Coercion and mediation: Centralization and sedentarization of tribes in the Ottoman empire

Middle Eastern Studies

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 469-491

  Köoksal, Yonca ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ETHNIC GROUP; OTTOMAN EMPIRE;

EID: 33646702125     PISSN: 00263206     EISSN: 17437881     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00263200600601171     Document Type: Article

References (110)

1. For a general discussion and critique of these approaches, see C. Tilly, 'Survey Article: Power - Top Down and Bottom Up', The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol.7, No.3 (1999), pp.330-52.
2. This interactive perspective is best represented in J. Migdal, A. Kohli, and V. Shue (eds.), State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
3. A. Marx, Faith in Nation, (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003).
4. Especially for Abdulhamid II's reign, see E.L. Rogan, 'Aş, Mektebi Abdulhamid II's School for Tribes (1892-1907)', International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol.28, No.1 (Feb.1996), pp.83-107,
5. and S. Duguid, 'The Politics of Unity: Hamidian Policy in Eastern Anatolia', Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.9 (1973), pp.139-55.
6. T. Skocpol, 'Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research', in P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer & T. Skocpol (eds.), Bringing the State Back in, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985) pp.3-37.
7. One recent example is Scott's analysis of villagization in Ethopia. See J. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Themes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), pp.223-6.
8. See P. Crone, 'The Tribe and the State', in J. Hall (ed.), States in History, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), pp.48-77.
9. Ibid, pp.68-73.
10. See I. Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, F. Rosenthal (trans.), N.J. Dawood (ed.), Bolingen Series (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), pp.91-262 for a discussion of the cycles of the rise of states from tribal confederacies.
11. T.J. Barfield, 'Shadow Empires: Imperial State Formation along the Chinese Nomadic Frontier', in S.E. Alcock, K.D. Morrison, T.N. D'Altroy & C.M. Sinopoli (eds.), Empires: Perspectives from Archeology and History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp.10-41
12. P. Khoury and J. Kostiner (eds.), Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990),
13. and R.P. Lindner, 'What was a Nomadic Tribe?', Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol.24, No.4 (1992), pp.689-711.
14. R. Tapper, 'Shahsevan in Safavid Persia', Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol.37, No.2 (1974), pp.321-54.
15. R. Tapper, 'Introduction', in R. Tapper (ed.), The Conflict of Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), pp.1-82.
16. M. Emirbayer, 'Manifesto for a Relational Sociology', American Journal of Sociology, Vol.103, No.2 (1997), p.287.
17. J. Migdal, A. Kohli, and V. Shue, 'Introduction: Developing a state-in-society perspective', in J. Migdal, A. Kohli and V. Shue (eds.), State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp.1-4.
18. Tilly, 'Survey Article: Power - Top Down and Bottom Up', pp.330-52.
19. Khoury and Kostiner, Tribes and State Formation, p.3.
20. L. Beck, 'Iran and the Qashqai Tribal Confederacy', in R. Tapper (ed.), The Conflict of Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), p.284.
21. For example, in the Bakhtiari tribe of Iran tribal leaders became so embedded in state administration that they were alienated from their tribes. Thus, Bakhtiari chiefs became simultaneously part of the external stimulus of the state while they were by definition part of the internal tribal hierarchy. See, D. Brooks, 'The Enemy Within: Limitations on Leadership in the Bakhtiari', in R. Tapper (ed.), The Conflict of Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), p.362.
22. R. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), pp.8-49
23. and Y. Köksal, 'Imperial Centre and Local Groups: Tanzimat Reforms in the Provinces of Edirne and Ankara', New Perspectives on Turkey, Vol.27 (2002), pp.107-38.
24. A. Hourani, 'Ottoman Reform and the Politics of Notables', in A. Hourani, P.S. Khoury & M.C. Wilson (eds.) The Modern Middle East (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), pp.83-110.
25. For examples of frontier regions, see T.M. Barret, At the Edge of Empire: The Terek Cossacks and the Northern Caucasus Frontier, 1700-1860 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999)
26. Barfield, Shadow Empires; J.E. Woods, The Aqquyunlus: Clan, Confederation, Empire (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1999).
27. Beck, 'Iran and the Qashqai Tribal Confederacy', p.294. In fact, state pressure aimed to break this economic adaptation of the tribe by preventing the movement and therefore attacking the economic basis of Qashqais.
28. Brook, 'The Enemy Within: Limitations on Leadership in the Bakhtiari', p.350. Other examples were Yomut Turkmen of Iran and the Yoruk of Turkey.
