Fleet K. The Cambridge History of Turkey: Volume 1, Byzantium to Turkey, 1071-1453

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

ahmet yas¸ar ocak

with the Byzantines and the Venetians in the Aegean.

Another beylik was

established on the south-western borders of Byzantium: the Ottoman beylik

which was to be transformed into the empire of S

uleyman the Magniﬁcent in

the sixteenth century.

From the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Ottoman beylik, thanks

both to its convenient geo-strategic position on the Byzantine frontier and

to the successful policies of its ﬁrst leaders Osman (?–c.1324), Orhan (c.1324–

62) and Murad I (1362–89), advanced rapidly along the road to becoming an

empire. Launching raids motivated both by spiritual and material aims, by the

gazi ideology and booty, this beylik beneﬁted from the political and economic

weakness of Byzantium and of that in the Balkan peninsula, and expanded its

territory both in Anatolia and in the Balkans. As a result, its administration

and socio-economic structure were strengthened and by the middle of the

ﬁfteenth century a powerful empire was in the making.

At this point an

energetic and young sultan, Mehmed II (1444–6, 1451–81), became the leader

of the empire. Taking Constantinople in May 1453 and making it his capital,

Mehmed II removed the one-time great Eastern Roman Empire to which he

was at the same time heir and caused shock waves both in the Islamic world

and in the west.

A complex and varied ethnic structure: the local

elements (Greeks, Armenians, Suriyanis, Kurds),

the Turks and the Tatars (Mongols)

We do not have statistics or deﬁnitive documentary historical data for the

ethnic structure of Anatolia either before or after the arrival of the Turks.

It has always been asserted that the population had declined as a result of

the Muslim Arab raids. This is true, and was a natural consequence of the

deaths caused by raiding, or of ﬂight to the west. But this decline did not

one of the early monographs of a single beylik published over the years by both Turkish

and western historians see P. Wittek, Das Fr

ustentum Mentesche: Studie zur Geschichte

Westkleinasiens im 13.-14. Jahrhunderts (Istanbul, 1934).

19 See especially E. A. Zachariadou, Trade and Crusade: Venetian Crete and the Emirates of

Menteshe and Aydin (1300–1415) (Venice, 1983). The Dasitan-i Gazi Umur Pas¸a, written for

Aydıno

glu Umur Bey, is a verse epic recounting his gazas and is an important historical

document for describing the traditions of gaza and cihad in the beyliks; see Enveri, Le

Destan d’Um

ur Pacha, ed. and tr. I. M

elikoff-Sayar (Paris, 1954).

20 For the Ottoman Empire in the ﬁrst period of the classical age see H.

Inalcık, The Ottoman

Empire: the Classical Age 1300–1600 (London, 1973).

21 For a general discussion of this topic see Claude Cahen, ‘Le probl

eme ethnique en

Anatolie’, Cahier d’Histoire Mondiale 2, 1 (1954–5), 347–62; Vryonis, Decline of Medieval

Hellenism,pp.143–93. Vryonis here examines in detail the ethnic structure and transfor-

mation, region by region.

360

Social, cultural and intellectual life, 1071–1453

persist for long. It is certain that when the Turks came, a similar process

must naturally have occurred, even if not to the same extent. At the time of

the Turks’ arrival the people of the region, called Rum in the Muslim sources,

were composed of the original local population which had intermixed with the

Greek population of the towns of western Anatolia and had become Christian.

This population without doubt constituted the most signiﬁcant element. An

important percentage of the population was made up of villagers who had

settled in the countryside and wereengaged in agriculture. Theymustcertainly

have spoken and written a form of what is today modern Greek. Called rumca

in Turkish, it carried traces of the remnants of the old Anatolian languages.

In eastern Anatolia, a large part of the population consisted of Gregorian

Armenians and Monophysite Jacobites. Further south, in the region of Mardin,

were the Suriyanis, Syriac-speaking Christians.

A further dimension of the ethnic mix of medieval Turkey was the Kurdish

population in Anatolia. Kurds are known to have lived in the region which

was known as Kurdistan, a geographical term in early Islamic sources for an

area stretching across parts of Iran, Iraq and Anatolia. The vast majority of

them had converted to Islam long before, at the time of the Arab conquest,

and a section of them were Yazidi.

