One Nation, Two Languages: Latinization and Language Reform in Turkey and Azerbaijan, 1905-1938 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Wesley Wayne Lummus IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIERMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Wesley Wayne Lummus DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dr. Giancarlo Casale May 2021 Wesley Lummus, 2021 © Acknowledgments My first debt of gratitude is due to my advisor, Giancarlo Casale, for his nine years of steadfast support and guidance of my dissertation research and writing. Secondly, I would like to think the members of my defense committee, Patricia Lorcin, Carol Hakim, Theofanis Stavrou, and Sinem Casale for the many years they spent reading my chapter drafts and providing comment and encouragement. I am equally grateful to the immense support network I had during the research and writing of this dissertation. I would like to thank Rasool Abbaszade, Fiala Abdullayeva, Saad Abi-Hamad, Fakhreddin and Ruqiyye Ahmadov, Adam Blackler, Fikri Çiçek, Brooke Depenbusch, Jess Farrell, Jala Garibova, Melissa Hampton, Dilek Hanımefendi, Ketaki Jaywant, Orry Klainman, Matt King, Katie Lambright, Jamie and Cash Lummus, John Manke, Sara Mirkalai, Sidow Mohammed, Sultan Toprak Oker, Ibrahim Oker, Gabriele Payne, and Virgil Slade. I am very grateful for their support. i Abstract This dissertation examines 20th-century Turkic Latinization, the process by which Turkic language reformers replaced the Perso-Arabic alphabet with the Latin-based New Turkish Alphabet, from a transnational perspective. Focusing on the Turkish and Soviet Azerbaijani cases, my work reconstructs the intellectual and nationalist networks that were forged across imperial and national boundaries and shaped the debates over language, modernization, and national identity in Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Central Asia. The ascendancy of Turkic Latinization, I argue, emerged with the rise of the Soviet and Kemalist states in the post-WWI period. These revolutionary states enacted far-reaching reforms to modernize all areas of life, and remake their respective societies in a Soviet or Kemalist mold. At the heart of both states’ political projects was language reform, which increasingly equated Latinization with reaching modernity. Though the Soviets and Kemalists ultimately envisioned different modernities, their language reforms of the Turkic language both drew from the same pool of Turcological and nationalist literature. ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………i Abstract…………………………………………………………………………..ii List of Tables…………………………………………………………………….v List of Figures……………………………………………………………………vi Chapter 1 : Introduction………………………………………………………….1 1a. Literature Review…………………………………………………….5 1b. Dissertation Outline………………………………………………….20 1c. Sources……………………………………………………………….25 Chapter 2 : Turkology and the Development of “Turkic” Identity 2a. Introduction…………………………………………………………..29 2b. History of Old Turkic………………………………………………...31 2c. The Journal Asiatique………………………………………………...36 2d. Vasili Radlov…………………………………………………………42 2e. Léon Cahun…………………………………………………………...49 2f. The Orhon Inscriptions and the Ancient Turkic “Nation”……………52 2g. Conclusion: Turkology and Language Reform………………………55 Chapter 3: Language Reform and Nationalism in the Pre-WWI Turcophone Press 3a. Introduction…………………………………………………………...60 3b. Note on Terminology…………………………………………………66 3c. Early Debates over Language Reform………………………………..67 3d. Ismail Gaspriski and the Usul-i Jedid (New Method)………………..71 3e. Calls for Social Transformation in the Russian Caucasus……………77 3f. Turkology and the Development of Turkishness……………………..89 3g. Yusuf Akçura and Ottoman Turkism………………………………...96 3h. Conclusion……………………………………………………………103 Chapter 4 : Soviet Azerbaijan and The Revolutionary Latin Script (1923-1930) 4a. Introduction…………………………………………………………..106 4b. Korenizatsiia: Soviet Nationality Policy……………………………..109 4c. Formation of Soviet Azerbaijan (1917-1936)………………………..114 4d. The Organization of the Baku Conference…………………………..123 4e. “Turko-Tatar Workers and Peasants” within Soviet Socialist Modernization……………………………………………………………127 4f. Debates over Language and Alphabet………………………………..144 4g. Concluding Resolutions of the Baku Conference……………………149 4h. Conclusion: Legacies of Soviet Nationality Policy………………….153 Chapter 5 : Opposition to Latinization: The Islahatçılar 5a. Introduction…………………………………………………………. 