KIPROVSKA, M. Byzantine Renegade and Holy Worrior - Kose Mihal, JTS 40 (2013), 245-269.pdf

 

With the latest contribution to the debate on the role of Holy War ( gaza) in the formative years of the Ottoman state, which underlined the highly syncretic character of the early Ottoman society, 1 and his more recent interest in studying the role of the Evrenosoğlu family in the shaping of the emerging Ottoman polity, 2 Heath Lowry presented a revisionist account of the first Ottoman centuries which undoubtedly enriched our understanding of the nascent stage of the rising empire. In regard to this latest research I thought it appropriate and provocative to contribute to Prof. Lowry‖s Fe stschrift with a study on the founder of yet another prominent family of raider commanders, who played a decisive role during the first centuries of the Ottoman state formation, namely the Mihaloğulları. The figure of Köse (Beardless) Mihal, a Byzantine castellan on the Middle Sangarios/Sakarya River, who came into Ottoman service and became loyal to the first Ottoman ruler, was and still is a pivotal part of an ongoing scholarly discussion about the nature of the Ottoman state foundation. The character of the Christian renegade was naturally involved in the debate re-evaluating the gazi nature of the first Ottoman state, as some voiced the Christian origin of the apostate to question the image of the first Ottomans simply as zealous warriors for the faith ( gazis).3 Research over the past two decades has 



1 2

3

Acknowledgement is due to the American Research Institute in Turkey for a doctoral research fellowship funded by the Andrew Mellon Foundation in 2010, in the course of which I conducted a detailed fieldresearch in Bithynia, part of the results of which will be presented in the present article. Bilkent University. Heath Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State (Albany: State (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003). The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350-1500: The Conquest, Settlement & Infrastructural Development of Northern Greece (İstanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2008); with İsmail Erünsal, “The Evrenos dynasty of Yenice Vardar. Notes and documents on Hacı Evrenos and the Evrenosoğulları: a newly discovered late -17th century Şecere (genealogical tree), seven inscriptions inscriptio ns on stone and family photographs,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 32 (2008), 9-192; 9-192; with İsmail Erünsal, “The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice -i Vardar: A Postscript,” 131-208; with İsmail Erünsal, The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice-i Vardar: Notes Osmanlı Araştırmaları 33 (2009), 131-208; & Documents (İstanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2010); The Evrenos Family & the City of Selânik: Who Built the Hamza Beğ Câmii & Why Why?? (İstanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2010); Fourteenth Century Ottoman Realities: In Search of Hâcı -Gâzi Evrenos (İstanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2012). For extensive historiographical overview of the literature discussing the “ gazi “ gazi”” nature of the first Ottoman centuries see Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1995), 29-59 and Lowry, The Nature, Nature, 5-13. The figure of Köse Mihal was examined in the light of the gazi discussion by Rudi Paul Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia (Bloomington: Anatolia (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983), 5, who denied the gazi identity gazi identity of the first Ottomans on the grounds that they appear in close cooperation with Christians such as Köse Mihal and

Mariya KIPROVSKA

emphasized the diversity of the early Ottoman society, in which a latitudinarian character of the early Ottoman beglik was accentuated. As a result, the case of Köse Mihal was repeatedly explored to suggest that his partnership with Osman was only one example of the OttomanChristian cooperation at the borderland and that such a relation was illustrative for the specific method of Ottoman conquest. 4 In light of the discussion of the early Ottoman centuries an extreme view was also expressed which totally denied the historicity of Köse Mihal on the grounds that the Ottoman narrative sources were much later creations and thus have purely fictitious character in the case of events and personages from the early Ottoman period which they describe. 5 Focusing on the character of Köse Mihal, the aim of the present paper is to emphasise once more the need of considering broader spectrum of sources while studying different