For this reason it can be suggested that

a few of the Turkish tribes who settled in eastern and south-eastern Anatolia

intermixed with the different Kurdish tribes there and, over time, became

absorbed into the Kurdish majority and became Kurdish. While in areas of

Kurdish majority, Turks began to speak Kurdish, so, too, in regions where the

majority was Turkish, Kurds would have begun to speak Turkish and to have

become Turks. That this happened is clearly indicated by a similar process

taking place in various areas today, aided by practices such as intermarriage

and urbanisation. The vast majority of the Kurds in these regions carried on

a tribal existence and were engaged in animal husbandry. Some lived in the

mountains and survived by plundering.

Turning to the Turks, the movement to and settlement in Anatolia of

the O

guz, also called Turkoman, who were the ancestors of the Turks of

22 Much has been published to date about the faith of the Yazidis. See, for example,

Mehmed S¸erefeddin, ‘Yazidiler’, D

ulf

unun

Ilahiyat Fak

ultesi Mecmuası 1, 3 (1926), 1–35;

R. Lescot, Enqu

ete sur les Yazidis de Syrie et du Djebel Sindjar (Beirut, 1938); S. S. Ahmed, The

Yazidis: Their Life and Beliefs, ed. Henri Field (Miami, 1975); M. Aydın, ‘Yazidiler ve

Inanc¸

Esasları’, Belleten 52 (1988), 923–53; M. van Bruinessen, ‘Religion in Kurdistan’, Kurdish

Times 4 (1991), 1–27; J. Guest, Survival among the Kurds: a History of the Yazidis (London,

1993).

23 For this subject see, for example, Th. Bois, ‘Kurds et Kurdistan (p

eriode islamique)’, EI2,

v,pp.452–9.

361

ahmet yas¸ar ocak

modern Turkey and had only recently become Muslim, began after the battle

of Manzikert (Malazgirt). Such settlement was not initially undertaken with

the aim of settling permanently. After a time, however, the region became

their new ‘homeland’. It is important to remember that the majority of these

Turks were from the Muslim O

guz.

This population, driven from Iran by

the Great Seljuk rulers, had no difﬁculty in ﬁnding suitable lands to settle on

in this new homeland. The inner and eastern parts of Anatolia in particular

provided both pastures where they passed the winter season with their ﬂocks

of sheep, and cool summer pastures.

The Byzantines did not react greatly to the Turkish entry into Anatolia

which, beginning in the east, moved slowly westward, both because they

were already familiar with the Guz (O

guz) Turks who served in the Byzan-

tine armies as mercenary soldiers alongside the Christian Kuman (Kıpc¸ak)

from the Balkans, and because they beneﬁted from their help in the political

struggles which broke out frequently among them. Moreover, non-Orthodox

elements of the population of the region, who disliked and resented the Byzan-

tine administration, were well disposed towards these foreign warriors who

occupied the land and were not concerned with their religion. Indeed, they

even encouraged them to settle there. There is no doubt that these two fac-

tors must have played an important role in easing and speeding up the Turkish

conquest of Anatolia.

Western and Turkish historians disagree over various questions concerning

the ethnic and demographic change which occurred with the settlement of the

Turks in Anatolia. The most important of these is the demographic number

of these new Anatolians. The second is the question of whether these Turks

were entirely or only in part nomads.

Both western and Turkish historians

have investigated the arrival and settlement of the Turkomans in Anatolia in

two phases: before and after the Mongol invasion.

In the ﬁrst phase, which

begins with the battle of Manzikert (Malazgirt), the Turkomans ﬂowed en

24 The best work to date on the O

guz, that is the Turkomans, is still the book by F. S

umer,

guzlar (T

urkmenler): Tarihleri – Boy Tes¸kil

atı – Destanları (Istanbul, 1972; repr. 1981). For

the history of the O

guz before theycame to Anatolia see S. Grigorevic Agacanov, O

guzlar,

tr. from Russian by N. Ekber and A. Annaberdiyev (Istanbul, 2002).

25 Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey,p.204;Cahen,La Turquie pr

e-ottomane,p.164.

26 There is a clear divide on these two matters between the Turkish historians and the

older generation western historians. If examined carefully it is possible to understand

that various preconceptions against the Turks in western public opinion played an

important role in these views and in the Turkish reaction to them.