29. See D.G. Bates, Nomads and Farmers: A Study of the Yoruk of Southeastern Turkey (Ann Arbor: Anthropological Papers, University of Michigan, 1973), p.37
30. and W. Irons, The Yomut Turkmen: A study of Social Organization Among a Central Asian Turkic-Speaking Population (Ann Arbor: Anthropological Papers, University of Michigan, 1975), pp.72-5.
31. Families whose herd size brings diminishing returns for capital and risk involvement can consider other means of deploying capital in land or urban shops. See F. Barth, Nomads of South Persia: The Basseri Tribe of the Khamseh Confederacy (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1961), pp.101-11
32. Bates states that this model of settlement accounts for individual decisions for settlement, but does not describe the group settlement of whole communities. See D.G. Bates, Nomads and Farmers, p.196.
33. J.K. Campbell, Honor, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in Greek Mountain Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp.14-15.
34. Tapper, 'Introduction', p.58.
35. Beck, 'Iran and the Qashqai Tribal Confederacy', p.303.
36. Prime Ministry Archives, Istanbul (hereafter BOA), Ayniyat Defteri 445, p.61, 1276.S.28/26 Sept. 1859.
37. In 1846, they were reported to have one to two thousand households in the province of Ankara. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 402, pp.128-130, 1262. Za.8/ 28 Oct. 1846.
38. Ö.L. Barkan, 'Osmanli ̇Imparatorlugunda bir ̇Iskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu olarak Sürgünler', ̇Iktisat Fakültesi Mecmuasi, Vol.XI 1, No.4 (1950), pp.524-61,
39. and Ö.L. Barkan, 'Osmanli ̇Imparatorlugunda bir ̇Iskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Vakiflar ve Temlikler', Vakiflar Dergisi Vol.2 (1942), pp.279-365.
40. Reşat Kasaba notes that the Ottoman state aimed to create a more stable and sedentary empire at the end of the seventeenth century because of changing international conditions. See R. Kasaba, 'Do States Always Favor Statis? The Changing Status of Tribes in the Ottoman Empire', in J. Migdal (ed.), Boundaries and Belonging; States in the Struggle to Shape Identities and Local Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
41. C. Orhonlu, Osmanli ̇Imparatorlugunda Aşiret ̇Iskanlari (Istanbul: Eren Yayinlari, 1987), p.112
42. and Yusuf Hallaçoglu, 18. Yüzyilda Osmanli ̇Imparatorlugunun ̇Iskan Siyaseti ve Aşiretlerin Yerleştirilmesi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1997), p.110-16.
43. M. Van Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh, and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan (London; Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Zed Books, 1992), pp.151-85.
44. A. Refik, Anadolu'da Türk Aşiretleri (966-1200) (Istanbul: Istanbul Devlet Matbaasi, 1930), pp.47-8.
45. The Afşars were Oghuz Turks. They belonged to the Bozok group, and descended from Afşar, the son of Yildiz Han who was the grandson of Oghuz Khan. See M. Işik, Afşarlar: Tarihi, Yetiştirdigi Şahislar, Folkloru (Ankara: Kardeş Matbaasi, 1963), p.2.
46. Tapper, 'Shahsevan in Safavid Persia,' p.338.
47. Orhonlu, Osmanli ̇Imparatorlugunda Aşiret ̇Iskanlari, p.20.
48. Ibid., pp.57-65.
49. Ibid., p.70.
50. Earlier documents in A. Refik's classification report that the Yeniil Turcomans lived around Arapkir, Canik, Divrigi, Bozok, Çorum, Amasya and Sivas in summer. They migrated to Damascus in winter. See A. Refik, Anadolu'da Türk Aşiretleri, pp. 69-70.
51. Hallaçoglu, 18. Yüzyilda Osmanli ̇Imparatorlugunun ̇Iskan Siyaseti, p.112.
52. Ainsworth mentions Kara koyunli (p.277), Jerid (p.284) and Sherakli (p.293) Turcoman tribes, and Akajuk Kurds by name. See W. Ainsworth, 'Journey from Angora by Kaisariyah, Malatiyah, and Gergen Kal'eh-si, to Bir or Birecik', Journal of Royal Geographical Society of London, Vol.10 (1840), pp.275-310.
