Middle East Studies in Japan 中東研究博士論文要旨 IWAMOTO Keiko / 岩本佳子 A Study on Nomads in the Pre- M o d e r n O t t o m a n E m p i r e : T h e Yörüks and the Tatars in Rumeli, the Descendants of the Conquerors, and the Nomad Settlement Policy (in Japanese) Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University, 2015 the viewpoint of the Ottoman nomadic people. To achieve this understanding, this work focuses on characteristic nomadic or ex-nomadic peoples: the yöru k s, the tatar s, the descendants of the conquerors in the Balkans, and the Turkish and Kurdish nomads in Anatolia and northern Syria from the 14th century to the first quarter of the 19th century. 前近代オスマン朝における遊牧民の研究 ルメリのユリュク タタール 征服者の子孫たち 定住化政策の事例から 京都大学大学院文学研究科 2015 年 Summary This thesis aims to explore the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and nomadic peoples, in an attempt to understand how empires ruled various peoples with particular cultures and occupations. It also looks at how these nomads related to and survived under imperial rule, specifically from 1. The Yörüks in Rumeli After the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, some nomadic groups called yöru ks crossed the straits from western Anatolia to the Balkan Peninsula, which was called Rumeli in Ottoman Turkish. Thus, the groups that can be referred to as the yöru ks in Rumeli were formed in the Balkans from the 15th century and into the 16th century. These yöru ks joined or worked for the Ottoman army in exchange for partial tax exemptions, such as tolls levied on normal farmers or nomads and called avarız, resm-i çift, and öşu r in Ottoman Turkish. The yöru ks in Rumeli 371
were subdivided into ocak, meaning group in Ottoman Turkish and consisting of five eşku nci s, who were also part of the military or worked for logistics. Also part of the subdivision were 20-25 yamak s, who paid yamak taxes to the eşku ncis. Throughout the 16th century, both in war and peacetime, the yöru k s were employed as warriors, defenders of forts, and canon carriers, as well as laborers in dockyards, mines, munitions factories, bridge building, and so on. The yöru ks in Rumeli sometimes resisted unlawful demands for tax payments by referring to their privileged tax exemption. Respecting their claims on illegal impositions of taxes, the Ottomans occasionally complied with their objections in order to keep the population and the ocak system in good order. The people were an important source of manpower, which was indispensable to Ottoman campaigns and military actions. Next, I focus on the yöru k s livelihoods, occupations, and land usage patterns through an investigation of prefectural tax registers. Most of the yöru k s living on the plains of Thrace or Thessaly cultivated land, while the yöru ks living in mountainous Macedonia engaged in crop-farming and stockfarming equally. The occupations and livelihoods of the yöru k s in Rumeli were influenced by the topographical or climatic conditions in the places where they lived. The tax register stating that this yöru k group came from another place (ḫāriçden gelu p) and cultivates lands (zirā at éderler) here shows that many yöru ks legally and habitually were allowed to use lands that were allotted not to them, but to fief-holding cavalry men (sipāhī). Originally, the word yöru k meant nomads or walking and wandering people. Thus, we see that the yöru ks in Rumeli were characterized as nomads even in the 16th century. In the 17th century, the population of the yöru k s in Rumeli declined, and their geographical distribution became smaller. Additionally, their ocak structure with five eşku nci s and 20-25 yamak s tended to collapse. For example, in the 1544 register, each ocak of the Selanik yöru k had had 5 eşku ncis and 20 yamaks, who paid 50 akçe toward the yamak tax, without any exemptions. This situation changed greatly, with the Selanik yöru k population decreasing remarkably from 12,500 to 3,553 in 1649. In spite of this, the amount derived from yamak taxes only fell from 500,000 to 472,000 akçe, because the amount of yamak tax paid by 1 yamak increased from 50 to 150 akçe. In addition to the decline in population, AJAMES no.31-2 2015 372
which continued throughout the century, the number of standard ocaks, consisting of 5 eşku ncis and 25 yamaks, was a mere 48, although the register recorded 125 ocaks. These numbers show that it was becoming difficult for more than half the ocaks to maintain 30 people each. T h e O t t o m a n g o v e r n m e n t implemented a measure to keep a sufficient amount of yamak tax flowing. In the 1675 register, some records of the amount of yamak tax paid appeared under the heading cemā at, which, like ocak, meant group in Ottoman Turkish. The word ocak was not mentioned. Because of the use of this word cemaat, the Ottoman government was able to collect the definite amount of yamak tax from the Selanik yöru k, who did not really belong to ocaks. It was only in the case of the Selanik yöru k that both ocak and cemaat were used for the purpose of recording yöru ks. Hence, the amount of yamak taxes collected did not fall, in spite of the decline of the yamak population and the ocak s. Thus, the Ottomans maintained the yöru k s in Rumeli as a unique group in order to apply special taxation to them during the 17th century, at a time when they were not needed to take part in wars or join the labor force. 2. The Tatars in Rumeli After the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, not only the yöru ks but also nomadic groups called tatar s crossed the straits with the Ottomans. The tatars served as auxiliary units in the Balkan Peninsula, like the yöru k s in Rumeli in the 15th-16th centuries. The tatars were similarly subdivided into ocak s consisting of five eşku nci s and 20-25 yamak s. Although all groups of tatar s in Rumeli were exempted from some taxes in exchange for military services or labor, they contained various groups who were treated differently from others. For example, cebelu tatars in the Silistra district were allotted arable lands, which they cultivated in times of peace. Other tatar subgroups, such as the Aktav, Vize, and Yanbolu tatars, were not accorded such privilege. Almost all of the subgroups of the tatar s, such as Aktav, Vize, and Yanbolu, were recorded together with the subdivisions of the yöru k s in the Rumeli in tax registers and the registers of imperial edicts. Thus, in the mid- 16th century, the Ottoman government confused the word tatar with yöru k when recording them in the tax registers. In the 17th century, the word yöru k was used to record such subdivisions as Aktav, Yanbolu, and Vize, without using 373
