diaspora in Turkey,” 228.
T H E  C O N S T R U C T I O N  O F  T U R K E Y ’ S  C I R C A S S I A N S  A S  A  D O C I L E  M I N O R I T Y
255
language spoken in the public sphere, citizenship, national education, 
industrial life and resettlement policies, etc.44 Many Abkhazians who 
migrated to the ottoman Empire continue in their Sunni Islam beliefs. 
Since the region was under ottoman rule in the 1500s, many of the re-
settled Abkhazians were Muslims. Today, many Abkhazians in Abkhaz 
are, however, orthodox Christians.45
More statist and conservative Circassian individuals, thinking that 
they have adapted to Turkey; referenced their commitment to Turkey 
through the roles they played in the War of Independence in the early 
years of the Republic. At this point, there is an important Circassian 
community who define themselves as “Circassians as well as Turks.” It 
would be important to say for the sake of analysis that these definitions 
are made with caution when speaking about the establishment years of 
the Republic, and with caution regarding their demands for speaking 
in their mother tongue. Although both points are formed by the older 
generation who are generally more conservative, it is possible to say that 
they are also included in the younger generation’s points.
on the other hand, people who have more radical views and critical 
thinking criticize the ottoman State, the settlement policy, the Turkifi-
cation policies of the early years of the Republic (prohibition of mother 
tongue languages) and ongoing Circassian statist structure. This point 
of view comes more from the more critical younger generations who 
play an active role in associations and who are curious about history; 
while the political stance can be effective regardless of age group.
Discussion
With the collapse of the ottoman Empire, the influx of migrants/
refugees from the Balkans, Crimea and the Caucasus to Anatolia start-
ed. There are three distinct views on the ottoman Empire’s migrant/
refugee acceptance policy. The first view is that the ottomans accepted 
44  Kaya, “Circassian Diaspora in Turkey,” 229.
45  Frederik Coene, The Caucasus: An Introduction (Routledge, 2009), 56.
P o L I g R A F I
256
immigrants in the name of “Islam and humanity.”46 The second is that 
the ottoman Empire was forced to accept migration despite not want-
ing it.47 Nonetheless, this view does confirm to the view of encouraging 
immigration to increase population.48 Lastly, the ottoman administra-
tion saw immigrants as an asset and was therefore highly welcoming 
towards immigrants.49 Although these views differ, behind the politics 
of a positive reception, there are four main targets all views can confirm: 
(i) improving swamps and adding them to agricultural lands, (ii) meet-
ing the military needs of the army, (iii) buffering problematic regions, 
and (iv) the desire for the hegemony of the Muslim population. 
Importantly, whereas the last two targets display two main ideolo-
gies - nationalism and co-religionism - leading to conflicts at that time, 
the latter is more decisive. In other words, the main population policy 
aimed at increasing the Muslim population in the ottoman Empire 
and balancing problematic areas with newcomers, mostly Circassians. 
The ottoman Empire utilized Circassians who had strong military tra-
ditions to suppress independence movements and riots. 
The ideology and discourse of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis that 
emerged in the 1982 constitution resulted in Circassians gaining new 
meaning in the 1980s: the Circassian-Turkish discourse and Circas-
sian nationalism emerged.50 With regard to the discourse and idea of 
Caucasian Turks, Circassians were one of the most recent examples of 
the Turkification policy. The right-conservative group supported this 
discourse and maintained Turkish national history, further arguing that 
the Northern Caucasians were of Turkish-Islamic origins. Many North 
Caucasian thinkers opposed this discourse.51 It can also be said that the 
nationalist atmosphere after the collapse of Soviet Russia and the wars 
46  Pul, “1877‒78 osmanlı-Rus Savaşı Sonrası Beykoz’da Muhacirler İçin İskân Yeri 
Çalışmaları,” 159‒182.
47  Faruk Kocacık and Mehmet Eser, “Kafkasya’dan Anadolu’ya göçler (Sivas İli Örneği),” 
Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks 2, no. 1 (2010): 187‒196.
48  Kemal Karpat, Ottoman Population, 1830‒1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics 
(Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985).
49  Berber, “19. yüzyılda Kafkasya’dan Anadolu’ya yapılan göçler,” 17‒49.
50  Kaya, “Circassian Diaspora in Turkey,” 232.
51  Kaya, “Circassian Diaspora in Turkey,” 232.
T H E  C O N S T R U C T I O N  O F  T U R K E Y ’ S  C I R C A S S I A N S  A S  A  D O C I L E  M I N O R I T Y
257
between some countries in the North Caucasus (Abkhazia, georgia, 
etc.) have an effect on these ideas. 
