TÜRKMEN VOYVODASI, TRIBESMEN AND THE OTTOMAN STATE (1590-1690) A Master’s Thesis by ONUR USTA Department of History İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University Ankara December 2011 To my parents TÜRKMEN VOYVODASI, TRIBESMEN AND THE OTTOMAN STATE (1590-1690) Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences of İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University by ONUR USTA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY İHSAN DOĞRAMACI BİLKENT UNIVERSITY ANKARA December 2011 I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in History. --------------------------------Asst. Prof. Oktay Özel Supervisor I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in History. --------------------------------Asst. Prof. Evgeni Radushev Examining Committee Member I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in History. --------------------------------Prof. Dr. Mehmet Öz Examining Committee Member Approval of the Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences --------------------------------Prof. Dr. Erdal Erel Director ABSTRACT Türkmen Voyvodası, Tribesmen and the Ottoman State (1590-1690) Usta, Onur. M.A., Department of History. Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Oktay Özel. The Turcomans were one of the most dynamic elements in the Ottoman history. The Ottomans had to cope with those forceful nomads, while consolidating their dominance over Anatolia. Although there was a clear tendency towards sedentarization during sixteenth century, a visible revival of nomadism is observed in Anatolia during the seventeenth century. According to the contemporary chronicles, the Turcomans tend to have maintained their dynamism throughout the seventeenth century. On the other hand, in this period the Türkmen voyvodalığı appeared as a new desirable post over which there were great struggles, especially led by the kapıkulu sipahs. The office of the Türkmen voyvodalığı played a key role in many rebellions of the seventeenth century. This thesis attempts to deal with the Türkmen voyvodalığı in the period between 1590-1690. Basing on understanding what the Türkmen voyvodası was, it tries to shed light upon the nomadic groups generally, particulary the Turcomans, in the seventeenth century. Key Words: Türkmen voyvodası, Turcomans, Nomadism, Celâlis, Kapıkulu sipahs, the Ottoman rule. iii ÖZET Türkmen Voyvodası, Aşiretler ve Osmanlı Devleti (1590-1690) Usta, Onur. Yüksek Lisans, Tarih Bölümü. Tez Yöneticisi: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Oktay Özel Türkmenler Osmanlı Tarihi'nin en dinamik unsurlarından birisiydiler. Osmanlı'lar egemenliğini Anadolu'ya doğru genişletirken bu çetin göçebelerle uğraşmak zorunda kalmıştı. On altıncı yüzyılda yerleşikleşmeye doğru bir eğilim olsa da, Anadolu'da göçebeliğin on yedinci yüzyıl boyunca gözle görülür biçimde yeniden canlandığı gözlemlenmektedir Dönemin kroniklerine göre, Türkmenler sahip oldukları dinamizmi onyedinci yüzyıl boyunca sürdürmüşe benzemektedirler. Öte yandan, Türkmen voyvodalığı, üzerinde büyük mücadeleler sergilenen, özellikle kapıkulu sipahileri tarafından, dönemin revaçta yeni bir mansıbı olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Türkmen voyvodalığı makamı özellikle onyedinci yüzyılın pek çok ayaklanmasında anahtar role sahiptir. Bu tez 1590 ve 1690 arası bir dönemdeki Türkmen voyvodalığını ele alma çabasıdır. Türkmen voyvodalığının ne olduğunu anlamaya çalışarak, genel olarak onyedinci yüzyıldaki göçebe gruplara özellikle de Türkmenler'e ışık tutmaya çalışmaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Türkmen voyvodası, Türkmenler, Göçebelik, Celâliler, Kapıkulu sipahileri, Osmanlı yönetimi. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This study has not been possible unless the supervision of Asst. Prof. Oktay Özel. I would frankly like to thank him for his valuable guidance and contribution throughout my work. Introducing me with the intricacies of the area, he helped me to be able to cope with a study on social-economic history . I would also like to thank Prof. Evgeni Radushev and Prof. Mehmet Öz for their valuable comments as jury members. Prof. Özer Ergenç, Assoc. Prof. Evgenia Kermeli, Kudret Emiroğlu have been very supportive in helping me to improve in Ottoman paleography and to develop an outlook in Ottoman historiography. Asst. Prof. Hülya Canbakal at Sabancı University and Assoc. Prof. Tufan Gündüz at Gazi University allocated their valuable time and provided significant recommendations. For their endless tolerance and support throughout this study, I am also grateful to Prof. Okan Yaşar and Asst. Prof. Şerif Korkmaz at Çanakkale Onsekizmart University. For their constructive remarks and assistance, Muhsin Soyudoğan and Can Eyüp Çekiç are really worth to be appreciative. I would also like to thank Kamil Erdem Güler, Naim Atabağsoy, Suat Dede, Evren Yüzügüzel, Metin Batıhan, Bahattin İpek, Yalçın Murgul, Erdem Sönmez, Fatih Durgun, Erol Tanrıbuyurdu, Alican Ergür, Mesut Yazıcı, Nergiz Nazlar, Zeynep Gül Erel, Nimet Kaya, Eser Sunar and Hakan Arslan for their friendship and support. v Finally, I appreciate Ayşe, Cemil, Akgül, Doğuş and Hilary Usta, and Ülkü Eldeş. Needless to say, Aslı Eldeş Usta deserves best regards for her encouragement whenever I need. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT………………………………………..……………………..………....iii ÖZET……………………………………………………………………..……….....iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………………………...……….v TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………...…………...…….vii LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES………… ...……………………..………………..ix ABBREVIATIONS………………………….……………...………………………..x CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION………………………………………..……………1 CHAPTER II: TRIBES AND TRIBESMEN IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY…………………………………………………….……..…….............. 14 2.1. Nomads and Militarization of Countryside……………………………14 2.2. "Kişi Kaldır Tarlanı Koyun Geçsin" ………………………………......34 2.3. "Türkmân Haklamak"…….…………………………………………….43 2.4. Nomads and Türkmen Voyvodas………….……………………............47 CHAPTER III: FUNCTIONS OF THE TÜRKMEN VOYVODAS IN THE PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION……………………………..………………...64 3.1. Logistic Support (Camel and Sheep)………..……………….…………64 3.2. Public Order…………...……………………………….….….………..79 3.3. Keeping Tribes within Unit.................................................................... 81 3.4. Registering Tribes………………………………....................................83 CHAPTER IV: THE TÜRKMEN VOYVODAS AND KAPIKULU SIPAHS WITHIN THE POWER STRUGGLES OVER REVENUE RESOURCES…….……........................................……………….……………...…89 vii 4.1. Kapıkulu Sipâhs………………...............................................................90 4.2. The Celâli Türkmen Voyvodas ……………………………..…………..94 4.2.1. Abaza Hasan Pasha……………………………………….…..94 4.2.2. Hasan, the brother of Konyalı Hadım Ali Agha…………..….96 4.2.3. Kürd Mehmed…….………………………...………………...98 4.2.4. Dasnik Mirza…………….………….………………………...99 4.2.5. Gürcü Nebî……………………………………………….….100 4.2.6. Kazzaz Ahmed………………………………….……….…..101 4.2.7. Çomar Bölükbaşı………………………………….…….…...101 4.2.8. Dilaver Pasha……………………………..…………...……..102 4.2.9. Koçur Bey……………………………………….…………..103 4.2.10.Küçük Ahmed Pasha………………………………………..104 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION……………………..……….....………....………106 BIBLIOGRAPHY……..……………………………………………………….....113 APPENDICES………..…………………………………………………………...122 APPENDIX A: The Connection Between Türkmen Voyvodas and Tribes...122 APPENDIX B: The List of Some Türkmen Voyvodas…………………….123 APPENDIX C: The Main Turcoman Areas in Anatolia in the Seventeenth Century…………………………………………………………………….124 viii LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES Maps Map-1 The Turcoman zone of the southeastern Anatolia………...………………...21 Map-2 The area where Yeğen Osman was powerful…………………………….....34 Map-3 The raids of the Beğdili Turcomans…………...…………………………….37 Map-4 The district of Yeni-il………………………………………………………..54 Map-5 Sheep trade in Anatolia in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.……..…77 Figures Figure-1 Tribal administrative hierarchy....................................................................57 Figure-2 The interrelated links of the Türkmen voyvodası in the seventeenth century………………………………………………………………………………87 ix ABBREVIATIONS EI2 : Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden-Brill) D.BŞM.d : Divan-I Hümayun Baş Muhasebe Defterleri İE DH : İbnü'l Emin Dahiliye Arşivi İE ML : İbnü'l Emin Maliye Arşivi İE SM : İbnü'l Emin Saray Muhasebesi Arşivi İE ŞRKT : İbnü'l Emin Şikayet Arşivi MAD : Maliyeden Müdevver Defterler TS. MA.d : Topkapı Sarayı Maliye Arşivi Defterleri x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION "The leading camel's bell tings: My lord is brave, my lord is brave. Why? Why? Because of hardness! Because of hardness! The bell of the camel going in the middle tings: My lord is rich, my lord is rich. Why? Why? Because of that and this! Because of orphans and widows! The last camel's tings: I've taken order from your subject. I'll go on my way There is no subject in this world who becomes rich through the cruelty.1" Contrary to the experience in Balkans, the main response to the Ottoman expansion over Anatolia came from the nomadic and semi-nomadic elements. Indeed, the Ottomans encountered many defiant principalities and states which were 1 "Önde giden devenin çanı: Benim ağam yiğittir, benim ağam yiğittir. Neden? Neden? Zordan zurdan! Zordan zurdan! Ortadan giden devenin çanı: Benim ağam zengindir, benim ağam zengindir. Neden? Neden? Ondan bundan! Yetim ile duldan! Arkadan giden devenin çanı: Emir aldım kulundan Giderim ben yolumdan Dünyada bir kul yoktur Âbâd olmuş zulümdan." (Devenin Çanı Türküsü), an anonymous folksong; Baki Yaşar Altınok, Öyküleriyle Kırşehir Türküleri, Destanları, Ağıtları (Ankara: Oba Yayıncılık, 2003), 57. 1 of pastoralist Turcoman origins just like themselves, while expanding their territories towards Anatolia. Among them, the Akkoyunlus and the Karamanids were the most powerful and challenging ones. Nevertheless, the Ottoman authority succeeded in eliminating the former in 1473 in the battle of Otlukbeli and the latter in 1487. Moreover, with the battle of Çaldıran in 1514 culminated in the defeat of the Safavids, who were the chief protector of the Turcomans in Anatolia, the Ottomans consolidated its power over the Turcomans who were opponent of its centralization policy. Even though the Ottoman state seems to have removed the possible threats derived from the Turcomans, there were still some medium-scale reactions against its authority in Anatolia during the decades following 1514.2 However, from the early centuries onwards, the Ottoman government gave particular importance to controlling the nomadic groups in parallel to its centralization. The Ottoman government had several methods in its hand to keep the nomads under control. State officers were assigned to monitor the pasture routes of nomads, restraining strictly any deviation from their old route. Besides, nomads were turned into taxpayers through state's comprehensive land registers recording their revenues scrupulously into a defter.3 By and large, the government appears to have been successful in developing new methods for monitoring nomads. In this context, Isenbike Togan makes a comparison between the Mongolian state and the Ottoman state in terms of tribal policies.4 She suggests three phases related to tribal policies 2 Faruk Sümer, Oğuzlar (Türkmenler) Tarihleri-Boy Teşkilatı Destanları (İstanbul: Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı, 1999), 190-192. 3 Halil İnalcık, The Ottoman Empire The Classical Age 1300-1600 (London: Phoenix, 2000), 32; See also the chapter of "the Ottoman Regulations and Nomad Custom" in Rudi Paul Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1983), 51-75. 4 İsenbike Togan, "Ottoman History by Inner Asian Norms", New Approaches to State and Peasant in Ottoman History, editors Halil Berktay and Suraiya Faroqhi (London: Frank Cass&Co.Ltd., 1992), 185-211. 2 which the states of anti-tribal character such as the Seljukids, the Mongols and the Ottomans were likely to experience. These are: a) infiltration of people of tribal backgrounds into a new 'frontier' zone (Seljuks into Asia Minor, Mongols into North China); b) colonisation and settlement on the new 'frontier', undertaken first by military and then by bureaucratic means; c) subordination of pastoral nomadic people and tribal groups to the state administration and the establishment of bonds between center and periphery.5 She marked the last phase, which indicates that institutional subordination is a unique Ottoman practice, on the other side what the Mongolians could not do was to institutionalise nomads.6 However, in terms of institutionalization, she emphasizes only on the incorporation of tribal leaders into the Ottoman administrative system, thus the tribal leaders relinquished their hold on their own tribes, recognizing the state's upper hand.7 To put differently, the government lessened the role of tribal leader to a middlemen between the tribe and the state represantatives (such as sancak beyi, voyvoda, subashi).8 On the other hand, the Ottoman government implemented other methods from the seventeenth century onwards when there was an increasing 'nomadization' in the countryside of Anatolia which was a new situation compared to the previous century9, putting its own agents forward at the tribal stage representing the state's interest, in order to establish a firmer bond between center and the tribes in periphery. These agents were the Türkmen voyvodas furnished with fiscal and 5 Togan, ibid., 189. Togan, ibid., 189. 7 Togan, ibid., 201-202. 8 Philip Carl Salzmann, "Tribal Chiefs as Middlemen: The Politics of Encapsulation in the Middle East", Anthroplogical Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 2 (April, 1974), 203-210. 9 Xavier de Planhol " Geograpy, Politics and Nomadism in Anatolia", International Social Science Journal, vol. 9, No. 4 (1959), 527. 6 3 administrative authorities over tribes. As will be shown, many prominent Türkmen voyvodas were the members of six cavalry corps (altı bölük halkı) who became rooted in the provincial society.10 Their military capacity and effective social network web in the provincial society makes them cut out for handling the tribes which are difficult to control due to their mobility. 'Voyvoda' is a word of Slavic origin. It means chief, leader (ağa, reis) in Turkish.11 In English, the word 'steward' is used as the closest mean to 'voyvoda'. It generally refers to "a person who manages another's property or financial affairs; one who administers anything as the agent of another or others."12 The office of voyvoda is known to appear in the seventeenth century. The provincial governors assigned a voyvoda either from among their own servants or from the candidates of local people to administer their districts which set aside for themselves as revenue.13 This is the essential function of voyvodas in the Ottoman administrative system. However, voyvoda has also many other different functions. Apart from administering districts, towns and provinces allocated to the state's high officers as hāss, voyvoda was also charged with their financial affairs, such as tax collection. He was accountable to the kadis and the governors for his acts towards people as well.14 The appearance of voyvoda was due to the new fiscal policy of the Ottoman state based on the gradual abandonment of the timar system. From the seventeenth century onwards, the Ottoman government began to include the revenues, which were no longer allocated for the timars, into the crown lands (havâss-ı hümâyun), 10 Halil İnalcık, "Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700", Archivum Ottomanicum, 6 (1980), 291. 11 Mehmet Zeki Pakalın, "Voyvoda", Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü, 3 vols. (İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1983), vol.III, 598; Fikret Adanır, "Woywoda", EI2, vol.XI. 12 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steward. 13 Pakalın, "Voyvoda", 598; Adanır, "Woywoda". 14 Nejat Göyünç, XVI.Yüzyılda Mardin Sancağı (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1991), 53-54. 4 and farmed them out in order to supply cash to the treasury.15 The principal reason behind this shift was the ever-increasing military expenses which put a heavy burden on the resources of the state. The advent of new military techonology based on firearms brought about a profound change in the military organization and finance in the Ottoman empire.16 The provincial cavalry (timarlı sipahis) whose traditional weapons were composed mainly of bow and arrow was no longer powerfull against the Austrian musketeers. Their inefficiency and the importance of recruiting as many troops using muskets as the rivals put on the battlefront were realized by the Ottoman statesmen as early as 1590's.17 Thus, the size of the kapıkulu army who used firearms increased exponentially over the course of the seventeenth century. While the size of the army varied from 10.000 to 12.000 including both kapıkulu sipahs and janissaries during the reign of Mehmed II (1451-1481), it reached some 60.000 men in 1630's.18 In parallel to the growth of the kapıkulu army, there was also an increase in the size of the mercenary troops called sarıca and sekbân who were in the service of pashas and local governors in the countryside. Since those mercenaries demanded cash payment in return for their services, not only was the state in financial difficulty, but the local governors too needed cash as much as possible in order to maintain their small armies and retinues.19 For instance; Dervis Mehmed Pasha, who 15 Yavuz Cezar, Osmanlı Maliyesinde Bunalım ve Değişim Dönemi (İstanbul: Alan Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 1986), 34-36; Adanır, "Woywoda". 16 İnalcık, "Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700", 286-287. 17 İnalcık, ibid., 287. 18 İnalcık, ibid., 289; İnalcık estimates the size of the army by using the datas given in Kitâb-ı Mustetâb and Ayn-i Ali; see also , Rhoads Murphey, "The Functioning of the Ottoman Army Under Murad IV (1623-1639/1032-1049): Key to the Understanding of the Relationship Between Center and Periphery in the Seventeenth Century Turkey", PhD dissertation The University of Chicago (1979), 48-49. 19 Murphey, ibid., 292-297; See also Metin Kunt, "Derviş Mehmed Paşa, Vezir and Entrepreneur: A Study in Ottoman Political-Economic Theory and Practice", Turcica, 9 (I), 197-214. 5 was the grand vizier in 1653 and 1654, had over 2000 infantries and cavalries as well as 7.000 horses in the countryside, furthermore his ammunition was in full.20 The growing concern of the state for supplying cash to the treasury led to the extension of the role of defterdars (chief treasury officer) in the provincial administration from the last decade of the sixteenth century onwards.21 The offices belonging to the defterdars were charged with the transactions of taxfarms and sending the revenue derived from taxfarming to the treasury.22 The extension of the role of the defterdars and the gradual replacement of the timar system for the application of taxfarming increased the importance of the voyvodas in the provincial administration.23 The beys and pashas entrusted the voyvodas to collect the revenues of their hāsses which spread over large territories. They also farmed out their revenues to the voyvodas in return for a certain amount of money.24 In due course, voyvodas became a district administrator who could exercise the state authority beyond a financial agent. It was made out that the defterdars were inadequate to collect the tax and deliver it to the treasury.25 Therefore, the state farmed out all revenues subjected to the treasury office to a voyvoda by wholesale, instead of farming out them separately. Thanks to this, the state addressed the task of tax collection to only one person.26 20 Mustafa Naîmâ Efendi, Târih-i Na'îmâ (Ravzatü'l- Hüseyn Fî Hulâsati Ahbâri'l- Hâfikayn), ed. Mehmet İpşirli, 4 vols. (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2007), vol.III., 1424. 21 Murphey, "The Functioning of the Ottoman Army Under Murad IV (1623-1639/1032-1049)", 266268; Erol Özvar, "XVII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Taşra Maliyesinde Değişme: Diyarbakır’da Hazine Defterdarlığından Voyvodalığa Geçiş", IX International Congress of Economic and Social History of Turkey, Dubrovnik-Crotia, (20-23 August, 2002) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2005), 75-93. 22 Özvar, ibid., 104. 23 Murphey, "The Functioning of the Ottoman Army Under Murad IV (1623-1639/1032-1049)", 268. 24 İnalcık, "Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700", 304. 25 Özvar, "XVII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Taşra Maliyesinde Değişme: Diyarbakır’da Hazine Defterdarlığından Voyvodalığa Geçiş", 103-104. 26 Özvar, ibid., 105. 6 In general, the Türkmen voyvodası was similar to the other voyvodas of the seventeenth century in terms of financial and administrative duties. What made him different from the others is that he was in charge of tribes. He was collecting taxes and carrying out administrative affairs of tribes.27 Because of his relation to nomads, undoubtedly there might be some features peculiar to himself, which enables us to distinguish him from the others. However, it is hard to find those features in a single source. The clues on the matter unfortunately are scattered in a number of different archival sources and chronicles. On the other hand, in chronicles, the Türkmen voyvodası appears noticeably in the rebellion of Abaza Hasan Pasha. In the framework of this event, it is seen how the office of Türkmen voyvodası became a desirable post in the seventeenth century. There was a fierce struggle for the post. Thus, curiosity on who the Türkmen voyvodası was led me to begin conducting the research towards the present thesis; by doing this, I also hoped to throw some light on the peculiarities of the Ottoman history of the seventeenth century. There is no clear date on when the office of the Türkmen voyvodası was introduced. The earliest record I could find about the Türkmen voyvodası is dated 3 July 1559. This record was related to a dispute between the tribe of Beğdili and the voyvoda of the Yeni-il Turcomans.28 Considering that Yeni-il was the first administrative unit belonging to the Turcomans established by the state in 154829, the voyvoda of Yeni-il is probably the first Türkmen voyvodası we know. Yet, the references on the Türkmen voyvodası are concentrated in the seventeenth and 27 In archival documents, Türkmen voyvodası and Türkmen Ağası are used interchangebly. However, to prevent any confusion, I prefer to use the first one in this study. Tufan Gündüz also indicates that the titles of 'Bey' and 'Melik' are scarcely used for Türkmen voyvodası. Tufan Gündüz, Anadolu'da Türkmen Aşiretleri (Bozulus Türkmenleri 1540-1640), 2th edition (İstanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2007) 48. 28 Ahmet Refik Altınay, Anadolu'da Türk Aşiretleri, 2th edition(İstanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1987), 1 (doc. 1). 29 İlhan Şahin, "Yeni-il Kazası ve Yeni-il Türkmenleri (1548-1653)", PhD dissertation, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1980, 10-14. 7 eighteenth centuries, because the office of voyvodalık became widespread in the Ottoman provincial administration in these centuries. Particularly, large tribal confederations such as Bozulus, Karaulus, Danişmendli, and At-çeken were ruled by the Türkmen voyvodas in the seventeenth century.30 Besides, since the Turcomans at the center of the thesis are mainly from Bozulus, Danişmendli and Yeni-il hence the Türkmen voyvodas of these units have been analyzed in this study. On the other hand, this thesis is not a case study, therefore it will not focus on a specific tribe and voyvoda. Studying a specific tribe and Türkmen voyvodası might have presented a restricted work confining Türkmen voyvodası to a welldefined tribe. What is more, such a in-depth study may have exceeded the scope of an M.A dissertation. It would simply lay on a long period of 200-300 years. It is necessary, therefore, to limit the period for the present study in the name of conciseness. Hence, this study examines the office of the Türkmen voyvodası in the years between 1590 and 1690. 1590 is chosen, because one of the goals of thesis is to assess the Turcomans in the context of the Celâli rebellions (1590-1611). In addition, the period that the thesis has been confined to 1690. From this date onwards, the state implemented a new sedentarization policy on nomads; therefore, the Türkmen voyvodası after 1690 deserves to be the subject of another study. The other reason behind such a periodization is the fact that the chronicles of that period in question provide us with valuable insights on the tribes and the Türkmen voyvodası. Even only the materials that they present are enough to build the main body of thesis. Certainly, the archival documents also prove to be important supports to those materials. 30 Cengiz Orhonlu, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Aşiretlerin İskânı (İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 1987) 19-20. 8 The main target of this study is to evaluate the general situation of tribes and to clarify the position of Türkmen voyvodası in that period. In the first chapter "Tribes and Tribesmen in the Seventeenth Century", nomads and semi-nomads in the context of the changes that the Ottoman state went through in the seventeenth century will be outlined. Thereby, it would be easier to understand in what kind of environment the institution of Türkmen voyvodalığı developed. Among the subchapters, the situation of nomads in the Celali rebellion will be dealt with analytically; this, will enable us to see the position of the nomads and semi-nomads in the militarized provincial society. In the second chapter "Functions of the Türkmen voyvodası in the Ottoman Provincial Administration", the roles of the Türkmen voyvodas will be examined in the light of archival documents and chronicles. Through this chapter, the question of what the Türkmen voyvodası was will be addressed as well. In addition, chapter three "The Türkmen voyvodas and Kapıkulu Sipahs within the Power Struggles Over Resources" provides us with a framework to grasp better the nature of the Türkmen voyvodas. This chapter also will shed light on the backgrounds of some prominent Türkmen voyvodas, particulary by pointing to the close link between altı bölük halkı (six cavalry corps) and the Türkmen voyvodas in question. As regards to literature, there is not any monographic study on the issue of Türkmen voyvodası, though there are a plenty of works concerning the subject of nomadism in Ottoman history. Nevertheless, a limited number of studies touch briefly on the issue. Interestingly enough, the first one who pointed to the issue is a Russian historian, Vladimir Gordlevski. In his study dealing with the Anatolian 9 Seljukids from the marxist perspective,31 he sets aside a short part to the organization of Anatolian tribes between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries.32 He states that "the centralization in the administration came about, as the state mechanism became stronger. In parallel to this, the voyvoda went from the center to rule and control the nomads."33 He convinces that the voyvoda was superior to the kethüdas and the boybeyis of tribes, however, he falsely argues that this development occured at the beginning of the eighteenth century.34 Furthermore, he does not go beyond touching the topic very shortly. On the other hand, among the Ottoman historians, Cengiz Orhonlu is the first to refer to the subject in itself. In his systematical work on the sedentarization process of tribes in the Ottoman empire, he gives a brief information about the Türkmen voyvodası, while dealing with the administrative and legal positions that the nomads subjected to.35 However, due to the scope of his work on the sedentarization process, the issue of Türkmen voyvodası did not seem to preoccupy him. By the same token, his students Yusuf Halaçoğlu36 and İlhan Şahin37, who follow the paths of their professor by spending times on the subjects regarding nomadism in Ottoman Anatolia, make mention of Türkmen voyvodası as well. 31 Vladimir Gordlevski, Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti, translated from Russian to Turkish by Azer Yaran (Ankara: Onur Yayıncılık, 1988)-V.Gordlevski, Gosudarstvo Selçukidov Maloy Azii (MoscowLeningrad, 1941) 32 Gordlevski, ibid., 111-120. 33 Gordlevski, ibid., 115. 34 Gordlevski, ibid., 115; He refers to two transcripted documents in Ahmet Refik Altınay's work which is a compilation of state decrees on the Turcomans. Altınay, Anadolu’da Türk Aşiretleri. 35 Orhonlu, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Aşiretlerin İskanı; Cengiz Orhonlu, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Aşiretleri İskan Teşebbüsü (1691-1696) (İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, 1963). 36 Yusuf Halaçoğlu, XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun İskân Siyâseti ve Aşiretlerin Yerleştirilmesi ( Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1988). 37 His articles are collected in Osmanlı Döneminde Konar-Göçerler (İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 2006); Some articles related to the issue are; "Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Konar-Göçer Aşiretlerin Hukuki Nizamları", Türk Kültürü, XX/227, (Ankara 1982), 285-294.; "XVI. Asırda Halep Türkmenleri", Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi, no:12 (1982), 687-712; "XVI. Yüzyılda Halep ve Yeniil Türkmenleri", Anadolu'da ve Rumeli'de Yörükler ve Türkmenler Sempozyumu Bildirileri, (Tarsus/4 Mayıs 2000), Ankara 2000, 63-75; "XVI. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Anadolusu Göçebelerinde Kethüdalık ve Boybeylik Müessesesi", The 12th CIEPO Symposium on pre-Ottoman and Ottoman Studies (9-13 September 1996, Prague, Czech Republic); "1638 Bağdat Seferinde Zahire Nakline Memur Edilen Yeniil ve Halep Türkmenleri", Tarih Dergisi, no:33 (1982), 227-236; see also İlhan Şahin's PhD dissertation, "Yeni-il Kazası ve Yeniil Türkmenleri". 10 Especially, İlhan Şahin's works should be considered a valuable contribution on the issue. However, in none of his works, the matter of Türkmen voyvodası does represent a primary concern. On the other hand, Tufan Gündüz has recently dealt with the issue in his studies on the Bozulus confederation38 and the Danişmendli Turcomans39. He tends to tackle the matter in a much broader scope than the others. By using archival documents, he sheds some light to the matter, though he gives less than three pages to the matter. Besides, some references on the Türkmen voyvodası can be found in Faruk Söylemez's case study on the Rişvan tribe.40 He analyzes in detail the social and economic conditions of the Rişvan tribe and their relations with state, focusing mainly on the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In this context, he makes references on the Türkmen voyvodası in different parts of his study, in so far as it involves the social and economic issues of the tribe. Similarly, there is an M.A dissertation mentioning about Türkmen voyvodası, written by Aysel Danacı on the relation between the Ottoman government and the Anatolian tribes in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.41 Yet she briefly touches on the Türkmen voyvodası, only in the context of the taxation matters. As is seen, all those works cited appear to be far from dealing with the issue in its own right. Therefore, there are still many unanswered questions left regarding the issue. On the other hand, this thesis does not aim at tackling the matter fully. It leaves the episode of the Türkmen voyvodası after 1690 to another study, and of course it would be possible to run across some methodological deficiencies through 38 Gündüz, Anadolu'da Türkmen Aşiretleri (Bozulus Türkmenleri 1540-1640) Tufan Gündüz, XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri (İstanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2005) 40 Faruk Söylemez, Osmanlı Devleti'nde Aşiret Yönetimi: Rişvan Aşireti Örneği (İstanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları, 2007) 41 Aysel Danacı, "The Ottoman Empire and the Anatolian Tribes in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries", M.A thesis, Boğaziçi University, (1998). 