53. Hamilton describes 'a place called by the Turks Afshars and by the Greeks Anabarza. Close to Everek Kieui, a village in Develi district.... The country is difficult and dangerous to travel through, the inhabitants being all robbers, who are called by the Turks Aufshari, and by the Greeks Isavri.' See W.J. Hamilton, Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia: Some Account of Their Antiquities and Geology, Vol.2 (London: John Murray, Albemarle St., 1842), p.263.
54. Hamilton, Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia, pp.219-21.
55. See A. Cevdet Pasha, Maruzat, 2nd Edn (Istanbul: Çagri Yayinlari,1980) for Bosnia, M. Van Bruinessen, Agha, Shaik and State, pp.133-202
56. for patterns of state-tribe interactions before and during the Tanzimat in Kurdistan, B. Schaebler, 'State(s) Power and the Druzes: Integration and the Struggle for Social control (1838-1949)', in T. Philipp and B. Schaebler (eds.), The Syrian Land: Processes of Integration and Fragmentation (Berlin: Franz Steiner, 1998), pp.331-65 for Syria,
57. and Eugene L. Rogan, Frontiers of the State in the Late Ottoman Empire: Transjordan, 1850-1921 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999) for Transjordan.
58. It was reported that the desertion of settlements for pastures was an important problem, and this should be prevented by granting tax exemptions and encouraging agricultural production. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 422, pp.82-85, 1267.B.19/20 May 1851.
59. For a detailed discussion of the reflection of the Tanzimat concepts in the legal sphere, see Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, pp.3-51 and pp.358-408,
60. and Ilber Ortayli, Imparatorlugun En Uzun Yüzyili (Istanbul: Hil Yayinlari, 1983), pp.51-178.
61. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 405, pp.91-93, 1263.Ra.13/1 March 1847.
62. Counting the population was noted as the most important issue in several documents. See BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 417, p.25, 1266.C.14/27April 1850.
63. The only exception is A. Gould, 'Lords or Bandits? The Derebeys of Cilicia', International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol.7 (1976), pp.485-506.
64. Using state documents raises the issues of reliability and validity of the data source. Reliability refers to whether the documents give an accurate picture of events. The state documents may reflect the state's point of view, but locals may have had a different view on the issues reported. Ottoman archival documents provide a rare opportunity to check reliability since the archives include petitions of state officials, tribal leaders and village residents. I checked the reliability of the data by comparing the reports of officials, local people and tribal leaders whenever they are available in different registries. In most cases, data from different registries confirm and support each other. The validity issue refers to whether the state documents are the right places to test theoretical propositions since I make claims about tribal hierarchy based on state documents. Since this article examines state policies of settlement, not the detailed study of the internal relations of tribes, the main focus is on defining the ways the state constructed tribal hierarchy and dealt with it. In this sense, state documents are valid and valuable sources for the study of settlement policies. I also support archival data with memoirs of European travelers and state officials, although most travelers had brief encounters with semi-nomadic tribes without providing detailed information.
65. The Yeniil Turcomans were reported to belong to the endowment of the Valide Sultan in Istanbul in the 16th century. Therefore, they are also known as Uskudar Turcomans. See Orhonlu, Osmanli ̇Imparatorlugunda Aşiret ̇Iskanlari, p.16.
66. BOA, Cevdet Dahiliye, 2666, 1256.M.27/31 March 1840.
67. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 422, pp.84-5, 1267.B.19/20 May 1851.
68. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 405, pp.106-7, 1263.B.25/9 July 1847.
69. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 441, pp.123-4, 1274.M.30/20 Sept. 1857.
70. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 444, pp.98-9, 25.B.1275/28 Feb. 1859.
71. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 399, p.81, 1262.Ca.28/24 May 1846.
72. Archival documents occasionally use the Koçgiris and the Cihanbeylis interchangeably. This is probably because of the small number of the Cihanbeylis living closely with the Koçgiris. Sykes describes Kocgiri as 'a peculiar nation, or perhaps one might call them a separate nation' (p.479). See M. Sykes, 'The Kurdish Tribes of the Ottoman Empire', The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol.38 (Jul.-Dec. 1908), pp.451-86.
73. M. Baran mentions that the Koçgiri and the Cihanbeyli (Canbegan) tribes were two separate tribes in the district of Koçgiri. See Baran, Koçgiri: Kuzey-Bati Dersim (Istanbul: Tohum, 2002), pp.51-4.
74. Sykes'The Kurdish Tribes of the Ottoman Empire', p.472 and 481-82.
75. Alişan Bey's title was recorded as istabl-i amire, which was a title granted to successful state officials. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 418, p.109, 1266.Za.1/8 Sept. 1850.