Co-religionist population preference is not only for the land of the 
ottoman Empire but also valid for the Russian Empire. For example; 
while Russian and Kazakh dwellings spread through North-Western 
Caucasus as a result of the population transfer of the significant amount 
of Muslim nations in the Circassia and Abkhazia, the biggest buffer 
zone between Christian Armenian and georgian lands, with wars and 
exile of survivors with forced migration, the shores of the Black Sea 
were emptied of Circassians and populated in particular with Arme-
nian migrants aside from Russians and Kazakhs. This co-religionist re-
settlement policy in their former homeland after Russian occupation 
stimulates Circassian aggression against the peoples connected to other 
religions, especially Armenians. Like the concept of “Caucasian Turks” 
with Turkish-Islam synthesis, there are “Circassian Armenians” in or-
thodox beliefs. Although the population exchange is known only as 
part of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 between greece and Turkey, it 
can be stated here that there is an unofficial agreement for a massive 
population exchange between Circassians and Armenians.
This work emphasizes the religious aspect of the social construction 
of the minority. Since their exile from their ancestral homeland, Circas-
sians have jointly constructed their diasporic and minority identities 
based on religious dichotomy – to be or not to be Muslim – empowered 
by the socio-political context. The related public policies and discourses 
in the social construction of Circassian identity have exploited the bi-
nary opposition based on religion. 
B i b l i o g r a p h y
Abreg, Almir. “Tehlike Çanları ve Umut Arasında Adıgeler.” In Geçmişten 
Günümüze Kafkasların Trajedisi, 39‒58. Istanbul: Kafkas Vakfı Yayınları, 2006.
Assmann, Aleida, and Sarah Clift. Shadows of Trauma: Memory and the Poli-
tics of Postwar Identity. Fordham: Fordham University Press, 2016.
Assmann, Jan. “Communicative and cultural memory.” In Cultural memo-
ries, edited by Peter Meusburger, Michael Heffernan and Edgar Wunder, 15‒27. 
Dordrecht: Springer, 2011.
P o L I g R A F I
258
Assmann, Jan, and John Czaplicka. “Collective Memory and Cultural Iden-
tity.” New German Critique 65 (1995): 125‒133. https://doi.org/10.2307/488538.
Aytürk, İlker. “Turkish Linguists against the West: The origins of Linguistic 
Nationalism in Atatürk’s Turkey.” Middle Eastern Studies 40, no. 6 (2004): 1‒25. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4289950.
Berber, Ferhat. “19. yüzyılda Kafkasya’dan Anadolu’ya yapılan göçler.” Karad-
eniz Araştırmaları 31 (2011): 17‒49.
Berzeg, Nihat. Çerkes Sürgünü. Ankara: Takav Matbaacılık, 1996.
Chochiev, georgi. “on the History of the North Caucasian Diaspora in 
Turkey.” Iran and the Caucasus 11, no. 2 (2007): 213‒226. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/25597334.
Coene, Frederik. The Caucasus: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 2009. 
DiAlto, Stephanie J. “From ‘Problem Minority’ to ‘Model Minority’: The 
Changing Social Construction of Japanese Americans.” In Deserving and En-
titled: Social Constructions and Public Policy, edited by Anne L Schneider and 
Helen M. Ingram, 81‒103. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005.
Eser, Mehmet. “Uzunyayla Bölgesindeki Çerkes Köylerinde Sosyo-kültürel 
Değişme.” In Türkiye Çerkeslerinde Sosyo-Kültürel Değişme, 55‒142. Ankara: Kaf 
Der Yayınları, 1999. 
Halaçoğlu, Ahmet. Balkan Harbi Sırasında Rumeli’den Türk Göçleri 
(1912‒1913). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1994.
Halbwachs, Maurice. Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire. Paris: Librairie Félix 
Alcan, 1925. 
Harris, Celia B., Helen M. Paterson, and Richard I. Kemp. “Col-
laborative Recall and Collective Memory: What Happens When We 
Remember Together?.” Memory 16, no. 3 (2008): 213‒230. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09658210701811862.
Karpat, Kemal. Ottoman Population, 1830‒1914: Demographic and Social 
Characteristics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Pres, 1985. 