39 11 the thesis. Notwithstanding its probable shortcomings, it is hoped that it will fill a gap in the Ottoman historiography concerning nomadism. One of the most important problems encountered during the thesis was the scattered nature of historical evidence in a variety of sources. To complete the puzzle, finding suitable parts is like looking for a needle in a haystack. But again, the connection of Abaza Hasan Pasha's rebellion with the Türkmen voyvodalığı encouraged me to look more closely at the chronicles, and in turn it led me to notice the political aspect of the matter. On the other hand, because of the subject interests the pastoral groups in Anatolia as a matter of course, the chronicles which include a number of references about the provincial society are very useful for this study. Among them, the foremost is Naima's chronicle.42 Since he grew up in the environment of Haleb, he might have had ample opportunities to closely acquaint himself with pastoral groups.43 He offers vivid narration on the relations between nomads and the state. His account concerning the Türkmen voyvodası is of particular importance for this study. The other one who was familier to the provincial society is, of course, Evliya Çelebi.44 During his travel, he visited so many places in Anatolia and came across the Turcomans and bandits related to the subject as well. Evliya who noted his experiences wittily enables us to have knowledge of many details concerning the subject. Similarly, Topçular Katibi Abdulkadir Efendi45 provides us with some valuable details on the Turcomans and the Türkmen voyvodalığı, recording important events of the campaigns in which he participated. In addition, 42 Naîmâ, Tarih, 4 vols. Lewis Thomas, A Study of Naîmâ, ed. Norman Itzkowitz (New York: New York University Press, 1972), 11. 44 Evliya Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zılli, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 304 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu-Dizini), 10 vols., editors: Zekeriya Kurşun, Seyit Ali Kahraman ve Yücel Dağlı (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999-2000) 45 Topçular Kâtibi 'Abdülkādir (Kadrî) Efendi Tarihi, 2 vols., ed. Doç. Dr. Ziya Yılmazer (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2003). 43 12 Katib Çelebi's Fezleke46 , İsazâde Tarihi47 have also proved to be useful. Apart from these sources, Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Pasha's Zübde-i Vekayiât48 and Fındıklılı Silahdar Mehmed Agha's chronicle called Silâhdar Tarihi49 also give significant clues related to the subject particularly for the second half of the seventeenth century. As for the archival material, the Ottoman archives offer a great amount of documents concerning the issue. For this thesis, I have used various documents. Among these, firstly Maliyeden Müdevver Defterler provide a number of valuable details on the matter. These sources have been used as much as possible. Likewise, Topkapı Sarayı Maliye Defterleri contain crucial material particularly on the Yeni-il Turcomans subjected to the endowment of Valide Sultan. I also used several documents dispersed in the catalogue of İbnü'l Emin. Kâtib Çelebi, Fezleke, 2 vols (İstanbul: 1286-1287) İsazâde, İsâ-zâde Tarihi: Metin ve Tahlil, ed. Ziya Yılmazer (İstanbul:İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti Yayınları, 1996) 48 Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa, Zübde-i Vekayiât, ed. Dr. Abdulkadir Özcan (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1995) 49 Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Ağa, Silahdar Tarihi, 2 vols. (İstanbul: İstanbul Devlet Matbaası, 1928) 46 47 13 CHAPTER II TRIBES AND TRIBESMEN IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 2.1. Nomads and Militarization of Countryside In his work named "Mevâ'ıdü'n-Nefāis Fî-Kavâ'ıdi'l-Mecâlis"50, Gelibolulu Mustafa' Âlî mentions the deeds of rebels and bandits in the countryside which resulted in spilling the blood of innocent people. He talks about who those rebels were, rather than the reasons behind their terror. He states that most of them were either Turks or Tartars, furthermore the boybeyis of the Turks who commanded at least two hundred Turks mainly led up to such a terror in the countryside.51 On the other hand, when Gelibolulu wrote his work, the state was already in trouble with the Celâli rebels in Anatolia.52 At first glance, his narration sounds as if only the Turks or the Turcomans had been the bad guys of the story, however, it will be seen in the 50 Gelibolulu Mustafa' Âlî, Mevâ'ıdü'n-Nefāis Fî-Kavâ'ıdi'l-Mecâlis, ed. Prof.Dr. Mehmet Şeker (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1997) 51 ".Şöyle sanurlar ki birkaç erâzili yanlarına uydurup hareket etmekle va ba'zı köylere ve kasâbata salgûnlar salup hukümlerini yürütmekle gerçekten ilerü gelüp zuhûr eyliyeler. Ansuzın sâhıb-i sikke ve hutbe olup kendüleri kuvvet-i iktidârla meşhûr eyleyenler ki beyt-i … Nesr: Bu hevâ ve heves ile nicesi etrâk ü tâtârdan ekseri kuttâ'-ı tarîk olan reh-zenân-ı ziyânkârdan gâh u bî-gâh bir haram-zâde zuhûr ider. Celâlî nâmı ile mazhar-ı mihter ü halâl olup memleket memleket gezer. Agniyânuň mâl ü menâllerin gâret eyler. Re'âyânun ebkâr u 'ıyâllerini hasâret eyler. Taht-ı yedlerindeki levendler fukarâ derd-mendlere musallat olurlar. Sâde-rû oğullarını ve kızlarınun husni ve makbûllerini taht-ı tasarrufa getürüp bevş ü âgûşına koyalar. Ya'nî ki gencînelerine sü'bânlar ve havz-ı sîmînlerine mâr-ı mâhî sıfatında yılanlar dühûl kılur…. Garâbet bundadır ki bu gûne küstâhlıklar ve serbâzlıklar ve kendüsi edânîden iken arzûy-ı saltanat idüb ser-endâzlıklar ekseriyyâ etrâkun boy beglerinden olup bir iki yüz türkü mahkûm edinenlerden olur…" Mustafa' Âlî, ibid., 295-296 and 137-138. 52 It is known that Gelibolulu completed Mevâ'ıdü'n-Nefāis Fî-Kavâ'ıdi'l-Mecâlis probably in 1599. Mustafa' Âlî, ibid., 63. 14 following parts of this chapter that many tribes also suffered from banditry and oppression like other re'aya during the Celâli movement. Nonetheless, even though his narration reflects a state-centered view, it still throws some significant light on who the Celâlis were. Addressing the question of from where the human source of the Celâli rebellions and other revolts in Anatolia in the seventeenth century derived may help us understand the dynamics of the provincial society in Anatolia to some extent. The generals who were playing the leading role are well-known, however, there is another question to be asked; who did play the walker-on as soldier ? In this part, the role of the nomads and semi-nomads in the militarization of countrysides during the Celâli rebellions will be dealt with. Not only the first wave of the Celâli rebellion (1591-1611) will be focused on, but also the paths of the nomadic and semi-nomadic elements will be tracked in the other waves of the rebellion until 1690.53 Many scholars have so far pondered on the human source of the Celâli movement which lasted throughout the seventeenth century. Most of them are of the opinion that the nomads and semi-nomads might provide the Celâlis in Anatolia with manpower. One of them is Cengiz Orhonlu, who devoted most of his time to the subject of nomadism in the Ottoman history, suggests that a part of the sarucas and the sekbâns which comprised the Celâli bands consisted of nomadic elements. He points out that uprooted peasants, farm laborers (rençber) and nomads served as the 53 Oktay Özel, "The Reign of Violance: the Celalis (c.1550-1570)", Contribution to the Ottoman World, ed. Christine Woodhead (London: Routledge) forthcoming. He draws attention to the fact that the Celali rebellion did not end in 1608, it lasted at intervals in forms of banditry and occasional rebellions throughout the seventeenth century. According to him, in order to understand the general picture of profoundly transformed rural society, economy and ecological environment, one should focus on the longevity of the Celali rebellions as a movement spreading throughout the seventeenth century. 15 principal human sources of the Celâli bands.54 Likewise, Çağatay Uluçay, who made a study on the banditry and the social movements in the district of Saruhan through the Manisa court records of the seventeenth century, concludes that the territory covering the Mount Yund seems to have been the most troublesome area of Manisa in terms of banditry, because the nomadic elements such as Yürüks and Turcomans densely populated the environs of the MountYund.55 Archival sources also indicate that some clans in Anatolia provided with support for the bandit bachelors (suhte) during the Celâli turbulence. According to an edict dated 1583 May, the governor of Alâiye province (today's Alanya) was requested to tackle with the clan of Kara Yürük who supplied the bachelor bandits with food and shelter.56 Similarly, it was reported that such bandits were in cooperation with the clans of Harezm and Kalburcu in the province of Menteşe in 1574.57 On the other hand, Suraiya Faroqhi claims that there is no evidence that the human source of the Celâli rebellions derived from nomadic elements, and therefore it would not be true to ascribe all Celâli uprisings in Anatolia to the activities of nomads and semi-nomads.58 Her argument is likely to disregard their probable role in Celâli rebellions. Similarly, Karen Barkey seems to ignore the possible role of the nomads and semi-nomads in the Celâli movement.59 Since she seeks to compare the peasant uprisings in Europe with those in the Ottoman Empire, she constructs all her argument on the basis of sedentary society. Therefore, she does exclude the nomads 54 Cengiz Orhonlu, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Aşiretlerin İskan Teşebbüsü (1691-1696), 7-8. Çağatay Uluçay, XVII. Asırda Saruhan’da Eşkıyalık ve Halk Hareketeleri (Manisa: CHP Manisa Halkevi, 1944), 74. He also cites many examples related to the banditry in which the Yürüks or theTurcomans got involved somehow. 56 Altınay, Anadolu'da Türk Aşiretleri, 49 (doc.92). 57 Mustafa Akdağ, Büyük Celâli Karışıklıklarının Başlaması (Erzurum: 1963), 60. 58 Suraiya Faroqhi, “Political Tensions in the Anatolian Countryside Around 1600 - An Attempt at Interpretation,” Turkische Miszellen. Robert Anhegger Festschrift. Armağanı, Melanges, ed. J.L Bacque Grammont, Barbara Flemming, Macit Gökberk, İlber Ortaylı (İstanbul, 1987), 122 59 Karen Barkey, Bandits and Bureaucrats, The Ottoman Route to State Centralization (New York: Cornell University Press, 1994), 115-123. 55 16 from the rebellions for the sake of reaching a more coherent comparison between two. Furthermore, she regards the nomads as one of the reasons behind the lack of rural rebellions in the Ottoman Empire, because different way of lifes and organizations hindered a rural cooperation between sedentary society and nomads.60 However, such a coaction was not necessary. Most villages in different regions which are classified in sedentary population had already been established by nomads during the 1580's.61 Therefore, most of the rebels lived in the villages can be named as 'peasants of nomadic origins'. For example; it is seen through the tahrir of 1584 of Kayseri that nearly every clans which had been recorded as yörükân before 1580's became settled by establishing villages.62 In addition, the economic situation of many of these new villages does not seem to have been satisfactory. Thus, during the turbulence years, they might have become a pool which provided necessary human source for the militarization of countrysides, producing sekbâns and sarucas.63 Attributing whole Celâli movements in Anatolia to nomads and semi-nomads with a reductionist approach, on the other hand, would lead us to regard them as ubiquitous hostile elements.64 As we will see in the other parts of this chapter, they appeared to have been aggrieved by both the state officials and their counterparts in many cases. Yet one can easily notice that the Celâli rebellions were more widespread and effective in the parts of the empire such as Anatolia and the northern Syria in which nomadic and semi-nomadic ways of life were predominant. If 60 Barkey, ibid., 115-123. Onur Usta-Oktay Özel, "Sedentarization of the Turcomans in 16th Century Cappadocia: Kayseri, 1480-1584", Between Religion and Language: Turkish-Speaking Christians, Jews and GreekSpeaking Muslims and Catholics in the Ottoman Empire, (Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları Dizisi: 48) ed. EvangeliaBalta and Mehmet Ölmez (İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 2010), 167-178. 62 Usta-Özel, ibid., 178-186. 63 Usta-Özel, ibid., 178-186. 64 Similarly, Aysel Danacı draws attention to a fault which modern historians did, while looking at the Anatolian nomads. They are inclined to see the nomads from the perpective of the Ottoman bureaucrats who considered them as troublesome and disloyal groups of herdsmen always prone to banditry and theft; Danacı, "The Ottoman Empire and the Anatolian Tribes in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries", 3. 61 17 Anatolia was to be compared with the Balkans in terms of nomadism, one would also reach a conclusion that tribal ties in the Balkans were not as strong as Anatolia. Apart from some low level banditry and highway robbery, the Balkans were free from a large-scale rebellion while the Celâli movement was devastating Anatolia.65 Mustafa Cezar firstly associates the reason that the levend and the Celâli movements were more prevalent in Anatolia rather than the Balkans with the fact that the nomads and semi-nomads of Anatolia outnumbered their counterparts in the Balkans.66 By the same token, Oktay Özel has recently developed an argument on the reason behind that difference, emphasizing on the Turcoman characteristics of Anatolian and northern Syrian provinces of the empire. He also has stated that the centralizing policies of the Ottoman state clashed with the distinct way of life of the Turcomans, Kurdish and Arabic semi-nomadic tribes of the region.67 At this point, correspondingly, it is obvious that an imminent conflict between the mobile nomadic groups and the centralist state was inevitable. Furthermore, not only the Ottoman state encountered such a conflict, but also the Russian state had to cope with a number of semi-nomadic hunting tribes from the thirteenth century onwards.68 The images of the Celâli bands described by Naima also strenghtens the assumption that the Celâlis might be composed of the nomads and the semi-nomads. William Griswold points to Naima's portrayal of the Celâlis, which drew attention to 65 Özel, "The Reign of Violance: the Celalis (c.1550-1570)", 14-15. Mustafa Cezar, Osmanlı Tarihinde Levendler (İstanbul:1965), 85. 67 Özel, ibid., p.14. 68 Roland Mousnier, Peasant Uprisings in Seventeenth Century France, Russia and China, translated from the French by Brian Pearce ( London: 1971), 161-162. "Those tribes were the Mordvinians, in the loop of the Volga, between the Sura and the Moshka; the Cheremisses on the Vyatka; south of them, the Chuvashes; farther eastward, on the Kama, the Bashkirs, nomadic stock breeders. The Mordvinians had become sedentary agriculturists in the sixteenth century, following the Russian example, but they retained a sense of their individuality and had rebelled as recently as 1580. The others were also ready for revolt, especially the Bashkirs, who had never been fully subjected." 66 18 the social differences between the Celâlis and the Ottoman soldiers.69 According to Naima, the sekbâns of Deli Hasan, the chief rebel, were naked, and wore chain and amulet around their necks. Most of them were also long-haired and looked like women.70 Similarly, Topçular Katibi Abdulkadir Efendi presents that sekbâns of Deli Hasan were havâric ü revâfız, namely heteredox, and wore coat made of tiger hide.71 On the other hand, he states that the sekbâns of well-known Celâli, Karayazıcı, had been recruited from the bandits of the Turcomans of Kilis and Az'az as well as the Kurds. 72 He also expresses that another rebel Canboladoğlu Hüseyin Paşa had recruited Türkmân and sekbân in Kilis and Az'az. In addition, the Turcomans of the Arab had joined his army.73 As is already known, since the family of Canbolad were a powerful Kurdish tribe, they could easily mobilize the Kurds, the Turcomans and the Arabs of the region, employing them as sekbân.74 Besides, it can be seen that the area where Karayazıcı's and Canboladoğlu's forces were recruited was within the boundaries of "the Turcoman zone of the southeastearn Anatolia", which is a term propounded by Mustafa Akdağ.75 The area covered Maraş and Elbistan in the north and Tarsus, Kilis, Az'az and Haleb in the south. The sancak of Birecik included Suruş, Siverek and Ruha was lying between the north and the south of the area. This area also warmly welcomed the remnants of some confederations of tribes such as the Akkoyunlu, the Karakoyunlu and the Dulkadirids retreated to the mountainous terrain of the southeastern Anatolia, when 69 William J. Griswold, The Great Anatolian Rebellion 1000-1020/1591-1611 (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1983) 252, see the endnote 85. 70 Griswold, ibid., 252. 71 Topçular Kâtibi, Tarih; I, 323. 72 Topçular Kâtibi, Tarih; I, 321. 73 Topçular Kâtibi, Tarih; I, 349. 74 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 329; Griswold, The Great Anatolian Rebellion, 89. 75 Mustafa Akdağ, Türkiye'nin İktisadî ve İçtimaî Tarihi (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2010), 7274; He categorizes the Anatolia after the collapse of the Seljukid dominance into four distinct areas ( Rum, Karaman, the Uç zone). One of these areas is "Güneydoğu Anadolu Türkmen Çevresi" where nomadic way of life was predominant. 19 they could not compromise with the central state authority after the Ottomanization of Anatolia.76 Abdul-Karim Rafeq indicates that the Celâli groups appeared in southeastearn Anatolia, particularly the human source of those bandit groups was derived from the Turcomans and Kurdish tribes of the region.77 It was also known that those Kurdish tribes served as the sekbân bands in the Ottoman army, causing disorders in the countrysides of Musul and Şehrizor in the last decades of the sixteenth century.78 On the other hand, Mustafa Akdağ shows that the Turcoman tribes of the area generally gave support to the rebellions that occurred in the region.79 In 1587, dismissed sancakbeyis Abdurrahman and Suhrap revolted against the state in the region of Ruha and Rakka. The state was aware of that their rebellion was supported by the tribes of Beydili and Afşar. Therefore, the government sent a firman to the boybeyis and kethüdas of those tribes, warning them not to provide those rebels with soldiers and support.80 However, the tribe of Beydili maintained plundering the countryside of Ruha and robbing the villages of the crown lands (havâss-ı hümâyun) despite all warnings of the government.81 It is also noteworthy that the Beydili tribe appeared almost every nomads' raids in the region during the first Celâli period. In May 1603, the kadi and the Türkmen voyvodası of Haleb were ordered to handle those mounted bandits of the clan of Bozkoyunlu from the Beydili Turcomans who devastated the villages in 'Birecik İskelesi' during the harvest 76 Abdul-Karim Rafeq, "The Revolt of Ali Pasha Janbulad (1605-1607) in the Contemporary Arabic Sources and its Significance", VIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi,(Ankara 11-15 Ekim 1976), vol.III, 1530; John Woods also states that the Turcoman clans in the northern Syria and in the southern Turkey were an important source of manpower for the Aqqoyunlu confederation. Among them, the clans of Bayad and Avşar were the leading ones. John E. Woods, The Aqqoyunlu (Clan, Confederation, Empire), revised and expanded edition, (Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 1999), 13. 77 Rafeq, ibid., 1530. 78 Dina Rızk Khoury, State and Provincial Society in the Ottoman Empire (Mosul, 1540-1834) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 39-40. 79 Mustafa Akdağ, Celâlî İsyanları (1550-1603) (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1963), 143. 80 Akdağ, ibid., 143. 81 Akdağ, ibid., 143. 20 period.82 One year later, in February 1604, the clan of Bozkoyunlu reappeared in the environs of 'Birecik İskelesi'.83 At that time, in company with the clan of Kızık, they attacked the Christian merchant caravan in the village of Kolca which was subject to the hâs of Valide Sultan. The boybeyi of the clan of Bozkoyunlu named Kılıç Beğ and kethüdas of the clan of Kızık led the assault band composed of more than 15 men. They plundered all properties and goods in the caravan. Thereupon, the merchants called Türkman-ı Haleb voyvodası, Hayreddin Çavuş, for saving their stuff from those bandit Turcomans.84 Map 1. The Turcoman zone of the southeastern Anatolia The possible link between the "Celâlîlik" and nomads lies certainly in the revolts of the sixteenth century Anatolia. It is clear that nomads and semi-nomads were the backbone of nearly every uprisings occurred in Anatolia against the Ottoman authority in the sixteenth century. One of them was the revolt of Şahkulu in 1511 which had been supported by the heteredox Turcoman groups of the Teke 82 İE.SM. 12/1235. İE.DH. 5/473. 84 İE.DH. 5/473. 83 21 district.85 Another rebel, Bozoklu Şeyh Celal, who would lend his name to other rebellions in the seventeenth century, was also a Turcoman from Bozok region. He mobilized the Turcomans from Bozok to Tokat by declaring himself mahdi in 1519.86 Ironically, the man who quashed his rebellion was also of Turcoman origin, Şehsuvar Oğlu Ali Bey from the Dulkadirids.87 Moreover, of all the revolts up to that time, his was so hard-hitting that the state kept his name alive in its memory to call those rebellions in the seventeenth century.88 Of course, there were much more revolts triggered by the Turcoman groups in the sixteenth century, but they exceed the scope of this study. What was significant in these revolts is that the nomads and semi-nomads, that is to say the Turcomans and the Kurds, demonstrated their potential military capacity under the leadership of their boybeyis. In most cases, the state does not seem to have hesitated to appeal for military support from the tribes. In June 1585, the state sent a firman to the kadis of Karaman, ordering that Ahmed, who was the son of the tribe leader Hindi (Hidayi), was to be assigned as the commander of the army which would be composed of the local forces. The firman also ordered that those who were mounted and armoured and knew how to fight had to join the armies of their tribe leaders.89 Likewise, it is known that the tribes had offered their military capacity to the sons of the Süleyman the Magnificent during the civil war. The boybeyis, Aksak Seyfeddin, Turgutoğlu Pir Hüseyin, Şah Veli and Divane Yakub, all of them supported Şehzade Beyazıd. They probably were the leaders of tribes such as Bozkırlı, Turgudlu, Dukakinli, Darendeli and Dulkadirli, all of which were opposing the Ottoman rule all along. Moreover, he 85 Çağatay Uluçay, "Yavuz Sultan Selim Nasıl Padişah Oldu?", Tarih Dergisi, no:6-8 Faruk Sümer, Safevi Devletinin Kuruluşu ve Gelişmesinde Anadolu Türklerinin Rolü (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1992), 73-74. 87 Sümer, ibid., 73-74. 88 Sümer, Oğuzlar (Türkmenler) Tarihleri Boy Teşkilatı Destanları, 191. 89 Mustafa Akdağ, "Yeniçeri Ocak Nizamının Bozuluşu", Ankara Üniversitesi Dil veTarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.5, No:3, (1947), 302-303. 86 22 was also supported by some Kurdish tribes.90 On the other side, his rival şehzade Selim demanded support from some tribes as well. Upon the order of his father Süleyman the Magnificent, he assigned his man named Şemseddinoğlu from the Dulkadirids to Maraş in order to call some boybeyis and zaims for support, and sent another of his men to Teke-ili for the same purpose.91 Apart from Selim's efforts, after having defeated the forces of Şehzade Bayezid, the government also sent a firman to Ahmed Paşa, the governor of Şam, to capture Şehzade Bayezid who was bound to flee to Arabia. Ahmed Paşa was ordered immediately to recruit men from the tribes and clans in his administration who were able to use tüfeng as well as bow and arrow.92 Regarding this, Halil İnalcık shows that using tüfeng spread rapidly among populace in the countryside including nomads-Turcomans, Arabs and Kurdsfrom the last decades of the sixteenth century.93 This case is also seen through firearmed assaults led by the Turcomans reflecting on the court records.94 The military capacity of the nomads and semi-nomads became more apparent during the first half of the seventeenth century. It was the first time that the government aimed at replacing the central Jannissary army with a new one based on the nomads and semi-nomads of Anatolia and the northern Syria. This aim was a result of the sultan Osman II's so-called 'Turkification' policy on the palace and the Janissary corps in order to reduce the devşirme influence on the state, which led up to 90 Şerafettin Turan, Kanuni Süleyman Dönemi Taht Kavgaları (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1997), 83. Turan, ibid., 94. 92 Turan, ibid, 185-186. (Başbakanlık Arşivi Mh. III, Vsk. 59; Matbu, TOEM, 36, s.712 vd.) 93 Halil İnalcık, "The Socio-Political Effects of the Diffusion of Fire-Armes in the Middle East", War, Technology and Society in the Middle East, ed. V.J.Parry and M.E.Yapp (London: Oxford University Press,1975), 211. 94 Ronald Jennings, "Firearms, Bandits, and Gun-Control: Some Evidence on Ottoman Policy Towards Firearms in the Possession of Reaya, From Judicial Records of Kayseri, 1600-1627", Archivum Ottomanicum, 6 (1980), 340. 91 23 nepotism, corruption and decentralization.95 Tuği, the writer of Musîbetnâme, revealed the plans of Osman II. According to him, on the pretext of going Hajj, the sultan Osman was to have passed Anatolia in order to recruit sekbân. For the same purpose, a man named Eski Yusuf was sent to the Arab lands, Damascus and Haleb, under the guise of collecting wheat (zahire). In fact, his real aim was to recruit sekbân and cündî from Etrâk and the Turcomans.96 Nevertheless, the plans of Osman II came out by the Janissaries, and all his attempts led to naught.97 On the other hand, through an archival evidence Baki Tezcan sheds light upon the background of Eski Yusuf, the man who was sent to the Arab lands, which strenghtens to a great extent our assumption that there was a close link between the Turcomans and the state. According to Tezcan, Eski Yusuf who was a halberdier (baltacı) of the Old Palace had been promoted to the central cavalry corps as a reward for his services as the voyvoda of the Yeni-il and Haleb Turcomans in December 1621, before Osman II assigned him to recruit new troops.98 He states that "Yusuf was a trusted man in court circles; as the revenue collector of Yeni-il, he was actually serving the sultan personall. He was a man trusted by the court and experienced in dealing both with money and with nomads, an obvious source for army recruitment."99 In the light of these points, it is seen how a Türkmen voyvodası had a significant role in new policy of Osman II. In case of need, nomads or Turcomans might have been in the service of Türkmen voyvodası. Besides, Osman's purpose has an importance in terms of displaying how the military capacity of the local nomadic elements of Anatolia and 95 Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol:I Empire of the Gazis (The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire 1280-1808) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 192-193. 96 Hüseyin Tuğî, Musibetnâme, ed.Şevki Nezihi Aykut (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2010), 17-18. 97 Baki Tezcan," The Military Rebellion in İstanbul: A Historiographical Journey", International Journal of Turkish Studies, vol.8, (Spring; 2002), 25-45. 98 Baki Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 159; He used the document in the catalogue of Kamil Kepeci, (no:257), 60-62. 99 Tezcan, ibid., 159. 24 the northern Syria reached a point where the state could not overlook. In addition, nomads and semi-nomads participated in the army of Abaza Mehmed Paşa who took action in order to take the revenge of the murdered sultan. Naima reported that Abaza Mehmed had recruited numerous men from the Turcomans, the Kurds and the Turks who would be able to fight against the Ottoman soldier.100 Moreover, before attacking to the Ottoman forces in Konya, he asked the Turcoman tribes in the environs of Kayseri and Sivas and their boybeyis to give support himself. However, those tribes did not take part in the battle due to their reservations about the outcome.101 As one of the major characters of the seventeenth century's politics, the kapıkulu sipahs struggled against the alliance between janissaries and ulemas at the center, basing their power on Anatolia.102 As will be seen in the third chapter, most of the rebel pashas in the seventeenth century appeared both as fellows of kapıkulu sipahs and as a Türkman voyvodası. At this point, one can wonder whether nomads and semi-nomads in Anatolia might be the pillars of the strength of Türkmen voyvodası, who was a kapıkulu sipah as well. The chronicles help us shed some light on the point at issue. Evliya Çelebi offers more evidence that the Turcomans had provided support for the rebel pashas of the seventeenth century. He narrates that Varvar Ali Paşa had praised İbşir Mustafa Paşa for his large army composed of the whole Karaman province and so many Turks and Turcomans.103 In next pages, he 100 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 550. The tribes of Recebli, Çöplü, Sırkıntılı, Mumalı, Pehlivanlı, Kozanlı gave support to Abaza Mehmed; see also Efkan Uzun, "XVII. Yüzyıl Anadolu İsyanlarının Şehirlere Yayılması; Sosyal ve Ekonomik Hayata Etkisi (1630-1655)", PhD dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, (2008), 133. 101 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 553. 102 Mustafa Akdağ, "Genel Çizgileriyle XVII. Yüzyıl Türkiye Tarihi", Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol. 4, no: 6-7, 217-218. 103 Evliya Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zılli, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 304 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu-Dizini), editors Zekeriya Kurşun, Seyit Ali Kahraman ve Yücel Dağlı, second edition, (İstanbul:Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2006), vol. II, 224. 25 also recorded that İbşir's army had been full of soldiers, equipped with flintlocks, from the lands of the Turcomans, the Kurds and the Arabs.104 Besides, Naima stated that Abaza Hasan, another rebel pasha, was accompanied by numerous bandit Turcomans, while he was approaching İstanbul in 1653.105 An order sent by the Sultan to Murtaza Pasha, who was assigned to suppress the revolt of Abaza Hasan, also revealed that there were Turcomans in Abaza's army.106 It bolstered Murtaza Pasha's morale by informing him about how his forces startled the Turcomans.107 Silahdar Tarihi also records that the Beğdili Turcomans reinforced Abaza Hasan's army.108 On the other hand, Naima accounts that Hasan, brother of Konyalı Hadım Hasan, had enlisted soldiers from the Turcomans during his struggle for the post of Türkman voyvodalığı.109 The ongoing wars with the Safavids which lasted throughout the seventeenth century had contributed to the increase in the militarization of Anatolia, including to the recruitment of rural population into the military class as janissaries or kapıkulu sipahs. There is evidence that most of kapıkulu sipahs were already recruited from the native elements of Anatolia, including nomads. For instance; a document related to mukata'a records dated 1600/1601 reveals that a man named Mansur from the Danişmendli Turcomans, who made a commitment to provide sheep for the imperial kitchen, was a çavuş and his two sons were also from the cavalry corps (bölük halkı).110 Likewise, the Kurds, the Turks and other people had joined in kapıkulu sipahs in the seventeenth century. Likewise, Abdul Karim Rafeq demonstrates that 104 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname; II, 266. Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1487-1488. 106 Uluçay, XVII. Asırda Saruhan’da Eşkıyalık ve Halk Hareketeleri, 363-365, (doc.168). 107 Uluçay, ibid., 363, (doc. 168). 108 Silahdar Mehmed Ağa, Silahdar Tarihi; I, 150-151. Those Beğdili Turcomans gave support to Abaza Hasan's forces in the area of Konya-Ilgın. 109 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1442-1443. 110 MAD. 6185, 9. 105 26 even in the southern provinces of the empire, janissary corps began to be controlled by local forces. For example; Damascus was under the influence of a Turcoman leader named Hasan in the first half of the seventeenth century.111 Together with members and subordinates of his family comprised about one-quarter of the total number of the Janissaries in the city.112 Before him, a Kurd named Hamza also had been the leader of janissary regiments in Damascus during the first decades of seventeenth century.113 Rafeq also establishes that the janissary chiefs in Syria in the first half of the seventeenth century were mainly of Kurdish or Turcoman origins. Moreover, the Janissaries of Damascus composed of these local elements also participated in the revolt of Abaza Hasan Pasha in 1659.114 By the same token, Hülya Canbakal draws attention to such a similar relation between nomadic elements and janissaries through Ayntab court records. She reveals that the settled tribes in Ayntab were protected by the janissary commander of the town in the middle of the seventeenth century.115 She clarifies this relation by means of a court document indicating that there were large groups of Janissary pretenders among tribesmen, and some of them were successful in proving their claim.116 In 1659, the Turcomans of Haleb and Yeni-il refused to pay their personal taxes (rüsum u râ'iyyet) and the sheep tax, claiming that they had "now become janissaries, cavalrymen and timariots."117 The Janissary commander of the town also affirmed their claims.118 She also presents 111 Abdul Karim-Rafeq, "Changes in the Relationship between the Ottoman Central Administration and the Syrian Provinces from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries", Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic History, ed. Thomas Naff and Roger Owen (Southern Illinois University Press, 1977), 56. 112 Rafeq, ibid.,.56 113 Abdul-Rahim Abu-Husayn, Provincial Leaderships in Syria, 1576-1650 (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1985), 117-122. 114 Rafeq, "Changes in the Relationship between the Ottoman Central Administration and the Syrian Provinces from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries", 60. 115 Hülya Canbakal, Ayntab: Society and Politics in an Ottoman Town (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2007), 85. 116 Canbakal, ibid., 85. 117 Canbakal, ibid., 85. 118 Canbakal, ibid., 85-86. 27 another court document related to a murder case showing how tribesmen wanted to be incorporated into military class. According to the document, settled tribesmen attacked on a man whose identity was uncertain, accusing him of not helping them to obtain a position in the retinue of the governor of Maraş.119 It is seen that the militarization of nomadic and semi-nomadic elements in the countryside of Anatolia was well in progress during the seventeenth century. Considering all these examples related to those nomadic janissaries and sipahs, it can be easily argued that Abaza Hasan Pasha, as a Türkmen voyvodası, was supported by these local nomadic elements during his revolt.120 The history of İsâ-zâde also confirms that the people of Kilis and Haleb had supported Hasan Pasha against Murteza Pasha.121 Furthermore, he also pointed to a Turcoman army among the forces of Hasan Pasha.122 Nevertheless, he did not give any information on it. Similarly, Silahdar Tarihi cites a man named Türkmân ağası Bekrizâde among the fellows of Abaza Hasan.123 The military power of nomadic and semi-nomadic elements composed of the Turcomans and the Kurds became more visible in the Anatolian-based revolts in the seventeenth century. These elements served as human source for the mercenary forces called sekbân and saruca in the countryside. Their potential power was at such 119 Canbakal, ibid., 86. On the other hand, some archival documents do not prove that the Turcomans supported him. For example; BOA YB. 04.d. (Defter-i Muhallefat-ı Celaliyan tabi Abaza Hasan Paşa) This inventory register do not show anyone of Turcoman origin among the fellows of Abaza Hasan Pasha. Besides, Havva Selçuk argues that nomadic Turcomans in Kayseri did not support the revolt of Abaza Hasan Pasha, although their properties were confiscated by the state officials as if they had taken part in uprisings. However; she seems to try to acquit the Turcomans of fighting against the state. She also does not appear to look at the chronicles; see Havva Selçuk, "The Jelali Abaza Hasan Rebellion and Its Reflection on Kayseri", Turkish Studies, vol:3/4, Summer 2008; see also Hatice Cırık, "XVII. Yüzyıl Askeri Seferleri Esnasında Anadolu'dan Yapılan Hazırlıklar (1644-1660)", unpublished M.A. thesis, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara, 2006. She is of the opinion that Abaza Mehmed and Abaza Hasan obtained their power from the Turcomans in Anatolia, however, she does not deepen the argument. 98. 121 İsazâde, Tarih, 53. ..Hasan Paşa Kilis’e doğru ve Murtezâ Paşa Haleb’e müteveccih olup, halk beyninde: “Ceng ü cidâl bizim nemize yarar. İki harîf biri birine düşmüş”. Mecmû’ halk Hasan Paşalı olup, gayretin gösterdiler…" 122 İsazâde, Tarih, 54 "…Türkmen Ordusu Yeniçeri Ağası Engüri Kethüdâ-yeri Mir Ali…" 123 Silahdar Mehmed Ağa, Silahdar Tarihi;I, 156. 120 28 a remarkable level even in the 1620's that the sultan Osman II could intend to replace its central army with those Anatolian mercenary forces. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, the state gradually rested on the human source of Anatolia in parallel with ever-increasing need of troops in the front of Habsburgs, recruiting more sekbân and saruca from countryside. This tendency in turn allowed the Turcomans and the Kurds to continue their military prominence as sekbân and saruca soldiers even throughout the last decades of the seventeenth century.124 However, their power put the Ottoman government into a plight again. In 1680's, the Ottoman state had to tackle with a central Anatolian-based revolt which started as a rising of sekbân and saruca under the leadership of Yeğen Osman Pasha and spread over a large area covering even the Balkans, perplexing the state which was in a great struggle against the 'Holly alliance'.125 Yeğen Osman was the bölükbaşı (captain of sekbâns) of the vizier İbrahim Pasha who was the commander-in-chief of the Hungary campaign in 1685. It is stated in Zübde-i Vekâiyat that Yeğen Osman escaped from the campaign and headed for Anatolia with his companion Yadigaroğlu who was from the Kurds, and engaged in a vast-scale banditry, including highway robbery and assaulting on villages as well as towns.126 Silahdar Tarihi also records under the title of 'the appearance of celalis in Anatolia' that after the defeat of Austria, the bölükbaşıs named Akkaş, Kara Mahmud, Yadigaroğlu and Yeğen Osman rallied some one thousand of sekbâns and 124 Silahdar Mehmed Ağa, Silahdar Tarihi, II, 271. 2000 troops from the Turcomans of Cidem, Receb an Çinit tribes joined in the army in 1686.; İlber Ortaylı also draws attention through a mühimme record dated 1688 to the fact that after the firmans were sent to mobilize the Egyptian forces (Mısır kulları) or the navy of the Maghreb or eskincü yürükler or Turcoman and Kurdish tribes of Kilis (Türkmen ve Ekrad aşâirinden sefere memur olan süvari asker) after the war of 1686. İlber Ortaylı, "The Ottoman Empire at the end of the Seventeenth Century", in Ottoman Studies, second edition (İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi University Press, 2007), 86.; see also Caroline Finkel, Osman's Dream (London: John Murray, 2006), 307. 125 Finkel, Osman's Dream, 289. 126 Defterdar Mehmed Paşa, Zübde-i Vekâiyat, 228-229. 29 sarucas and devastated villages and towns from Sivas to Bolu in 1685.127 However, in spite of all his unruliness, the state could not discard him, because he could mobilize a considerable amount of sekbâns and sarucas at a time when the state needed as much troops as possible. This made Yeğen Osman important in the eyes of the Ottoman government. Therefore, the statesmen did not hesitate to grant him with the governorship (sancakbeyliği) of Karahisar (Afyon) province and the office of serçeşmelik (commander of sekbân and saruca forces).128 Yeğen Osman seems to have dominated the central Anatolia, particularly Konya and its environs. This is understood through the fact that he tried to control Konya by appointing his close relatives to the office of müsellim of Konya. Besides, it is also known that he had a palace in Konya-Ilgın.129 These details would lead us to consider that Yeğen Osman might have been active in places where the tribal elements were widespread. Ilgın where Yeğen Osman's palace, or his possible center, stood was located in the line of Karahisar-Bolvadin-Akşehir in which many Bozulus tribes existed.130 Besides, as we know, he also had been assigned as the governor (sancakbeyi) of Karahisar province. Interesingly enough, Hüseyin Pasha, who was appointed as müfettiş paşa in 1688 to suppress Yeğen Osman's forces, held formerly the office of the Türkmen voyvodalığı as well as the governorship of Maraş.131 Probably, the government might have wanted to assign a person who knew Anatolia as well as tribes very well to cope with those Anatolian rebels. In addition, it is also seen in Silahdar Tarihi that Hüseyin Pasha subdued some unruly Turcoman tribes in 127 Silahdar Mehmed Ağa, Silahdar Tarihi;II, 228. Defterdar Mehmed Paşa, Zübde-i Vekâiyat, 229. 129 Silahdar Mehmed Ağa, Silahdar Tarihi; II, 312. 130 Gündüz, Anadolu’da Türkmen Aşiretleri, 87-92. 131 "… Ve eğerçi bundan akdem paşa-yı mümaileyh âsitânede Mar'aş eyâletiyle Anadolunun teftiş emri ve büyük ve küçük Türkmân ağalıyla muhassıl-ı emvâl ta'yin ve irsâl olunmış idi…" Silahdar Tarihi; II, 312. ; On the other hand, what Büyük ve Küçük Türkmân ağalığı means is not clear. Probably, it might be intended to indicate the size of tribes which were farmed out. 128 30 Anatolia, while he was on the road. When he arrived at Karahisar, he collected the tax of the Turcomans (mâl-ı mîrî), and then went to Sivrihisar in the north to again collect the tax of another Turcoman group called 'Pürnek'.132 After that, he turned his route towards east. He came to Kırşehri, passing through Beypazarı and Engürü, to demand the tax from a Turcoman bandit named Hacı Ahmedoğlu. Yet Hacıahmedoğlu refused to pay the tax and sent 600 Turcoman troops against the pasha. After the encounter, Hüseyin Pasha's forces gained a clear victory over the Turcomans.133 On the other hand, unfortunately there is no evidence that those tribes had a direct relation with Yeğen Osman. Nevertheless, it is clear that some of Yeğen Osman's companions were of Turcoman origin. Silahdar Tarihi cites two Turcoman names among killed fellows of Yeğen Osman; besides, Ceridoğlu, Turcoman bandit and the ex-governor of Çorum province, was also one of his fellows.134 As a matter of fact, in this period both state and rebels benefited from the Turcomans and the Kurds as military power either in the form of nefir-i amm (call for armament) troops or sekbân and saruca. For instance; Ceridoğlu was supported by the tribe of Cerid. He could escape from the pursuit of the Ottoman forces in 1688 by taking refuge in the Cerid Turcomans.135 On the other side, again in 1688, the Ottoman government charged the Turcomans from the tribes of 'Barak', 'Bozkoyunlu', 'Cerid', 'Pürnek' and 132 "…kalkıb Karahisarda Muslu çayı üzerinde olan Türkmân üstüne varub mîrî mâlı tahsil eyledi. Ve andan Sivrihisara ve andan Pürnek Türkmânı üzerine varub Çanakçı köyüne konub mâl-ı mîrî tahsil olundu…" Silahdar Tarihi; II, 312. 133 "…ve andan Kırşehre kabâîl-i Türkmândan Hacı Ahmedoğlu nam şakîye tiz mîr-i mâli tahsil idüb göndermek üzere buyuruldu gönderdikde sen bu hıdmete me'mûr değilsin deyü kâğıd gönderüb isyânın i'lâm ve hemen altıyüz mikdârı Türkmân hızelesin yanına cem' idüb köyden köye getirüb kura'i fukârasın rencide itdüğün işidüb ol sâ'at kethüdâsın mükemmel kapusuyla mezkûrun üzerine ta'yin ve irsâl ve Türkmân haber alub karşu gelüb mukâbil oldu. Esnâ-i mukâbelede eşkıyâ' hezîmet bulub iki yüz kadar Türkmân başı kesilüb bakıyyetü's-süyûf olan perâkende ve perişân oldular…" Silahdar Tarihi; II, 312. 134 Silahdar Tarihi; II, 465. "…Yüğrük bayrakdârı Türkmân Davud and Türkmân İsmâil…". Besides, as we know, killed Yadigâroğlu was also Kurd. 135 Silahdar Tarihi; II, 451. 31 'Beğdili' and the Kurds from 'Kılıçlu', 'Millü' and 'Canbeğli' tribes with helping vizier Ahmed Pasha as nefir-i amm troops capture rebel Gedik Mehmed Pasha, the exgovernor of Sivas and companion of Yeğen Osman as well.136 Presumably, the decision of Süleyman II in 1688 to call for the whole Anatolian subjects against the forces of Yeğen Osman Pasha was efficient in mobilizing those Turcomans.137 There is still one thing left to be considered aboutYeğen Osman's rebellion, which confirms the view that nomads might have been the major human source of the rebellions in question. Cengiz Orhonlu draws attention to the fact that the Turcoman attacks on villages and towns became more frequent in between 1687 and 1689 when the forces of Yeğen Osman were very active in Anatolia. Orhonlu stresses that there was a remarkable increase in the complaints about the assaults of Turcomans in these two years. It is also seen that the Turcoman and Kurdish tribes were effective around the inner and the southeastern Anatolia. Those tribes laid attacks along with sekbân and saruca troops on settled population and even on nomads.138 It should not be surprising that Yeğen Osman and his fellows' actions coincided with that tribal agression. There was no obstacle for Yeğen Osman to recruit troops from those aggressive tribesmen in Anatolia. However, it would be oversimplifying to see Yeğen Osman's uprising as merely a tribal movement. It should be kept in mind that Yeğen Osman's uprising was already on the way, before this tribal movement began. But then again, nomads and semi-nomads should be 136 "…Diyârbakır beğlerbeğisi Osman Paşa oğlu vezir Ahmed Paşanın yanında ise Ekrâd tâ'ifesinden Kılıçlu, Millü ve Canbeğlü ve Türkmân tâ'ifesinden Barak ve Bozkoyunlu ve Beğdili ve Yabaltın ( one of the clans of the Cerid tribe) ve Pürnek kabâ'illerin bir mikdâr güzide nefîr-i 'âmm askeri tâ'yin idüb kendüden bir gün mukaddem ibrâ gönderdi…" Silahdar Tarihi; II, 451; As a result, the forces of boybeyi 'Atmaca' from the Beğdili Turcomans defeated Gedik Mehmed Pasha in Turgudlu. Zübde-i Vekâiyat, 319-120. 137 Özel, "The Reign of Violence: the Celâlis (c.1550-1700)", 25. 138 Orhonlu, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Aşiretlerin İskanı, 42-43; On the other hand, for now, the reason behind that tribal movement seems famine occurred in between 1685 and 1687. Silahdar Tarihi talks about a sharp soar in wheat and bread prices; therefore, in some places of Anatolia people used oak gull (mazı), couch roots (ayrık kökü) and nutshell to cook bread. Silahdar Tarihi; II, 243. 32 accepted as dynamic forces behind his rebellion, at least in terms of providing human source. If the line of Karahisar-Ilgın was to be taken into consideration, one would realize that the line in question was a corridor connecting the inner Anatolia with the west; thus, it was used by many tribes of Bozulus and Danişmendli coming from the east to reach the western Anatolia. Due to its feature, it can also be likened to a vein through which nomads passed. It will be seen in next part that Bolvadin particularly appears as a place where tribal agresssion was prevalent.139 It was highly likely that Yeğen Osman gained the advantages of that line, especially in terms of human source. On the other hand, examining Yeğen Osman's rebellion in full detail will be beyond the scope of this study. What is aimed is to reveal the possible relation of nomads and semi-nomads with Celâli movements. Yeğen Osman's action shows that the nomadic military power was still powerful even in the last Celâli rebellion of the seventeenth century. In next part of this chapter, the effect of that power will be analyzed in its another dimension. 139 That line was also a part of the busy route between Bursa and Haleb both for the Ottoman army and the merchant caravans. Therefore, it might have attracted the bandit Turcomans to rob the caravans. 33 Map 2. The area where Yeğen Osman was powerful 2.2.Kişi Kaldır Tarlanı Koyun Geçsin !! In March 1672, Boşnak Mustafa who lived in the village of Tekeli in Manisa went to his 40 decares of grain field near the village. When he came to the field, he saw the Turcomans grazing their flock on his field, and then he warned them not to graze their flock. Thereupon, a man from the Turcomans named Ahmed, who was a shepherd, injured Boşnak Mustafa by hitting his head with a crook. 140 The archival sources and chroniclers of the seventeenth century are quite rich in such examples concerning nomadic assaults. They indicate that the relation between nomads and sedentary society in the seventeenth century was not at peace at all. Encroachment of nomads on the fields of settled peasants, and devastating 140 Uluçay, XVII. Asırda Saruhan’da Eşkıyalık ve Halk Hareketleri, 397-398, (doc. 199). 34 attacks on the villages launched by the nomads became the ordinary affairs of the countrysides in Anatolia throughout the seventeenth century. In addition, the socalled hostility between shepherd and farmer was more visible in the seventeenth century than the previous periods. Among chroniclers, Mustafa Naima was the one who illustrated vividly the nomadic assaults in the seventeenth century. Since he was closely acquainted with the provincial society, particularly of Haleb which was a city on the route of nomads,141 he frequently talks about the Turcomans and also their attacks in the countryside. One of them was the Beğdili Turcomans who moved around Haleb, Rakka and Diyar-ı Bekir under the leadership of Koçur Bey in 1620's. 142 Naima recorded that their leader Koçur Bey was also the brother of Minnet Bey who was the boybeyi of the Bozulus confederation. At first sight, one come across a tribal family which governed different tribes. However, one thing Naima overlooked is that the Beğdili had been one of the largest tribes comprised the confederation of Bozulus. Therefore, the tribe that Naima talked about was a part of the Bozulus.143 As far as Naima narrated, on the other hand, it is understood that the wealth of the Beğdili was quite conspicuous. According to him: they lived in tents made of mohair and had numerous herd of cattle, all beautiful pastures were also in their possession.144 Naima also noted that Koçur Bey had been reluctant to pay the tax mâl-ı mirî, because he had depended on his large tribal power.145 Furthermore, his tribesmen 141 Thomas, A Study of Naîmâ, 11-12. Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 648. 143 Gündüz, Anadolu’da Türkmen Aşiretleri, 119-120. 144 "Tafsîli bu ki, Haleb ve Rakka ve Diyarbekir mâbeyninde yurt tutan aşâ'ir-i Terâkime'den Beydili tâ'ifesi demekle ma'ruf gürûh ki 'add u hadlerine nihâyet olmayıp mevâşi ü efrâsı ve emvâli bî-nihâye idi ve cümlesi ahbiye ile zibâ yaylaklarda ve lâtif kışlaklarda yaylayıp ve kışlayıp müreffehü'l-hâl idiler." Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 649. 142 35 acted freely, relying on his power and ascendancy. They illegally grazed their herds on the fields belonged to the villagers. When the villagers grumbled about the trampling on their fields, the tribesmen intimidated them by saying that "remove your field, let the sheep pass" ("..ya kişi kaldır tarlanı koyun geçsin..").146 On the other hand, another chronicler, Topçular Katibi Abdülkadir Efendi, also records the assaults of Koçur's tribesmen. He states that "Koçurlu nâm Türkman" had raided the villages in Çorum, Engürü and Kangırı as well as the environs of the Kızılırmak river in 1628 and plundered the flocks of the villagers. They also disobeyed the voyvodas of mirlivas.147 The dwellers of the countryside between Engürü and Ayaş complained that the Turcomans had become Celâli, because of that they had abducted and raped women and boys.148 They also stated that if those Celâli Turcomans were not to be subdued, they would never be controlled again. Thereupon, the commander of Anadolu was assigned by the Serdâr to suppress them. He launched a sudden attack over their dispersed tents on the highland, and caught 74 nefer Celâli Turcomans who looked like a bandit, and then they were immediately executed.149 Naima recorded that all their herds and properties were looted by the army after they had been suppressed. He also noted that thanks to their numerous booties, abundance and cheapness appeared in the army.150 145 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 649. Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 649. 147 Topçular Kâtibi, Tarih; II, 881. 148 Topçular Kâtibi, Tarih; II, 881. 149 Topçular Kâtibi, Tarih; II, 881. 150 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 649. 146 36 Map 3. The raids of the Beğdili Turcomans Abdulkadir Efendi also allows us to visualize such tribal aggression, providing with more valuable materials about the Turcomans. However, he only recorded the rebel Turcomans that the army encountered during the campaign of Baghdad in 1629. "Koçurlu nâm Türkman" mentioned in previous paragraph was one of them. Another group that the army confronted was in Bolvadin.151 He noted that although that nomadic group (which tribe he did not talk about) grazed their herds in valleys in summers, they objected to pay their pasture tax (resm-i yaylak) to their governors.152 In addition, they raided the villages and caravans, abducting women and boys. Therefore, the villagers demanded the Serdâr to be saved from those brutal Turcomans. He again assigned the commander of Anadolu in order to suppress them.153 When the commander visited their tents in summer pasture in order to make a negotiation with their chiefs, the Turcomans kept disobeying. Thus, the commander 151 See also map 2.in page 33. Topçular Kâtibi, Tarih; II, 894-895. 153 Topçular Kâtibi, Tarih; II, 895. 152 37 caught the chiefs and took some 100 rebels to the army and executed them. He also confiscated their sheep and camels on behalf of the state.154 Besides, similar problems in countryside resulted from the Turcomans were also seen in other regions of Anatolia. When the army wintered in Birecik, the statesmen said the sadrazam Hüsrev Paşa that they could not find a solution for the bandit Turcomans in Kangal (it was the center of the district of Yeniil Türkmân-ı Haleb), despite of all their efforts.155 They harassed the dwellers of the valley and plundered the caravans, robbing the merchants. Nevertheless, Hüsrev Paşa stated that those Turcomans would be dealt with hopefully after the campaign of Baghdad.156 It appears that such tribal aggressions in the seventeenth century cannot be understood without considering the fact of "the nomadic invasion" occurred in Anatolia after the first wave of the Celâlî movement supressed. This term is propounded by Sam White in his PhD dissertation.157 He realizes that the imperial orders related to the tribal attacks began to be seen explicitly as soon as the state wiped out the great Celâlî armies in Anatolia by 1610. Thus, he establishes that "the wave of nomad incursions had turned into a flood which engulfed the Ottoman countryside in 1610's."158 On the one hand, this movement might be an opportunity for them to take the lands which became desolate due to the depopulation of the countryside during the Celâli turbulence.159 As for the reasons, he states that there were two possible causes behind that invasion. Firstly, the worsening climate conditions might have prompted nomads to leave their usual pastures and search for 154 Topçular Kâtibi, Tarih; II, 895. Topçular Kâtibi, Tarih; II, 903. 156 Topçular Kâtibi, Tarih; II, 903. 157 Sam White, "Ecology, Climate and Crisis in the Ottoman Near East", PhD dissertation, University of Colombia, (2008), 285-302. Sam White terms the nomadic movement towards Anatolia from the east as 'nomadic invasion'. 158 White, ibid., 287. 159 Gündüz, Anadolu’da Türkmen Aşiretleri, 84;White, ibid., 285. 155 38 better new ones.160 In this context, drought might be a cause which decreases the fertility of pastures. The tree rings from 1608 to 1621 from southern Jordan pointed to a severe drought. Similarly, such a drought can be seen in southern Anatolia through tree rings from 1612 to 1613.161 However, he is wary of the necessity of much more tree rings records to reach an exact decision on whether the climate conditions might have played a role in that nomadic invasion.162 Secondly, the centralization policy of the Safavids during the reign of Shah Abbas (1588-1629) which aimed at eliminating the tribes power might have led nomads to turn their face towards Anatolia. The tribes in the border region, in turn, triggered a movement to Anatolia and northern Syria, pushing each other.163 Besides, this situation was different from previous century. Contrary to the sixteenth century when nomadic elements were withdrawing to the east, towards the Safavid territories; the seventeenth century witnessed that they advanced westwards and refreshed the nomadic stock in Anatolia.164 This trend, in turn, accelerated the movability of nomadic and semi-nomadic elements in Anatolia. It is also seen throughout the seventeenth century that the clans separated from their main tribal units, scattering over Anatolia.165 The dissolution of tribal units prompted the breakdown of ancient pasture routes which the nomads used for a long time. This also means an ebb in the principle of 'traditionalism' which was one of the main grounds of the Ottoman 160 White, ibid., 292. White, ibid., 292. 162 White, ibid., 293. On the other hand, in the first part, I have argued that the food shortage caused by climatic conditions might have been a factor behind the tribal movement occurred in 1686-1688. I have based my argument on the materials given by Silahdar Tarihi about the famine took place in 1685-1687 in Anatolia. See page 33. 163 White, ibid., 293-294. 164 De Planhol, " Geography, Politics and Nomadism in Anatolia", 525-532. 165 De Planhol, ibid., 527. 161 39 state.166 Mehmet Genç defines briefly the 'traditionalism' as a tendency to protect existing economic and social dynamics and prevent any changes which would disrupt these dynamics.167 In the context of traditionalism, if the state was sure of the functionality of the ancient order inherited from its predecessors, it would seek to maintain that order.168 This motto was also formulated in the sentence of "kadîmden olagelene aykırı iş yapılmaması." Kadîm was defined in the kanunnames as "from the time immemorial" (kadîm odur ki, onun öncesini kimse hatırlamaz.).169 In the framework of traditionalism, the most urgent necessity for the state was to keep the components of the society in situ. As for the nomads, the Ottoman government expected them to act in harmony with the principle of such traditionalism. Therefore, they were expected to use their traditional pasture route. As long as they complied with the ancient order, they would not be exposed to any state intervention. On the other hand, those who violated that principle were blamed for not using their ancient pasture route, and the sentence of "…kadîmden yüriyegeldikleri yerde yürimeyüb…" shows their unruliness.170 The mühimme records indicate that many clans refused to use the existing pasture routes, violating the rules. As opponent to the prevalent order (olagelene muhalif ), they wintered and summered unusually in different regions, damaging crops of the settled villagers.171 In some cases they claimed that the pastures which they occupied had already been in their possession. For instance; in March 1613, the kadi of Kütahya was ordered to check whether the pasture in his district really belonged to the Turcomans.172 On the one hand, it is unreasonable to expect from a pre-modern state to take various factors such as fertility of pasture and 166 Mehmet Genç, "Osmanlı İktisadî Dünya Görüşünün İlkeleri", Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol. 3, No:1 (1988-1989), İ.Ü.E.F. Yayınları, İstanbul,(1989), 175-185 167 Genç, ibid., 180. 168 Genç, ibid., 180. 169 Genç, ibid., 181. 170 Altınay, Anadolu’da Türk Aşiretleri, 66-67,(doc. 122). 171 Altınay, ibid., 67-70, (doc. 124). 172 Altınay, ibid., 67, (doc. 123). 40 population increase which would completely affect pastoral way of life into consideration. The main concern of the state was certainly to keep tribes and clans as a whole, namely as one tax unit. Changing place impeded to collect tax, because the personal taxes of those who left the clan were usually burdened on the remainders. Most of the orders sent by the center to the local governors seem to have necessitated sending clans and tribes back to their ancient places.173 A document dating as early as September 1602 reveals how the dispersed nomads resisted to pay their personal taxes. According to the document, the Turcomans of Haleb, Maraş and Erzurum left their places and came to the provinces of Anatolia and Karaman.174 When they were asked to pay their personal taxes, they claimed that there were their special superintendants (emins) in their former places who collected the taxes from their relatives in there.175 Interestingly enough, they also stated that they could not pay their taxes without becoming a community in a place.176 At this point, by dispersing the community, they seem to have known the methods of how to evade tax. Nevertheless, the kadis of Anatolian and Karaman provinces were ordered to be deaf to their claims and collect the taxes in arrears.177 On the other hand, this example is significant of showing how the nomads perceived themselves as a unit.178 The relation between those dispersed Turcomans and their relatives who remained in their original place seems to have continued. This also indicates that the nomads knew well how the basic principles of the Ottoman administrative concerning their positions. 173 Altınay, ibid., 76, (doc. 131); Kamil Su, Balıkesir Civarında Yürük ve Türkmenler (İstanbul: Balıkesir Halkevi Yayınları,1938), 29, (doc. 40). 174 İbrahim Gökçen, 16. ve 17. Asır Sicillerine göre Saruhan’da Yörük ve Türkmenler (İstanbul: Maarifet Basımevi, 1946), 68-70,(doc. 52). 175 Gökçen, ibid., 69, (doc. 52) 176 Gökçen, ibid., 70, (doc. 52). 177 Gökçen, ibid., 70, (doc. 52). 178 Suraiya Faroqhi, "Onyedinci Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Devecilik ve Anadolu Göçebeleri (Danişmedli Mukataası)", IX. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Vol. II, Ankara, (21-25 Eylül 1981), 929-930. 