27 See, for example, M. H. Yinanc¸, T

urkiye Tarihi, Selc¸uklular Devri: Anadolu’nun Fethi (Istan-

bul, 1944), pp. 166–9; Cahen, ‘La premi

ere p

enetration’, pp. 68–9; Cahen, Pre-Ottoman

Turkey,pp.143–54; Cahen, La Turquie pr

e-ottomane,pp.101–9;Togan,Umum

ıT

urk Tarihine

Giris¸,pp.191–200;Turan,Selc¸uklular Zamanında T

urkiye,pp.1–44, 213–16.

362

Social, cultural and intellectual life, 1071–1453

masse into Anatolia and began to settle. Not all of those who came were

nomads, for among them were Muslim Turks who had become urbanised

while in Central Asia. When these people arrived they settled in the towns in

Anatolia and continued to pursue their professions there. Even in this early

period the Turkish population quickly began to reach a majority in relation to

the local population in Anatolia. In the second phase, which began with the

Mongol invasions, a mass of nomads arrived from the regions of Transoxania,

Khorasm, Azerbaijan and Erran. Many urbanised Turks arrived, too, ﬂeeing

together with the nomadic population before the Mongols and taking refuge

in Anatolia.

This period coincides with the reigns of

Izzeddin Keykavus I and

Alaeddin Keykubad I.

It has been suggested that the Turks came to Anatolia at a date much earlier

than the battle of Manzikert (Malazgirt).

Some western historians, how-

ever, such as Claude Cahen, have adopted a more cautious approach. They

accept that in the ﬁrst phase the Turks in Anatolia, while not yet reaching a

ﬁgure greater than that of the local population, did attain fairly large numbers,

but agree that the Turkish demographic superiority over the local popula-

tion occurred and increased in particular after the Mongol invasion, that is,

beginning in the ﬁrst quarter of the thirteenth century.

The fact that western sources began to refer to Anatolia as ‘Turchia’ after

the third crusade of 1189 led by Frederick Barbarossa

indicates that Anatolia

had by now become a Turkish region and that a process of ‘Turkiﬁcation’ and,

of course, parallel with this, one of ‘Islamisation’, had begun there. There is

no doubt that this was a process begun by the Turkoman, whose numbers

gradually increased, particularly in the rural areas, although the towns also had

a share in this process. We are not in a position to give precise ﬁgures today

for the numbers of the Turkish population in Anatolia in the invasion and

28 See Togan, Umum

ıT

urk Tarihine Giris¸,p.196;F.S

umer, ‘Anadolu’ya Yalnız G

oc¸ebe

urkler mi Geldi?’, Belleten 24 (1960), 567–95.

29 See, for example, R. N. Frye and A. Sayılı, ‘Selc¸uklular’dan evvel Orta S¸ark’ta T

urkler’,

Belleten 10 (1946), 97–131. Even today, some of the younger generation of Turkish histori-

ans have written that in the period before Christ Turks settled in Anatolia and that these

were proto-Turks (see, for example, V. Sevin, ‘Mystery Stelae: Are Stone Images Found

in Southeastern Turkey Evidence of Early Nomads and a Lost Kingdom?’, Archeology

(July/August 2000), 47–51;V.SevinandA.

Ozfırat, ‘Hakk

ari Stelleri: Do

gu Anadolu’da

Savas¸c¸ı C¸ obanlar’, Belleten 243 (2001), 501–18). Even if it is said that there are new archae-

ological ﬁnds related to this subject, no concrete proof has yet been presented.

30 See Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey,p.103; Cahen, La Turquie pr

e-ottomane,p.145. For more

information on the Turkoman settlement see Cahen, ‘La premi

ere p

enetration turque’,

pp. 5–67;S

umer, O

guzlar (T

urkmenler);F.S

umer

, C¸epniler: Anadolu’daki T

urk Yerles¸mesinde

Onemli Rol Oynayan Bir O

guz Boyu (Istanbul, 1992).

31 See above note 3.

363

ahmet yas¸ar ocak

settlement period or for the local population, and there is no great likelihood

that we will be able to in the future. If we possessed the tahrir defterleri (survey

registers) which no doubt existed in the Seljuk period, as was noted above,

we would be in a position to provide such ﬁgures. However, although we do

not have deﬁnitive data for the non-Muslim population being smaller than the

Turkish population, particularly before the Mongol invasion, it is certain that

after this invasion the Turkish population slowly rose, overtaking that of the

non-Muslims, to attain demographic superiority.