the word tatar. In the end, the tatars in Rumeli were absorbed into the yöru k s in Rumeli because the two peoples were very similar. 3. T h e D e s c e n d a n t s o f t h e Conquerors With long-lasting wars against the Habsburg Empire, Tsarist Russia, and the Iranian dynasties, the late 17th and 18th centuries were troublesome times for the Ottoman government. The Second Battle of Vienna in 1683 had ended in defeat for the Ottoman Empire. Consequently, in 1699, the Ottoman state was forced to sign the Treaty of Karlowitz, through which the empire lost vast territories, including Hungary and Podolia (modern southwestern Ukraine). Thereafter, the Ottoman rulers began to reform their military and financial systems. They had difficulty raising sufficient numbers for a standing army and overcoming their former deep dependency on irregular troops. The Ottoman army thus started to recruit the yöru ks in Rumeli to serve as warriors, defenders of forts, and carriers of cannons in 1690, for the first time in 80 years. In AH 1108/AD 1696-97, the Ottoman Sultan issued an imperial decree, which ordered the reorganization of the yöru k s in Rumeli into a corps called the descendants of the conquerors (evlād-ı fātiḥān ). The name derived from the legend in which their ancestors crossed the straits from Anatolia to Rumeli along with the Ottoman sultans and viziers in the name of the Islamic holy wars. The descendants of the conquerors formally belonged to the askeri class, so they were originally granted a full tax exemption in return for fighting in wars. However, there is plenty of evidence to show that some Ottoman officials did not obey this tax exemption and levied taxes on them nonetheless. For example, an order issued on June 4, 1709 determined that avarız and nu zu l taxes were due from the descendants of the conquerors as reimbursement of the cost of the Janissary garrisons at the Kandiye and Limni forts in the Aegean Sea, in spite of their tax exemption. This order overturned previous edicts and regulations. On June 15, 1716, a final order was issued that determined their tax exemption according to the same regulations seen in the previous register. Consequently, the descendants of the conquerors paid the cost of exemption from military service only in the years when they did not go to war, as in the case of the yöru ks in Rumeli. Clearly, therefore, the Ottoman AJAMES no.31-2 2015 374
g ove r n m e n t i n t h e 17t h a n d 18t h centuries protected the descendants of the conquerors, as they had protected their ancestors, the yöru ks in Rumeli, in order to assure themselves of having sufficient manpower and tax income. 4. The Settlement Policy in Northern Syria and Other Places The end of the 17th centur y was an important turning point for the Ottomans and the nomads. This chapter reviews the Ottoman policy of settlement on arable lands, applied to the Kurdish nomads and the Turkish nomads (Tu rkmān), by referring to imperial edicts and other archival documents from the end of the 17th century through the 18th century. Unlike the yöru k s and tatar s in Rumeli, the Kurdish and Turkish nomads had rarely been employed as auxiliary units because of their previous rebellion against the empire; they were considered bandits. In addition, whereas the Ottomans previously had not banned nomadic seasonal migrations, and had taken a neutral attitude toward disputes between nomads and farmers, imperial edicts show a transformation; at some point the Ottomans began to consider the seasonal migration as troublesome, and issued orders for the nomads to settle in northern Syria, especially in Raqqah Prefecture, as a punishment. Initially, nomads were made to settle in other places as well, but gradually these other places ceased to be used and all the Turkish and Kurdish tribes were resettled in northern Syria only. Those who fled and became bandits, if caught, were ordered back to the same places of resettlement. Because of this, many members of the tribes who were resettled in northern Syria fled to eastern or western Anatolia, some also becoming outlaws. Conclusion Some Ottoman nomadic groups such as the yöru k s in Rumeli and the descendants of the conquerors had their roles and occupations forcibly changed according to the demands of the Ottoman government during the 16th-18th centuries. Because of this, only the yöru ks in Rumeli and the descendants of the conquerors remained as distinct groups in the early modern Ottoman empire. The Ottomans changed their policy on nomads at the end of the 17th century. Their solution was to have them settle in northern Syria and force them into crop-farming. This policy led to a disturbance of the social order in their 375
place of resettlement. The Ottoman nomads were able to maintain their existence as distinct groups by changing their occupation, their place of settlement, or their way of life according to Ottoman rule or policy. This flexibility was the key to their survival. Research Fellow (PD), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 日本学術振興会特別研究員 (PD) AJAMES no.31-2 2015 376