41 The fragmentation of large tribal units such as Bozulus, Yeni-il Türkman-ı Haleb and Danişmendli continued even during the second half of the seventeenth century. The clans abondoned their units and moved generally westward in Anatolia. Particularly, the clans which comprised the Bozulus confederation dispersed over six different regions in Anatolia.179 In their new places, conflicts unavoidably arose between sedentary population and themselves.180 Correspondingly, the Danişmendli Turcomans were divided into two parts from the mid-seventeenth century onwards.181 The clans which wintered and summered in the environs of Amasya, Tokat and Sivas were called 'Rum Evi'; the other group which began to move around Aydın, Kütahya and Afyon was also called 'Aydın Evi'.182 This movability ultimately brought about difficulties in collecting tax from the clans. For example; according to a firman dated 1665 sent to the kadis of Aydın, Saruhan, Menteşe, Alaiye, Hamid and Teke, some nomads from Yeni-il Türkman-ı Haleb abondoned their places and moved to the districts of those kadis, on the contrary to the ancient custom.183 The document specifically points to a clan called 'Kürd Mihmadlu'. It is understood that they built dwellings in Kuşadası and also refused to pay the tax of three years recorded in the defter of Yeni-il, asserting that their tax status was different from other clans.184 As tax payment, they gave one sheep from each flock consisted of 100 sheep to the state.185 Therefore, they also claimed that they had not been recorded in the defter. However, in spite of all their claims, the firman strictly states that they existed definitely in the defter of Yeni-il as registered re'aya.186 On the other hand, if the claims of both sides were to be taken into consideration from an objective 179 Gündüz, Anadolu'da Türkmen Aşiretleri, 85-92. Faroqhi, ibid., 85-87. 181 Gündüz, XVII.ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri, 51. 182 Gündüz, ibid., 51. 183 Uluçay, XVII. Asırda Saruhan’da Eşkıyalık ve Halk Hareketeleri, 384, (doc. 186). 184 Uluçay, ibid., 384, (doc. 186 ) "biz yüzdeci Kürd Mihmadluyuz" deyü taallül itmeleri ile… 185 Gündüz, XVII.ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri, 41. 186 Uluçay, XVII. Asırda Saruhan’da Eşkıyalık ve Halk Hareketeleri, 384, (doc. 186). 180 42 perpective, it would be rather hard to determine which side was right. All the documents at hand is produced by the state, therefore we can only hear the voice of the nomads through their complaints as far as reflected in the official documentation. Hence, it can be concluded that the nomads of Kürd Mihmadlu might have laid claims in order not to pay the tax; or the state might have pushed them to get more tax, denying their claims. 2.3."Türkmân Haklamak" Mustafa Naima often used the statement of "Türkmân haklamak", while referring to the Turcomans. This statement may help us illuminate to some extent the attitude of the state towards the Turcomans. The verb "haklamak" has several meanings in Turkish. Kamus-ı Türkî defines it as 'galebe çalmak', that is 'to overwhelm' in English.187 In Redhouse Dictionary, it means 'to beat', 'to overcome', 'to crush' and 'to suppress'.188 Tarama Sözlüğü of the Turkish Language Society (TDK) also gives several meanings. These are in Turkish 'hakkından gelmek' (to eliminate), 'hınç çıkarmak', 'intikam almak' (to revenge), and as the most important, 'haksız para ve cereme almak' (to take money and penalty fine insupportably).189 Even though it can be argued that Naima used it in its all senses, he seems to have preferred to use it in its last sense predominantly (haksız para ve cereme almak). This usage is clearly seen in the case of Hacı Ahmedoğlu Ömer given by Naima. 187 Şemseddin Sami, Kamus-ı Türkî (İstanbul:İkdam matbaası, H.1318), 553. James Redhouse, Redhouse Dictionary, 7th edition, (İstanbul:1984), 437. 189 Tanıklariyle Tarama Sözlüğü I, Türk Dil Kurumu (İstanbul: Cumhuriyet Basımevi, 1943), 342; Example: "Cüha’ya muhtesiplik vermişler evvelâ atasın haklamış." 188 43 Hacı Ahmedoğlu Ömer was the boybeyi of 'Boynuincelü' Turcomans moving around the environs of the Mount Erciyes circa 1630's.190 Naima drew attention to his power, stressing that his wealth, livestock and tribesmen were immeasurable. Thanks to this, he did not to hesitate to display his disobedience to the state.191 In addition, his tribesmen followed their leader's footsteps, terrorizing the countryside of Kayseri. Hence, most people had to leave their homeland and migrate to Bursa.192 According to Naima's vivid description of him: After having dismounted from his horse, he would stick his spear into the ground and carry his shield even he was on sleep. While sleeping, his horse and hawk would keep watching him. No one could dare to get close to him. His fearsomeness was known by all people in those lands.193 Apart from that, the most important thing about him Naima recorded is that he forced the voyvoda out of his territory and did not pay the tax (mal-ı mîrî) for many years, due to the fact that he was ashamed that his tribe was suppressed by the state. In this context, Naima used the verb of "haklamak" in referring him: Apart from his similar acts, he prevented the voyvoda from collecting tax for a few years, since he was ashamed that his tribe was suppressed.194 On the other side, Küçük Ahmed Pasha, the governor of Damascus, came to the surroundings of Kayseri in order to chase Hacı Ahmedoğlu Ömer. By concealing 190 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 742-743; The history of Hasan bey-zâde also records that bandits from the Danişmendli Turcomans harassed the settled Kurds in the environs of Kayseri in 1635. Ahmed Hasanbeyzade, Hasan Bey-zâde Târihi, ed. Şevki Nezihi Aykut, 3 vols. (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2004), 1053. 191 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 742. 192 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 742. 193 "Gāhîce atından inip nîzesin yere sancıp elinde olan doğanın yere koyup havrânisi ile tenhâ yatup uyurdu. Atı ve doğanı kendiye bekçilik ederdi. Kimse yanına varmağa cür'et edemeyip mehâbet-i kâzibesi ol diyârlarda kulûb-ı nâsda câygir bir vâcibü't-tedmîr idi."; Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 742. 194 "Bu makūle nice fezâyihi olduğundan mâ'adâ ulusun haklatmağa âr edip voyvodayı uğratmayıp bir kaç senedir mal-ı mîrîyi verdirmemiş idi." Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 742. 44 his real purpose, he tried to persuade him to obey the state. Nevertheless, Hacı Ahmedoğlu refused to meet Küçük Ahmed Pasha, instead he sent his sons to negotiate with him. Küçük Ahmed Paşa kindly asked his sons why their father was hiding from him. Thereupon, Hacı Ahmedoğlu went down from the pasture, however, Küçük Ahmed Pasha imprisoned him and sent to Haleb.195 He again ensured his sons in the same kind manner that their father would never be harmed as long as they gave the unpaid tax of past few years. Although they paid the tax amounted over 20.000 gurush in the hope of releasing their father, however, Küçük Ahmed Pasha did not keep his word. Their father was crucified on a camel, and wax was sticked in his shoulder.196 On the other hand, apart from being a rebel against the state, Hacı Ahmedoğlu Ömer also appears through the Kayseri court records to have been a place of refuge for nomadic bandits. For instance; a group of Kurds from the village of Küçük Süleymanlı in the district of Bozok submitted a petition to İstanbul, complaining the attacks of the bandits from the clans of Ali and Şeyhlü. Those bandits had assaulted the village in order to get new recruits and punish the murderers of their man named İbrahim. They also had stolen 31 camels and abducted the girls and boys from the village;thereupon, the governors of Sivas and the kadis of Kayseri, and also the voyvoda of Yeni-il were ordered by the center to investigate the incidence. However, in spite of all calls to the court, the bandits refused to go the court thanks to the protection of Hacı Ahmedoğlu.197 Similarly, a group of highway robbers in the district of Develi had been under the protection of Hacı Ahmedoğlu as well.198 In this 195 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 742. Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 743. 197 Efkan Uzun, "XVII. Yüzyıl Anadolu İsyanlarının Şehirlere Yayılması; Sosyal ve Ekonomik Hayata Etkisi (1630-1635)", 136. 198 Uzun., ibid., 136-137. 196 45 context, he seems to have been an influential local nomadic magnate of Turcoman origin in the countryside of Kayseri. These features cited above are also enough for the state to see him as a Celâli leader. What is more, his stance against the state authority can also be regarded as the attempts of a tribe's leader to become autonomous. As a leader, he did not want to share his tribes' wealth with anyone from the outside the tribe. On the other hand, his act can be evaluated in the category of other local rebellions of the seventeenth century, such as Canbuladoğlu and Ma'an Fahreddin. As long as the state authority failed to subdue him, there would be no reason for him to declare his own principality. However, the Ottoman state mechanism was so determined in the seventeenth century to neutralize any internal threat. Naima gives another similar example in which he used the verb "haklamak" while talking about the Turcomans. He states that every year the Türkmen voyvodası went to Ayntab to suppress or to collect tax of the Turcomans (haklamağa), and that duty was assumed by the voyvoda named Çomar Bölükbaşı for the year (H.1060/1650). However, Çomar Bölükbaşı recruited some 700 riflemen from Ayntab, turning themselves into robbers, and started grabbing the stuff of people, robbing the highways.199 The term "haklamak" in Turkish is in active form. Thus, in Naima's chronicle the state appears as the one doing the action, that is to say 'suppressor'(haklayan), on the other side the Turcomans appear as the one affected by the action, namely 'suppressed' (haklanan). This may also help us understand the attitude of the 199 "Ve bu mâh havâdisindendir ki her sene Türkman haklamağa, Türkman voyvodası Ayıntab'a vardıkda ol diyarda yedi yüz tüfeng-endâz levend ki sarıca nâmiyle meşhurdur, Çomar bölük-başı nâm voyvodaya koşulup ba'de edâ'i'l-hidme ve ahzi'l-ücret kurâ vü kasabâtta hâssaten Ayıntab'de oturup mezâlim bî-pâyân edip kimse men'lerine kādir olamayıp bölük bölük kat'-ı tarîk ve gāret-i emvâl dahi ederlerdi." Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1262. The details about Çomar Bölükbaşı will be seen in the third chapter. 46 Ottoman rule towards the Turcomans in the seventeenth century. The state sent its agents to Anatolia in order to suppress the Turcomans. From the eyes of the state, it was important to keep the tribal elements neutral. Indeed, it can be thought that the Ottoman statesmen were aware of their potential powers, considering the old struggles with the Turcoman principalities throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. However, the Turcomans in the seventeenth century appear to have been far away from posing a political internal threat to the Ottoman authority. Besides, the main target of the 'suppressors' (haklayanlar) was to obtain a substantial wealth for themselves from the Turcomans. Establishing the Ottoman dominance over the Turcomans probably remained of secondary importance for them. They were basically tax collectors took insupportably money and penalty fine ('haksız para ve cereme almak') from those desirable revenue sources. Hacı Ahmedoğlu Ömer's reaction as suppressed (haklanan) against the state can be understood more clearly in this sense. 2.4. Nomads and Türkmen Voyvodas As shown in the previous sections of this chapter, nomadic and semi-nomadic elements took a considerable part in the militarization of countryside, resulting mostly in the victimization of sedentary population. However, it has also been emphasized that the identification of nomads with violence and banditry may wrongly lead us to categorically regard them relentless hostile elements. It will be seen in this section how the nomads were vulnerable to attacks either from their counterparts or the state officers in most cases. Even though they played a part in the Celâli rebellions as human source, this did not entail a collective uprising of nomads. They had their share of terror in the countrysides during the Celâli movement. Chronicles offer ample evidence to illuminate that case. Naima records that the 47 forces of Celâli Kalenderoğlu had moved from Karaman to Elbistan with some 20.000 soldiers, damaging crops and pillaging the Turcoman tents near the Göksun highland in 1608.200 It is possible to replicate the samples. Other Celâlis Meymun and his kethüda Hüseyin, for instance, also plundered the villages in the environs of Kırşehri as well as the Turcomans that they run across on the road.201 Besides, in September 1659, the governor of Konya received a compliant from the tribesmen of the Tabanlu tribe about the assault of bandit Çürükoğlu Hüseyin, who was one of the fellows of Abaza Hasan Pasha. He attacked a village belonging to the tribe and seized 16 female camels (maya deve) and 60 gurush of them.202 Correspondingly, upon his visit the southern regions of Anatolia in 1671, Evliya Çelebi also talks about a Turcoman bandit named Topaçoğlu who controlled the Seki plateau which is situated in the Menteşe mountains.203 According to him, while his caravan made a stopover on the Seki plateau where the Karakeçili tribe pastured. However, some old tribesmen warned Evliya that their caravan might attract the attention of bandit Topaçoğlu. They said that: Leave this place, otherwise you may trouble us. Before you, five cavalries and five infantries [Topaçoğlu's fellows] came to take some breads and fodders and said that 'they would drop in to take sheep after the evening'. Topaçoğlu is a gallows bird Turcoman. He had one hundred mounted men. For seven or eight years, he was attacking the caravans passing through the Kaş plateau. One day, one of his men who came us to take bread was injured. No müsellem has been able to capture him so far, we are afraid of him. 200 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 344-345. Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 348; Gökçen, 16. ve 17. Asır Sicillerine göre Saruhan’da Yörük ve Türkmenler, 76, (doc. 63) A tribesman reported to the kadi that his young female horse (kısrak) was lost during the Celâli turbulence. .. benim yundum nitacıdır Celâli perişanlığında zâyi oldu. 202 İE. DH. 6/547. 203 Evliya Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zılli, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 306, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi Pertev Paşa 462, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi Hacı Beşir Ağa 452 Numaralı Yazmalarının Mukayeseli Transkripsiyonu-Dizini), editors Yücel Dağlı, Seyit Ali Kahraman, Robert Dankoff, vol. IX (İstanbul:Yapı Kredi Yayınları, Mart 2006), 129; See also Vehbi Günay, " Evliya Çelebi'nin Gözlemlerine Göre Anadolu'da Eşkıyalık ve Celâliler", Evliya Çelebi ve Seyahatnamesi, ed. Nuran Tezcan- Kadir Atlansoy (Mersin: Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2002), 151. 201 48 It is possible that they will see you, while coming to take sheep. This would not be good for us.204 On the other hand, the nomads had more disadvantages than sedentary society in terms of being subjected to the onslaughts, though they could use their mobility to avoid from the threats. Due to the pastoralist way of life, not only were they struggling with harsh natural conditions, but they also had to protect their tents as well as flock on open lands from bandits. By contrast, the sedentary society living in the towns was able to take measures to defend themselves. For instance; the inhabitants of Ankara had built a defence wall surrounding the city by their own efforts in between 1602 and 1606.205 The inhabitants of Kayseri were also able to free from the Celâlis by leaving their homelands in order to move to the wellprotected cities.206 However, the places for the nomads to go were limited. Settling on a land and building a defence wall were not reasonable options for them during a period when the villages became empty due to the banditry.207 After all, newly settled nomads were more susceptible to attacks, particularly of still nomadics owing to their fragile economy.208 Because of the fact that they generally settled in small clusters on the marginal lands which were not used primarily for agriculture, they 204 … Buradan yer değiştirin, yohsa bizim başımıza belâ olursunuz, zîrâ sizden evvel beş atlı beş yaya gelüp yigirmi ekmek yigirmi yem aldılar ve 'ahşamdan sonra koyun almağa geliriz' dediler. Topaçoğlu nâm bir Türkmân asılacaığıdır. Yüz atlıya mâlikdir. Yedi sekiz yıldır gündür bugün Kaş yaylasında bir kârbân bozup hayli âdem kırup bizden ekmek almağa gelen bir âdemlerinin bir dâhi yaralı idi. Bu kadar yıldan beri bir müsellem anı ele getüremedi, biz andan korkarız. İhtimâldir koyun almağa gelüp sizi bunda göreler, hâlimiz mükedder olur. İşte ahvâl-i pürmelâl budur… (Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname; IX, 129.) 205 Hülya Taş, XVII. Yüzyılda Ankara (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2006), 108. 206 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 809. 207 Hrand D. Andreasyan, Polonyalı Simeon’un Seyahatnamesi 1608-1619 (İstanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1964), 87-88, 158. 208 Ronald Jennings, "The Population, Society, and Economy of the Region of Erciyeş Dağı in the Sixteenth Century", in Studies on Ottoman Social History in the Sixteenth And Seventeenth Centuries (İstanbul:The ISIS Press, 1999), 36. 49 were unlikely to resist the shock attacks.209 Yet, unfortunately it is not known what happened to them during 1590's and1610's during the first wave of the great Celâli rebellions.210 On the other hand, the necessities of easy access of water for the herds and moving on mountainous terrain also restricted their mobility.211 Therefore, their route was known by the state officers as well as bandits. It is not surprising, therefore, that they were attacked more often than not while moving seasonally between pasture zones. There are a number of archival documents indicating that the nomads or the Turcomans, were subjected to the harassments by their own voyvodas. By and large, the most widespread friction between the voyvodas and the tribesmen resulted from the matters of taxation. The voyvodas were generally inclined to extort much higher tax than normal from the Turcomans. The subject of overtaxation due to the Türkmen voyvodası was not sui generis, on the one hand, it was a result of taxation policy of the seventeenth century based on tax-farming. Therefore, the other voyvodas who did not have to do with the tribes acted similarly as well, putting pressure on the taxpayers to get maximum profit. In the seventeenth century, the peasants were also complaining about the voyvodas for the same reasons. These were stated in the imperial decrees of justice (adâletnâme) frequently issued by the sultan. As far as the unruliness of the voyvodas was reflected in such decrees, they appear to have patrolled with mounted men in the places where peasants (re'âya) lived and seized not only food, but also horses, mules, camels, slaves and many properties belonging 209 Usta-Özel, "Sedentarization of the Turcomans in Sixteenth Century Cappadocia: Kayseri, 14801584", 167-179. 210 Usta-Özel, ibid., 25. 211 Reşat Kasaba, A Moveable Empire (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 2009), 26. 50 to the peasants. They were also demanding much more tax than that fixed in defter.212 A document belonging to the vakıf defters of the Topkapı Palace Archive dated January 1610 enables us to see vividly the problems of the Turcomans with their voyvodas. The clans of Akçakoyunlu and Neccarlı from the Yeni-il Turcomans who were subjected to the vākıf of Valide Sultan submitted a petition uttering some demands to Mustafa Agha (darüssaâde ağası), who was the administrator of Valide Sultan's vākıfs.213 The document can be analyzed in three parts. In the first part, they stated that they had been taxed inaccurately. Whilst they had 500.000 sheep in 1609, they were erroneously taxed on the value of 700.000 sheep according to the register of the last year (1608). However, they had surprisingly accepted to pay the tax on the value of 700.000 sheep for two years 1610 and 1611 respectively, in order not to cause a loss in the revenue of the vākıf. They stated that they had have sufficient sheep for these two years due to the istimâlet policy.214 212 Halil İnalcık, "Adaletnameler", Türk Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi, II-3/4 (TTK, 1965), 76. TS.MA.d / 1328, doc.44; This Mustafa Agha must be the one who was the darüssaâde ağası during the reigns of Ahmed I, Mustafa I and Osman II. He was very powerful figure who commanded the state authority. İ.H.Uzun Çarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin Saray Teşkilatı(Ankara:Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1988), 174-175. 214 "Merhûme ve mağfurülhâ Vâlide Sultan tâbe't-serâha evkâfından olub vilâyet-i Anadolu'da vâki Yeni-il kazâsı ahâlisinden Türkmân tâ'ifesinden Akçakoyunlu cemâ'atinden olan Bayram kethüda ibn Abdullâtif ve Köçeli Ali bin Danyal ve El-hac Hasan ibn-i El-hac Mustafa ve Abdülhan kethüda ibn-i Emirhan ve Mehmed Efendi el-kadı ve Molla Süleyman bin Timurhan ve El-hac Mehmed ibn-i El-hac Seydi Ali ve El-hac Hasan bin Murad ve üstad Ali bin Ahmed ve El-hac Ramazan ibn-i El-hac Hasan ve El-hac Pir Ali ve Hacı Hüseyin ve Neccarlı cemâ'atinden Zekeriya bin Mustafa ve Kasım Kethüda ibn-i Horasan ve Himmet fakir ibn-i El-hac Ali ibn-i İskender bin Şaban ve Durduhan beğ ibn-i Osman ve Durmuş fakir ibn-i Sündük ve sâ'irleri bâ-serham meclis-i şerr-i mâbeyn şâfihü'l ahmed ve mâhfil-i dîn-i müteyyîn râsnih'ül [sic] bî'l fiil dârüssaâde ağası olub haremeyn-i şerîfeyn ve evkâf-ı salâtin nâzırı olan iftihârü'l havâss ve'l musarratin muhtar' ül eshâb el ferd ül mûkîn el-cenâb-ı errefîî ül celîl sahib ül kadîr [sic] El-hac Mustafa Ağa ibn-i Abdurrahim hazretleri mahzâr-ı sa'adet eserlerinde bi't-tâvi es-sâf ül kırâd ve itirâf idüb bin onyedi senesinde mevcud olan koyunlarımızı beş yüz bin iken defter-i atikde yedi yüz bin koyun mestûrdur deyü bizden yedi yüz bin koyunun resmi bîkusûr alınmak ile gadr olmuşdur mevcûdundan alındığı takdîre iki yük akçe âdet-i ağnâmdan ve altmış altı bin akçe şâh' ül merâdan vakfa noksan ve zarar tertib ider tekmil noksan mezbûr için bin on sekiz ve pin on dokuz senelerinden vakfa kesrü'z-zarar gelmemek içün cümlemizin rızâsıyla yüz koyundan yüz kırkar akçe ve şâh'ül merrî içün mevcûdundan kırkar akçeye virmeye bi't-tâvi tâahhüd eyledik zikr olunan iki senede istimâlet sebebiyle koyunlarımız ziyâde olub defter-i atik-i hâkanîye muvaffık oldukda üslûb-ı kâdim üzere her bir koyundan bir akçe alınub…" TS.MA.d / 1328, doc. 44. 213 51 In the second part, they articulated some complaints about the voyvodas. According to the complaints, the voyvodas seem to have been in an attempt to usurp the surplus product of the clans. They were illegally taking the best sheep of the flock without payment and tribesmen's any consent. Besides, the tribesmen also wanted to pay the land tax (resm-i çift and bennak) as they had paid in accordance with the ancient rule (22 akçes for the resm-i çift and 14 akçes for bennak). On the contrary to the ancient rule, the voyvodas also took 3 kiles wheat for each müd from the farmers (ekinci tâifesi). Apart from that, hosting of the voyvodas and their fellows in the tents was a common trouble for tribesmen. After having hosted in the tents, they also demanded a few hundred of gurush in the name of service charge (hidmet nâmına) from tribesmen. Interestingly enough, it was stated that a camp (oba) which had been dispersed because of the turbulence of the Celâlis in Sivas was more vulnerable to the pressure of the voyvodas than the others which remained within unit. While that camp had been composed of 50-60 households before the Celâlis, only 2-3 households were left after the assaults of bandits. However, the voyvodas and the subashis demanded from these small cluster to pay the tax of the whole camp, claiming that "this camp had consisted of 50-60 households." In addition, the voyvodas and the subashis also stayed in the tents of that small cluster. The tribesmen who gave the petition asked them for staying in large camps which were more suitable for accomodation.215 This part clearly shows that nomads were suffered from the Celâli terrors like other sedentary villagers. 215 " … voyvodalar koyunlarımızı gādr eylediklerinden içinden ziyâde âlâsını müft ve meccânen almasunlar rızamızla alsunlar voyvodalar obalarımıza konub mekânladıkdan sonra kendü yâhud âdemisi hıdmet nâmına birkaç yüz guruş taleb itmeyeler voyvodalara koyun ve semiz ve keçi lâzım oldukda zâh-ı rûzî üzere akçeleri ile alsunlar ve subaşıları beşer atlıdan ziyâde ile gezmeyüb bî-vech-i şerrî te'âddi itmesünler ve pâdişah kulunu subaşılık hıdmetinde istihdâm itmeyüb Türk tâ'ifesini ve şehirliyi istihdâm eylesünler ve Türkmân tâ'ifesinin içünde hünkâr kulu sâkin olmayub fukarâyı rencide itmeyeler voyvodalar altmış atlıdan ziyâde istihdâm itmeyeler ve kānun-ı kâdim üzere çift 52 In the last part, the tribesmen enounced that they were disturbed by such patrols of the voyvodas and the subashis with mounted men. According to the suggestions of the tribesmen, the subashis should patrol with less than 60 men, and similarly the voyvodas also should not take more than 60 men into his service. What is intriguing here is that the tribesmen demanded from the voyvoda not to employ the sultan's slave as subashi, instead to recruit the subashi from among the Turks and the townsmen. Moreover, they also required from the voyvodas not to torment the poor tribesmen, because there was no sultan's slave among the Turcomans.216 That is to say, they did not have any state officer inside the tribe who would represent and protect their interests. This is very important in terms of pointing to the efforts of the Turcomans to participating in the administration of both their own tribe and matters of taxation. Thanks to this, they would lessen the pressure imposed by the voyvoda on the tribe to some extent. hakkı yirmi ikişer akçe ve resm-i bennâk ondörder akçe alına ve vakfın buğdayı re'âyaya iki bahasına dökmeyüb Sivasda câri olan [sic] üzereler koyunlar ve bir oba kâdimü'l-eyyâmdan elli altmış hâne iken celâli ve eşkıyâ istilâsı ile perâkende olub iki üç hâne kaldıkda voyvodalar ve subaşılar mukāddemâ bu oba elli altmış hâne idi deyü elli konak taleb eylemesünler ve iki evli obaya konmayub mütehâmmil olan obaya konalar ve ekinci tâ'ifesinin öşrü kānun üzere alınub müd başına üçer kile buğday alınmaya dediklerinden makrû-ı mezbûrunu gıbbe't-taleb sebt olundu tâhriren fî-el yevmü'ssâmin min aşere şevvâl ül mükerrem lî sene semâne aşere ve elf. 14 January 1610" TS.MA.d / 1328, doc. 44. 216 "..ve subaşıları beşer atlıdan ziyâde ile gezmeyüb bî-vech-i şerrî te'âddi itmesünler ve pâdişah kulunu subaşılık hıdmetinde istihdâm itmeyüb Türk tâ'ifesini ve şehirliyi istihdâm eylesünler ve Türkmân tâ'ifesinin içünde hünkâr kulu sâkin olmayub fukarâyı rencide itmeyeler.." TS.MA.d / 1328, doc. 44. 53 Map 4. The district of Yeni-il The voyvodas were seeking to get as much wealth as they could in order to reimburse their expenditures which they spent for their assignment. For the post, there were several ways, one of these was of course to levy the tax of non-existent nomads on the others. In 1603, the nomads of Kangal complained about the voyvodas who collected the tax of non-existing peasants from those who existed in the register.217 Such cases might appear due to the possible changes occurred between two registers. The voyvoda was collecting the tax according to the defter in his hand, whereas the tax-farm might devolve into a situation where estimated profit would not be obtained, or vice versa. The peasants on the tax-farm might be dispersed because of the natural disasters or banditry. Thus, the voyvoda might act, taking the defter as a 217 İE ŞRKT 2/110. 54 reference, as if nothing had happened to the tax-farm, or could increase the tax arbitrarily. For instance; Yusuf, the taxfarmer of the province of Maraş, took 8 akçes for each sheep of the İlbeğli tribe, though 1 akçe was collected for two sheep as a general rule of the state.218 In view of the unlawful activities of the Türkmen voyvodas, they can be regarded as nothing sort of a Celâli. At this stage, not only the Turcomans maintaining a semi-nomadic life had their share of the tyranny of the voyvodas, but the sedentary population might have also been subjected to the oppression led by the Türkmen Voyvodası. In 1645 the inhabitants of the village of Alibeyli in the environs of Manisa went to the kadi in order to make a complaint about Kazzaz Ahmed who was the voyvoda of the dispersed Turcoman clans (perakende-i Türkmen Voyvodası). The claimants stated that "Kazzaz Ahmed had assaulted our village with more than 50 mounted men, while we had not been at home, though there had been no Turcoman in the village."219 As far as what the villagers claimed, Kazzaz Ahmed had requested from the women to join the 'table of vine and kebap'; when the women refused Kazzaz Ahmed, his fellows had tortured them.220 The pressure imposed by the voyvoda upon the Turcomans in the matter of taxation is also suggestive of a conflict between the voyvodas and the tribe leaders. At this point, one should remind the case of Hacı Ahmedoğlu Ömer mentioned in the previous section, which revealed the concern of a tribe leader about his own tribe's interests against the voyvoda, namely the state. Of course, overcharging of tax by the voyvodas was denoted a threat to the wealth of the tribe leaders. Since the voyvoda, 218 Altınay, Anadolu’da Türk Aşiretleri, 75-76, (doc. 130). Uluçay, XVII. Yüzyılda Saruhan’da Eşkıyalık ve Halk Hareketleri, 294-295, (doc.113). 220 Uluçay, ibid., 294-295, (doc. 113); See also third chapter, interestingly enough, Kazzaz Ahmed was one of the companions of Gürcü Nebî. 219 55 as an agent of the state, was at the top of the hierarchy of the tribal organization as tax units, he played a considerable part in the assignments of the boybeyis and the kethüdas.221 In the matters regarding tax collection, the voyvoda was helped by the boybeyis and the kethüdas. He also notified the boybeyis and the kethüdas who gave misinformation about the potential tax sources of the clans and did not assist in collecting tax.222 In this context, both sides sought to protect their interests against each other, particularly over the issue of taxation. In other words, there was a competition over the wealth of the tribe between the represantatives inside the tribe and the state agents. In most cases, it is seen that the kethüdas and the boybeyis went to Istanbul in order to complain about the unduly collected tax by the voyvodas.223 On the other side, the voyvodas might report those kethüdas and boybeyis who imposed redundant tax on the nomads to the kadi as well.224 This implicit struggle over the welfare of the tribe might cause an unlawful double-taxation resulted in the grievances of the tribesmen. After the voyvoda had collected the tax of the tribe, the boybeyi or kethüda might have demanded one more tax. For instance; in 1678, although the Bozkoyunlu clan from the Yeni-il Turcomans had paid the tax belonging to the year of 1676 to their voyvoda Ömer Agha, the boybeyis of the clan collected a new tax from them.225 In addition, those boybeyis seem to have collected tax in kind, seizing 6 oxen, 2 carpets, 2 furs, a muslin, and 50 tulum cheese. They also plundered the flocks, taking over 1500 sheep.226 The tribesmen informed the kadi about the case, but the document does not mention as to whether the voyvoda took a stand against the boybeyis. But then again, it is clear in this case that the 221 İlhan Şahin, "XVI. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Anadolusu Göçebelerinde Kethüdalık ve Boybeylik Müessesesi", Osmanlı Döneminde Konar-Göçerler, İlhan Şahin (İstanbul: Eren, 2006), 177. 222 Şahin, ibid., 177; Gündüz, Anadolu’da Türkmen Aşiretleri, 50-54; Gündüz, XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri, 64-67. 223 Şahin, ibid., 178. 224 Şahin, ibid., 177. 225 İE ŞRKT 1/74. 226 İE ŞRKT 1/74. 