“Is the Ankara–Tbilisi Alliance Leading Georgia into ‘Dark Days’? How Dark Are They Really?”
Ahmed ASLANOV
Following the meeting between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Georgian counterpart Mikheil Kavelashvili in Ankara on August 12, 2025, a striking expression appeared in the Georgian media, particularly in opposition circles: “The Ankara–Tbilisi alliance brings back Georgia’s dark past.”
This statement is more than just a political reaction; it invokes a deeper historical memory. But what exactly is meant by these “dark days”? It appears that the reference points to periods when certain regions of Georgia, especially Ahiska, were in close and intense contact with the Turkic world. The immediate question that arises is this: Why is that period described as a “dark time”? And was it really the “dark age” it is claimed to be? Let us explore this together.
To understand this debate, one must first examine the historical memory, cultural identity, and narratives surrounding the Ottoman period among the people of Ahiska. At this point, if we turn to sources that are at times far from objective, the Ottoman rule in the region can indeed be portrayed as a dark age. For instance, in the book “Мы Месхи!” (We Are Meskhs!) by Latifshah and Klara Baratashvili, the period is described as one of heavy economic and cultural restrictions. The authors argue that income-generating activities such as wine production, pig farming, and the trade of these products were prohibited, leading to a sharp decline in public welfare.
However, historical records do not fully corroborate this narrative. Even in newly conquered territories, the Ottoman Empire did not prohibit non-Muslims from producing, selling, or consuming wine; such bans applied only to the Muslim population.
With the onset of Ottoman rule, Akhaltsikhe entered into deeper cultural and commercial interaction with the Islamic world, and part of the local population abandoned certain production practices voluntarily due to religious sensitivities. But this does not mean that the entire population was driven into economic collapse. Indeed, Ottoman fiscal records mention the ”müskirat resmi” (tax on alcoholic beverages), which was levied on the income non-Muslims derived from wine production and trade, thereby contributing to the vitality of the regional economy.
Thus, the claim that the Ottomans restricted economic life in Akhaltsikhe to the point of reducing prosperity does not align fully with available evidence.
Moreover, if Ahiska had truly been a major wine-producing center, one would expect this tradition to have left clearer traces in the post-Ottoman period. Yet today, the historical remnants of such a legacy are quite limited. In this sense, the phrase “dark days” can be said to represent more the symbolic and emotional weight of a period than historical reality. Without understanding the history of the people of Ahiska, it is impossible to properly evaluate this burden. Therefore, the debate should not be reduced solely to the Ottoman impact on the region; it must also address how and why this particular narrative was produced.
The period of Ottoman administration in Ahiska cannot be described simply as one of oppression and prohibitions; it was far too complex and multilayered. According to Ottoman records, the region was incorporated into the empire following the Çıldır Campaign of 1578, and from then on experienced both administrative and cultural transformation. While some Georgian nationalist writers describe this as an era of “economic restriction and religious oppression,” Ottoman archives and the observations of European travelers paint a different picture.
In particular, the 18th century stands out as a period when Ahiska experienced economic and cultural growth. The Ottoman waqf (endowment) system supported the construction of madrasas, libraries, baths, and mosques in the region—institutions that fulfilled not only religious but also social and educational roles. The traveler Evliya Çelebi, during his visit to Ahiska, wrote of its lively bazaars, hospitable people, and multicultural character.
His observations suggest that local economic activity was thriving and that production and trade remained vibrant. Ottoman tax policies likewise show that the population’s productive activities were not entirely stifled. Taxes such as the müskirat resmi (wine tax) and haraç (poll tax on non-Muslims) are often backed by records indicating the continuity of regional production. These levies constituted important revenue streams for the Ottoman treasury, which demonstrates that wine production and trade were not interrupted.
Furthermore, the Ottoman period should be remembered not only for its economic and architectural developments but also for its distinct cultural revival. Âşık (minstrel) literature took root in Ahiska during this era, with oral poetry flourishing through the blending of Ottoman cultural elements and local motifs. Regional songs, tales, and epics took shape in these years, passed down from generation to generation, and have survived to this day.
And despite all this, some circles still label this period a “dark age.” In an ironic twist, one might put it this way: Yes, indeed—those were truly “Dark Days”…
more article? Mirziyoyev, the Grand Architect of the New Uzbekistan – https://eureflect.com
About the Author:
Ahmed Aslanov, born in Ukraine, is originally of Ahıska Turk descent. He graduated from the Faculty of Theology at Ankara University and is currently pursuing his master’s studies at the Oranje Institute in the Netherlands. He addresses the issues of the Ahıska Turks in various local and international programs as well as in the media.
COMMENTS