156 5b. Turkish “Reformists” (Islahatçılar), Pre-1928……………………….158 5c. Birgen’s Perceptions of Soviet Transcaucasia……………………….161 5d. Birgen’s Reflections on Communism in Soviet Azerbaijan…………164 5e. Birgen and Language in Transcaucasian Society……………………168 5f. Birgen’s Views on Turkic Language Reform………………………..171 5g. The “Reformists” at the Baku Turkological Conference……………179 5h. Enver Pasha’s Alphabet……………………………………………..192 iii 5i. Conclusion……………………………………………………………202 Chapter 6 : Constructing the Turkish Nation During the Alphabet Revolution 6a. Introduction…………………………………………………………..204 6b. Kemalist Language Reform in Historiographical Perspective……….208 6c. Historical Approach and Sources…………………………………….217 6d. Question of Alphabet Reform or Latinization……………………….220 6e. The Alphabet Revolution and the Mobilization of Turkish Society Through Populism…………………………………………………………………222 6f. Conclusion……………………………………………………………253 Chapter 7 : Dissertation Conclusion……………………………………………..258 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..260 iv List of Figures 1. Figure 1. Thomsen’s Old Turkic Alphabet Chart…………………..33 2. Figure 2. Thomsen’s Orhon Turkic Grammar………………………..34 3. Figure 3. The Opening of the Baku Conference…………………..106 4. Figure 4. Molla Nesreddin, January 1926………………………...123 5. Figure 5. Baku Conference Attendees……………………………..133 6. Figure 6. Ismail Hakki’s Alphabet Manual………………………..196 7. Figure 7. Ismail Hakki’s Alphabet Manual 2……………………...197 8. Figure 8. Enver Pasha’s Alphabet Manual………………………..200 9. Figure 9. Karagöz December 1928 1……………………………...204 10. Figure 10. Karagöz December 1928 2…………………………….233 11. Figure 11. Karagöz December 1928 3…………………………….234 12. Figure 12. Cumhuriyet January 1929……………………………..246 13. Figure 13. Cumhuriyet January 1929 2…………………………...249 v List of Tables 1. Table 1. Turkic Language Comparison with Orhon…………………………..34-35 2. Table 2. Comparison of National Terminology……………………………….66 vi Note: All translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 1 1. Introduction In October 2017, the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, issued a formal decree that the Kazakh language would replace its current Cyrillic-based alphabet with a Latinized script.1 President Nazarbayev legitimized this alphabetic reform using the language of modernization (citing the need to prepare Kazakh for the digital age), national sovereignty (asserting Kazakhstan’s independence from neighboring Russia), and the reinvigoration of Kazakh cultural identity. In power since 1991, Nazarbayev viewed Kazakh alphabet reform as vital for maintaining the country’s cultural sovereignty. This was stressed in Nazarbayev’s 2017 speech, entitled “Course Towards the Future: Modernization of Kazakhstan’s Identity,” where he stated that Latinization was a prerequisite of the government’s “Third Modernization of Kazakhstan” program. Under this state-led transformation, Nazarbayev argued that “it is necessary to start working on a step-by-step transition of the Kazakh language to the Latin alphabet. We must approach this carefully and with sensitivity. It will require a steady and staged approach. And we have been preparing for this with caution since independence.”2 Following the trajectory of other Central Asian Turkic languages and dialects, Kazakh has employed different alphabets throughout its history: Old Turkic runes, Perso- Arabic, Latin in the 1920s and 30s, and finally, Cyrillic after 1939. After two decades of independence from Russia, Kazakhstan’s political leadership seeks to replace Cyrillic with Latin to carve out a more autonomous cultural identity from Russia. In his 2017 speech, 1 BBC News, “Kazakhstan to Qazaqstan: Why would a country switch its alphabet?” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41800186. 2 Nursultan Nazarbayev, “Course Towards the Future: Modernization of Kazakhstan’s Identity,” 10/16/2017, http://www.ukgu.kz/en/course-towards-future-modernization-kazakhstans-identity. Nazarbayev stated that “It is a change driven by the specific requirements of the modern technological environment, of communications and science and education in the 21st century.” Furthermore, the president envisioned that a phased and gradual transition from Cyrillic to Latin: “In our schools, all children learn English. This uses the Latin alphabet. It means that there will be no problems for young people. I believe that by the end of 2017 it is necessary, with the help of scientists and the general public, to adopt a single standard version of the new Kazakh alphabet. In 2018, we should begin training for teaching the new alphabet and preparing textbooks for secondary schools.”3 Should Latinization be successfully adopted, Kazakhstan will follow previous post- Soviet Turkic states—Turkmenistan in 1991, Uzbekistan in 1992, and Azerbaijan in 1993—to switch from Cyrillic. Ostensibly, a Latinized Kazakh alphabet will render the language more intelligible to these neighboring Turkic states and could provide further momentum for Latinization in other Turkic countries, such as Kyrgyzstan. Kazakh’s Latinization, therefore, should be viewed as the latest example of a longer history of Turkic language reform. This