56 boybeyis attempted at sharing in the profit of the voyvoda. In essence, no one was allowed to impose tax other than the voyvoda. By the same token, for instance; in 1612, a man named ''Arzıman'' from the Danişmendli Turcomans improperly collected tax from some clans of the Yeni-il Turcomans, though they paid their tax to their voyvoda. A strict firman was sent to the kadis, ordering them to prevent such unlawful acts.227 Likewise, kethüdas also collected unduly tax from tribesmen. For instance; a man named Küçük Ali Türkmân from the Tabanlı tribe complained that the kethüda had levied his death cousin's tax, named Veysi, on himself, even though Küçük Ali Türkmân had paid the tax belonging to himself and his son completely.228 Figure 1. Tribal administrative hierarchy In the same way, Gürcü Nebî appears as a good and typical example that can be cited for the issues of overtaxation related to the Türkmen voyvodası. He was appointed as the voyvoda of the Bozulus confederation at value of nearly three 227 Gökçen, 16 ve 17. Asır Sicillerine göre Saruhan’da Yörük ve Türkmenler, 86-87, (doc. 77). İE DH 6/547, 3; "Bu fukara kulların Tabanlu cemâ'atinden Türkman fukârası olub oğlum Ömer Mehmedin caba bennâk virüb bu fukâra dâhi bennâk virüb fevt olan emmim oğlu Veysi nâm kimesnenin aslâ bir nesnesi kalmamış iken kethüdâmız kendümün ve oğlanın bennâkini verdiğimizden sonra fevt olan emmim oğlu Veysi'nin bennâki için rencide olunmamak bâbında emr-i şerifiniz ricâ olunur." 228 57 millions aspers in 1642, while he was serving as kapucubashi.229 In his appointment license (tevcîhāt bera'âtı), the Turcomans belonged to the Bozulus confederation were admonished by the state to obey their new voyvoda Gürcü Nebî, and the newlyappointed voyvoda was also warned to protect the Turcomans and not to burden extra tax.230 However, three years later, Gürcü Nebî turned out to be a tyranny oppressing the Turcomans of Bozulus. According to a petition submitted to the kadi of Konya in 1645, he collected two-fold tax from the Turcomans than it was fixed in the defter. When the tribesmen stated that they could not afford to pay, he attacked them with more than 200 mounted men and killed a man named Kara Yazıcı by spear.231 Furthermore, he imprisoned some leaders of the tribe and assaulted the Tabanlı tribe, looting some 40 houses. He also invaded the house of the boybeyi of the Bozulus confederation, Mehmed Bey, and seized his properties. In the end, Gürcü Nebî made a naib sign a quasi peace contract in return for a bribe of some 200 gurush in order to pour oil on troubled waters.232 Through the documents, it is seen that the state took the complaints of the tribesmen about overtaxation into consideration. However, was the actual situation as it seems to be ? Did the discourse of the state, reflecting through the documents, on protecting the nomads against the heavy hand of the voyvodas remain unfulfilled ? A detail in Naima's history helps us clarify the issue. In 1653, a group of Turcomans from Sivas came to Istanbul to complain about the kethüda Satılmış who was a man of Tekelü Pasha. They stated that: 229 Murphey, PhD dissertation, 269-270. Murphey, ibid., 482; MAD 6415. 231 Uzun, "XVII. Yüzyıl Anadolu İsyanlarının Şehirlere Yayılması; Sosyal ve Ekonomik Hayata Etkisi (1630-1655)", 252. 232 Uzun, ibid., 252. 230 58 We are seven hundred Turcoman households living in Sivas; Satılmış kethüda bought the grain at fifteen gurush from us, and collected much more tax than it should be. We are aggrieved by him.233 After having articulated their complaints, they also went to the vezir council, however, they were told that they should have come with their adversary, and in turn ejected from the council. Naima noted that Tekelü Pasha was in Istanbul and Satılmış was hidden at the same time. Thereupon, the Turcomans replied angrily: " Hey statesman ! How can we find where Satılmış is ? His Pasha is in Istanbul, tell him to come into sight!"234 As a result of the reply, they were repelled again. Although they went to the mufti to restate their case, the mufti's promises too turned out to be hot air.235 As is known, the nomads were mostly subjected to the vākf and hāss lands on account of their tax paying format based on cash. The laws did not allow anyone from outside to intervene with the lands in the status of vākf and hāss. 236 Furthermore, in some vākf and hāss lands the peasants were exempted from the extraordinary tax levies such as avârız-ı divaniyye and tekālif-i örfiyye. This privilege might lay the way open for them to prosper, thanks to saving up the cash in their hands instead of giving it as tax to the state. It was not surprising that the places where this desirable privilege was in apply, such as the Yeni-il district, might attract newcomers in an environment which the Celâli bands were terrorizing the countryside. The unknown writer of "Hırzü'l Mülūk" bemoaned such a similar case, 233 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1482. "Behey devletlü! Biz Satılmış'ı şimdi kande bulalım, paşası bundadır siz tenbih eylen ihzâr olunsun", Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1482. 235 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1482. 236 This rule is formulated as "Mefrûzü’l-kalem ve maktû’ü’l-kadem min külli’l-vücûh serbest" İlhan Şahin, "XVI.Asırda Halep Türkmenleri", Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi, no:12 (1982), 692; See also, Abdullah Saydam, "Sultanın Özel Statüye Sahip Tebaası: Konar-Göçerler", SDÜ Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no:20, (December 2009), 9-31. 234 59 stressing out that the villages belonging to hāss lands had much more reveneu than it was thought.237 The writer explained the reason behind that fact. The peasants who fled from the oppression settled in the village which was subjected to the hāss of vezîr-i a'zam, as soon as they heard that those village was free from tax and outside interference. Thanks to this, that small village evolved into a larger one, like a town which was valued at 50.000 akçes or more, only in few years; whereas, it was written in the defter with a revenue varying between 1000 and 1500 akçes. The writer also pointed out that the other villages and arable lands (mezra'a) belonging to the hāss lands were in similar situation.238 It is reasonable to suppose that such a situation concerning the hāss lands might have been valid in the tax-farms of the Turcoman tribes which were generally subjected to the havāss-ı hümâyun. As is known, the nomadic groups were alloted either to the vākf of Valide Sultan or to the hāss of the state officers.239 On the one hand, the nomads under the hāss status seem to have known well their privileges. They were immediately reminding the kadi of their situations, when their private status was in peril due to the outside interferences.240 Yet that private status might 237 Hırzü'l-Mülūk, Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilatına Dair Kaynaklar (Kitab-ı Müstetab, Kitabu Mesâlihi'l Müslimîn ve Menâfi'i'l Mü'minîn, Hırzü'l Mülūk ), ed. Yaşar Yücel (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu,1988), 178; …"Falan nām karye vezîr-i a'zama temlīk olınmuştur. Karye-i mezbūre re'āyāsı ve sonradan gelüb karye-i mezkūrede mütemekkin hāric re'āyā dahı cemi-i avārız-ı divaniyye ve tekālif-i örfiyyeden mu'āf ve müsellem olmışlardır. Ümenā ve ummālden ve gayrıdan kimesne dahl itmeye" diyü kayd olunmağla ve kādıya dahi mü’ekked mektūb gitmeğle kādı olduğiçün neylesün emr-i şērife imtisālen ve hem hidmet yanaşturmak ümidiyle muhkem tenbih ve nidā ittürdükte re’āyā dahı zulumden kaçub, vezîr-i a'zam karyesine varub sākin olursak cemī-i belādan halās oluruz, diyü eger havāss-ı hümāyūn re'āyāsıdır ve eğer beğlerbeği ve sancakbeği ve zu’amā ve erbāb-ı timār ra’iyyetleridir, cemī-i tekālīfden mu’āf ve müsellem olduklarıiçün ekseri temlīk olunan karyeye gelüb mütemekkin olup, iki-üç yılın içünde ol karye bir kasaba gibi olub defterde yazusu bin veya bin beşyüz akça iken elli altmış bin belki dahı ziyāde mahsūl virür bir a'lā karye olur. " 238 Hırzü'l-Mülūk, 178; …Sāyir karyeler ve mezra'alar dahı bu minvāl üzeredir ve hāsları dahı zāhiren on iki kerre yüz bindir. Ammā elli-altmış yüke belki dahı ziyādeye mütehammildir… 239 See Cengiz Orhonlu, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Aşiretlerin İskanı, 16-21; İlhan Şahin, "Anadolu’da Oğuzlar", Türkler VI, 246-259. 240 Gökçen, 16 ve 17. Asır Sicillerine göre Saruhan’da Yörük ve Türkmenler, 90, (doc. 82); İE SM 1258/1; "… hazretlerinin paşmaklık haslarından Türkmân-ı Haleb ve Birecik ve Zile ve Suğla hāssları içün feragat eyledüler deyü haber şâyi itmekle voyvodaların hıfz ü hirâsetine ve re'ayasının zabt u himâyetine hükkâm mani oldukların istimâ' olunmağın zikr olunan havāss-ı şerife kemâkan 60 also open a few doors for the bandits searching a place of refuge. For instance; as early as 1576, bandit Ramazan from the clan of Köselü refused to surrender to the the sancakbeyi, claiming that his clan had been on the hāss land of the beylerbeyi. He also warned that if the prosecution on them still was to continue, they would move to another hāss land.241 *** As is seen through the examples of the clans of 'Akçakoyunlu' and 'Neccarlı', the nomadic economy was at a capacity which would yield surplus product even in a period when the terrors of Celâli bands continued.242 In this context, Suraiya Faroqhi emphasizes on "the autarchical situation" of nomads with reference to the economy of the Danişmendli Turcomans during the second half of the seventeenth century, in her article.243 By using tahrir defters related to the tax-farm of the Danişmendli tribe, she has demonstrated that there was a proportional resource allocation among the tribesmen of Danişmendli. Approximately 100-200 sheep and 1.5 camel was falling to each nomadic household.244 Furthermore, they seem to have been able to make a living from raising livestock, assuming that there was no threats to their flocks, such as plague which would inflict on the flock, and no increase of tax which would put a heavy burden on their shoulders. She has stressed that such a 'autarchical situation' based on the Danişmendli case might have appeared as an attractive way of life in an müşarünileyh paşmaklık hāsslarıdır fimâbad ferâgat olunmuş değüldür öyle olsa üslûb-ı sâbık üzre voyvodalarına havâss-ı mezbûreye zabt u tasarruf itdirüb ve … kimesne karışmayub re'aya ve ber'ayası himâyet ve siyânet olunmayub dahl ve ta'arruz idenlerin haklarından gelünüb… beğlerbeği, umena ve kuzât ve gayriler dahl olunmayub voyvodalarından gayri kimesne karışmamak için zikrolunan yerlerin beğlerbeği, ümerâsına ve kuzâtına hitâben mükesser hükm-ü şerif buyurulmak ricâsına pâye serîr a'rz olundu." 241 Altınay, Anadolu’da Türk Aşiretleri, 26, (doc. 50); …sancakbeği tarafından âdem varır ise beylerbeği hāssıyuz ve beğlerbeği tarafından meclis-i şer’e davet olunursa ahar beylerbeği toprağında oluruz deyü… 242 TS.MA.d / 1328, doc.44. 243 Suraiya Faroqhi, "Onyedinci Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Devecilik ve Anadolu Göçebeleri (Danişmendli Mukataası)", IX. Türk Tarih Kongresi, vol.2, Ankara, (21-25 Eylül 1981), 923-932. 244 Faroqhi, ibid., 930. 61 era of the seventeenth century crisis.245 Correspondingly, Rhoads Murphey has challenged the concept of 'pastoral poverty' which is associated more often than not with nomadism.246 He has revealed through the kānunname of Yeni-il that herdsmen were in a better position than the cultivators in terms of tax paying ability. Even the poorest herdsman was obliged to pay 33 akçes, which was equal to a peasant cultivating a full çift of 60-100 dönüms.247 In addition, he has established that the investment in agricultural economy is for the short-term, because the farmer must convert his products into cash in the market without delay, due to they are perishable, whereas the pastoralist invests for the long term, increasing his reserve while his herd is growing. Meanwhile, he can sell the dairy and other by-products. When the price in the market is satisfactory, he can sell his animals for cash.248 Thus, his wealth can be accepted as 'instant liquidity'. By the same token, Sam White argues that the "push" factor of population growth of the sixteenth century on limited land probably encouraged more pastoralism, because it would be more lucrative to invest in livestock rather than in the grain market in a period when there was a visible fall in per capita annual grain production.249 Furthermore, the price of sheep was also high in comparison to prices of grain during the period especially after the advent of thirty long years of war on two fronts against Iran and Austria. For instance; from 1585 to 1595 in Kayseri and Ankara, a kile wheat (a kile is 30.790 kg in Karaman) was priced at 12 akçes, but a sheep could be sold at as much as 60 akçes. 250 245 Faroqhi, ibid., 931. Rhoads Murphey, "Some Features of Nomadism in the Ottoman Empire: A Survey Based on Tribal Census and Judicial Appeal Documentation From Archives in Istanbul And Damascus", Journal of Turkish Studies, Vol.8, (1984), 189-197. 247 Murphey, ibid., 192. 248 Murphey, ibid., 190-191. 249 White, "Ecology, Climate and Crisis in the Ottoman Near East", 93; See also Usta- Özel, "Sedentarization of the Turcomans in 16th Century Cappadocia: Kayseri, 1480-1584". 170-171. 250 Akdağ, Celali İsyanları, 22. 246 62 All these factors mentioned above can partly explain the reason why there was a fierce struggle over the Türkmen voyvodalığı in the seventeenth century. Investment in the tribes seems to be profitable, especially for the members of the six cavalry corps who sought to find a firm mainstay for their struggles against their rivals at the center. The Turcomans might provided them with camel for the transportation, men for the army and wealth for maintaining of their fight. As regards to the wealth, even though the Türkmen voyvodası was not the richest one among the Ottoman elites, he could get a small fortune through holding that post as well as a fighting power with tribal forces at hand. Naima recorded that Dilaver Pasha had earned substantial wealth through the post of Türkmen voyvodalığı.251 Besides, the revenue derived from pastoral nomads was also noteworthy. The treasury of the Yeni-il Turcomans kept in the castle of Kayseri, which Abaza Hasan and his companions were pursuing, amounted to almost 4 million akçes.252 To sum up, the tribesmen assessed in the tax-farm did not directly suffer from the pressure of the state. On the contrary, they do not appear to refuse the legitimacy of the state; they were willing to be tax-paying subjects of the state. Nevertheless, the actual pressure came from the mediary classes or state agents in charge of tax collection, such as voyvoda or umenâ and ummāl. They often posed their own pressure on the tribesmen, exercising the state authority. At this point, the state reflex was always bound to protect the "tax unit", if not the nomads in principle. The state interfered with that class, only when they put the tax unit unnecessarily at risk. 251 See also the chapter III. Havva Selçuk, "1651 Yılında Kayseri Kalesinin Kuşatılması ve Kürd Mehmed Ağa", SDÜ FenEdebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no.17, (May 2008), 33-40. 252 63 CHAPTER III FUNCTIONS OF THE TÜRKMEN VOYVODAS IN THE OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATION 3.1. Logistic Support: Camel: Throughout its history, the Ottoman state tended to prefer land to sea for the transportation. Even though there were many seaports in the empire which were located on the coasts of Anatolia and Balkans, such as İzmir and Salonica, the goods were generally being transported through the land route.253 Thus, as one of the necessities of the pre-industrial ages, the Ottoman state certainly harnessed animals to transport the goods from one place to another, just as did its contemporaries. On the other hand, for the Ottomans, of all the pack animals which were used for the land transportation, camel was the most preferable one, because camel is physically more resistant to harsh climatic conditions than other pack animals such as horse and mule. It can go hungry for days even in the temperature of 50 centigrade.254 In 1894, British transport officer Major Arthur Glyn Leonard, stressed the pyhsical superiority of camel in his reports by comparing it with oxen and mules. He stated that: 253 Suraiya Faroqhi, "Camels, Wagons, and the Ottoman State in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries", International Journal of Middle East Studies, 14 (1982), 524. 254 Mehmet Eröz, Yörükler (İstanbul:Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı, 1991), 145-146. 64 …Now as to the camel: he has greater powers of abstinence from food and water [as compared to the mule], carries double, is faster, requires fewer drivers, is never shod, has no trouble fording rivers where ox wagens would have to be unloaded, and is procurable in greater numbers and easily.255 Likewise, J.B. Tavernier was amazed at the strenght of camels, while he was travelling to Iran with a caravan. He noted that: Camel is a rather contented animal and resists to thirst outstandingly. In my recent travel which our caravan could not pass the desert less than sixty days, our camels kept moving without water for nine days, because we did not manage to find any water in these nine days. More surprisingly, camel can survive without eating and drinking for forty days, while it is standing under the torrid sun. However, it becomes so angry in such a situation.256 The camels in Anatolia are hybrids of Asian and African species. Therefore, they are accustomed both to hot weather and to moving on the mountainous terrain.257 These Turcoman camels also are able to carry much more baggage than their other species. Each one can be loaded up to 200 kg.258 Likewise, it is calculated through the archival datas on the campaign of Erivan in 1635 that the load-carrying capacity of a camel is more or less 70 per cent higher than a horse.259 On the other hand, according to a historian, a horse wheel could transport as much load as 3 or 4 camels could carry. However, cost of shoeing, high prices of horse and poor road conditions increased the cost of horse wheel transportation. Therefore, horse was usually preferred for the short-distance transportation.260 The features related to camel 255 Richard Bulliet, The Camel and the Wheel (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), 22-23. Jean Baptiste Tavernier, Tavernier Seyahatnamesi, trans. Teoman Tunçdoğan, ed. Stefanos Yerasimos (İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2006), 152-153. 257 Eröz, Yörükler, 146. 258 Orhonlu, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Aşiretlerin İskanı, 22. 259 Rhoads Murphey, Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700 (London: UCL Press, 1999), 76. 260 İlber Ortaylı, "Devenin Taşıma Maliyeti Eğrisi Üzerine Bir Deneme", Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.28, no:1 (1973), 188-189. 256 65 specified by British transport officer and also J.B. Tavernier explain why camel was chosen for the long-distance transportation (particularly inter-continents). The camel transportation was rather familier to the Ottomans since the early periods. In the fourtheenth century, it is known that the Arab camel drivers in Karesi were charged with transporting salt by their camels.261 Bayezid the Thunderbolt (1389-1402) also had thousands camels prepared for the transport of army baggage and provisions.262 However, the demand of the Ottoman government to camel increased gradually in direct proportion to the expansion of the territories of the empire in due course. From the last decades of the sixteenth century onwards, the Ottoman state concurrently had to struggle with their rivals both beyond Danube and Euphrate in many times. Thus, in terms of logistic, provisioning and transportation gained a vital importance for the armies on the battle fields. The archival documents also indicate how the Ottoman government paid a substantial attention to such logistic affairs. At this point, the Ottoman administration sought to benefit efficiently from all sources of the empire. One of those sources was undoubtedly the Turcoman tribes. For instance; the Turcomans of Bozulus confederation supplied camel wagons for the army. During the campaign of Safavids in 1585, the Bozulus tribes were required to provide 1500 camels.263 In relation to this, in terms of the land transportation, the armies in Anatolia had more advantage than their counterparts in the Balkans, because nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes of Anatolia were of the assistance to the army on the campaign of the Safavids.264 Necessary arms and food, particularly cereal, were being transported by means of the camels belonging to the 261 Halil İnalcık, "Arab Camel Drivers in Western Anatolia in the Fifteenth Century", Essays in Ottoman History (İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 1998), 394-395. 262 İnalcık, ibid., 405. 263 Gündüz, Anadolu’da Türkmen Aşiretleri, 60. 264 Murphey, Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700, 71-72. 66 Turcomans, and the Türkmen voyvodası appears as the contractor of supplying camels in this process. On the other hand, chronicles and archival documents show how the Türkmen voyvodası played an important role in this supply process. He was an agent between the state and the tribes in providing camel. He was ordered by the state to purchase or hire camel from the Turcoman tribes, particularly when the army was on the campaign. Naima and Topçular Katibi Abdulkadir Efendi offer us several examples with regard to that camel service of the Türkmen Voyvodası. Especially, since Abdulkadir Efendi participated in many campaigns occurred between 1593 and 1638, he vividly witnessed how the state was assisted by the Turcoman tribes in terms of provisioning and transportation. For the campaign of Eğri, the Türkmen voyvodas were ordered to purchase camel and prepare camel wagons for the army in 1595.265 Similarly, the Türkmen voyvodas in A’zaz and Kilis purchased 225 camel wagons for the army in 1624.266 In some cases, it is seen that other state officers also were charged with providing camel for the army. In between 1620 and 1621, zagarcıbashı Ali Ağa was appointed to purchase camel from the Türkmen voyvodas in Anatolia.267 Again in the same years, kapucubashi Kara Ali Ağa was assigned to collect camels from the Turcomans.268 The Türkmen voyvodas also were to provide camel for the stable of the state (mirahur) in İstanbul. A document dated 1639/1640 shows that the Türkmen voyvodası of Bozulus, Kuşçu Mehmed, delivered 32 camel wagons to the master of the stable, mirahur Siyavuş.269 On the other hand, the camel drivers of the sultan called hassâ sarbanı derived camels from the Türkmen 265 Topçular Kâtibi ', Tarih; I, 99. Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 568. 267 Topçular Kâtibi ', Tarih; II, 702. 268 Topçular Kâtibi ', Tarih; II, 703. 269 MAD 6268, 4. 266 67 voyvodas. A document dated 1668 indicates that the voyvoda of the Bozulus Turcomans not only supplied camels to the state, but also met the whole expenses of the camel drivers and the cost of camel harnesses (raht).270 Correspondingly, in 1672, Yusuf Ağa from the camel drivers of the sultan was assigned to receive 100 purchased camel wagons from the Türkmen voyvodası of Yeni-il and Haleb, Şeyhzade Ahmed Ağa. The voyvoda was also obliged to defray all the cost of camel harnesses and the expenses of the camel drivers.271 The state could not rent the camels from the tribes arbitrarily.272 On the part of the state, it was essential to make a negotiation with the represantatives of the tribe. Kethüdas of each tribe tried to reach a bargain with the state's officer over the price of the camels and the conditions of transportation as well.273 In 1638, voyvoda Mustafa was assigned to transfer grain from Birecik to Baghdad for the campaign. To fulfill his duty, he hired camels from the Turcomans of Yeni-il and Haleb. After the bargain with tribesmen, he collected 720 camels and paid 3000 akçes for each one.274 Two prominent persons from the clans gave their assurance that the camels would be given back to their owners in good form.275 The camels were used particularly for transporting victuals. In order not to damage the camels, only 2 bags were loaded on their humps.276 Otherwise, the state had to make up for the loss.277 On the other hand, the capability of the camels to carry enough load was an 270 İE ML 5/331, 1. İE ML 3210, 1. 272 In case of need, the state was likely to encounter the difficulty in providing suitable animals for transportation. The reason behind was that the state paid low prices to the owners of camels. Lütfi Göçer, XVI-XVII. Asırlarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Hububat Meselesi ve Hububattan Alınan Vergiler (İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1964), 30-32. 273 İlhan Şahin, "1638 Bağdat Seferinde Zahire Nakline Memur Edilen Yeniil ve Halep Türkmenleri", Tarih Dergisi, no: 33 (1982), 233. 274 Şahin, ibid., 231. 275 Şahin, ibid., 234. 276 Murphey, Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700, 76. 277 Murphey, ibid., 76. 271 68 important matter for the state. For example; Mehmed Beğ, who was the voyvoda of the Bozulus Turcomans, was required to pay attention to delivering strong and healthy camels to the state.278 It is also seen in some cases that the Türkmen voyvodas might negotiate with the state over their service of camel supply. For instance; during the first period of the Celâli rebellions (1591-1611), Canboladoğlu Ali Pasha submitted a petition articulating their demands to the state in 1605/1606.279 He requested from the state to grant many posts to his family members and fellows. Interestingly enough, he stated that if the office of Türkmen voyvodası was to be given to his family, he guaranteed to provide 200 camel wagons for the state.280 Moreover, his fellow, Derviş Agha, ensured to supply 150 camel wagons more, if he was to be assigned as the voyvoda of the Haleb Turcomans.281 Consequently, it can be concluded through the example of Canboladoğlu Ali Pasha's bid for furnishing camel in return for the office of Türkmen Voyvodası that supplying of camel was one of the distinguishing features of the Türkmen voyvodası. Sheep: In Ottoman's dieatary, apart from grain, meat individually had a special place, and it is known that the Ottomans meat consumption was mainly composed of mutton and lamb rather than beef and chicken.282 Of course, the largest demand for 278 MAD 7275, p. 4. Muhsin Soyudoğan, "Aşiretlerin Ekonomi Politiği ya da Olağan Şiddet: Osmanlı Ayntâb'ında Aşiret Eşkıyalığı Üzerine", Antep, ed. Mehmet Gültekin (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2011). A.DVN.d no:795 The document used and transcripted by Muhsin Soyudoğan in his article, before him William Griswold had published a copy of the document in his book. ( Griswold, The Great Anatolian Rebellion 1000-1020/1591-1611, 240-242 ). However, Soyudoğan's transcription is better than Griswold. I am very grateful to Soyudoğan for his help in this document. 280 Soyudoğan, ibid., 15-16, A.DVN.d no:795. 281 Soyudoğan, ibid., 15-16, A.DVN.d no:795. 282 Antony W. Greenwood, "Istanbul's Meat Provisioning: A Study of the Celepkeşan System", PhD dissertation, the University of Chicago,(1988), 8. 279 69 sheep came from the big cities and the armies. Providing sheep for them was a matter of great importance to the Ottoman government. It is estimated that the capital of the empire consumed some 1.600.000 sheep per year in the seventeenth century.283 In between March 1638 and January 1640, during 21 months when the army moved to Baghdad and backed to Istanbul, 217.279 sheep were butchered only for the Sultan's standing regiments.284 The state generally derived the sheep from the Balkans, especially from the south of the Danube. Only when the Balkans did not meet the need, the Anatolian plateau served as the supplier of sheep.285 However, until the late eighteenth century the Balkans kept its chief position of supplying meat for Istanbul and the palace.286 The fact that the Turcoman tribes had large flocks was quite known by the state authorities. The wealth of the clans was assessed on the basis of their flocks. Although the flock size varied in each clan, it is seen that a tribal confederation might have almost 2 millions sheep in total. For instance; the register of 1540 indicates that the Bozulus confederation possessed 1.998.264 sheep.287 Therefore, the tribes in Anatolia were available productive reserves over which the state might have tapped in case of need. When the Balkans supply was impeded due to the military campaigns resulted from the Ottoman-Habsburg hostilities, the authorities turned their faces towards those tribes in Anatolia for the provision of Istanbul.288 On the other hand, particularly the tribes in Anatolia played a substantial role in supplying sheep for the army on the campaign of the Safavids. 283 Greenwood, ibid., 15-16. Murphey, Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700, 89; see also Ömer İşbilir, "Osmanlı Ordularının İaşe ve İkmali: I. Ahmed Devri İran Seferleri Örneği", Türkler Ansiklopedisi (10), editors Hasan Celal Güzel, Kemal Çiçek, Selim Koca, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları. 285 Greenwood, "Istanbul's Meat Provisioning: A Study of the Celepkeşan System", 20. 286 Greenwood, ibid., 21. 287 Gündüz, Anadolu’da Türkmen Aşiretleri, 56-57. 288 Greenwood, ibid., 28-29. 284 70 Similarly, as seen through the examples regarding the supply of camel, there are many records in Topçular Katibi and Nâima concerning sheep purchasing from the Turcomans. Again, for the campaign of Eğri in 1595, some trustworthy men were assigned to collect sheep from the Turcomans.289 In 1618, the Türkmen voyvodas were ordered to purchase sheep from the Turcomans in the name of state, and their expenses had been paid by the treasury in advance.290 An order, sent to the voyvoda and the begs of the Bozulus Turcomans in 1635, revealed how the state gave a special importance to supplying sheep.291 The voyvoda was charged with purchasing 15.000 sheep from the Bozulus Turcomans for the army on the campaign. He was to pay 1.5 gurush for each sheep, and the state also warned him that the sheep he would purchase had to be 3-4 years old, fatty and robust.292 According to the order, for the payment, the voyvoda was to receive 5.000 gurush from Hüseyin Subashı who collected the bedel-i nüzul of the sancak of Hüdavendigar.293 After having made the payment, the voyvoda was to deliver the flock to the superintendant of sheep (koyun emini) named Şaban staying in the headquarter in Erzurum. The voyvoda was also firmly ordered to graze the flock in pastures where grass and water were abundant, until the feast of the sacrifice.294 The voyvoda and the begs of Bozulus had to fulfill their duty right on time before the feast of sacrifice, and to supply sheep in the best form. It was also strictly stated that they would be responsible for a potential shortage of sheep among the regiments of the janissaries and the six cavalry corps.295 Correspondingly, during the campaigns, the Türkmen voyvodası was charged with collecting the sürsat sheep, as a forced contribution to the army, from the 289 Topçular Kâtibi ', Tarih; I, 102. "…ve Türkmandan ganem cem’i içün yarar mu’temed âdemler gönderüb…" 290 Topçular Kâtibi ', Tarih; I, 886. 291 MAD 7275, 3. 292 MAD 7275, 3. 293 MAD 7275, 3. 294 MAD 7275, 3. 295 MAD 7275, 3. 