76. The exact Turkish wording of this claim is interesting: 'Tanzimattan beru hükümete aykiri davranan Cihanbeyli aşireti' (The Cihanbeyli tribe which reacted against the government since the Tanzimat).
77. BOA, Amedi Mektubi (hereafter A.MKT.), 39/85, 1264.R.3/9 March 1848.
78. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 402, pp.143-5, 1262.Za.21/10 Nov. 1846
79. Ayniyat Defteri 403, p.14, 1262.Za.25/14 Nov. 1846.
80. BOA, A. MKT. 72/56, 1263.R.4/22 March 1847 and BOA, A. MKT. 181/27, 1263.S.28/15 Feb. 1847.
81. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 407, pp.108-9, 1263.N.4/16 Aug. 1847.
82. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri, 411, p.40, 1264.S,.10/12 July 1848.
83. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 411, pp.70-4, 1264.S,.25/27 July 1848.
84. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 386, pp.8-9, 1260.Ra.9/29 March 1844.
85. Salahaddin Aga was the old ayan (local notable who mediated relations between the centre and local residents before the Tanzimat) of the city of Ankara. The German traveler Mordtmann reports him as a very wealthy individual who was well respected by all religious and ethnic communities in the city of Ankara. See A.D. Mordtmann, Anatolien-Skizzen und Reisebriefe aus Kleinasien (1850-1859), F. Babinger (ed.), F. Sezgin (ed.) (Frankfurt: Institut für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften, 1995).
86. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 428, p.90, 1269.Ra.4/16 Dec. 1852.
87. BOA, Cevdet Maliye 3026, 1276.C.17/11 Jan.1860.
88. For the Esbikeşan settlement, see BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 463, pp.156-57, 1279.Ca.7/31 Oct. 1862.
89. Ahmet Cevdet Pasha, Tezakir, Vol.3, Cavid Baysun (ed.) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1953-1967), pp.107-213.
90. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 402, pp.128-30, 1262.Za.8/28 Oct. 1846.
91. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 415, pp.6-7, 1265.L.7/26 Aug. 1849.
92. Muharrem Eren mentions Çerkez Beg and ̇Ismail Beg as the leaders of the Afşars. See Muharrem Eren, Koca Avşar Köyü ve Tarihte Avşarlar (Ankara: Milli Egitim Bakanligi, 1992), p.251. The above archive document (BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 415, pp.6-7) mentions Ismail Aga and Çerkez Bey among the leaders of the tribe.
93. BOA, Irade Meclis-i Vala 18396, 1275.S.13/22 Sept. 1858.
94. Muharrem Eren mentions the family origin of Çerkez Bey as descending from Arab Hasan who was the son of Kara Recep, the leader of Receblü Afşars division. See Eren, Koca Avşar Köy, p.254.
95. The first settlement attempt in these districts was in 1849.
96. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 442, pp.69-70, 1274.Ca.27/13 Jan. 1858.
97. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 422, pp.84-5, 1267.N.19/20 March 1851.
98. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 460, p.109, 1278.N.5/6 March 1862.
99. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 466, p.98, 1281.S.28/2 Aug. 1864.
100. Gould, 'Lords or Bandits', p.497.
101. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 413, p.119, 1265.Ca.4/28 March 1849.
102. Sykes, 'The Kurdish Tribes of the Ottoman Empire', p.477.
103. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 391, pp.59-60, 1261.Ra.19/28 March 1845.
104. W-D. Hütteroth refers to this region as Espikeşan and provides number and names of towns settled by the tribes in the region using the 1870 Year Book of the Province of Konya: Turgut and Cihanbeyli towns (34 villages) and Espikeşan (37 villages). See W.D. Hütteroth, Landliche Siedlungen im südlichen Interanatolien in den letzten vierhundert Jahren (Göttingen: Geographischen Institutes der Universitaet Göttingen, 1968), pp.55-8.
105. BOA, A. MKT. 25/28, 1261.C.25/1 July 1845.
106. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 405, pp.91-3, 1263.R.13/31 March 1847.
107. BOA, A. MKT. 25/28, 1261.C.25/1 July 1845.
108. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 416, p.20, 1266.Ra.3/17 Jan. 1850.
109. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 465, p.153, 1280.Ş,.16/26 Jan. 1864.
110. Some sections of the Rişvan tribe were settled on Mount Çiçek, in the district of Kirşehir. BOA, Ayniyat Defteri 805, No: 844, 1285.Ş,.24/10 Dec. 1868.