State-tribe relations: Kurdish tribalism in the 16th- and 17th-century Ottoman Empire

British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 5-27

  Özoǧlu, Hakan ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HISTORICAL STUDY; KURDISH PEOPLE; OTTOMAN EMPIRE; SEVENTEENTH CENTURY; SIXTEENTH CENTURY; STATE-TRIBE RELATIONS; TRIBAL STRUCTURE;

MIDDLE EAST;

EID: 0030424832     PISSN: 13530194     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13530199608705620     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. See for example Philip S. Khoury and Joseph Kostiner (eds), Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990) and Richard Tapper (ed.) The Conflict of Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan (London: St Martin's Press, 1983).
2. See for example Philip S. Khoury and Joseph Kostiner (eds), Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990) and Richard Tapper (ed.) The Conflict of Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan (London: St Martin's Press, 1983).
3. Richard Tapper's two articles address these questions persuasively, 'Anthropologist, historians, and tribespeople on Tribe and State Formation in the Middle East', in Tribes and State Formation..., pp. 48-73; and 'Introduction', in The Conflict of Tribe..., pp. 1-75.
4. Richard Tapper's two articles address these questions persuasively, 'Anthropologist, historians, and tribespeople on Tribe and State Formation in the Middle East', in Tribes and State Formation..., pp. 48-73; and 'Introduction', in The Conflict of Tribe..., pp. 1-75.
5. E. Evans-Pritchard, The Nuer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940).
6. For a more detailed discussion on the shortcoming of the segmentary lineage theory see D. F. Eickelman, The Middle East: An Anthropological Approach (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1981), pp. 98-9.
7. Albert Hourani, 'Conclusion: Tribes and States in Islamic History', in P. Khoury and J. Costiner (eds), Tribes and States in the Middle East (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), p. 303.
8. Ibid.
9. Hourani, p. 304. For the role of myth in constructing and re-constructing a society see Bruce Lincoln, Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparative Studies of Myth, Ritual, and Classification (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 15-45.
10. Tapper, 'Introduction', in Richard Tapper (ed.), The Conflict of Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan (New York: St Martin's Press, 1983), p. 9.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid. See also Fredric Barth, Nomads of South Persia: The Basseri Tribe of the Khamseh Confederacy (London: Little, Brown, 1961).
13. Ibid. See also Fredric Barth, Nomads of South Persia: The Basseri Tribe of the Khamseh Confederacy (London: Little, Brown, 1961).
14. Beatrice F. Manz, The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 29
15. Except for words common in English, all Turkish words, regardless of derivation, are given here in modem Turkish spelling.
16. Tapper, p. 9.
17. This paper uses the term 'emirate' in the same sense that Tapper uses 'confederacy'. 'Kurdish principalities' is another term designating the same political group.
18. Cf. Minorsky, p. 449, and Basil Nikitin, Kürtler (Istanbul: Deng, 1991), pp. 19-48, and Eyüp Sabri 'Kürtler Tarihi Bir Millettir', Jin (8 May 1919), p. 9.
19. Cf. Minorsky, p. 449, and Basil Nikitin, Kürtler (Istanbul: Deng, 1991), pp. 19-48, and Eyüp Sabri 'Kürtler Tarihi Bir Millettir', Jin (8 May 1919), p. 9.
20. Hasan Arfa, The Kurds: A Historical and Political Study, (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 7.
21. Ibid., p. 6.
22. For Şerefhan Bitlisi's perception of 'Kurd' and 'Kurdistan', see M. Emin Bozaraslan (trans), Şerefname (Istanbul: Yöntem Yay, 1975), pp. 17-29. The same work was first published by Ant Yay in 1971. This paper uses both editions.
23. Hence, this paper's use of Kurdistan excludes the Kurdish land outside the political boundaries of the Ottoman Empire after the sixteenth century. For the earlier period, Şerefhan's definition of Kurdistan has been employed.
24. F. Amedroz, 'The Marwanid Dynasty at Mayyafariqin in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries A.D.', Journal of Royal Asian Society (1903) p. 146, and Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edn, s.v. 'Marwanids', vol. 6, pp. 626-7.
25. F. Amedroz, 'The Marwanid Dynasty at Mayyafariqin in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries A.D.', Journal of Royal Asian Society (1903) p. 146, and Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edn, s.v. 'Marwanids', vol. 6, pp. 626-7.
26. Arfa, p. 9.
27. Only a few Kurdish tribes in the Mamluk dominion survived since Hülagü, a Mongol prince, was stopped by the Mamluk armies.
28. Minorsky, p. 457, based on Şerefhan's account in Şerefname. See also Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan (London: Zed Books), p. 137.