There is a further question related to this subject: whether the Turks who

came and settled in Anatolia in both these periods were, or were not, Mus-

lims. Various traces in the sources show that while the great majority of Turks

had either been Muslims for some time or were recent converts, there were

also Uyghurs and Kıpc¸aks, even if in small numbers, who had not abandoned

Buddhism or Manichaeism, as well as Christian Turks who had converted to

Nestorianism while still in Central Asia. There were still Nestorian Turks in the

Ottoman period. Thus even in the sixteenth century one comes across groups

(Taife-i or Cemaat-i Gebran) registered in tahrir defters as Christian populations

despite having Turkish names. Western and Turkish historians have put for-

ward various theories about these names. It seems highly probable that they

were Turks who had joined the Nestorian sect and become Christian while

still in Central Asia or who had perhaps become Orthodox after crossing into

Anatolia. With the exception of these non-Muslims groups, however, the vast

majority of the Turks in Anatolia were Muslim. The local population, on the

other hand, was Christian, the great majority being Orthodox while some

belonged to other Christian sects.

Gradually over time it is clear that an ethnic mix developed in both urban

and rural areas of Anatolia as the two populations, the Muslims Turks and the

Christian locals, began to live together. Even without deﬁnitive evidence on

the subject, it is still not difﬁcult to argue for the existence of mixed families,

however limited in number, which came about particularly with the practice

of taking girls from the Christian population.

Echoes of this are found in the

many examples of such marriages in the epic romances such as the Battalname

and the Danis¸mendname. It is clear that this ethnic mix must have had a decisive

role in the conversion to Islam.

32 For a general account of the settling of the Turks in Anatolia from the eleventh to the

thirteen centuries, see Y. Koc¸, ‘Anadolu Selc¸ukluları D

oneminde T

urkiye’de Yerles¸me

ve N

ufus’, in Anadolu Selc¸ukluları ve Beylikler D

onemi Uygarlı

gı I (Sosyal ve Siyasal Hayat),

ed. A. Yas¸ar Ocak (Ankara, 2006), pp. 241–8.

33 On this subject see Togan, Umum

ıT

urk Tarihine Giris¸,pp.209–10.

364

Social, cultural and intellectual life, 1071–1453

Another perhaps more important ethnic mix in the Turkey of the thirteenth

to the ﬁfteenth century was related to the Mongols, who were referred to as

Tatars in Latin sources of the period. As well as occupying almost all the

regions suitable for nomadism in Central Asia, Mongol tribes in the post-1256

period, the end of the occupation of Anatolia, also settled in the winter pastures

and the wide grasslands of the region. Known as ‘

Ozler b

olgesi’ because of

the streams which ran into the Kızılırmak river, this region of well-watered

valleys was ideal for nomads who could spend their winters there and could

graze their herds on the extensive pasture land there in the summer. Like the

Turks, the Mongols were divided into two major branches, or wings (kol): the

Bara’unkar (the right wing) and the Ca’unkar (the left wing). The nomadic

Mongol tribes who belonged to the Ca’unkar settled between Kayseri, Sivas

and C¸ orum, in a region which today includes the vilayet (district) of Yozgat.

Those from the Bara’unkar settled on the lands stretching as far as Eskis¸ehir.

Information on the customs and traditions of the Mongols, on their beliefs

and their daily life in this period, is given by the Dominican priest Simon de

Saint-Quentin whose work, Historia Tartarorum, covers the years between 1245

and 1248.

Thetribes belonging to the Ca’unkar and the Bara’unkar established villages

in the places where they settled and gave them names, some of which still

survive today, for example, Tayfur, Topc¸u, G

okc¸ekıs¸la, A

gcak

oy and C¸ alo

glu

in the district of Yozgat. In the thirteenth century, after they had become

Muslim, all these Mongol tribes which were known by the name Kara Tatars

(Black Tatars) continued to live in the same areas until Timur’s entry into

Anatolia in 1402. Although Timur took some of them off with him to Iran, the

majority remained in Anatolia and intermixed with the Turkoman.