71 Turcomans. In June 1636, the voyvoda of the Turcomans of Yeniil and Haleb was assigned to collect the sürsat sheep for the preparations of Baghdad campaign.296 The voyvoda named Hüseyin was ordered to receive 10.000 sürsat sheep and 12 camel wagons from the tribe of Mamalu, and send them to the headquarter. He was to take half of the wagons in advance, and the other half later on.297 As far as it is understood through the archival documents, the Turcomans took part in the celebkeşan system. The Ottoman records indicated that celepkeşan was a person who assigned by the state to bring sheep to Istanbul. The term celep also refers to a merchant who brings and sells to butchers livestock, especially herds of sheep.298 Some criterias were necessary for the appointment as celepkeşan. The candidate should have flock or be involved in the livestock business. Enough wealth, in cash or in kind, was required from candidates.299 Apart from providing meat for Istanbul, they were also assigned to feed the army on campaign.300 The celeps were mostly registered from the Balkan provinces, particularly from the regions on the south of Danube.301 However, just as the state used the Anatolian reserve when the Balkans did not meet the need, so celeps could be registered from the tribes in Anatolia. According to a document of the palace archive dated 1599/1600, 3 Turcomans whose names were Kadir Kulu, Toktemür, İsmail respectively were registered celepkeşan. 302 These celeps seem to have brought their sheep for the 296 MAD 7392, 1. MAD 7392, 1. 298 Greenwood, "Istanbul's Meat Provisioning: A Study of the Celepkeşan System", 62.; Evliya also states that celeps had partnerships in Eflak, Boğdan, Selanik as well as Anatolia and Turcomans. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 304 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu-Dizini), vol.I, 266. 299 Greenwood, ibid., 77. 300 Greenwood, ibid., 69. 301 Greenwood, ibid., 95-107. 302 TS.MA.d /10058. 297 72 quality control, before delivering to the palace kitchen.303 3 sheep which were on high, middle and low qualities were selected from the flocks of each celep. The sheep were butchered, and it was measured how much mutton, suet, tail fat were derived from each sheep.304 In addition, their organs such as head, lung, spleen and skins were valued. Kadir Kulu brought 4177 sheep, and the average value of his sheep was 141 kıymet. Toktemür had 4000 sheep, and his sheep were 128 kıymet. İsmail's flock consisted of 5400 sheep, and their average value was 136 kıymet.305 Although the document did not shed light upon which tribe or clan these Turcomans belonged to, it can be speculated that they might be the members of the same tribe or clan. However, it is hard to determine whether they were kethüda or voyvoda. In some cases, the act of sheep supplying could be farmed out. Undertakers were generally coming from inside the tribe which would provide sheep. A document dated 1600 showed that 2 tribesmen from the Danişmendli tribe had assumed collectively to provide sheep for the army kitchen in return for 90.000 akçes.306 Yet, due to a dispute between them, any sheep could not be sent to the kitchen in reasonable time. Therefore, the tax-farmer of the Danişmendli Turcomans named Hızır assumed the task for 3 years, instead of them.307 It is also understood that Hızır was the voyvoda of the tribe, considering he was the tax-farmer of the Danişmendli. There is no clear evidence that the Türkmen voyvodası got involved in sheep trade, given that his middle position between the state and the tribe. As seen in the examples above, he provided state with support in benefiting from the resources of nomads, such as sheep and camel. His mediator function might have enabled him to 303 TS.MA.d/ 10058. "vech-i tahrir oldur ki Kadir Kulu nam celepkeş türkmanın koyunu çaşni olunmak ferman olunmağın ala ve evsat ve edna üç aded ganem … olunub tecrübe olundu." 304 TS.MA.d /10058 305 TS.MA.d /10058 306 MAD 6185, 9. 307 MAD 6185, 9. 73 have a control over the self-sufficient nomadic economy.308 He brought the dispersed resources of nomadic households into a unity from which the state could benefit. In this sense, Naima offers a good example regarding how a pasha made a profit by means of semi-nomadic economy. He recorded that Derviş Mehmed Pasha, the governor of Baghdad, had engaged in wheat cultivation by going into a partnership with the leaders of some Arab tribes.309 He had used the manpower of tribes in farming. Thanks to that corporation, he had obtained substantial crop. Besides, he had also gone into business with the Ulus tribes coming to Şehrizor's pastures from Iran in summers. He had assigned his man to purchase a few thousand sheep from them at low price. His flock grazed in lush pastures, until they arrived Baghad. He was also selling mutton a bit below the fixed price in his butcher shops in Baghdad. Likewise, he was selling bread in his bakers as well.310 This business network based on the corporation with nomads may lead us to consider the possibility of a similar relation of the Türkmen voyvodası with nomads. Dervis Mehmed Pasha was not a Türkmen voyvodası, however, he seems to have known well to profit from opportunities of the region where he ruled. A detail in Evliya Çelebi appears to confirm our assumption on Türkmen voyvodası. Interestingly enough, Evliya Çelebi stated that Abaza Hasan Pasha had left behind a remarkable assets related to pastoral economy.311 He noted that: 308 Faroqhi, "17.Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Devecilik ve Anadolu Göçebeleri (Danişmendli Mukataası)"; Basing on the case of the Danişmendli Turcomans, she stressed that the nomadic economy during the second half of the seventeenth century was autarkic, the assets of many households were on modest level. 309 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1569.; See also İ.Metin Kunt, "Derviş Mehmed Paşa, Vezir and Entrepreneur: A Study in Ottoman Political-Economic Theory and Practice", Turcica Revue D'etudes Turques, Tome IX/1,(1977), 197-214. 310 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1569. 311 Evliya Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zılli, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdad 307 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu-Dizini), vol.V, editors Yücel Dağlı, Seyit Ali Kahraman, İbrahim Sezgin (İstanbul:Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2001), 130-131. 74 a message from Kırşehri arrived to Melek Ahmed Pasha. It stated that the belongings in Melek Ahmed Pasha's çiftlik composed of 47.000 sheep, 300 mares, 370 camels and 17 mule wagons had been confiscated on behalf of the state on charges of they were Abaza Hasan Pasha's estates in reality. Therefore, Melek Ahmed Pasha went to Köprülü,.and asked him why they confiscated their holdings. Köprülü said that [Brother Melek, you are a muslim man, do all those sheep belong to Hasan Pasha?] Melek Ahmed Pasha claimed that [when I was the chiefvizier, I appointed Hasan Pasha as Türkmen Ağası in the year of 1060. Thereupon, he gave me 10.000 şakaki and beziki sheep as a gift. But, the others are mine for ten years.] Despite all his efforts to take back his holdings, he could not convince Köprülü. 312 It is known that Abaza Hasan Pasha had been the voyvoda of Kilis and A'zaz Turcomans, before Melek Ahmed Pasha made his appointment as the voyvoda of Yeni-il.313 On the other hand, the facts that his remainders are nearly equal to a largescaled clan's wealth and he gave 10.000 sheep to Melek Ahmed Pasha can be regarded as the evidence that he was involved in pastoral economy to a great extent. To sum up, in view of these details which sheep is on the centre, the importance of the material value of sheep as well as nomadic economy becomes quite apparent. As will be seen through the case of Bektas Agha, who was the chief of the rival party opposed to the appointment of Abaza Hasan Pasha as the Türkmen voyvodası of Yeni-il, sheep came to the fore of the economic and political environment of the seventeenth century. Chronicles surprisingly recorded that Bektaş Agha had engaged in sheep trade. In his work "Fezleke", Katib Çelebi revealed how the Ocak Aghas had taken the helm of the government.314 Particularly, Bektaş Ağa, the chief of the janissaries, was controlling the whole trade in Istanbul. He was able to be entrusted with many 312 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname; V, 130-131. Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname; II, 197. It is understood that Abaza Hasan was already a Türkmen voyvodası before having been promoted to the voyvoda of the Yeni-il Turcomans. 314 Kâtib Çelebi, Fezleke, 2 vols. (İstanbul:1286-1287/1869-71), vol.II, 373;Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 13171318. 313 75 commercial activities by bribe and corruption.315 As far as Katib Çelebi states, Bektaş Agha had manipulated the sheep provisioning of Istanbul in his favor. He prevented people from bringing their sheep to the city, therefore he made the prices of mutton increased from 8 akçes to 30 akçes for a kile of mutton.316 Likewise, it was also stated in Naima's history that the prices of mutton had soared to 15 akçes due to Bektaş Agha's sheep.317 In this way of profiteering, he had sold his dead sheep at 30 akçes. Against the complaints of people, he bitterly stressed that "this city is the richest people's, not poor people's, if whoever is discontent, go out from the city."318 However, discontents of people had been considered, so the prices had been brought down. 319 Naima sheds light upon Bektaş Agha and his career to a great extent. According to him, Bektaş Agha gained a considerable wealth through usury, when he was the Janissary agha. After having been retired, he entered the business of provisioning.320 He formed the partnership with celebkeşans and suppliers of grain, lending them capital. He also invested his capital on butchers, bakers and grocers. No one in Istanbul even the kadis dared to intervene with those shops without the permisson of Bektaş Agha.321 Naima enables us to visualize the matter: If the grocer was ordered to go down, the infidel grocer would say that [you cannot beat me my lord, the capital belongs to Bektaş Agha].322 315 Kâtib Çelebi, Fezleke; II, 373. Kâtib Çelebi, Fezleke; II, 373 317 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1354. 318 Kâtib Çelebi, Fezleke; II, 373. " Bu şehir ağniyâ şehridir fukarâ şehri değildir." ; Naîmâ, Tarih, vol. III, 1318. " Bu şehir ağniyâ şehridir fukarâ şehri değildir, harcından âciz olan varıp taşralarda sâkin olub bulgur, bulamaç yesin, deyü tenfîr-i kulûb edecek çok türrahât söylerlerdi. Dahi havâdârları (of Bektaş Agha)'Sadaka'l- emîr' mazmûnu üzre yârdâhlık edip, ' Behey sultanım! Bir alay etrâk çiftlerin bozup, gelip böyle nâzenin şehirde zevk edip, et ve sâ'ir şey ayaklarına gelip on beş akçeye almağa âr mı ederler? Hazzı olmayan eski yerine gitsin' " 319 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1354. Upon the complaints, the superintendant of sheep and custom named Ermeni Hasan was sentenced to 200 birchs. 320 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1345-1346. 321 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1346. 322 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1346. 316 76 323 Map 5. Sheep trade in Anatolia in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Naima also recorded some more important details about Bektaş Agha, which would reveal how sheep and nomads had played a significant role in the conflict between the janissaries at the center under the leadership of ocak aghas and the kapıkulu sipahs at the provinces led by Abaza Hasan Pasha. As is known, after having been dismissed from the post of Türkmen Voyvodalığı, Abaza Hasan Pasha had gone to Anatolia with his fellows. On the road, they had laid an ambush on the caravan of Ahmed Ağa in the environs of Bolu. Naima stated that Ahmed Agha had been the mirahur of Bektaş Agha and returning from supressing the Turcomans of Kilis, bringing some 30.000 gurush as well as a few horses, mules and camels which belonged to Bektaş Agha. Abaza Hasan had killed Ahmed Agha and seized all those properties in 1651. On the other hand, Evliya Çelebi noted that Abaza Hasan had 323 Source: Suraiya Faroqhi, Towns and Townsmen of Ottoman Anatolia: Trade, Crafts and Food Production in an Urban Setting 1520-1650 (Cambridge University Press: 1984), 226. 77 been the voyvoda of Kilis and A’zaz in 1648.324 Unfortunately, there is no clear picture on what Bektaş Agha was doing in Kilis, but it is known that he made the assignment of Ak Ali Ağa to the Yeni-il voyvodası, instead of Abaza Hasan. Therefore, Bektaş Agha seems to have been involved in Turcomans and the Türkmen voyvodalığı as well. He was likely to have connections with the Turcoman zones such as Kilis and Yeni-il. At this point, it can be argued that there had already been a rivalry between Bektas Agha and Abaza Hasan, before the conflict arouse over the Yeniil Türkmen voyvodalığı. What is more, Bektas Agha's main investment area was the provisioning of Istanbul, so sheep and grain were his stockpile. Naima verifies this fact, pointing to the acts of Bektas Agha and his fellows. He states that: By preventing the celebkesans from bringing sheep, they send their own men to Erzurum and other places of Anatolia as well as Rumeli, Eflak and Boğdan in order to bring sheep. The akçes of notables of those places belong to the ocak aghas. They manipulate the sheep prices at their wills.325 Thus, it can be assumed that Abaza Hasan's influence on the places where the Turcomans lived might trip up Bektas Agha's business. The sheep trade poses in turn another dimension of the conflict between the kapıkulu sipahs in the provinces and the janissaries at the center. Although those places where the Turcomans lived seem to be far from Istanbul, the state could bring sheep even from Yeni-il in case of 324 Evliya Çelebi; II, 197. "Devlet-i Aliyye'nin vücûh-ı menâfi’ine istîlâ etmişler iken yine kanâ’at gelmeyip lokma-i fukarâya dahi tama’ edip narh umûruna karışıp lahm-ı ganemin vakiyyesi sekiz yüz akçeye iken on üçer akçeye çıkardıklarından mâ-adâ cümle celeb-keşâna yasak ettirip Erzurum'a ve sâ’ir Anadolu'dan kezâlik Rumili'nden ve Eflâk ve Boğdan semtlerinden koyun getirmeğe adamlar gönderip ol etrâfın hukkâmında ve erbâb-ı hizmetinde olan akçelerin cümlesi ağaların akçesi idi. Koyuna bozulup gelip zinde mürde her ne ise muradları üzre satılıp akçeleri fâ’ide-i zâidesiyle kendilere aid olurdu…. Halk lahm ve sâ’ir me’kûlât gılâsından şikâyet ü arzıhâl verdiklerince dinlemeyip 'Bu şehir ağniyâ şehridir fukarâ şehri değildir, harcından âciz olan varıp taşralarda sâkin olub bulgur, bulamaç yesin' deyü tenfîr-i kulûb edecek çok türrühât söylerlerdi'.." Naîmâ,Tarih; III, 1318. 325 78 need.326 Generally, it can be said that pastoral economy and its chief actors, namely the Turcomans, were a profitable investment in the seventeenth century. 3.2. Public order: One of the duties of the Türkmen voyvodası was to secure the public order of the tribe that he tax farmed, due to being a member of the military class (ehl-i örf). He was charged with suppressing unruly tribes as well as bandits emanated from the tribe.327 He also provide support for the kadi in capturing the criminals. Considering the orders related to the unruliness of nomadic groups, in most cases the state charged the three pillars of the provincial government (beylerbeyi, kadi and voyvoda) with securing order. Particularly, if the disorder occurred in the crown lands (havâssı hümâyûn) to which the Turcomans belonged, the state would give a free hand to voyvoda and requested other state officers to assist him. According to a document dated October 1596, a group of Turcomans laid an attack on two villages within the port of Birecik which was subjected to the hāss of Valide Sultan and grasped cereal as well as some money. The state firmly ordered the kadis of Haleb and the governors of Haleb, Rakka and Kilis to provide Mehmed Çavuş, who was the Türkmen voyvodası, with support until those rebel Turcomans were captured.328 By the same token, a few years later the Türkmen voyvodası and the kadi of Haleb were again required to handle the bandit Turcomans attacking the villages belonged to the 326 Altınay, Anadolu’da Türk Aşiretleri, 32 (doc. 61). See also chapter I. 328 Altınay, Anadolu’da Türk Aşiretleri, 58-59, (doc. 111). 327 79 port of Birecik.329 After all, the state never gave permisson to anyone to intervene with hāsses belonging to palace members, except for the voyvoda.330 The Türkmen voyvodası was in charge of investigating murder cases as well. In 1658, the Türkmen voyvodası Hasan Agha informed the court that a man named Mehmed from the Şeyhlü clan was murdered near the village of Tavlusun. He required the kadi to make a survey in the venue of murder.331 When the outlaws were caught, the Türkmen voyvodası also had the right to imprison them.332 Besides, the Türkmen voyvodası would settle the disputes among the clans. In 1615, the voyvoda of the Yeni-il Turcomans was assigned to resolve the conflict between the clans of İlbeğli and Kesmezli over the use of a summer pasture.333 The dispute arouse because both clans commonly used the same pasture. Though the pasture was big enough to both previously, it is understood that it was no longer sufficient to meet the needs of them. The state ordered both to continue using the pasture as before. The voyvoda was also required to prevent them from opposing the rule.334 Likewise, in 1612/1613 the voyvoda of the Yeni-il Turcomans was assigned to protect the İlbeğlü clan against the infringments of the nomads coming from the northern Syria (Şamlular). He was asked to inform the unruly ones to the state.335 However, the Türkmen voyvodası might accuse tribesmen unjustly of different crimes for the purpose of handing out penalty fines. In 1670/1671, Ömer, the voyvoda of Danişmenli Turcomans, indicted two tribesmen for the indicent 329 İE. SM 12/1235, 1-2. İE. SM 12/1258, 1. Due to a misinformation mentioned that the hāss status of Türkmen, Birecik, Zile and Suğla were cancelled, the other provincial governors interfered with voyvodas. Thereupon, the governors were warned not to intervene with voyvodas. 331 Havva Selçuk, "Kayseri ve Çevresinde Bulunan Türkmen Oymaklarının Yerleşik Halkla Münasebetleri", Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyete Yörükler ve Türkmenler, editors Hayati Beşirli – İbrahim Erdal (Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi, 2008), 37. 332 Selçuk, ibid.,43. 333 Altınay, ibid., 73-74,(doc. 128). 334 Altınay, ibid., 73-74,(doc.128). 335 Altınay, ibid., 66. (doc.121). 330 80 assault on a woman. Contrary to the rule and without any evidence (bilâ isbat ve hilaf-ı şer), he collected a mule, a camel, a carpet, a goat and 100 gurush as penalty fines from them. Similarly, he accused a man named Bekir of same act and forced him to give some pack animals and goats as well as 147 gurush; in addition, sentenced him to imprisonment for three months.336 3.3. Keeping Tribes within Unit: One of the main concerns of the Ottoman state regarding the nomadic groups was to keep them in a unit and prevent them from dispersing in order to collect the tax safely.337 For this, the great mission falls, again, to the Türkmen voyvodası. Preserving the tribes was of paramount importance to the Türkmen voyvodası. Otherwise, collecting tax from a dispersed tribe would necessitate too much effort. Particularly, the state seems to have had an enormous effort to hold the tribes in an order during the first half of the seventeenth century when the nomads flew westward in Anatolia from the east.338 Over the course of the period, separation of large tribal units such as Yeni-il and Bozulus became explicit. At this point, the Türkmen voyvodası acted as a pin which it is used to holding the parts together, which he tried to gathering the dispersed clans. On the other hand, by means of farming the tribes out, the state vested the responsibilities related to the tribes in the Türkmen voyvodası, who would seek to protect his investment which he obtained in return for a high amount. Thus, farming out the tribes brought in two benefits to the state. Firstly, the state gained a sum of cash in advance without any expense and effort; secondly, it transferred the task of dealing with the unmanageable nomadic elements 336 Gündüz, XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri, 60. Kasaba, A Moveable Empire, 20-29. 338 See also the section of "Kişi Kaldır Tarlanı Koyun Geçsin" in chapter I. 337 81 to one person who did have the military power and dominate the provincial society. Thanks to this, the state could preserve the tax units.339 When the tribes of the Bozulus confederation situated in Diyarbekir moved to different places of Anatolia, the Ottoman government sought help from the voyvodas of Yeni-il and Haleb Turcomans in order to support Mehmed Çavuş who was in charge of sending the dispersed tribes back to their own places.340 On the other hand, one should not forget that the vital concern of the voyvoda was to derive the revenue. Therefore, if sending the tribes back to their own places was not possible, the voyvoda was contented with collecting tax. For instance; in 1652, Abaza Hasan Pasha the voyvoda of the Yeni-il and Haleb Turcomans sent his subashi Vedad Ali Agha to collect the tax of the Turcomans who scattered over different regions of Anatolia. He demanded support to Vedad Ali Agha from the local governors and the kadis who were in the regions where the so-called Turcomans arrived.341 The government might also put in charge the sancak beys and the kadis with sending the tribes back to their original places upon the demand of the tax-farmer of tribes. For instance; Abdülmümin, undertaker of the Bozulus mukata'ası, submitted a petition to the state, stating that re'aya of Bozulus scattered over several regions of the western Anatolia as well as islands such as Rhodes and İstanköy.342 In addition, it states that most of them settled in the hāss lands and began to work on the farms, therefore collecting tax became nearly impossible.343 Thereupon, the sancakbeys and 339 Gündüz, Anadolu’da Türkmen Aşiretleri, 47.; Gündüz, XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri, 59. 340 Altınay, Anadolu'da Türk Aşiretleri, 67-70. 341 Uluçay, XVII. Yüzyılda Saruhan’da Eşkıyalık ve Halk Hareketleri, 322, (doc. 135). 342 Su, Balıkesir ve Civarında Yürük ve Türkmenler ,38, (doc. 46). 343 Su, ibid., 38, (doc. 46). 82 the kadis of the regions where those re'aya of Bozulus came were ordered to find and send those tribesmen back to their own clans to which they were subjected.344 3.4. Registering tribes: In the Ottoman provincial administration, each tribe which was allocated as a tax-farm was in the status of a province (sancak) or a judicial district (kazâ). Therefore, a similar process akin to land register which is known as tahrir was applied to tribes to determine how much revenue they would yield annually. This task was also assumed by the voyvoda. Kadi, naib and kethüdas of clans were all to help the voyvoda for carrying out the registering.345 The kadi might control whether the voyvoda imposed much more tax on tribesmen than it was recorded in defter.346 The Türkmen voyvodası was also responsible for the extra-ordinary tax. Some clans might have tax debts which remained from previous register. In this cases, voyvoda could conduct a new register concerning the clans which had tax arrears. In 1648, Ali Ağa the voyvoda of Yeni-il Turcomans and Haleb, made the register of 53 clans with kethüdas to determine their tax arrears belonging to 1647. In this register, there was 30.985 gurush arrears belonging to the clans.347 The revenues assigned to tribes recorded in defter also show from what kind of sources voyvoda earned his income. The major revenues of tribes were certainly sheep and camels. Sheep numbers of each clan under the rule of the kethüda were recorded carefully, and the amount of the revenue was added at the bottom of the 344 Su, ibid., 39, (doc. 46). Faroqhi, "Onyedinci Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Devecilik ve Anadolu Göçebeleri (Danişmendli Mukataası)", 925. 346 Gündüz, XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri, 58. 347 TS.MA.d no: 4166; see also, İlhan Şahin, "Yeni-İl Kazası ve Yeni-İl Türkmenleri (1548-1653)", 152. 345 83 defter.348 Similar process was valid for camels. On the other hand, all the taxes collected for the animals were calculated on the value of sheep. Each camel was equal to 30 sheep.349 Considering that one akçe was collected for 2 sheep, each camel was at the value of 15 akçes. Moreover, 6 buffalos were also equal to one camel, therefore each buffalo was valued at 5 sheep.350 Each tribesman was a taxpayer as well. According to his economic situation, those who were married and had a certan amount of sheep were accepted as hâne, and the others who were married and had less than 24 sheep were recorded as bennâk.351 However, there seems to be a confusion over the concept of bennâk. By analyzing the registers of the Danişmendli Turcomans in the second half of the seventeenth century, Suraiya Faroqhi claims that bennâks might be the ones who engaged in agriculture, because there is no clue on how they made a living. 352 On the other hand, Tufan Gündüz develops a counter-argument that bennâks point either to the ones whose herds wasted due to diseases, or to those who have not yet married, and remained in household, and did not have any sufficient flock.353 The reason causing a confusion is that the rate of bennâks in tribe differs for each clan. Gündüz is of the opinion that if a disease broke out, it would affect whole clans, not a single one.Therefore, he suggests that the tribesman kept sharing the wealth of the household, even though he was married; because, traditionally in Turcoman families, 348 TS.MA.d no:1328 (vakıf defteri of hāsses of Yeniil belonging to Nurbanu Sultan) D.BŞM.d no:197; Gündüz, Anadolu’da Türkmen Aşiretleri, 66. 350 Gündüz, XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri, 80. 351 Gündüz, "Osmanlı Devleti'nde Konar-Göçer Raiyyete Dair", Bozkırın Efendileri-Türkmenler Üzerine Makaleler (İstanbul: Yeditepe Yayınları, 2009), 111-119. 352 Faroqhi, "Onyedinci Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Devecilik ve Anadolu Göçebeleri (Danişmendli Mukataası)", 926-927. 353 Gündüz, XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri, 78-79. 349 84 the wealth, which was composed of herds, is counted as the common property of household.354 Nevertheless, the tax of bennâk does not seem to be collected at fixed amount. Generally, tribesmen recorded as bennâk were obliged to pay 12 akçes.355 However, the tribes of the Bozulus confederation paid 7 gurush bennâk tax in 1642. Later on in 1664, that amount decreased to 4 gurush.356 The Danişmendli Turcomans paid 4 gurush bennâk tax in 1656 as well. On the other hand, it is also seen that bachelor tax (resm-i mücerred) was collected at different value. According to an imperial license confirming the appointment of Gürcü Nebi as the Bozulus voyvodası in January 1643, while one akçe was taken for each bachelor, he was given a right to collect 3 akçes resm-i mücerred.357 Nonetheless, in some cases, one gurush was collected for 3 bachelors.358 Besides, the other tax in the status of bâd-ı hevâ whose amount and collection time were not predetermined were generally farmed out on an estimated value. These are bride tax (resm-i arusâne), penalty fine of murder (cürm-i cinayet), guard tax (deştbâni) and tax collected for unowned animals ( resm-i yava).359 One of the common problems the tribes encountered was that they would fall into difficulty of fulfilling their tax obligations due to any imminent change in their economies. The population and the livelihood of nomads might be affected by animal diseases, epidemics and worsening climatic conditions. However, the voyvoda 354 Gündüz, ibid., 79. Gündüz, "Osmanlı Devleti'nde Konar-Göçer Raiyyete Dair", 114. 356 Gündüz, Anadolu’da Türkmen Aşiretleri, 73. 357 MAD 6145,153-154; See also Murphey's PhD dissertation. 358 Gündüz, ibid., 73. 359 Gündüz, Anadolu’da Türkmen Aşiretleri, 73.; Orhonlu, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'da Aşiretlerin İskanı, 23-26.; İlhan Şahin, "Yeni-İl Kazası ve Yeni-İl Türkmenleri (1548-1653)", 297-318; Enver Çakar, 17. Yüzyılda Haleb Eyaleti ve Türkmenler (Elazığ: Fırat Üniversitesi Ortadoğu Araştırmaları Merkezi Yayınları, 2006), 174-176. 355 85 demanded the tax from tribesmen, according to the former register which was carried out, before such calamities broke out.360 For instance; a document indicates that some districts of Yeni-il suffered from the spread of plague (taûn müstevli olub) in 1641, thus so many inhabitants died and the survivors left their homelands.361 However, it is understood that the plague occurred after the register had been carried out by Osman Agha.362 As a result, a great difference might appear between the datas recorded in the defter and real situation, thus later on Abaza Hasan Pasha needed to conduct a new survey in order to see the real situation in 1652. Because, it was understood that while some villages recovered, some devolved.363 Tribesmen might apply the state for tax reduction, when their economic situation got worse. In such cases, the state generally took their special conditions into account in order to prevent them from dispersion.364 For instance; the Danişmendli Turcomans of Aydın stated that they could not afford to pay their tax belonging to the year of 1659-60. Therefore, the state decided to levy their tax amounted to 956 gurush on the Danişmendli Turcomans of Rum and Adana.365 However, the tribesmen of Rum and Adana articulated that they could not pay any extra-tax, because they had also lost a great deal of animals in recent years. Thereupon, the state made a reduction of 600 gurush for their tax and demanded 356 gurush.366 360 Gündüz, XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri, p. 68; Gündüz, Anadolu’da Türkmen Aşiretleri, 61. 361 MAD 6159 362 MAD 6159 363 MAD 6159 364 Gündüz, XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri, 71. 365 Gündüz, XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri, 71; Faroqhi, "Onyedinci Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Devecilik ve Anadolu Göçebeleri (Danişmendli Mukataası)", 925-926; MAD 7574 366 Gündüz, ibid., 71; Faroqhi, ibid., 925-926; MAD 7574. 86 In 1661/1662, the Danişmendli Turcomans seem to have been again in difficulty in paying their tax. A complaint letter attached to the register of Danişmendli tribe points to the situation of tribesmen. Interestingly enough, those who submitted the complaint identified themselves in the letter with the appellative, 'Danişmendli poor' (Yörükân-ı Danişmendli fukâraları).367 It was stated in the letter that their voyvodas had been content with collecting 16.000 gurush, whereas they were originally demanded 25.000 gurush, more than their tax paying ability. They also expressed that 70-80 households of them were in poverty.368 On the other hand, the Danişmendli Turcomans were farmed out along with the tribe of Hacı Ahmedoğlu. It is understood through another document attached to the register that upon the request of the Danişmendli tribesmen, the tribe of Hacı Ahmedoğlu was seperated from the Danişmendli tribe as a different tax-farm (ifrâz olunub) and paid the tax amounted to 16.000 gurush, instead of the Danişmendli Turcomans.369 The problems arouse in collecting tax of the Danişmendli Turcomans reflected on other documents as well. A document dated 1659/1660 confirmed that many problems had broken out in collecting tax of the Danişmendli Turcomans. Upon the request of tribesmen, their officer (zâbit) Mustafa Beg, who would later be appointed as the sancakbeyi of Ayntab, was assigned to carry out a new survey to see the actual situation.370 On the other hand, individual problems related to the registers would appear as well. Tribesmen might apply the court individually for the problems concerning taxation. Furthermore, it is also seen that 'tribeswomen' might also submit petition to the state for the matters of taxation. An interesting document shows a woman's effort 367 D.BŞM no:197, 3.; Gündüz, XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri, 72. D.BŞM no:197, 3.; Gündüz, ibid., 72. 369 D.BŞM no:197, 15. 370 D.BŞM no:207, 2. 