4

5

his retainers. See also Lowry, The Nature, Nature, 57, 66, where the author claims that clearly Köse Mihal and the other petty Christian rulers of Bithynian towns and castles did not side with Osman due to their zealous desire to be a part of the spread of Islam, but it was rather their pragmatism and the desire to share in the spoils of the conquest that made them form an alliance with the ruler of the emerging Ottoman principality. In a fundamental study on the Ottoman methods of conquest Halil İnalcık has noted that there were two distinct stages applied by the Ottomans – alliance and then vassalage – which could be traced back in time to the emergence of the Bithynian state of Osman, where the Ottomans first established an alliance with the local lords, Christian (the most notable example being that of Köse Mihal) or Muslim, and only then they became their vassals. See his “Ottoman Methods of Conquest,” Studia Islamica 2 Islamica 2 (1954), 103-129. The figure of Köse Mihal as an example of the Ottoman-Christian cooperation was explored by Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, 127, 144-145; Heath Lowry, The Nature, Nature, 57, 66, 89-90 and on numerous occasions by Keith Hopwood, “Low“Low-Level Diplomacy between Byzantines and Ottoman Turks: the Case of Bithynia,” in Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin (eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers from the Twenty-Forth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990 (Andershot: 1990 (Andershot: Variorum, 1992), 153-154; idem, idem, “Peoples, Territories and States: States: The Formation of the Beğliks of PrePre -Ottoman Turkey,” in C. E. Farah (ed.), Decision Making and Change in the Ottoman Empire (Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1993), 134-135; idem, idem, “Mudara,” in Amy Singer and Amnon Cohen (eds.), Aspects of Ottoman History: Papers from CIEPO IX, (=Scripta Hierosolymitana 35) Jerusalem (=Scripta Hierosolymitana 35) (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1994), 157158; idem, idem, “Osman, Bithynia and the Sources,” Archív Orientální, Supplementa Supplementa VIII (1998), 159-160; idem, idem, “Tales of Osman: Legend or History?” in XIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 1999, 1999 , vol. 3, part 3 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2002), 2049-2060; idem, idem, “Living on the Margin – Byzantine Farmers and Turkish Herders,” Journal of Mediterranean Studies 10:1-2 (2000), 101-102. In a number of studies Colin Imber has maintained that due the fictitious character character of the traditional tales surrounding the early Ottoman history from the time of Osman, the Ottoman narratives describing the Ottoman origins should be simply neglected as being invented during the fifteenth century and thus labeled as historically inaccurate. The strongest argument of Imber in support of his thesis are the characters of Köse Mihal and Ali (Alaeddin) Paşa whom the author regards as purely fictitious and invented invented by the Ottoman chroniclers of later times. Colin Imber, “The Legend of Osman Gazi,” in Elizabeth Zachariadou (ed.), The Ottoman Emirate, 1300-1389, 1300-1389, Halcyon Days in Crete I, A symposium held in Rethymnon 11-13 January 1991 (Rethymnon: Crete University Press, 1993), 67-75; idem, idem, “Canon and Apocrypha in Early Ottoman History,” in Colin Heywood and Colin Imber (eds), Studies in Ottoman History in Honour of Professor V. L. Ménage (Istanbul, Ménage (Istanbul, 1994), 117-137. 117-137. Imber‖s argument for the fictitious character of Köse Mihal was most recently adopted by Rudi Paul Lindner, Explorations in Ottoman Prehistory (Ann Prehistory (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007), 13 and 50, note 70.

246 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Köse Mihal

aspects of the late Byzantine and early Ottoman period. 6 My aim is to show that although limited in quantity and diverse in character, the source material concerning the emergence of the Ottoman state in Bithynia, should be studied in its entirety. Thus, re-examining the information from the Ottoman chronicles and Byzantine histories, and combining them with the data from later administrative records and surviving architectural and archaeological remains in the area, I will argue not only for the plausible historicity of Köse Mihal‖s character, but also for his figurativeness for the ethos of the Byzantino-Ottoman border.

To prove the historical accuracy of the Ottoman chronicles from the fifteenth century as to the truthfulness of the described events from the time of the emerging Ottoman sate, a method was successfully used by a number of scholars, who juxtaposed their content with that of the contemporary Byzantine sources. 7 A careful reading of the menakıb of Yahşi Fakıh, interpolated in the text of Aşıkpaşazade, 8 a source chronologically closest to the times it depicts, and its collating with the narrative of George Pachymeres, himself a contemporary of the events he described, showed that the Ottoman text is quite accurate in portraying not only the general political situation in Bithynia, but also that it is trustworthy with regard to the military campaigns and initial conquests of the Ottomans. 9 Although on many occasions the Byzantine and the Ottoman O ttoman sources diverge, they definitely complement one another, especially when one keeps in mind that they were written from a different 6