Society

Observations and problems

While a large number of the Turkish Muslim population which came to Ana-

tolia was nomadic, as we have said before, some gradually settled on the

steppe lands and in empty Byzantine villages, which had either never been

settled or had been deserted, or in villages which were inhabited by the local

populations. These villages, the majority of which still exist today, are known

34 F. S

umer, ‘Bozok Tarihine Dair Aras¸tırmalar’, Cumhuriyet’in 50. Yıld

u Anma Kitabı

(Ankara, 1974), pp. 309–81;S

umer, ‘Anadolu’da Mo

gollar’, Selc¸uklu Aras¸tırmaları Dergisi 1

(1969), 1–147.

35 Simon de Saint-Quentin, Historia Tartarorum.

365

ahmet yas¸ar ocak

by their old names, even if the pronunciation has changed somewhat. Other

villages were founded by the new incomers. We know these, too, from their

names.

Unfortunately there is little information relating either to the vil-

lages occupied by the incomers or for the villages in the thirteenth to ﬁfteenth

centuries. For this reason it is not possible to say anything about the socio-

economic structure of the villages or about the villagers of this period, or

about population ﬁgures or types of production. In contrast, however, we are

better informed about the population ﬁgures and the economic situation of

these villages in the Ottoman period. Thanks to the tahrir registers, we know

the names of those who paid tax and the amounts involved. The considerable

body of research on the sancaks (Ottoman provinces) conducted over the past

twenty to twenty-ﬁve years has produced a great deal of data.

By analogy

with this material, we can speculate about the social and economic structure

of these villages in the earlier period, from the eleventh to ﬁfteenth centuries.

However, any assessment must remain speculative and cannot be regarded as

in any way deﬁnitive.

This is in stark contrast to the wealth of information to be found on the

great medieval Islamic cities of Cairo, Damascus, Aleppo, Baghdad, Basra,

Beyhak, Tabriz, Merv, Balkh, Bukhara and Samarkand, for example, about

which the many chronicles and geographical works provide much data. There

were even accounts speciﬁc to certain cities written by Muslims. Unfortunately

such sources are scarce, however, for the towns of Anatolia in the eleventh

to ﬁfteenth centuries. There are only a limited number of short entries to

be found in the chronicles of this period and in one or two travel accounts.

Furthermore, these towns have today completely lost any vestiges of their

medieval structure. For this reason we are not in a position to be able to guess

at what these towns were like by examining their modern-day manifestations.

36 For these see in particular T

urkiye Cumhuriyeti Dahiliye Vek

aleti, Son Tes¸kil

at-ı

ulkiyede K

oylerimizin Adları (Istanbul, 1928); C. T

urkay, Bas¸bakanlık Ars¸ivi Belgelerine

ore Osmanlı

Imparatorlu

gu’nda Oymak, As¸iret ve Cemaatler (Istanbul, 2001); O. Sakin, 16.

uzyılda Anadolu’da T

urkmenler ve Y

ukler (Istanbul, 2006). The old village names, which

had existed for a very long time, have been changed either by various governments, or

by the local administration, or as a result of the application to rename their villages by

the villagers who did not have any historical understanding about the past. Such names

have thus gone through a meaningless historical destruction.

37 Examples of such research include N. G

unc¸, XVI. Y

uzyılda Mardin Sanca

gı (Ankara,

1991); F. Emecen, XVI. Asırda Manisa Kazası (Ankara, 1989); M. A.

Unal, XVI. Y

uzyılda

Harput Sanca

gı (Ankara, 1989);

I. Miro

glu, Kemah Sanca

gı ve Erzincan Kazası (1520–1566)

(Ankara, 1990); M.

Oz, XV.veXVI.Y

uzyıllarda Canik Sanca

gı (Ankara, 1999);

Ilhan,

Amid (Diyarbakır), 1518 Detailed Register (Ankara, 2000); H. Do

gru, XV.veXVI.Y

uzyıllarda

Eskis¸ehir ve Sultan

u Sanca

gı (Istanbul, 1992).

366

Social, cultural and intellectual life, 1071–1453

We are, however, lucky in one respect for we have for the fourteenth cen-

tury, the period known as the beylik period, the Rihle, the travel book of the

Moroccan traveller Ibn Battuta.