Kaya, Ayhan. “Circassian Diaspora in Turkey: Stereotypes, Prejudices and 
Ethnic Relations.” In Representations of the Other/s in the Mediterranean World 
and Their Impact on the Region, edited by Nedret Kuran-Burçoglu and Susan 
gilson Miller, 217‒240. Istanbul: The ISIS Press, 2005. 
Kocacık, Faruk, and Mehmet Eser. “Kafkasya’dan Anadolu’ya göçler (Sivas 
İli Örneği).” Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks 2, no. 1 
(2010): 187‒196.
Leeds-Hurwitz, Wendy “Social Construction of Reality.” In Encyclopedia of 
Communication Theory, edited by Ingrid Volkmer, Stephen W. Littlejohn, and 
Karen A. Foss. California: SAgE Publications, 2009. 
T H E  C O N S T R U C T I O N  O F  T U R K E Y ’ S  C I R C A S S I A N S  A S  A  D O C I L E  M I N O R I T Y
259
Neal, Arthur g. National Trauma and Collective Memory: Major Events in the 
American Century. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1998.
Pul, Ayşe. “1877‒78 osmanlı-Rus Savaşı Sonrası Beykoz’da Muhacirler İçin 
İskân Yeri Çalışmaları.” Tarih Okulu Dergisi (TOD)/ Journal of History School 
(JOHS) 6, no. 15 (2013): 159‒182. http://dx.doi.org/10.14225/Joh265.
Richmond, Walter. The Circassian Genocide. New Jersey: Rutgers University 
Press, 2013.
Shami, Seteney. “Circassian Encounters: The Self as other and the Produc-
tion of the Homeland in the North Caucasus.” Development and Change 29, no. 
4 (1998): 617‒646. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00093.
Shenfield, Stephen D. “The Circassians: A Forgotten genocide?” In The 
Massacre in History, edited by Mark Levene and Penny Roberts. New York and 
oxford: Berghahn Books, 1999.
Schwartz, Barry. “The Reconstruction of Abraham Lincoln.” In Collective 
Remembering, edited by David Ed Middleton and Derek Ed Edwards. London: 
Sage Publications, 1990.
Schwartz, Barry. Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Sunata, Ulaş. “Büyük Çerkes Sürgünü’nün 151. yılı: Acılar, talepler ve isyan.” 
Al-Jazeera Türk, May 21, 2015. http://www.aljazeera.com.tr/gorus/buyuk-cerkes-
surgununun-151-yili-acilar-talepler-ve-isyan. 
Sunata, Ulaş. “Diasporanın Sosyokültürel Hafızası olarak Çerkes Köyü.” In 
Sosyokültürel Yönleriyle Çerkes Toplumu, 9‒48. Ankara: Kaf-dav Yayınları, 2015. 
Sunata, Ulaş. Transnational Solidarity of Circassians in-between Caucasus and 
Middle East. Conflict and Forced Migration (Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 
Vol. 51). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1108/
S0163-239620190000051004. 
Sunata, Ulaş. “Çerkeslerin Kolektif Hafızası: 21 Mayıs ve Ötesi.” Birikim 
Dergisi Güncel, May 21, 2020. https://birikimdergisi.com/guncel/10111/cerkesler-
in-kolektif-hafizasi-21-mayis-ve-otesi. 
Tekinalp, Metin. Türkleştirme. Translated by Ö. ozankaya. Ankara: T.C. 
Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001 (original work published in 1928). 
Tekueva, Madina, Marina gugova, Elena Nalchikova, and Andrey Kon-
ovalov. “The Meaning of Death for Adygs during the Years of the Caucasian 
War.” Journal of History Culture and Art Research 7, no. 4 (2018): 313‒323. https://
doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v7i4.1852.
Toledano, Ehud R. “Circassian Slavery and Slave Trade - An ottoman Solu-
tion.” In The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Suppression: 1840‒1890, edited by Ehud 
R. Toledano, 148‒191. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014. 
P o L I g R A F I
260
Van-Lennep, Henry John. Travels in Little-Known Parts of Asia Minor: With 
Illustrations of Biblical Literature and Researches in Archaeology. London: W. 
Clowes and Sons, 1870.
Wertsch, James V., and Henry L. Roediger III. “Collective Memory: Con-
ceptual Foundations and Theoretical Approaches.” Memory 16, no. 3 (2008): 
318‒326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701801434.
Zerubavel, Eviatar. Social Mindscapes: An Invitation to Cognitive Sociology. 
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.