368 87 in abating her tax burden.371 It is understood that a woman named Yüzükutlu (?) from the tribe of Tabanlu submitted a petition to the Sultan directly. She stated that she had been forced to pay 20 gurush, though her 2 camels had died, after the register conducted by Mustafa Agha. In addition, she articulated that she was widow and had only one son, thus the tax levied on her was far beyond her ability of paying. She also articulated that she had come to Kayseri on foot in order to beg for mercy from the sultan.372 Thereupon, the sultan sent a strict order to the kadi of Bozulus about protecting that woman against harassments of the tribe's aghas and lessening her tax burden as much as possible.373 Giving tax is a sign of recognizing the state's legitimacy. In this context, as is seen through the examples, tribesmen seem to have no trouble with the state in terms of paying tax. When their economic situation was far beyond meeting the expectation of the state, they did not hesitate to ask the state for their pardons. In such cases, the state show its flexibility, renewing the tahrirs, or abating the tax burden on them. Thanks to this, tribes could maintain their pastoral way of life under the protection of state. In addition, the receipt in tribesmen's hand also averted double-taxation imposed on them by other state officers, making them legitimate as loyal taxpayers in the eyes of the state. 371 İE. DH. 6/547, 2. İE. DH. 6/547, 2. "…ol devenin cümlesi mürd olub bir dulca hatun olub kimesneciğim olmayub bir oğlum olub benden yirmişer guruş altun alub zulm iderler takatim kalmadı mal-ı erzağım hiç yoğdur sultanım hazretlerine Kayseriye … yayancığ geldim…" 373 İE. DH. 6/547, 6. 372 88 CHAPTER IV THE TÜRKMEN VOYVODAS AND KAPIKULU SIPAHS WITHIN THE POWER STRUGGLES OVER REVENUE RESOURCES It appears that most of the Türkmen voyvodası during the first half of the seventeenth century were both a Celali leader and a kapıkulu sipah as well. This overlapping case is a reflection of the socio-political fabric of the period, beyond a coincidence. To disentangle the issue, it would be better to clarify the connection of the Türkmen Voyvodası-Celali leadership-kapıkulu sipah. Our starting point will be the kapıkulu sipah, so it would be easy to complete the other parts of the puzzle. However, dealing with the organization of the kapıkulu sipah and more broadly the six cavalry corps in detail is not our main aim. Instead, only the certain landmarks in the organization of the kapıkulu sipahs which would be related to the connection in question are significant for us. 89 Figure 2. The interrelated links of the Türkmen voyvodası in the seventeenth century 4.1.The Kapıkulu Sipahs The kapıkulu army was simply divided into two regiments consisting of infantry and cavalry. The former was called janissaries, and the latter was the kapıkulu sipahs.374 Compared to the janissaries, the kapıkulu sipahs were in a privileged position.375 Apart from receiving higher salary than the janissaries, the kapıkulu sipahs were also assigned as mülâzım to collect a variety of taxes belonged to the state, such as capitation tax (cizye) and sheep tax (adet-i ağnam), during peace times. In return for such duties, they received a share from the tax collected which was called gulâmiye. 376 Similarly, they were promoted to the trusteeship of the pious foundations of the sultanate, or to the administrator of big tax-farms for one year.377 In addition, from the 1630's onwards, the kapıkulu sipahs began to collect avarız 374 Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire 1300-1650 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 258-259. İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Kapıkulu Ocakları II (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1988), 137. 376 Uzunçarşılı, ibid., 157-158. 377 Uzunçarşılı, ibid., 157-158. 375 90 taxes as well.378 Their privileged positions strengthened gradually during the first half of the seventeenth century. The political struggles among the factions under the leadership of the viziers for power in Istanbul gave rise to prominence of both janissaries and kapıkulu sipahs at the center. Both provided support to the rival parties who were in search of a dependable alliance.379 For instance, Merre Hüseyin Pasha got the post of head vizier (baş vezir) by means of giving several promises to the kapıkulu sipahs. In return for their support, he bestowed them many stewardships (voyvodalık) of pious foundations and hāss of viziers.380 From the course of the reign of Murad IV and his successors onwards, the kapıkulu sipahs seem to have definitely monopolized the stewardships of havâss-ı hümâyûn and the positions related to the pious foundations.381 Naima noted that this ascendance had resulted in the impoverishment of the peasants, because the kapıkulu sipahs had been continuously imposing excessive taxes.382 Furthermore, Sultan Murad was disturbed from the rising dominance of the kapıkulu sipahs over the state authority. He complained about the imbalance between the ever-increasing number of the sipahs and the present tax collecting assignments, mülâzımet.383 In his edict dated 1632, he stated that only 300 sipahs were assigned as mülâzım in return for the campaign service previously, whereas 10.000 sipahs were recorded in the mülâzım defteri without any campaign service, on the contrary to the ancient rule.384 He went on saying that if this plague was to continue, it would be no longer possible to obtain any revenue for the treasury. He ordered the aghas of the six cavalry corps and sipahs to obey ancient 378 Linda T. Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy (Tax Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1560-1660) (New York-Köln: E.J.Brill,1996), 174. 379 Uzunçarşılı, ibid., 191-192; Mustafa Akdağ, "Genel Çizgileriyle XVII. Yüzyıl Türkiye Tarihi", Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 218. 380 Uzunçarşılı, ibid., 192. 381 Uzunçarşılı, ibid., 160. 382 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 722-723. 383 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 719-720. 384 Kâtib Çelebi, Fezleke, ed. Prof.Dr. Seyyid Muhammed es-Seyyid (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2009), 528-529. 91 rule, not enroll any person in the mülâzım defteri. Thereupon, they asserted their obedience to the sultan.385 Interestingly enough, the sultan got support of the Janissary aghas against the kapıkulu sipahs. At the end of the edict, the Janissary aghas vowed that they would punish anyone from the six cavalry regiments who would disobey the order of the sultan.386 Nonetheless, the cavalry regiments did not hesitate to show their discontent in a reactive demonstration in the Hippodrome (8 June 1632).387 After the murder of Osman II (1622), the janissaries gained the control of the state and their supremacy continued until 1640, from then on the pashas from the six cavalry corps dominated both the center and the provinces, especially Anatolia. However, their dominance was ended by the iron hand of Köprülü Mehmed Pasha (1656-1661).388 Köprülü Mehmed had eliminated the military and fiscal power of the kapıkulu sipahs, prohibiting them from recruiting companion and ending their rights of taking a share from the tax collected (gulâmiye).389 Regarding the involvement of the kapıkulu sipahs in financial affairs, Baki Tezcan has stated that for the investors of capital the Ottoman army was the most suitable institution which provided financial security and social status from the midsixteenth century.390 Due to their opportunities, the six cavalry regiments turned into a profit center to which those who aimed at carrying on a business penetrated. Therefore,Tezcan is right to define those troops as financial entrepreneurs, rather than soldiers, because the financial interests directed the acts of these troops.391 At this point, Tezcan has cited the rebellion of the kapıkulu sipahs in 1600 as an 385 Kâtib Çelebi, ibid., 528. Kâtib Çelebi, ibid., 529. 387 Finkel, Osman's Dream, 210. 388 Akdağ, "Genel Çizgileriyle XVII. Yüzyıl Türkiye Tarihi"; İnalcık, "Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700"; Uzunçarşılı, ibid., 171. 389 Uzunçarşılı, ibid., 171. 390 Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire, 14-19. 391 Tezcan, ibid., 184-190. 386 92 example showing how those troops never wanted to share their priviliges with any other group. While the kapıkulu sipahs were expecting a certain number of poll tax and sheep tax registers, they realized that some registers, especially give higher income, had already been sold to the grandees.Thereupon, the sipahs killed Esperanza Malchi, the Jewish lady, who was very close to Safiye Sultan, the queen mother, and had great influence on the sale of the registers.392 This rebellion can also be seen as an antecedent of the other kapıkulu sipahs' revolts throughout the seventeenth century. The members of the six cavalry soldiers were in an effort of preserving their status even at the turn of the seventeenth century. During the enthronement of Süleyman II (1687-1691), the prominents of the kapıkulu sipahs demanded that state revenues (mîrî mukāta'ât) hereafter should be given to their regiments. They also stated that the right of gulâmiye for a long time belonged to their regiments.393 On the part of tax payers, entrusting the kapıkulu sipahs with collecting tax might have been destructive to their economy; on the other hand, that assignment offered a number of benefits for the Ottoman government. Linda Darling implies that the appointment of the kapıkulu sipahs as tax collector could have created a kind of state-control both over the resources and the military elite.394 According to her, by means of that practice the state could tap the wealth of the military elite.395 In addition, the kapıkulu sipahs carried the sultan's power across the empire in their own presence. Furthermore, in terms of motivation and obedience, they became more 392 Tezcan, ibid., 188. "…Mîrî mukāta'ât fî-mâ-ba'd Sipâh ve Silahdâr zümresine virilsün, gulâmiyye hod kadîmden bu ocaklara bağludur deyü…"; Defterdar Mehmed Paşa, Zübde-i Vekâiyat, 269-270; Some of those prominent sipahs could obtain important posts. For instance; Çolak Hüseyin got the office of Türkmen voyvodalığı, Tokat kethüdayeri Hamza became the voyvoda of Tokat. Karamanlı Osman was assigned as the voyvoda of Mardin, and Kel Hasan was appointed to Galata voyvodalığı. 394 Darling, ibid., 170. 395 Darling, ibid., 170. 393 93 dependant on the state to have much more tax revenue. Besides, their share received from the tax contributed to their income without depending on treasury funds.396 In fact, the government theoretically could take advantage of those men aspired to collect tax devouringly, by confiscating what they accumulated by then; moreover, the cost of tax collection might be minimized to some extent through the responsibility of one person. 4.2.The Celâli Türkmen Voyvodas: In this part, it will be looked at the backgrounds of some well-known Türkmen voyvodas in the light of the chronicles, especially the history of Naima, and some documents.397 Particularly, some kapıkulu sipahs who rose as a Celâli against the state in the seventeenth century appear to have to do with the Türkmen voyvodalığı. Undoubtedly, this case is clearly seen in the rebellion of Abaza Hasan Pasha and his fellows. Acquiring the office of the Türkmen voyvodalığı seems to be the main aim of the rebels. On the other hand, not only those Celâli ones will be dealt with, but also those who served loyally, like Dilaver Pasha and Küçük Ahmed Pasha. These samples of Türkmen voyvodası may help us grasp on the nature of the Türkmen voyvodalığı of the seventeenth century. 4.2.1. Abaza Hasan Pasha Abaza Hasan Pasha was granted with the Türkmen voyvodalığı of the Yeni-il Turcomans upon capturing the rebel Karahaydaroğlu in 1648, while he was the governor of (mütessellim) of Hamid province. Despite the objections of the ocak aghas, vizier Sofu Mehmed Pasha assigned Abaza Hasan as the voyvoda of Yeni-il 396 Darling, ibid., 170-183. However, it is not aimed at dealing with all Türkmen voyvodas in the seventeenth century. I only set aside for those in the chronicles. 397 94 for three years on the purpose of holding back the Turcomans.398 In the decision of his appointment as Türkmen voyvodası, it might be effective that he held the positions of the stewardship of Kilis and A'zaz Turcomans formerly. During his office for one year, Abaza Hasan paid a large amount of akces to the treasury and gave many gifts to the statesmen in order to consolidate his post. According to Evliya Çelebi, he paid 70 kise office fee to renew his patent (berât). On the other hand, the insistence of the ocak aghas under the leadership of Bektas Agha, who was the former commander-in-chief of the janissaries, on opposing that promotion compelled the new sadrazam Melek Ahmed Pasha to nullify his post eventually. Instead of Abaza Hasan, Ak Ali Agha, who was the candidate of the ocak aghas for the post, was decided unanimously to assign the Türkmen voyvodası of Yeni-il. Therupon, Abaza Hasan tried to persuade Melek Ahmed by depending on kinship tie with him399, however, tender-minded Melek Ahmed, due to the pressure of the opposition party, requested him to be constent with this unusual case for this year and allayed his anxiety by offering to pay 100 kise to him in order to make up for his loss. In fact, Abaza Hasan's loss was much higher than the bid of the sadrazam. In the end, Abaza Hasan immediately crossed the strait to Üsküdar which was the meeting point of the kapıkulu sipahs coming to take their salaries in order to mobilize his companions for the fight. From the well-known sipahs Konyalı Hadım Ali Agha, his brother Hasan, Kürd Mehmed and Cündî Yusuf Agha gave support to Abaza Hasan. Interestingly 398 "…İbtidâ tevcih esnâsında ağalar gayri kimesneye murad ettiklerinde Sofu Mehmed Paşa ayak basıp 'Türkmân'ı üç sene zabt eyleye' deyü hatt-ı hümâyûn ısdâr ettirip Hasan Ağa nefsinde yarar bahâdır adam olmakla sâhib çıkıp çerâğ etmiştir…"Naima, Tarih; III, 1309. 399 Metin İbrahim Kunt, "Ethnic-Regional (Cins) Solidarity in the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Establishment", International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 5, No. 3 (Jun., 1974). 233-239. Metin Kunt draws attention to the ethnic solidarites among the Ottoman elites. There was a clear division between those who were of Caucasian origin such as Abazas, Circassians and Georgians, and those who were of Balkan origin. Both made their own fractions. Therefore, Köprülü Mehmed Pasha wanted to know whether Melek Ahmed Pasha, who was also an Abaza, would fight against Abaza Hasan Pasha, since they were both Abaza. 95 enough, Hasan and Kürd Mehmed would struggle to get the post of Türkmen voyvodalığı as well. On the other hand, the candidate of the opposition party, Ak Ali Agha, failed to collect the tax of the Yeni-il Turcomans. Due to the turbulence at the center over the Türkmen voyvodalığı, the Turcomans did not want to deliver the tax to Ak Ali Agha. Therefore, Ak Ali asked Ibsir Mustafa Pasha, who was the governor of Karaman province and would later make an alliance with Abaza Hasan, for help. Ibsir Pasha invited the leaders of the Turcomans to the negotiation, convincing them to pay the taxes to Ak Ali Agha. The Turcomans accepted to pay the tax even more than 10.000 gurush, since they feared the power of Ibsir Mustafa Pasha. Besides, this mediator role of İbsir also indicates that he was an influential figure among the Turcomans.400 4.2.2. Hasan, the Brother of Konyalı Hadım Ali Agha Abaza Hasan Pasha strenghtened his position against the state through the alliance with Ibsir Mustafa Pasha. The alliance of the kapıkulu sipahs culminated in an ad interim victory, Abaza Hasan was reassigned to the Türkmen voyvodalığı in 1651 and Ibsir was given the governorship of the Haleb province. Hadım Ali Agha's brother Hasan was also promoted to the voyvoda of Bozulus Turcomans in1653. However, Hasan astonishingly entered a clash with a candy maker of the palace over the Türkmen voyvodalığı.401 On the pretext of a complaint about the voyvoda Hasan, submitted by a prominent Turcoman named Yusuf to the government, Usta Rıdvan 400 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1358-1359. İbşir Mustafa Pasha had some experience which would make him familier with Turcoman groups. He grew up in the household of Abaza Mehmed Pasha who rallied tribal forces. Besides, İbşir was also the governor of Karaman province where nomadic elements were found abundant. Therefore, it is not surprising that Ak Ali Agha and Abaza Hasan, they were both Türkmen voyvodası, made an alliance with İbşir; Finkel, Osman's Dream, 229; See also Münir Aktepe, "İpşir Mustafa Paşa ve Kendisi ile İlgili Bazı Belgeler", Tarih Dergisi, 24 (1970), 45-58. 401 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1442. 96 from the helvahāne was assigned the voyvoda of the Bozulus Turcomans instead of Hasan. Rıdvan was also the kethüda of vizier Çavuşoğlu Mehmed Pasha. Interestingly enough, Mehmed Pasha warned the government that it would be a big mistake if they assigned Rıdvan. He said that his kethüda was an untrustworthy man, because he got a substantial wealth by stealing sugar and honey from the helvahāne.402 Nonetheless, despite his warnings, the government appointed Rıdvan as the voyvoda of the Bozulus Turcomans. Rıdvan sent his servant with 300 men to Konya. When they arrived in Konya, Hasan met the kadi, the mütesellim and some notable people of Konya in order to assure them that the tax-farm of the Bozulus Turcomans was still in his charge for 3 years. However, they recognized the imperial license of Rıdvan. Thereupon, Hasan sent his son with a small army composed of sarica soldiers and Turcomans to meet the approaching forces of Rıdvan. At the first encounter, some 150 men of Rıdvan were killed, and as a result Rıdvan had to retreat to Ankara. Meanwhile, Rıdvan recruited 18.000 men with the help of Istanbul. On the other hand, Hasan received the support of Abaza Hasan and Ibsir Pasha, establishing a large army consisted mainly of Turcomans. Two rivals again met in Konya, both sides lost a number of soldiers. On the other hand, Katırcıoğlu, who was put in charge as the commander for pursuing Abaza Hasan and Ibsir Pasha at that time, provided Rıdvan with assistance.403 However, it is understood from Naima's chronicle that the assistance of Katırcıoğlu was in vain, and Hasan succeeded in keeping his post. In the following pages of Naima's chronicle, Hasan fell into another struggle with Helvacı Mehmed (Bosnâvî Sarı Mehmed) who was the defterdar of Karaman in 402 403 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1442. Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1443. 97 1654/55.404 Naima recorded that there was a conflict between the two, however, he did not give further detail.405 Helvacı Mehmed as defterdar attempted at removing Hasan from the voyvoda of the Bozulus Turcomans, but Hasan again succeeded in confirming himself in his post.406 In the end, Hasan won the struggle and Helvacı Mehmed's head was cut off by vizier Ibsir Pasha in Ilgın in 1655.407 According to what Naima narrates, Hasan was a well-known sipahs of Konya. In many times, he held the office of different stewardships including the Turcomans, Haleb as well as Sayda and Beirut. Nevertheless, the people of Konya suffered from his oppression, and in turn had to abandon their homelands.408 As for the struggle of Hasan with Rıdvan and Helvacı Mehmed, Hasan seems to have had more advantages than those two, due to the fact that he was closely acquinted with the people of his tax-farm, namely the Bozulus Turcomans. He was living in Konya as a member of the six cavalry corps and probably established a social network which would assist him in protecting his tax-farm in case of need. On the other hand, as for Rıdvan, if his occupation in the helvahāne which was a sector necessitated dealing in food market was taken into consideration, it would be speculated that he might have tried to invest in animal husbandry for the provision of Istanbul, like Bektas Agha.409 4.2.3. Kürd Mehmed 404 Naîmâ, Tarih; IV, 1567. Naîmâ, Tarih; IV, 1567. 406 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1512. 407 Naîmâ, Tarih; IV, 1567. 408 Naîmâ, Tarih; IV, 1822. 409 See chapter II. 405 98 He was one of the notorious sipah bullies of the first half of seventeenth century.410 Though he gave support to Abaza Hasan in his revolt, later on he fell afoul of Abaza Hasan over the Türkmen voyvodalığı of Yeni-il. Kürd Mehmed does not seem to have wanted to back the wrong horse. When he realized that Ibsir Pasha would be eliminated, he immediately turned his side. Grandvizier Murad Pasha offered many posts to Kürd Mehmed and his fellows in return for the execution of Ibsir Pasha. Thereupon, Kürd Mehmed devised an incitement with the support of the Janissaries and the sipahs against Ibsir Pasha, eventually resulting in his murder. As promised, he was granted with the Türkmen voyvodalığı of Yeni-il, instead of Abaza Hasan Pasha in 1655.411 However, Abaza Hasan reacted fiercely, and warned Kürd Mehmed that his treacherous act would not be tolerated.412 Kürd Mehmed then could not take his office by the fear of Abaza Hasan, therefore retreated to Konya. When he heard that Seydi Ahmed Pasha allied with Abaza Hasan was assigned the governorship of Karaman, he incited the local people against Seydi Ahmed, closing the door of the city. However, Seydi Ahmed and Abaza Hasan forced Kürd Mehmed to leave the city, lying a siege cooperatively.413 As a result, that scuffle stood Seydi Ahmed and Abaza Hasan in good stead, re-displaying their strength to the government, in return Seydi Ahmed was appointed as the governor of Haleb and Abaza Hasan was reassigned as the voyvoda of the Yeni-il Turcomans. 4.2.4. Dasnik Mirza Dasnik Mirza was from a Kurdish tribe called Merdasini. He was granted with the Musul province thanks to his meritorious performance as sipah during the 410 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 744. Naîmâ, Tarih; IV, 1607-1620; İsazade Tarihi, ibid., 13-15. 412 Naîmâ, Tarih; IV, 1621. Kürd Mehmed owed İbşir Pasha for his post of the stewardship of Bolu. 413 Naîmâ, Tarih; IV, 1630-1632; İsazade Tarihi, ibid., 13-14. 411 99 Baghdad campaign (1638-1639).414 Naima states that he had lived in difficult conditions, after the termination of his office, therefore he could not afford to buy any post for himself.415 However, in Evliya Çelebi's accounts, he is shown as a powerful figure who would put the state in trouble.416 Evliya states that the post of the Türkmen voyvodalığı was vacant due to the fear of Ak Ali Agha from Abaza Hasan, thus Dasnik Mirza with his companion named Hanefi Halife demanded that post from the state for themselves. However, the interesting point is that they dared to request the voyvodalık of whole tribes in Anatolia; including Bozulus, Karaulus, Esbkeşan and Yeni-il.417 Nevertheless, they encountered the opposition of the ocak aghas under the leadership of Bektas Agha. In fear of the possibility that they would make an alliance with Abaza Hasan, Melek Ahmed Pasha under the influence of the ocak aghas suppressed them in the environs of Hersek Dili.418 4.2.5. Gürcü Nebî The distinctive feature of Gürcü Nebî, who was a kapıkulu sipah like the others, is that he was largely engaged in dealing with tax-farms. By virtue of his entrepreneurial spirit, he held many voyvodalıks, and bought farms in Niğde and Bor. He obtained whatever posts he wanted by sending letters and bribes from Niğde where he lived to his respectable friends in Istanbul.419 He was appointed as the voyvoda of the Bozulus Turcoman confederation at value of nearly three millions 414 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1315-1316; The tribe of Dasni was efficient in the environs of Baghdad and Mosul. In 1581, they captured a fortress along the river of Tigris, and threated the passengers and villagers. Dina Rızk Khoury, State and Provincial Society in the Ottoman Empire (Mosul, 1540-1834) 40. 415 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1316. 416 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname; III, 147; Kâtib Çelebi, Fezleke; II, 373. 417 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname; III, 147. 418 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname; I, 129. 419 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1209-1210. 100 akçes in 1642, while he was serving as kapucubashi.420 Though it is not known how many years he held that office, he redemanded the Türkmen voyvodalığı for himself in 1649 in return for being good, while he was rising up.421 4.2.6. Kazzaz Ahmed The information about him is limited, but it is certain that he was a loyal companion of Gürcü Nebi along with Çomar Bölükbaşı and Katırcıoğlu. While pushing for the Türkmen voyvodalığı from the state, Gürcü Nebi also requested a proper post for Kazzaz Ahmed.422 A document in Manisa court records indicates that he was the voyvoda of the dispersed Turcoman clans (perakende-i Türkmen Voyvodası) near Manisa in 1645.423 4.2.7. Çomar Bölükbaşı Considering Evliya's narration, Çomar Bölükbaşı seems to have been a close friend of Evliya. The two first met after the battle of Bulgurlu which took place between Gürcü Nebi and the state's forces in 1649. According to Evliya, Çomar Bölükbaşı was from the Kurdish tribe called 'Izoli'. He was recommended by Evliya to Murtaza Pasha, the governor of Sivas, and appointed as subashi of Niksar.424 However, he held his office only for six months, a man named Dilaver Agha from Merzifon grasped his office and imprisoned him. Thereupon, he managed to escape and started his fight.425 Apart from his rebel carrier, as far as we know through 420 Murphey, "The Functioning of the Ottoman Army Under Murad IV (1623-1639/1032-1049), 269270 421 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1228. 422 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1228. 423 Uluçay, XVII. Yüzyılda Saruhan’da Eşkıyalık ve Halk Hareketleri, 294-295, (doc. 113); see also chapter III 424 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname; III, 50-51. 425 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname; III, 153. 101 Naima, he was appointed as the Türkman voyvodası in Ayntab in 1650.426 However, which Turcomans he charged with is not clear. 4.2.8. Dilaver Pasha Naima gives a brief personal background of Dilaver Pasha by recounting his own voice. Dilaver Pasha told about himself: When I came from the Circassian land, I did have only a whip and a horse with me. After having joined in the six cavalry corps, I occupied in a number of heavy duties. Thanks to this, I could have respectable posts and made a modest profit. After that, I gained substantial wealth by means of the Türkmen voyvodalığı and settled in Kayseri. 427 It is understood through the chronicles that Dilaver Pasha was charged with suppressing the rebel Turcomans, while he was on duty of Hüsrev Pasha's Safavid campaign (1628-1629). During the campaign, he had been assigned to purchase some 10.000 sheep and 100 camels from the Turcomans. Later on, while the army was marching throughout Anatolia, he appeared in subjugating the leader of the Beğdili Turcomans, Koçur Bey near Kayseri in 1629.428 And then, he was assigned upon the disobedient Turcomans in the environs of Ruha who refused to pay the tax to their voyvodas. Because the voyvodas failed in controlling those unruly tribes, Dilaver Pasha pursued the Turcomans with some cavalries by following the river of Euphrate for three days. When he arrived at their tents, he invited them to obey. Nevertheless, his attempt remained inconclusive. Thereupon, Dilaver Pasha laid an attack and 426 Naîmâ, Tarih; III, 1262. Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 683. 428 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 649 see also chapter I. 427 102 defeated them. All belongings of the Turcomans including flocks and camels were also looted by the army.429 4.2.9. Koçur Bey As mentioned above, Koçur Bey, who was subdued by Dilaver Pasha, was the leader of the Beğdilli Turcomans in 1629. It was recorded in Naima that he was also the brother of Minnet Bey, who was the boybeyi of the Bozulus confederation as well.430 Through an archival document dated October 1626 which is presumably related to Koçur Bey, we will see that a boybeyi might also hold the post of the Türkmen voyvodalığı concurrently. The document seems to be an order sent by the government to Koçur Bey. It was stated that Koçur Bey was from the six cavalry corps and the voyvoda of the Bozulus Turcomans as well.431 He was ordered to send 90.970 akçes from the taxes he collected from the Turcomans to kapıkulu sipah Derviş Mescid for the salaries of some members of the six cavalry corps dated from 1625.432 In view of the closeness between dates both in Naima's chronicle that portrays Koçur Bey as a rebel in 1629 and in the document which he appeared as kapıkulu sipah and the voyvoda in 1626, there is no reason to not accept both as the same person. Furhermore, in Naima's chronicle he is the leader of the Beğdilli Turcomans which was the largest tribe of the Bozulus confederation, while in the document he comes out as the voyvoda of the Bozulus Turcomans. From this point of 429 Topçular Kâtibi ', Tarih; II, 904-905. Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 649; Topçular Kâtibi ', Tarih; II, 881. 431 Ebnâ-i sipâhiyâdan olub bin otuz beş senesinde vilâyet-i Anadolu'da vâki Bozulus Türkmânı voyvodası olan kıdvetü'l emâsil ve'l akrân Koçur zîde kadrîhû [sic] zikr olunan Bozulus Türkmânlarının târih-i merkûmede âded-i ağnâm ve rüsûm-ı sâ'irelerinin akçesinden seksen dokuz bin yedi yüz dört akçe tefâvüt hissesine ve guruşdan bin iki yüz altmış üç akçeleri cümle doksan bin dokuz yüz yetmiş yedi akçeleridir meblâğ-ı merkûm bin otuz altı muharreminin on ikinci gününde ba'zı sipâhi ve silâhdarların bin otuz beş [sic] mevâcibleri içün ebnâ-i sipâhiyândan birinci bölükân kıdvetü'l emâsil ve'l akrân derviş Mescid'in [sic] zide kâdrîhû yedinden ordu-yu hümâyûnum hâzinesinin irâd ve mesârifi kayd olunmağın temessükâtı içün işbu hükm-ü hümâyunum kaydları şöyle bilesin alâmet-i şerîfeye itimâd kılasın.(3 October 1626); İE DH 6/540. 432 İE DH 6/540. 430 103 view, being a member of the six cavalry corps enabled Koçur Bey to have been appointed as the voyvoda of his own tribe. It also points to the fact that the participation of tribal elites in the Ottoman military class could provide them with an opportunity to establish the ascendancy over their own tribe, precluding the voyvoda who was outside the tribe from ruling. Koçur Bey also seems to have benefited from the privileges of the six cavalry corps pertaining to the tax collection assignments. 4.2.10. Küçük Ahmed Pasha During his long-running career in the Ottoman administration, he held many important offices including the Türkmen voyvodalığı by which he made a remarkable wealth. As far as we know through Naima's account, he was of Albanian origin and firstly started his career as the agha of serdengeçtis during the Hotin campaign (1621). Later on he was assigned as the Mardin voyvodası, and then promoted to the Türkmen voyvodalığı. Owing to the capture of the rebel Ilyas Pasha, he was granted with the governorship of Damascus.433 While he was going to take his office in Damascus, he subdued the rebel Turcoman leader Hacı Ahmedoğlu Ömer in the environs of Kayseri in 1632.434 To sum up, some well-known Türkmen voyvodas have been shown in this chapter. Thanks to this, it would be easier to grasp what the Türkmen voyvodası was. However, due to the inadequacy of the sources, there is no doubt that many Türkmen voyvodas are excluded from this study. A more comprehensive study on the issue in future may analyze all Türkmen voyvodas, revealing the more ordinary ones. On the other hand, these samples show that the kapıkulu sipahs enjoyed a monopoly over the office of Türkmen voyvodası generally. Furthermore, being a Türkmen voyvodası 433 434 Naîmâ, Tarih; II, 836. See chapter I. 104 and a Celâli leader seem to overlap, which strenghtens the assumption that the Turcomans provided the kapıkulu sipahs with a firm base for their struggles for power within the intra-elite conflicts over resources. 