7

8

9

The extreme thesis of Imber concerning the historicity of Köse Mihal has been challenged by Orlin Sabev who suggested that the information from the earliest Ottoman chronicles should be read alongside other sources, particularly Ottoman documents and epigraphic inscriptions, pointing at the descent of some Mihaloğlu family members, and suggests therefore t herefore that the Ottoman narrative sources should not be so easily dismissed. “The Legend of Köse Mihal – Additional Notes,” Turcica 34 (2002): 241-252. While I fully comply with Sabev‖s view, I will attempt to bring forward some other sources not used by him to judge the accuracy of the Ottoman chronicles. Most notable are the works of Halil İnalcık, who outlined the Ottoman military campaigns from the time of Osman in virtue of comparing the Ottoman and Byzantine narrative texts concerning that period and on the basis of the historical geography of the area. See his “O smān Ghāzī‖s Siege of Nicaea and the Battle of Bapheus,” in Zachariadou (ed.), The Ottoman Emirate, Emirate, 77-99; idem, idem, “The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines for Nicaea,” in Işıl Akbaygil et al (eds.), İznik Throughout History (Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası, 2003), 59-83; 59-83; idem, idem, “Osmanlı Beyliği‖nin Kurucusu Osman Beg,” Belleten Belleten 71 (2007), 479-537. See also Elizabeth Zachariadou, “Histoires et légendes des premiers ottomans,” Turcica 27 (1995): 45-89; Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “L‖installation des Ottomans,” in Bernard Geyer and Jacques Lefort (eds.), La Bithynie au Moyen Âge (Paris: Éditions P. Lethielleux, 2003), 351-374. Victor Ménage, “The Menāqib of Yakhshi Faqīh,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 26:1 Studies 26:1 (1963): 50-54; 50-54; Halil İnalcık, “The Rise of Ottoman Historiography,” i n Bernard Lewis and P.M. Holt (eds), Historians of the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), 152-167. İnalcık, “The Battle of Bapheus,” 77-99; 77 -99; idem, idem, “The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines,” 5983; Albert Failler, “Les émirs turcs à la conqête de l‖Anatolie au début du 14 e siècle,” Revue des Études Byzantines 52 (1994), 108-112. 247 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Mariya KIPROVSKA

perspective.10 The Byzantine authors who wrote in the capital Constantinople were less informed about the local-level interaction between the Byzantines and the invading Turcomans, but were rather well-versed in the Byzantine policies of the time and give invaluable details about the measures undertaken by the emperors to stop them and about the military leaders sent to Bithynia to cope with the local emirs. The Ottoman narratives, on the other hand, give rather detailed account of the events surrounding the emergence of the Ottoman state and abound in details about the local Byzantine lords, with whom the first Ottoman rulers interacted on a daily basis. The historical accuracy of Yahşi Fakıh‖s text, interpolated most fully in Aşıkpaşazade‖s history, was put to the test by the researches and a consensus was lately reached that the topographical evidence as well as archaeological remains from the region of Bithynia support the narrative of the chronicle. 11 While the narratives of Pachymeres and Yahşi Fakıh differ with regard to the figure of Köse Mihal (the personage of the Christian renegade is missing altogether in the Byzantine text, while he is attributed quite an essential role in the Ottoman state formation by the Turkish narrator),12 they in no way contradict one another. As there is no way of substantiating the information from the Ottoman narratives by simply juxtaposing it to the contemporary Byzantine sources concerning the historicity historici ty of Köse Mihal‖s character, who, unlike some other prominent figures from that period, was not mentioned by Pachymeres, 13 I suggest that we examine briefly the passages from the Ottoman text, in which Köse Mihal is presented, and to try to test their historical accuracy based also on the information given by the Byzantine contemporary George Pachymeres. 10

11

12

13

This was already pointed out by Zachariadou, “Histoires et Légends,” 67 -68. The biased character of the Byzantine and oriental sources was emphasized by Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Beldiceanu- Steinherr, “L‖installation des Ottomans,” 352-353 and idem, idem, “Pachymère et les sources orientales,” Turcica 32 Turcica 32 (2000): 425-434. İnalcık, “Osman Beg,” 479479 -537; Jacques Lefort, “Tableau de la Bithynie au XIII e siècle,” in Zachariadou (ed.), The Ottoman Emirate, 101-117; Zachariadou, “Histoires et Légends,” 6565 -75; Hopwood, “Tales of Emirate, 101-117; Osman,” 2049-2060. 2049-2060. This fact alone has prompted some authors to imply that Köse Mihal must have been an unimportant governor of an unimportant fortress, to whom an enormous role is ascribed in the narrative of Yahşi Fakıh, but indeed he did not play a decisive role role in the Byzantino-Ottoman relations in Bithynia. See Failler, “Les émirs turcs à la conqête de l‖Anatolie,” 110. Demetrios Kyritses, who studied the late Byzantine aristocracy, also shared the opinion that in view of the fact that the Byzantine sources are completely silent of the figure of the apostate from Bithynia, his role and social status is highly exaggerated in the later Turkish narratives. See his The Byzantine Aristocracy in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries (unpublished Centuries (unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1997), 83. I express my gratitude to Savvas Kyriakidis who brought this extremely interesting work to my attention. The assertion made by Mahmut Ragıp Gazimihal agıp Gazimihal that Koutzimpaxis from the text of Pachymeres stands for Köse Mihal is erroneous. See his article “İstanbul Muhasaralarında Mihaloğlular ve Fatih Devrine Âit bir Vakıf Defterine göre Harmankaya Mâlikânesi,” Vakıflar Dergisi 4 (1957), 132-135. Indeed, K stands for the Greek transcription of Kodjabakhsh i, a chief magician in Nogay‖s court, who finally entered Byzantine service and after being baptized was appointed by Andronicus II hegemon hegemon in the region of Nikomedia. For details of his career and etymology of the title, not a personal name, see Elizabeth Zachariadou, “Observations on some Turcica of Pachymeres,” Revue des Études Byzantines Byzantines 36 (1978), 262264.