For the Ottoman period the sources, as for

the villages, are more extensive and we have tahrir, muhasebes (accounts) and

evkaf defters(vakıf registers) as well as s¸eriyye sicilleri (court registers). Despite

this, however, we do not have material for the Anatolian Muslim cities of

the Ottoman period in any way comparable to such records as those of local

administration or from the church and monastery archives which shed light

on the socio-economic, religious and cultural position of the towns and cities

in Europe of the medieval and early modern period. Apart from this scarcity,

we are also faced with a further problem: the quality of the data provided by

the sources we do have. The information in the Seljuk and beylik and Ottoman

sources for the religious establishments and social classes and groups, both

Muslim and non-Muslim, is extremely meagre, for the majority of our sources

are ofﬁcial state registers produced for strictly pragmatic administrative

needs.

Any conceptualisation of the religious, social and cultural structure of the

Anatolian cities of the Turkish period depends to a great extent on an under-

standing of the historical roots of the subject. It is important to remember that

even if there were some general similarities between the European and the

Anatolian cities of the Middle Ages and the early modern period, there were

signiﬁcant differences both from a social and a physical point of view. Such

differences can be seen clearly, for example, in the work of Henri Pirenne on

the medieval cities of Europe.

The semi-settled/semi-nomadic populations

The physical, demographic and social dimension of Turkish settlement which

to an important extent changed the face of Anatolia from the ethnic and

religious point of view, was on the one hand connected to towns and villages

because of this newly settled Turkish population, but, on the other, was equally

connected to the semi-settled, semi-nomadic sections in that it speeded up the

transition to a settled way of life. When considering these Turks, it is important

to stress the term ‘nomad’. There is no doubt that, as has been noted above,

38 Ibn Battuta, Muhadhdhab Rihlat Ibn Batoutah: Tuhfat al-Nuzzar ﬁ Ghara’ib al-Amsar wa

‘Adja’ib al-Asfar, ed. A. al-Avamiri and M. A. al-Mawla, 2 vols. (Cairo, 1933); Ibn Battuta,

The Travels of Ibn Battuta, ad 1325–1354, tr. H. A. R. Gibb, 4 vols. (London, 1962). Ibn

Battuta gives valuable information on various Anatolian towns.

39 For a comparison of the structure of medieval towns see, for example, H. Pirenne, Les

villes du moyen

ages (Brussels, 1927).

367

ahmet yas¸ar ocak

a large majority of the Turks were nomadic O

guz tribes who were known

as Turkoman.

These Turks settled in valleys with streams in the inner and

central regions of Anatolia which very much resembled the steppes of Central

Asia. The majority of these tribes, like the Turkish tribes in Central Asia whose

political leaders were at the same time their shamans, were guided by indi-

viduals who were both religious (baba, ata, dede or abdal) and political leaders

and who for this reason had a religious-mystic character. Research in Ottoman

tahrir registers and on toponymy has shown that many of the villages in Turkey

were named after such leaders, having the word baba, ata, dede or abdal at the

beginning or end of their names, as they still do even today.

This shows that

the Turkish tribes remembered the names of those who had guided them and

that when theyadopted a settled way of life theygave the names of these leaders

to the villages they established. It was sometimes these individuals who, thanks

to religious charisma, usually took the lead in revolting or struggling with the

central administration over such issues as taxation, or who headed the settling

of mass populations migratingover great distances. Thetwo best-known exam-

ples arethe Babai revoltunder Baba

Ilyas-ı Horasani in 1240,

and the migration

to and settlement in the Dobrudja led by Sarı Saltık which took place shortly

afterwards.

Such revoltsdemonstrate that the Turkoman tribes were a source of political

troubles for both the Seljuk and the Ottoman administration. For this reason,

the central administration in both periods followed a policy of dividing the

Turkoman tribes and settling them far from each other in areas which had

no connection between them in order to forestall the spreading and strength-

ening of any trouble which they could not control. This policy of enforced

migration (s

urg

un) was used for Kurdish tribes and, from the beginning of the

sixteenth century to the nineteenth century, Kurdish tribes from eastern and

40 See M. F. K

opr

u, Les origines de l’empire ottoman (Paris, 1935), pp. 56–60. Some research

on Ottoman archival sources on the Turkoman and the Y

uks in the Ottoman period

has recently been published. Apart from the works of F. S

umer referred to above, see

also for medieval Turkey, M. S. Polat, Selc¸uklu G

oc¸erlerinin D

unyası: Karacuk’tan Aziz

George Koluna (Istanbul, 2004). For a collection of articles on this period see Anadolu’da