105 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION The Anatolian peninsula in the seventeenth century witnessed a migration of nomads and semi-nomads including the Turcomans and the Kurds coming from the east and moved over a vast area stretching from Karaman to Rhodes, resulting in a repopulation of the places which had been abandoned due to Celâli turbulence.435 This revival of nomadism in Anatolia in the seventeenth century is reflected through the chronicles and the archival documents. Evliya Çelebi presents many records relating to the Turcomans in nearly every place in Anatolia that he visited. For instance; when he visited the island of İstanköy at the Aegean sea, he states that hundreds of Turcoman clans had settled on that island, because it offered lush green pastures and provided security.436 On the other hand, there is no evidence that the Ottoman government aimed at rendering them sedentary until the1690's. Thus, these newcomers maintained their semi-nomadic way of life. Again, according to Evliya Çelebi, some of them lived in villages and some others moved seasonally between pastures.437 435 Xavier de Planhol, "Geography, Politics and Nomadism in Anatolia", 525-532. "Ve bu cezîre sâhral ve otlu ve sulu yer olup emn ü eman olmak ile Anatolu cânibinden niçe yüz Türkmân obası ve develeri ile gelüp vatan dutmuşlardır." Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname; IX, 108. 437 During his travel, Evliya talked about many villages whose inhabitants were Turcomans. The names of these villages show that tribal character was still preserved. For instance; karye-i 436 106 The Ottoman government appreciated the significance of those Turcomans. In the 1630's, the nomadic groups made up 12 percent of the total Anatolian tax farm revenues. That rate was above the aggregate revenues of mines-minerals, salt flats and rice paddies. It was also nearly at the same level with custom revenues.438 The state farmed out the tribes to the members of military class, especially the members of the six cavalry soldiers (kapıkulu sipahs) in return for their services. Due to their tax collection privileges (mülâzımet), six cavalry soldiers turned into tax-farmers in the seventeenth century as financial entrepreneurs who squeezed the state resources to make as much profit as possible. Thus, kapıkulu sipahs were in a great effort in order not to lose their priviliges that provided them with cash revenue as poll tax and sheep tax, which was very essential in a monetized economy.439 On the part of the kapıkulu sipahs, being a Türkmen voyvodası of any tribe might have enabled them to own an 'autonomous organization' whose advantages they would draw on to great extent. These are cash revenues derived from tax collection; animals which could be used both as camel for the transportation and as sheep for the market; and human source which could be employed as military power. On the other hand, all these are fairly enough for a Türkmen voyvodası to maintain his struggle, when he attempted to rise. Thanks to the cash money extracted from pastoral economy, it would be possible to hire mercenaries. Besides, if Türkmen voyvodası was on the good terms with those who ranked below the hierarchical tribal pyramid, it would also be likely for him to have tribal forces present at his hand. In addition, tribesmen's camel wagons must have been necessary for him to carry armaments at long distance. The Akçakoyunlu in near Çankırı, karye-i Karakeçili which was located in the distant of two hours from Çorum. Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname; II, 202-205. In the third volume of his travel, he expressed his amazement at the highland of Ramazanoğlu in Adana. He said that there were too many Turcoman tribes coming to the highland to pasture. Most of them came from Adana, Tarsus, Silifke and Sis; Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname; III, 28. 438 Rhoads Murphey, Regional Structure in the Ottoman Economy (Göttingen: Otto Harrasowitz Wiesbaden,1987), 224-227. The largest revenue belongs to avarız taxes amounted to 45 percent. 439 Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire, 182-187. 107 candidates for the Türkmen voyvodalığı seem to have been aware of those advantages. For instance; in 1699, a ser-çeşme named Türkmen Ali demanded insistently the office of Türkmen voyvodalığı for himself.440 Defterdar Sarı Mehmed states that although Türkmen Ali was a notorious bandit and pardoned several times for his crimes, he insisted on that post shamelessly. He goes on relating through Türkmen Ali's own words: "It would be great, if I was assigned as Türkmen voyvodası! I would go to Anatolia and become established in my habitual banditry."441 Just like Türkmen Ali, so his forerunners (Abaza Hasan, Gürcü Nebi, Kürd Mehmed) endeavoured to be appointed as Türkmen voyvodası. That post was of particular importance to those whose power base was in Anatolia. Abaza Hasan, Gürcü Nebi and İbşir Mustafa rose to prominence through Anatolia, though they were all Caucasian.442 Dasnik Mirza, Kürd Mehmed and Çomar Bölükbaşı were already the members of Kurdish tribal population; and the others, Konyalı Hadım's brother Hasan, Koçur Bey and Türkmen Ali, as is understood from his name, belonged to the Turcoman tribes. Of all those advantages which the post of Türkmen voyvodalığı brought, the last one, human source for rebel armies, displayed its significance in the Celâli 440 Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa, Zübde-i Vekâiyat, 678. "…cibiliyetinde merkûz olan mel'anet iktizâsı ile, 'bana Türkmen ağalığı olur ise febihâ ve illâ Anadolu'ya güzâr ve me'lûf olduğum şakāvetde istikrâr üzere olurum' deyü ısrâr itmekle,…"Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa, ibid., 678. 442 Since Anatolia was geographically hinterland of the Caucasus region, those Caucasian pashas (Abaza Mehmed, Abaza Hasan, İbşir Mustafa and Dilaver Pasha) chosen Anatolia to make a living. They became members of the Ottoman military system by joining generally in the six cavalry corps. See Dilaver Pasha in the third chapter. Naima relates Dilaver Pasha's own words, "When I came from the Circassian land, I did have only a whip and a horse with me. After having joined in the six cavalry corps, I occupied in a number of heavy duties. Thanks to this, I could have respectable posts and made a modest profit. After that, I gained substantial wealth by means of the Türkmen voyvodalığı and settled in Kayseri." 441 108 rebellions; it was clearly seen also during the reign of Osman II and continued throughout the period of the rebel pashas. Osman II put the former voyvoda of the Yeni-il and Haleb Turcomans, Eski Yusuf, in charge of organizing a new army which would be composed of the Turcomans of Anatolia and northern Syria. Similarly, without the Turcomans, it seems unlikely for Abaza Hasan Pasha to give a warning to the state in such a manner: "I want the heads of seventy men with the vizier Köprülü, and from then on Rumeli is yours, beyond the sea Anatolia is mine!"443 As for tribesmen, joining in the armies of rebel pashas as sekbân and saruca opened the way for entering to the askeri class, which enabled them to prosper by means of tax exemption as well as salaries paid in cash. In chapter one, how local tribesmen's efforts to become askeri have been seen through Canbakal's examples from Ayntab court records. In addition, the 'Akçakoyunlu' and 'Neccarlı' tribes from Yeni-il requested their voyvodas to recruit men from their own people, instead of outside the tribes. Furthermore, as seen before, Mansur and his sons from the Danişmendli Turcomans were already the members of kapıkulu sipahs. This vertical mobility in turn produced a new type of subject in the Ottoman provincial society; tribesmanturned-sekbân or tribesman-turned-kul (either janissary or kapıkulu sipah). It was very likely that the Türkmen voyvodas had a part in turning tribesmen into sekbâns or kuls, due to their intermediary positions between tribes and state. Khoury has stated that the local elements in Mosul, Damascus and Haleb had already participated in the cavalry regiments from the 1600's on. The sipah leaders came from the local families who had roots in the provincial society and hence permanent links with rural 443 "Köpürlü Vezîr ile yetmiş kimsenin başların isterim ve illâ Rûmeli kâfiristânı sizin, deryâdan beri Anadolu benim" deyü haber gönderüp deryâ-misâl asker ile Üsküdar'a gelmeğe bel bağlayup.."; Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname;V, 111. 109 populations, such leaders could control the rural resources in the form of taxfarms.444 In this regard, it would not be surprising that a leader who was of Turcoman origin is seen in an effort to obtain the resources belonged to the nomads. On the other hand, all actors who took part in the struggles for the Türkmen voyvodalığı were the new elites of the Ottoman government in the seventeenth century, whose spokesman was Mustafa Naima. The history of Naima was a clear rupture from his precedents, like Koçi Bey and Gelibolulu Mustafa Âli, in terms of focusing on change, rather than the unchangeable nature of the state.445 Therefore, Naima does not condemn the appearance of new social groups, referring to many new figures in his chronicle which enable us to see the general picture of the seventeenth century.446 One of them is certainly Derviş Mehmed Pasha who made a substantial wealth through his entepreneurial spirit during his career at the governorship of Baghdad.447 The others, Abaza Hasan, Gürcü Nebi, İbşir Pasha, Yeğen Osman, who are at the core of this study, were the new provincial elites who had no aristocratic lines. They came from the below and advanced in their career by joining in the Ottoman army, particularly in the six cavalry corps. Thanks to their services of tax collection (mülâzımet), they seem to have enough power to be able to attempt at establishing a monopoly over the state revenues (mîrî mukāta'ât). For instance; Naima states that Gürcü Nebi, even from a remote district, Niğde, could manipulate the distribution of the state revenues, on behalf of his fellows. However, it is obvious that these new elites demanded especially the post of Türkmen voyvodalığı for themselves. There was a fierce struggle over the Türkmen 444 Dina Rızk Khoury, "Ottoman Centre versus Provincial Power-holders", The Cambridge History of Turkey, 3.vol., ed. Suraiya Faroqhi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 146-147. 445 Rifa'at Ali Abou-El-Haj, Modern Devletin Doğası, trans. Oktay Özel-Canay Şahin (Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 2000), 77. 446 Abou-El-Haj, ibid., 78. 447 İ.Metin Kunt, "Derviş Mehmed Paşa, Vezir and Entrepreneur: A Study in Ottoman PoliticalEconomic Theory and Practice". 110 voyvodalığı, owing to its advantages mentioned above. Especially, the earnings of pastoral economy not only whetted the appetite of those in the provinces, but those in Istanbul who were remote from the Turcoman areas. Bektas Agha, who was the old Janissary agha and controlled the Istanbul meat market, objected to both Abaza Hasan Pasha and Dasnik Mirza for the Türkmen voyvodalığı. This study also clearly shows that the Turcomans did not refuse the state authority. Tribesmen appear to have been consent to fulfilling their tax obligations to the state. In case of need, they did not hesitate to take the trouble of going to the Porte in order to submit their complaints about the tax matters. As is seen, in 1653, the Turcomans of Sivas went to Istanbul to complain about the over-taxation by their kethüda named Satılmış. However, even though they returned from Istanbul emptyhanded, their attempt was important for us to see how tribesmen asked for justice from the state. Likewise, tribeswoman named Yüzükutlu (?) went to the sultan in Kayseri on foot in order to lessen the tax burden on her shoulders. It would possible to present more similar examples regarding such tax issues, however, it is still essential to analyze much more documents to clarify the relation between tribesmen and their voyvodas in the seventeenth century when the state underwent a great change. Overall, the Türkmen voyvodası was an important part of the Ottoman provincial administration in the seventeenth century. The government wanted to benefit from the tribes as much as possible, which were stretching over the vast mountainous Anatolian peninsula. For this reason, a great mission fell to the Türkmen voyvodası. He was an instrument of the Ottoman government in tapping the resources of nomads, playing a major role in supplying meat and camel for the Ottoman armies on the Safavid campaign. Apart from the logistic assistance, he had 111 a great role in controlling tribes. He ensured the continuation of tribal groups, keeping them in unit; or, at least collected their taxes, though they dispersed over a large area. 112 BIBLIOGRAPHY Archival Sources: I.Prime Ministry Archives (Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi)  Maliyeden Müdevver Defterler no: 6145, 6159, 6185, 6268, 7275, 7392.  İbnü'l Emin Tasnifi: Dâhiliye no: 5/473, 6/547, 6/540. Saray Muhasebesi no: 12/1235, 1258/1. Şikayet no: 2/110, 1/74. Maliye no: 5/331, 3210 Dahiliye no: 6/540.  Topkapı Sarayı Arşivleri: Maliye Defteri no: 10058, 1328, 4166.  Divân-ı Hümâyun Baş Muhasebe Defterleri no: 207, 197.  Yabancı Arşivler no: 04.d II.Published Archival Sources: Altınay, Ahmet Refik. Anadolu'da Türk Aşiretleri (H.900-1200), second edition. İstanbul: Enderun Kitabevi,1987. Gökçen, İbrahim. 16. ve 17. Asır Sicillerine göre Saruhan’da Yörük ve Türkmenler. İstanbul: Maarifet Basımevi, 1946. Su, Kamil. Balıkesir Civarında Yürük ve Türkmenler. İstanbul: Balıkesir Halkevi Yayınları,1938. Uluçay, Çağatay. XVII. Asırda Saruhan’da Eşkıyalık ve Halk Hareketeleri. Manisa: CHP Halkevi, 1944. 113 III. Primary Sources: Hasanbeyzade, Ahmed. Hasan Bey-zâde Târihi, ed. Şevki Nezihi Aykut, 3 vols., Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2004 Evliya Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zılli - - - Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 304 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu-Dizini), vol.I, editors Robert Dankoff, Seyit Ali Kahraman ve Yücel Dağlı, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2006. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 304 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu-Dizini), vol.II, editors Zekeriya Kurşun, Seyit Ali Kahraman ve Yücel Dağlı, second edition, İstanbul:Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2006. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 305 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu-Dizini), vol.III, editors Seyit Ali Kahraman ve Yücel Dağlı, second edition, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2006. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdad 307 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu-Dizini), vol.V, editors Yücel Dağlı, Seyit Ali Kahraman, İbrahim Sezgin, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2001. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 306, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi Pertev Paşa 462, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi Hacı Beşir Ağa 452 Numaralı Yazmalarının Mukayeseli Transkripsiyonu-Dizini), editors Yücel Dağlı, Seyit Ali Kahraman, Robert Dankoff, vol.IX, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, Mart 2006. Gelibolulu Mustafa' Âlî, Mevâ'ıdü'n-Nefāis Fî-Kavâ'ıdi'l-Mecâlis, ed. Prof.Dr. Mehmet Şeker. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1997. Hırzü'l-Mülūk, Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilatına Dair Kaynaklar (Kitab-ı Müstetab, Kitabu Mesâlihi'l Müslimîn ve Menâfi'i'l Mü'minîn, Hırzü'l Mülūk ), ed. Yaşar Yücel. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1988. Hüseyin Tuğî, Musibetnâme, ed.Şevki Nezihi Aykut. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2010. İsâ-zâde Tarihi, ed.Ziya Yılmazer. İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti Yayınları, 1996. Katib Çelebi, Fezleke, vol.I-II. İstanbul:1286-1287. - Fezleketü't-Tevârîh, ed. Prof.Dr. Seyyid Muhammed es-Seyyid. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2009. Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi, Târih-i Na'îmâ (Ravzatü'l- Hüseyn Fî Hulâsati Ahbâri'lHâfikayn), vol. I-II-III-IV, ed. Mehmet İpşirli. Ankara:Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2007. Topçular Kâtibi 'Abdülkādir (Kadrî) Efendi Tarihi, vol. I-II, ed. Doç. Dr. Ziya Yılmazer, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2003. 114 Tavernier, Jean Baptiste. Tavernier Seyahatnamesi, trans. Teoman Tunçdoğan, ed. Stefanos Yerasimos. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2006. Dictionaries: Pakalın, Mehmet Zeki. Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü, vol. I-II-III, İstanbul Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 1946. Sami, Şemseddin. Kamus-ı Türkî, İkdam matbaası, İstanbul, H.1318. Redhouse, James. Redhouse Dictionary, Türkçe-İngilizce, İstanbul, 7th edition, 1984. Tanıklariyle Tarama Sözlüğü I, Türk Dil Kurumu, İstanbul Cumhuriyet Basımevi, 1943. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steward. Works Cited: Abou-El-Haj, Rifa'at Ali. Modern Devletin Doğası, trans. Oktay Özel-Canay Şahin. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 2000. Abu-Husayn, Abdul-Rahim. Provincial Leaderships in Syria, 1576-1650. Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1985. Adanır, Fikret. "Woywoda", Encyclopaedia of Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Akdağ, Mustafa. "Genel Çizgileriyle XVII. Yüzyıl Türkiye Tarihi", Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol:4, no: 6-7. - Türkiye'nin İktisadî ve İçtimaî Tarihi. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2010. Celâlî İsyanları (1550-1603). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1963. "Yeniçeri Ocak Nizamının Bozuluşu", Ankara Üniversitesi Dil veTarihCoğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, Vo:5, No:3, 1947 Büyük Celâli Karışıklıklarının Başlaması. Erzurum: 1963. Altınok, Baki Yaşar. Öyküleriyle Kırşehir Türküleri, Destanları, Ağıtları. Ankara: Oba Yayıncılık, 2003. Andreasyan, Hrand D. Polonyalı Simeon’un Seyahatnamesi 1608-1619. İstanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1964. 115 Barkey, Karen. Bandits and Bureaucrats (The Ottoman Route to State Centralization). New York: Cornell University Press, 1994. Bulliet, Richard. The Camel and the Wheel. New York: Columbia University Press,1990. Canbakal, Hülya. Ayntab: Society and Politics in an Ottoman Town. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2007. Cezar, Mustafa. Osmanlı Tarihinde Levendler, İstanbul, 1965. Cezar, Yavuz. Osmanlı Maliyesinde Bunalım ve Değişim Dönemi. İstanbul: Alan Yayıncılık, 1986. Cırık, Hatice. "XVII. Yüzyıl Askeri Seferleri Esnasında Anadolu'dan Yapılan Hazırlıklar (1644-1660)", unpublished M.A. thesis, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara, 2006. Çakar, Enver. 17. Yüzyılda Haleb Eyaleti ve Türkmenler. Elazığ: Fırat Üniversitesi Ortadoğu Araştırmaları Merkezi Yayınları, 2006. Danacı, Aysel. "The Ottoman Empire and the Anatolian Tribes in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries", unpublished M.A thesis, Boğaziçi University, 1998. Darling, Linda T. Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy (Tax Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1560-1660). Leiden-New York-Köln: E.J. Brill, 1996. Eröz, Mehmet. Yörükler. İstanbul: Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı,1991. Faroqhi, Suraiya. "Political Tensions in the Anatolian Countryside Around 1600 An Attempt at Interpretation", Turkische Miszellen. Robert Anhegger Festschrift. Armağanı, Melanges, ed. J.L Bacque Grammont, Barbara Flemming, Macit Gökberk, İlber Ortaylı, İstanbul, 1987. - "Onyedinci Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Devecilik ve Anadolu Göçebeleri (Danişmedli Mukataası)", IX. Türk Tarih Kongresi, II.cilt, Ankara 21-25 Eylül 1981 - Towns and Townsmen of Ottoman Anatolia: Trade, Crafts and Food Production in an Urban Setting 1520-1650. Cambridge University Press: 1984. - "Camels, Wagons, and the Ottoman State in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries", International Journal of Middle East Studies, 14 (1982) Finkel, Caroline. Osman's Dream. New York: Basic Books, 2006. 116 Genç, Mehmet. "Osmanlı İktisadî Dünya Görüşünün İlkeleri", Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol.3, No:1 (1988-1989), İ.Ü.E.F. Yayınları, İstanbul, 1989. Gordlevski, Vladimir. Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti, translated from Russian to Turkish by Azer Yaran. Ankara: Onur Yayıncılık, 1988.(V.Gordlevski, Gosudarstvo Selçukidov Maloy Azii, Moscow-Leningrad, 1941). Göçer, Lütfi. XVI-XVII. Asırlarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Hububat Meselesi ve Hububattan Alınan Vergiler. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1964. Göyünç, Nejat. XVI.Yüzyılda Mardin Sancağı. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1991. Greenwood, Antony W. "Istanbul's Meat Provisioning: A Study of the Celepkeşan System", unpublished PhD thesis, the University of Chicago, 1988. Griswold,William J. The Great Anatolian Rebellion 1000-1020/1591-1611. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1988. Günay, Vehbi. "Evliya Çelebi'nin Gözlemlerine Göre Anadolu'da Eşkıyalık ve Celâliler", Evliya Çelebi ve Seyahatnamesi, ed. Nuran Tezcan- Kadir Atlansoy, Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi Yayınları, Mersin, 2002. Gündüz, Tufan. Anadolu'da Türkmen Aşiretleri (Bozulus Türkmenleri 1540-1640), second edition. İstanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2007. - XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri. İstanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2005. - "Osmanlı Devleti'nde Konar-Göçer Raiyyete Dair", Bozkırın EfendileriTürkmenler Üzerine Makaleler. İstanbul: Yeditepe Yayınları, 2009. Halaçoğlu,Yusuf. XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun İskân Siyâseti ve Aşiretlerin Yerleştirilmesi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1988. Imber, Colin. The Ottoman Empire 1300-1650. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. İnalcık, Halil. The Ottoman Empire The Classical Age 1300-1600. London: Phoenix, 2000. - "Adaletnameler", Türk Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi, II-3/4 (TTK, 1965). "Arab Camel Drivers in Western Anatolia in the Fifteenth Century", Essays in Ottoman History, İstanbul, 1998. "Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700", Archivum Ottomanicum, VI. (1980), Peeters-Leuven. "The Socio-Political Effects of the Diffusion of Fire-Armes in the Middle East", War, Technology and Society in the Middle East, ed. V.J.Parry and M.E.Yapp. London: Oxford University Press, 1975. İşbilir, Ömer. "Osmanlı Ordularının İaşe ve İkmali: I. Ahmed Devri İran Seferleri 117 Örneği", Türkler Ansiklopedisi (10), editors Hasan Celal Güzel, Kemal Çiçek, Selim Koca, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları. Jennings, Ronald. "The Population, Society, and Economy of the Region of Erciyeş Dağı in the Sixteenth Century", in R. Jennings, Studies on Ottoman Social History in the Sixteenth And Seventeenth Centuries. İstanbul:The ISIS Press, 1999. - "Firearms, Bandits, and Gun-Control: Some Evidence on Ottoman Policy Towards Firearms in the Possession of Reaya, From Judicial Records of Kayseri, 1600-1627", Archivum Ottomanicum, 6 (1980). Kasaba, Reşat. A Moveable Empire. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 2009. Khoury, Dina Rızk. State and Provincial Society in the Ottoman Empire (Mosul, 1540-1834). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. - "Ottoman Centre versus Provincial Power-holders", The Cambridge History of Turkey, 3.vol., ed. Suraiya Faroqhi.New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Kunt, İ.Metin."Derviş Mehmed Paşa, Vezir and Entrepreneur: A Study in Ottoman Political-Economic Theory and Practice", Turcica Revue D'etudes Turques, Tome IX/1, 1977. Lindner, Rudi Paul. Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1983. Mousnier, Roland. Peasant Uprisings in Seventeenth Century France, Russia and China, translated from the French by Brian Pearce, London, 1971. Murphey, Rhoads. "Some Features of Nomadism in the Ottoman Empire: A Survey Based On Tribal Census And Judicial Appeal Documentation From Archives In Istanbul And Damascus", Journal of Turkish Studies, Vol.8, (1984). - - Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700. London: UCL Press,1999. "The Functioning of the Ottoman Army Under Murad IV (1623-1639/10321049): Key to the Understanding of the Relationship Between Center and Periphery in the Seventeenth Century Turkey", unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Chicago, 1979. Regional Structure in the Ottoman Economy. Göttingen: Otto Harrasowitz Wiesbaden, 1987. Orhonlu, Cengiz. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Aşiretlerin İskânı. İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 1987. 118 - Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Aşiretleri İskan Teşebbüsü (1691-1696). İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, 1963. Ortaylı, İlber. "Devenin Taşıma Maliyeti Eğrisi Üzerine Bir Deneme", Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.28, no:1. Özel, Oktay. "The Reign of Violance: the Celalis (c.1550-1570)", Contribution to the Ottoman World, ed. Christine Woodhead (London: Routledge), forthcoming. Özvar, Erol. "XVII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Taşra Maliyesinde Değişme: Diyarbakır’da Hazine Defterdarlığından Voyvodalığa Geçiş", IX International Congress of Economic and Social History of Turkey, Dubrovnik-Crotia, (20-23 August, 2002), published by Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 2005. Planhol, de Xavier." Geographic Politique et nomadisme en Anatolia", in Revue Internationale des Sciences sociales, XI, 1959. Rafeq, Abdul-Karim. "The Revolt of Ali Pasha Janbulad (1605-1607) in the Contemporary Arabic Sources and its Significance", VIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 11-15 Ekim 1976, Vol.III. - "Changes in the Relationship between the Ottoman Central Administration and the Syrian Provinces from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries", Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic History, ed. Thomas Naff and Roger Owen, Southern Illinois University Press, 1977. Salzmann, Philip Carl."Tribal Chiefs as Middlemen: The Politics of Encapsulation in the Middle East", Anthroplogical Quarterly, vol. 47, No.2 (Apr., 1974). Saydam, Abdullah."Sultanın Özel Statüye Sahip Tebaası: Konar-Göçerler", SDÜ Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no:20, (December 2009). Shaw,Stanford J. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol:I Empire of the Gazis (The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire 1280-1808), Cambridge University Press, 1976. Selçuk, Havva. "1651 Yılında Kayseri Kalesinin Kuşatılması ve Kürd Mehmed Ağa", SDÜ Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no.17, (May 2008). - "The Jelali Abaza Hasan Rebellion and Its Reflection on Kayseri", Turkish Studies, vol:3/4, Summer 2008. "Kayseri ve Çevresinde Bulunan Türkmen Oymaklarının Yerleşik Halkla Münasebetleri", Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyete Yörükler ve Türkmenler, editors Hayati Beşirli – İbrahim Erdal. Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi, 2008. 119 Soyudoğan, Muhsin."Aşiretlerin Ekonomi Politiği ya da Olağan Şiddet: Osmanlı Ayntâb'ında Aşiret Eşkıyalığı Üzerine", Antep, ed. Mehmet Gültekin, İletişim Yay., İstanbul, Haziran 2011. Söylemez, Faruk. Osmanlı Devleti'nde Aşiret Yönetimi: Rişvan Aşireti Örneği. İstanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları, 2007. Sümer, Faruk. Oğuzlar (Türkmenler). İstanbul:Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı, 1999. - Safevi Devletinin Kuruluşu ve Gelişmesinde Anadolu Türklerinin Rolü. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1992. Şahin, İlhan. "XVI. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Anadolusu Göçebelerinde Kethüdalık ve Boybeylik Müessesesi", Osmanlı Döneminde Konar-Göçerler, İlhan Şahin. İstanbul: Eren, 2006. - "1638 Bağdat Seferinde Zahire Nakline Memur Edilen Yeniil ve Halep Türkmenleri", Tarih Dergisi, no: 33 (1982). "XVI.Asırda Halep Türkmenleri", Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi, no:12 (1982). "Yeni-İl Kazası ve Yeni-İl Türkmenleri (1548-1653)", unpublished PhD thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1980. "Anadolu’da Oğuzlar", Türkler VI. Taş, Hülya. XVII. Yüzyılda Ankara. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2006. Tezcan, Baki. " The Military Rebellion in İstanbul: A Historiographical Journey", International Journal of Turkish Studies, Vol.8, Spring 2002. - The Second Ottoman Empire. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Thomas, Lewis. A Study of Naima, ed. Norman Itzkowitz. New York: New York University Press, 1972. Togan, İsenbike. "Ottoman History by Inner Asian Norms", New Approaches to State and Peasant in Ottoman History, editors Halil Berktay and Suraiya Faroqhi. London: Frank Cass&Co.Ltd., 1992. Turan, Şerafettin. Kanuni Süleyman Dönemi Taht Kavgaları. Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi,1997. Uluçay, Çağatay. "Yavuz Sultan Selim Nasıl Padişah Oldu?", Tarih Dergisi, no:6-8. Usta, Onur.-Özel, Oktay. "Sedentarization of the Turcomans in 16th Century Cappadocia: Kayseri, 1480-1584", Between Religion and Language: TurkishSpeaking Christians, Jews and Greek-Speaking Muslims and Catholics in the Ottoman Empire, (Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları Dizisi: 48) ed. EvangeliaBalta and Mehmet Ölmez. İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 2010. 120 Uzun, Efkan."XVII. Yüzyıl Anadolu İsyanlarının Şehirlere Yayılması; Sosyal ve Ekonomik Hayata Etkisi (1630-1655)", unpublished PhD thesis, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara, 2008. Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı. Kapıkulu Ocakları II. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988. - Osmanlı Devletinin Saray Teşkilatı. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988. White, Sam. "Ecology, Climate and Crisis in the Ottoman Near East", unpublished PhD thesis, University of Colombia, 2008. Woods E. John. The Aqqoyunlu (Clan, Confederation, Empire). Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 1999. 121 APPENDICES Appendix A: The Connection Between Türkmen Voyvodas and Tribes TRIBES Economic advantages Military advantages (sheep, camel and avarız taxes) (human source) - meat supply for market - land transportation - taxes paid in cash Tribesmen turned Sekbân or kul cash revenue [Celâli bands (Turcoman origin)] financial support military support [rebel]Türkmen voyvodas Appendix B: The List of Some Türkmen Voyvodas 122 Türkmen voyvodas Office Unit Year Eski Yusuf Halberdier(baltacı) Yeni-il 1621 Hasan Ağa* ? Yeni-il 1630-31 Mehmed Ağa* ? Yeni-il 1644 Abaza Hasan Pasha Silâhdar Yeni-il 1648-49,1651-53 Ak Ali Ağa Janissary ? Yeni-il 1648-49 Gürcü Nebî sipâh Bozulus 1642-43 Hasan (Konyalı) sipâh Bozulus 1653-55 Kürd Mehmed sipâh Yeni-il 1655 Kazzaz Ahmed sipâh dispersed Turcomans 1645 Çomar Bölükbaşı sipâh Turcomans in Ayntab 1650 Koçur Bey sipâh Bozulus 1626 Dilaver Pasha sipâh ? 1628-29 ? Küçük Ahmed Pasha ? ? 1632 ? * Hasan Ağa (1630-31) and Mehmed Ağa (1644) are added from İlhan Şahin's PhD dissertation Appendix C: The Main Turcoman Areas in Anatolia in the Seventeenth Century448 448 This map is prepared through the datas given by Tufan Gündüz. (Gündüz, Anadolu'da Türkmen Aşiretleri; XVII ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri) 123 I. Danişmendli Turcomans (Aydın Evi), Bozulus Turcomans II. Bozulus Turcomans III. Bozulus Turcomans IV. Bozulus Turcomans V. Danişmendli Turcomans (Rum Evi), Bozulus Turcomans VI. Yeni-il Turcomans VII. Haleb Turcomans VIII. Bozulus Turcomans 124