29. For the literature regarding Selim I's rule, see Ahmet Uǧur, The Reign of Sultan Selim I in the Light of the Selim-Name Literature (Berlin: Schwarz, 1985) and Hoca Saadeddin, in Ismet Parmaksizoǧlu (ed.), Tacü't Tevarih (Istanbul: Kültür Bakanliǧi, 1974-9).
30. For the literature regarding Selim I's rule, see Ahmet Uǧur, The Reign of Sultan Selim I in the Light of the Selim-Name Literature (Berlin: Schwarz, 1985) and Hoca Saadeddin, in Ismet Parmaksizoǧlu (ed.), Tacü't Tevarih (Istanbul: Kültür Bakanliǧi, 1974-9).
31. Mainly Turkmen followers of Shah İsmail in Anatolia who were named after the red head-gear they wore.
32. Bruinessen, Evliya Çelebi in Diyarbakir, p. 16.
33. Bruinessen paraphrased the section after the Şerefname, in F. B. Charmoy (trans, and ed.), Cheref-nameh ou Fastes de la Nation Kourde, par Cherefouddine, prince de Bitlis, dans l'lialet d'Arzeroume (St Petersburg, 1868-1875), vol. 2, pp. 296-7.
34. He was the grandfather of Şerefhan Bitlisi, the author of the Şerefname.
35. Şerefhan (1971), pp. 461-513.
36. The information in this section is based mainly on Halil Inalcik The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600, trans. N. Itzkowitz and C. Imber (London: Trinity Press, 1973); I. Hakki Uzunçarşili, Osmanli Tarihi, vol. 3 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1977); Metin Kunt, The Sultan's Servants: The Transformation of Ottoman Provincial Government, 1550-1650 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983).
37. The information in this section is based mainly on Halil Inalcik The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600, trans. N. Itzkowitz and C. Imber (London: Trinity Press, 1973); I. Hakki Uzunçarşili, Osmanli Tarihi, vol. 3 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1977); Metin Kunt, The Sultan's Servants: The Transformation of Ottoman Provincial Government, 1550-1650 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983).
38. The information in this section is based mainly on Halil Inalcik The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600, trans. N. Itzkowitz and C. Imber (London: Trinity Press, 1973); I. Hakki Uzunçarşili, Osmanli Tarihi, vol. 3 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1977); Metin Kunt, The Sultan's Servants: The Transformation of Ottoman Provincial Government, 1550-1650 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983).
39. The akçe was a silver coin, weighted approximately 0.7 gram by the middle of the sixteenth century. Both weight and exchange rate of the akçe changed over time based on the economic conditions of the Empire. An indication of the akçe's purchasing power in early sixteenth-century Anatolia is that one kilogram of barley was 6 akçes and of wheat was 8 akçes; see Bruinessen, pp. 197-8, n. 48.
40. However, the iltizām system (tax farming) was exclusively applied in the Arab provinces.
41. Inalcik, pp. 104-5.
42. For instance, Şerefname indicates that the ruling family of Cezire claimed an Umayyad descent; the Mirdasi, Çemişkezek and Hakkari rulers traced their genealogy back to the Abbasids. See Şerefhan (1975) pp. 29-31, 198-202, 188-95, 99-107 respectively.
43. Royal or imperial diplomas, letters or privileges.
44. Landed estate held in freehold by patent from the crown.
45. The original was published in Nazmi Sevgen Doǧu ve Güneydoǧu Anadolu'da Türk Beylikleri (eds) S. K. Serefoglu and H. K. Türközü (Ankara: TKAE, 1992), document no. 16. According to Sevgen the original is in the Başbakanlik Arşivi, Hatt-i Hümayun 20898-C. Translation is mine based on Sevgen's modified version of the text, pp. 42-3.
46. The original was published in Nazmi Sevgen Doǧu ve Güneydoǧu Anadolu'da Türk Beylikleri (eds) S. K. Serefoglu and H. K. Türközü (Ankara: TKAE, 1992), document no. 16. According to Sevgen the original is in the Başbakanlik Arşivi, Hatt-i Hümayun 20898-C. Translation is mine based on Sevgen's modified version of the text, pp. 42-3.
47. Sevgen, p. 41.
48. Bruinessen confirms this point by explicitly stating that the state created some Kurdish tribes, Agha Shaikh and State, p. 134. See also Tapper, 'Introduction', p. 9.
49. Bruinessen confirms this point by explicitly stating that the state created some Kurdish tribes, Agha Shaikh and State, p. 134. See also Tapper, 'Introduction', p. 9.
50. Şerefhan (1971), pp. 188-98.
51. Bruinessen claims that the term is not yet found in the sixteenth-century defter, but is mentioned in documents from the mid-seventeenth century on, Evliya Çelebi in Diyarbakir, p. 21.
52. Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State, p. 158.
