| dc.description.abstract | east in the minds, in the “Classic” or the traditional period of the
Ottoman Empire. This relationship is evidenced within the court
records, which are defined as the concept of “mahrûse” of Amasya
during that period. The relationship between the sultan and the city has
begun to change along with the changes in the “mahrûse”, which refers
to the place where the divine origin power of sultan is visible, especially
in the 17th Century. Some small groups of come to power in the cities
and they acquire a socio-economic basis with tenure system and the
expansion of the money economy. In Amasya, household cavalry have
the control of this tenure system; thus, they start to gain socioeconomic
power by using these socio-economic dynamics over their
socio-political privileges. The household cavalry that spread across the
provinces from Sultan’s house have turned into a bureaucratic class
from a group that has responsibilities such as being deputies or
administrators of the foundations. They have acquired many properties
and become mesne lords in the city, and also they have begun to make
commercial agriculture in their farms. These troops have tried to spread
their activities to the entire city by some non-judicial transactions, and
they are responsible for the gaps occurred in the connection between
the Sultan and city by becoming a new power in “mahrûse”. The
household cavalry have probably appropriated Amasya due to the
motives resulted by being settled, and acted by considering their
individual or factional interests rather than being a homogeneous group
for sure. Therefore, after the second half of 17th Century, Amasya has
been defined with the concept of “medine” rather than with the concept
of “mahrûse”. In the 18th Century which is the century of landed
proprietors in Ottoman Empire, the concept of “mahrûse” has been
forgotten and Amasya has been referred to the concept of “medine” only.
What is the response of this change, experienced in the concepts, in the
minds and practice?
Trabzon was started to be described with the concept of
“mahruse” rather than “medine” just around the same dates. It is
necessary to understand this conceptual changes taking place in court
records regarding Trabzon and Amasya. It is also possible to relate
these changes with individual disposal of clerks. However, since
concepts of “mahrûse” and “mahmiye” were completely disappeared
from documents produced in cities, we may be faced with a more
sophisticated manner. In fact, the concepts of “mahrûse” and
“Medine-i Amasya Sâkinlerinden Kapıkulu Sipahileri”: 17. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında… 3
Turkish Studies
International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic
Volume 10/1 Winter 2015
“mahmiye”, which constitute the conceptual dimension of ruler and
ruling power over cities, lost power in favor of “medine” in the second
half of the 17th century in Amasya in addition to Trabzon and they
almost didn’t show up at the end of 17th century and in the 18th
century; therefore, it is possible to point out that the perception of
power and may be the ruling power itself have been changed.
As a matter of fact, the city of Amasya in the second half of 17th
century and in the 18th century should be analysed from the concept of
historical perspective in order to discuss this issue in a more clear and
concrete way. In addition, the possible connections that can be
established between other cities in the Ottoman geography are quite
important in terms of understanding the “victory” of “medine”, which is
considered as a city in these days, in the 18th century. It would be also
quite useful to understand the relationship between “medine” and
notables in Ottoman Empire, who played important roles in the
administration of cities, increased their influence and wealth by being
civil servants until the 18th century. Because it is logical to think that
positions and titles gained by notables had a contribution to the
transformation of “mahrûse” into “medine”. It can lead us to important
conclusions to follow whether their public institutions are established
even with some differences in cities, where landed proprietors, who
established their own publicities, say that Hamerbas’s bourgeois public
institutions are substituted.
Before 1730, “bölükbaşı” household cavalry, the people titled
“beşe” and “çavuş” were involved in the city administration and
collection of taxes in general in Trabzon; however, after 1730s, the
people titled “zâde” were involved more in these duties. These families
had voice in the administration of the city, and their testimony or
opinions were taken in almost every case in the courts. In addition,
these families obtained the best farmland and countryside fields in the
city. In the 17th century, the situation was not that much different for
Amasya. The activities of landed proprietor families in Amasya in the
18th century should be investigated within the scope of changes
experienced from “mahruse” into “medine”. In fact, a member of an
important landed proprietor family Canikli Hacı Ali has taken Amasya
under his responsibility as a mansion in 1772.
In addition, one of the important similarities with “era of notables”
was dating substitution of bourgeois publicity in the 18th century by
Habermas. Kemal Karpat considers notables of the 18th century as an
aspect of modernization. According to him, the welfare of notables
appears to be related to “land ownership, buying and selling of
agricultural products and tax collection concession goes hand in hand
with land ownership”. In this regard, “the main factors behind the rise
of this group are Europe's growing demand for agricultural products,
relatively free trade and government policy that allows accumulation of
agricultural capital”. This period should be considered as “rich people”
rather than people taking up positions as part of determination of
notables. After all, notables of the 18th century were not only
government officials, but also individuals gained their social positions
by financial achievements. According to Karen Barkey, “notables gave
modernity to their regions by improving the relationship between the
private sector and different ethnicities in addition to investing in their
4 Turan AÇIK
Turkish Studies
International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic
Volume 10/1 Winter 2015
communities, labor force and low-income families depending on them.”
As indicated by Karpat, the powerful position of notables in community
caused them to be considered as authority-defying “rebels” against
central government. In the period of Abdulhamid I, the authority of
central government was within the borders of a few cities. The main
issue was not disobedience to the central government, but acceptance
of a new social order in which notables representing the upper classes.
We think that it is possible to establish a connection between this new
social order and “medine”.
Thus, since the concept of “medine” comes to the forefront among
other concepts like “mahmiye”, “mahrûse” representing the authority of
Sultan’s power, it is possible to claim that there is another space of
publicity other than the publicity of Sultan. Even power approaches
occurring in “medine” may result in corporation of state perception.
Thus, the concept of “medine” can be considered as a modern or
perhaps modernizer concept compared to its counterparts, which are
derivatives of the concepts of “mahmiye” and “mahrûse” used in the
16th and 17th centuries. At this point, even it may be quite speculative;
we do have a question in mind: Is there any connection between the
new meaning of “medine” and other concepts of derivatives of
“medeniyet”, which is an Arabic word and used instead of another word
“temeddun” takes place in the Ottoman literature that fully correspond
to the concept of “civilization” in the 19th century?
According to Tuncer Baykara, the concept of “medeniyet”, which
was used by Sadık Rıfat Paşa for the first time in 1838, became popular
suddenly due to its relation with the city. It reminds the relationship
between civilization and being urbanized. At this point, we just want to
remind you that: “Temeddun” is also a concept refers to city. In
addition, the emphasis on process in the word of civilization is
addressed better by “temeddun” compared to “medeniyet”. Then, why
“temeddun” was not preferred? Because, the Sultan’s power is very
apparent and legitimate in the city addressed by the word; “temeddun”.
Thus, if the city is considered only based on being urbanized, then
“temeddün” has the capacity of addressing the required meaning.
However, the cities addressed by “medeniyet” and “temeddün” are quite
different from each other and the concept of “medeniyet” is probably
related to “medine”, which has gained a new meaning. In this new
meaning, Sultan’s power seems to be quite small. In addition, we don’t
really know if the opposition between secular nature of civilization and
divine aspect of Sultan’s power has any effect on popularization of the
concept of “medeniyet”; however, it is clear that more researches needed
to give the answers of these questions. Therefore, researchers studying
the concept of “medeniyet”, which has a great importance, should
consider cities and their histories within the scope of being urbanized. | en_US |