ve Rumeli’de Y

ukler ve T

urkmenler (Sempozyum Bildirileri, Tarsus 13–14 Mayis), Y

urkmen Vakﬁ (Ankara, 2000); T. G

und

uz, ‘Anadolu Selc¸uklularıveT

urkmenler’, in

Anadolu Selc¸ukluları ve Beylikler D

onemi Uygarlı

gı I, ed. Ocak, in particular pp. 269–73.

41 See note 36 above.

42 For this, and for a large bibliography, see Ocak, La r

evolte de Baba Resul. An expanded

and revised edition of this book was published in 2000, Baba

ıler

Isyanı: Alev

ıli

gin Tarihsel

Altyapısı Yahut Anadolu’da

Isl

am-T

urk

Heterodoksisinin Tes¸ekk

u (Istanbul, 2000).

43 For the latest work on this subject, which contains an extensive bibliography, see A. Y.

Ocak, Sarı Saltık: Pop

uler Isl

am’ın Balkanlardaki Destanı

Onc

u (Ankara, 2002).

368

Social, cultural and intellectual life, 1071–1453

south-eastern Anatolia were settled in regions of central Anatolia such as the

plains of Konya, Haymana and Kırs¸ehir.

In spring the Turkoman and the Kurds migrated to the summer pastures

to graze their herds and lived until winter in tents which they produced.

During the moving between summer and winter pastures clashes and ﬁghts

often broke out with the settled population because of the damage caused

by the nomads’ camels or ﬂocks of sheep to the orchards, gardens and ﬁelds

they passed through, or even because of the pillaging of villages and towns.

Despite these seasonal movements, the Turkoman and Kurds were not entirely

nomadic, living solely in tents and passing their lives in moving with their herds

of sheep, goats, oxen and camel between the winter and summer pastures. In

winter, they settled in well-watered valleysprotected from the cold and snow in

villages which they themselves had established or which already existed. In the

spring, a section of the population remained in the village engaged in animal

husbandry and ﬁeld agriculture. They then sold their produce in established

markets and with the proceeds bought the manufactured goods they needed:

weapons, pots and pans, clothes, harness sets and some woven products for

clothes. The most famous examples of these markets were Ziyaret Pazarı and

Yabanlu Pazarı.

The majority of these villages had no mosque, there being

only an adobe or basic stone mescid built in a very simple style. For this reason

none of these mescids survives today. The medreses found in the large towns

did not exist in these villages either.

Apart from the Turkomans and Kurds, the rural population was also made

up of the nomadic Mongol tribes who invaded Anatolia in 1246. These tribes

were shamanist. After a certain time they began slowly to accept Islam as a

result of the missionary activity of the Turkoman babas.

Like the Turkoman,

the Mongols settled in the steppes of Anatolia and set up their own villages or

settled in the Turkoman villages where they intermixed with the Turkoman

population. Thus these Mongol tribes, called Tatars, moved from a nomadic

existence to a semi-settled life and the Mongol population began partly to

occupy itself with agriculture. Today many villages in the inner regions of

Turkey from Sivas to Eskis¸ehir were set up by the Mongols and still have their

names from that period.

44 The only monograph to date on Yabanlu Pazarı is F. S

umer, Yabanlu Pazarı: Selc¸uklular

Devrinde Milletlerarası B

uk Bir Fuar (Istanbul, 1985).

45 See A. Y. Ocak, ‘Bazı Men

akıbn

amelere G

ore XIII.–XV. Y

uzyıllardaki

Ihtid

alarda Het-

erodoks S¸eyh ve Dervis¸lerin Rol

u, Osmanlı Aras¸tırmaları (Journal of the Ottoman Studies)

2 (1981), 31–42, which discusses the sources on this subject.

46 See A. Y. Ocak, ‘Emirci Sultan veZ

aviyesi: XIII. Y

uzyılın

Ilk Yarısında Anadolu (Bozok)’da

bir Baba

ıS¸eyhi, Tarih Enstit

u Dergisi 9 (1978), 130–208.

369