53. The earliest Ottoman document in Nejat Göyünç's article is a defter, registered in the Topkapi Palace Archives (D. 9772), which can be tentatively dated back to 1520. This defter mentions 37 sancaks (livas), some of which were Kurdish emirates, 'Diyarbekir Beylerbeyiliǧi'nin Ilk Idari Taksimati' (The First Administrative Division of the Diyarbakir Province) Tarih Dergisi (March 1969) vol. 23, pp. 23-35. However, Bruinessen cites an earlier document of 1518, which seems to be the earliest Ottoman register allowing us to theorize about Kurdish autonomy.
54. Başbakanlik Arşivi TT 64. Bruinessen refers to this defter in Evliya Çelebi in Diyarbakir, p. 17, in reference to Diyarbakir Il Yilliǧi 1967, Ankara 1967. Zeki Arikan also mentions this document in his article 'Çemişkezek Livasi Kanunnamesi' (The Law-book of the Çemişkezek District) in Tarih Dergisi vol. 34 (1983-4), p. 104, n. 22.
55. Başbakanlik Arşivi TT 64. Bruinessen refers to this defter in Evliya Çelebi in Diyarbakir, p. 17, in reference to Diyarbakir Il Yilliǧi 1967, Ankara 1967. Zeki Arikan also mentions this document in his article 'Çemişkezek Livasi Kanunnamesi' (The Law-book of the Çemişkezek District) in Tarih Dergisi vol. 34 (1983-4), p. 104, n. 22.
56. Başbakanlik Arşivi TT 64. Bruinessen refers to this defter in Evliya Çelebi in Diyarbakir, p. 17, in reference to Diyarbakir Il Yilliǧi 1967, Ankara 1967. Zeki Arikan also mentions this document in his article 'Çemişkezek Livasi Kanunnamesi' (The Law-book of the Çemişkezek District) in Tarih Dergisi vol. 34 (1983-4), p. 104, n. 22.
57. This happened probably before Pir Hasan's appointment to the Çemişkezek confederacy, see Şerefhan (1975), pp. 188-98.
58. Non-tribal Kurds, however, living generally in the urban centres such as Diyarbakir paid their taxes. Until 1540 the Ottoman state used the same tax system as that of Akkoyunlu regulated by Uzun Hasan. For detailed information see Ömer Lütfi Barkan, 'Osmanli Devrinde Akkoyunlu Hükümdan Uzun Hasan Bey'e Ait Kanunlar', in Türkiye'de Toprak Meselesi (Istanbul: Gözlem yay, 1980), pp. 545-73.
59. Inalcik, p. 106.
60. Metin Kunt, The Sultan's Servants...(New York: Columbia Press, 1983), appendix I, pp. 102-16; also Tayyip Özbilgin, "Introduction" in Kavanin-i Ali Osman...(Istanbul: Enderun Yayinlan, 1979), pp. 3-50. The only difference is that the defter 10057 counts 11 minor emirates.
61. Metin Kunt, The Sultan's Servants...(New York: Columbia Press, 1983), appendix I, pp. 102-16; also Tayyip Özbilgin, "Introduction" in Kavanin-i Ali Osman...(Istanbul: Enderun Yayinlan, 1979), pp. 3-50. The only difference is that the defter 10057 counts 11 minor emirates.
62. See Topkapi Palace Archives, D. 10057. The title is Defter-i Elviye-i Memalik-i Ma'mure-i ala Sebili't-Tafsil. Gökbilgin, p. 6.
63. It seems that information regarding the Kurdish territories in this defter (Topkapi Palace Archives, D. 10057) summarized by Gökbilgin (pp. 26-7) corroborates another defter (Topkapi Palace Archives, D. 5246), published by Kunt in The Sultan's Servants..., pp. 114-15 and Goyünç, pp. 29-30. According to Göyünç, this defter (D.5246) was compiled in 1526.
64. There is an inconsistency in the original manuscript of Seyahatname. Evliya states that there were 16 sancaks in Diyarbakir, '...ve eyalet-i Diyarbekir cümle onalti sancakdir'. In the next line he refers to the sancaks as 19 'Amma ontokuz sancagun onikisi diger memleketun eyaletinde oldugi gibi timar-u zeametlidur', but lists 20 sancaks. The reason for this mistake is that Habur and Sincar together formed one sancak and were mistakenly listed as two separate sancaks in Seyahatname. 19 indeed was the correct number. See the facsimile of the original manuscript in Bruinessen and Boeschoten Evliya Çelebi in Diyarbakir, fol. 199r. This mistake was not corrected in Zuhuri Danişman's translation. See Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 6, p. 117.
