This article was automatically translated from the original Turkish version.
Is it possible to reach absolute truth? the discipline of history is one of the most fundamental questions. This epistemological discussion within the discipline of history has occupied the minds of historians who have reflected on historical writing and philosophy. Particularly in the second half of the twentieth century, postmodern ideas that emerged and influenced historiography frequently addressed this question. According to John Tosh, historical information is not fixed or an objective true; it is shaped by the historian’s interpretation of available evidence. Moreover, Tosh argues that the historian’s subjective perspective and the limitations of sources mean that historical knowledge can never be entirely certain and is always subject to revision.
Structuralism and postmodernism have significantly influenced historical writing in the last century by challenging traditional approaches to historical research and analysis. Deconstruction, a philosophical approach developed by Jacques Derrida, challenges the notion that texts possess a fixed, objectively interpretable meaning. This challenge in contested areas of historiography yields certain consequences. For example, events following the 93 War constitute such a field. Instead of empirical or traditional historiography, the postmodern history approach focuses on how texts are constructed through language and discourse and how these constructions are shaped by power relations and cultural assumptions. Furthermore, the reader is also part of this process, not merely the sources, the historian, and the resulting literature. Thus, other historians reading a book written by a historian on the 93 War may draw different conclusions. None of these conclusions may necessarily reflect what the original historian intended to convey in the book. In short, speaking of a single truth and meaning in the postmodern approach is incorrect.
Within the context of Historiography, deconstruction has been used to challenge dominant narratives that shape our understanding of history. Deconstruction reveals how historical narratives are constructed through language and discourse, encouraging historians to be more reflective and self-aware in their work. This reflexivity requires historians to consider how their own assumptions and biases shape their research and analysis and to remain open to alternative interpretations of historical events and phenomena. Postmodernism similarly critiques the concept of objective truth and emphasizes the role of language and discourse in shaping our understanding of history. In the context of historiography, postmodernism also challenges the idea that historical narratives can be objectively constructed on a foundation of verifiable facts. Instead, it insists that historical narratives are always shaped by the cultural, social, and political contexts in which they are produced and are always subject to revision and reinterpretation.
Postmodernism, by emphasizing the constructed nature of historical narratives, encourages historians to think more critically about the assumptions and biases that shape their work. This critical approach demands that historians be more conscious in their research and analysis and remain open to alternative interpretations of historical events and phenomena. Postmodernism also prompts historians to be more sensitive to the cultural and political contexts in which their work is produced and to consider how their research might be used to challenge dominant narratives and power structures. Both deconstruction and postmodernism have had a profound impact on the practice of historiography by compelling historians to think more critically about the assumptions and biases that shape their work. Some historians, such as Richard J. Evans, have strongly opposed these approaches. According to Evans, these approaches undermine historiography and the practice of history to a great extent.
The numerical data claimed by historians focusing on After the 93 War migrations provide a suitable ground for questioning in this context. It is difficult to argue that the claimed figures on migration and death are not influenced by the sociological and political environment in which the historian was raised. There is a vast as if between the claims made by Bulgarian and Russian historians, who can be grouped under the umbrella of Slavic historiography, and those presented by Turkish historians. The migration and death figures asserted by each side contradict those of the other. The fact that historians focusing on the same events but coming from different cultural and political backgrounds arrive at such divergent conclusions makes a postmodern perspective possible.
Numbers and statistics, by the nature of mathematics, may appear to be the closest historical outputs to an objective reality, free from subjective judgment. However, the fact that even numbers in historiography pass through the historian’s filter creates a contested field. The number of Turks and Muslims who were forced to migrate from Bulgaria after the 93 War and lost their lives constitutes such a field. Justin McCarthy, a USA-based historian, states that half of the Turkish-Muslim population in Bulgaria left the region. According to McCarthy, who argues that the Turkish-Muslim population in the region exceeded 1.5 million at the start of the war in 1877, approximately 520,000 Turkish-Muslims successfully migrated. More than 260,000 Turks died for various reasons as a result of Russian and Bulgarian policies. Kemal Karpat claims that between 250,000 and 300,000 Turkish-Muslims died during the war and that 750,000 to 1,000,000 became refugees. These figures represent relatively moderate claims.
The difference between the numbers claimed by historians is indeed substantial. Nedim İpek presents the highest figure, asserting that approximately 500,000 people died and one million migrated. The numbers provided by Bulgarian sources are generally much lower. According to Todor Valchev’s estimate, only 350,000 Muslim refugees left Bulgaria between 1877 and 1912. The time frame of these figures should not be overlooked. Roumen Daskalov, in his work “The Making Of A Nation In The Balkans,” while narrating the establishment of the Bulgarian nation-state, barely mentions the migration of Turks from the region. British historian Richard Crampton, who specializes in Bulgarian history, states that only 150,000 refugees existed after the war and that a large portion of them returned to Bulgaria after the conflict ended. American historian William Holt objects to such a low figure, arguing that it is entirely dream given that reports from the refugee commission are available. As can be seen, there is a tenfold difference between the lowest and highest figures.
What is the cause of this discrepancy and how can it be explained? Understanding the differences in interpreting sources and the reasons historians arrive at different conclusions may be as useful as comprehending the historical event and process itself. According to Tosh, historians are not only concerned with explaining the past but also with reconstructing or recreating it, demonstrating how life was lived and how it can be understood, which requires an imaginative engagement with the mentality and atmosphere of the past. The historian must attempt to enter the mental world of those who produced the sources, and imagination plays a vital importance in generating hypotheses and reconstructing past events and conditions. Any writer within any intellectual writing action, whether consciously or unconsciously, passes through a similar process. Considering this aspect of historiography enables us to understand how the literature produced by the past shaped the historian’s perspective. Therefore, examining the discrepancies in the numbers put forward regarding the events after the 93 War within this context is crucial. The sources used by historians or deliberate distortions are certainly not the only explanation for these differences. However, they would constitute a superficial assessment. The benefits of not ignoring the sources chosen by historians, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and the reasons behind their interpretations and distortions are evident.
In cases such as the 93 War, where historical studies produce contradictory results, symbols are significant, especially in historical studies concerning cultural and social dynamics. For Turks, the 93 War is a great catastrophe. They were subjected to what amounts to a “genocide” on lands they had inhabited for centuries and were forced to abandon their homes under systematic inhuman pressure. Events described in “The Memoirs of the Former Mufti of Zagra,” beginning with the 1878 Harmanlı Massacre, have become symbol for Turkish suffering. For Bulgarians, the 93 War is a war of independence. It is symbolized as a struggle to free themselves from centuries of Ottoman subjugation and to establish a modern, national, and free Bulgarian state. The Bulgarians are the ones who see the true oppression, and the most important event they have symbolized for this purpose is the so-called “Batak Massacre.” For Western historians such as McCarthy and Holt, there is no symbolic point to be established. They became involved in the events of the 93 War and its aftermath only later, as historians. They have no cultural or historical connection to these events. It is therefore more feasible for them to approach them professionally. For them, the war is simply the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877–1878; it is neither the “93 War” nor the “War of Independence.”