65. There is an inconsistency in the original manuscript of Seyahatname. Evliya states that there were 16 sancaks in Diyarbakir, '...ve eyalet-i Diyarbekir cümle onalti sancakdir'. In the next line he refers to the sancaks as 19 'Amma ontokuz sancagun onikisi diger memleketun eyaletinde oldugi gibi timar-u zeametlidur', but lists 20 sancaks. The reason for this mistake is that Habur and Sincar together formed one sancak and were mistakenly listed as two separate sancaks in Seyahatname. 19 indeed was the correct number. See the facsimile of the original manuscript in Bruinessen and Boeschoten Evliya Çelebi in Diyarbakir, fol. 199r. This mistake was not corrected in Zuhuri Danişman's translation. See Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 6, p. 117.
66. Ayn-i Ali's risale, compiled in 1609, corroborates Evliya Çelebi's account. Apparently, both authors refer to the early reign of Süleyman I, but the exact date for Süleyman's above-mentioned kanunname is not very clear. See Bruinessen, Evliya Çelebi in Diyarbakir, p. 204, n. 19; for a discussion on the historicity of Ayn-i Ali see Metin Kunt, The Sultan's Servants (New York: Columbia Press, 1983), appendix I, pp. 102-4; also Tayyip Özbilgin, 'Introduction', in Kavanin-i Ali Osman der Hulasa-i Mezami-i Defter-i Divan (Istanbul: Enderun Yayinlari, 1979), pp. 3-50.
67. Ayn-i Ali's risale, compiled in 1609, corroborates Evliya Çelebi's account. Apparently, both authors refer to the early reign of Süleyman I, but the exact date for Süleyman's above-mentioned kanunname is not very clear. See Bruinessen, Evliya Çelebi in Diyarbakir, p. 204, n. 19; for a discussion on the historicity of Ayn-i Ali see Metin Kunt, The Sultan's Servants (New York: Columbia Press, 1983), appendix I, pp. 102-4; also Tayyip Özbilgin, 'Introduction', in Kavanin-i Ali Osman der Hulasa-i Mezami-i Defter-i Divan (Istanbul: Enderun Yayinlari, 1979), pp. 3-50.
68. Ayn-i Ali's risale, compiled in 1609, corroborates Evliya Çelebi's account. Apparently, both authors refer to the early reign of Süleyman I, but the exact date for Süleyman's above-mentioned kanunname is not very clear. See Bruinessen, Evliya Çelebi in Diyarbakir, p. 204, n. 19; for a discussion on the historicity of Ayn-i Ali see Metin Kunt, The Sultan's Servants (New York: Columbia Press, 1983), appendix I, pp. 102-4; also Tayyip Özbilgin, 'Introduction', in Kavanin-i Ali Osman der Hulasa-i Mezami-i Defter-i Divan (Istanbul: Enderun Yayinlari, 1979), pp. 3-50.
69. Bruinessen dates it as 1631 in Evliya Çelebi in Diyarbakir, but Rhodes Murphey claims that the work was completed in nine months between September 1632 and June 1633, in 'Introduction', Kanun-Name-i Sultan li Aziz Efendi (Washington, DC: Harvard University Press, 1985), p. viii.
70. His actual title is not clear but based on his ability to produce such a work, Murphey thinks Aziz Efendi was a Divan Katibi or secretary of the High Council, ibid., p. vii.
71. Ibid., pp. 12-8.
72. Evliya Çelebi, as translated in Robert Dankoff, Evliya Çelebi in Bitlis, p. 63.
73. Ibid., pp. 237-75.
74. 'Van eyaletinde başka hükümetdir'. Ibid., p. 58.
75. Bruinessen, p. 140; see also the section on 'Hakkari' confederacy in Şerefname.
76. Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State, p. 161.
77. Şerefhan (1975), pp. 107-25.
78. Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State, pp. 169-70. Zeki Arikan claims that the noker was a cavalry unit special to eastern Anatolia, pointing out the interchangeable use of the term with that of sipahi in the Ottoman documents, 'Çemişkezek Livasi Kanunnamesi', p. 115, n. 60. Whether the noker were slave-soldiers or not is not clear in Arikan's account.
79. Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State, pp. 169-70. Zeki Arikan claims that the noker was a cavalry unit special to eastern Anatolia, pointing out the interchangeable use of the term with that of sipahi in the Ottoman documents, 'Çemişkezek Livasi Kanunnamesi', p. 115, n. 60. Whether the noker were slave-soldiers or not is not clear in Arikan's account.
80. Bruinesson, Agha, Shaikh and State, p. 170.
81. Evliya Çelebi as quoted in Dankoff, p. 61 and Şerefhan (1971), p. 493.
82. See P. M. Holt, Egypt and the Fertile Crescent 1516-1922: A Political History (London: Cornell University Press, 1966), particularly pp. 61-134.
83. As the Ottoman Empire declined in the following centuries, the iltizām replaced the dirlik system. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Kurdistan was full of practically independent Kurdish emirs paying only lip-service to Istanbul.