248 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013


In the oldest chronicle tradition Köse Mihal‖s character is introduced quite early in the reign of Osman Gazi. He is presented as the Christian lord of Harmankaya with whom Osman was in friendly relations ( anınla dahi gayet dostluk iderdi /with him too he was in really good amity).14 Next Köse Mihal appears as a guide ( Mihal önlerince kılaguz oldu /Mihal became a guide in the forefront) 15 in one of the first military campaigns of Osman toward Mudurnu, Göynük and Tarakçı Yenicesi. Here Mihal is presented as a person quite knowledgeable of the local geography, as he traced the route of the raid and suggested the safest passes in the area north of the Sakarya River. 16 Köse Mihal then is presented in an episode, in which he invites all neighbouring Christian lords to the wedding of his daughter with the Byzantine castellan of Göl. The narrative conveys the relationship of Mihal and Osman in way of the former‖s appeal to the other local chiefs, in which Mihal emphasizes that indeed the wedding ceremony is a good chance for them to establish contacts with the Turkish leader and thus set up future alliance with him. 17 Being a close confident of Osman, Köse Mihal was then chosen from among the Christian castellans of the region to invite the Turk to the wedding of the tekfur of Bilecik, where the Byzantines intended to kill Osman. Os man. Mihal‖s loyalty to Osman and his revealing of the initial plan of the other Christian lords to Osman resulted in the Ottoman capture of Bilecik and the sacking of the area. 18 The next instance when Köse Mihal is mentioned in the narrative is in the course of Osman‖s Sakarya campaign of 1304. 19 Here, Mihal is reported to have embraced Islam prior the Ottoman march toward the fortresses in the Sakarya valley – Geyve, Mekece, Absuyu, Akhisar and Lefke. 20 He then appears on the next year 21 alongside Osman‖s son Orhan in his campaign against the fortresses Kara Tigin and Kara Çepüş.22 Lastly, Köse Mihal shows himself in the episode describing the capture of Bursa (1326). Here, yet again he is presented in the role of an envoy who negotiated the surrender of the city. 23 On the whole, it appears that for the Ottoman chronicler Köse Mihal was one of the local Christian chiefs, who controlled the environs of the Harmankaya rock. He became an ally of Osman and being familiar with the local topography to the north of the Sangarios/Sakarya River was utilised by the latter as a guide for the raiding Ottoman troops. 14

15

16 17

18 19 20

21 22

23

Friedrich Giese, Die Altosmanische Chronik des ―Âšıkpašazâde (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1929), 14-15; ―Ali Bey (ed.), Tevârih-i Âl-i Osmandan ―Aşıkpâşâzâde Târihî (İstanbul: Matba‖a-i Matba‖a-i Amire, 1332 [1914]), 11-12. Giese, ―Âšıkpašazâde, 15-16; ―Ali Bey, ―Aşıkpâşâzâde Târihî , 12-13; Nihal Atsız Çiftçioğlu (ed.), Osmanlı Tarihleri I: Osmanlı Tarihinin Anakaynakları olan Eserlerin, Mütehassıslar Tarafından Hazırlanan Metin, Tercüme veya 1925 -1949) (= Âşıkpaşaoğlu Ahmed Âşıkî ),), 99. Sadeleştirilmiş Şekilleri Külliyatı (Istanbul: Türkiye Basımevi, 1925-1949) This particular part part of Aşıkpaşazâde‖s narrative was discussed by İnalcık, “Osman Beg,” 505 -506. Giese, ―Âšıkpašazâde, 16-17; ―Ali Bey, ―Aşıkpâşâzâde Târihî , 14-15; Atsız, Âşıkpaşaoğlu Ahmed Âşıkî , 100-101. Giese, ―Âšıkpašazâde, 17-18; ―Ali Bey, ―Aşıkpâşâzâde Târihî , 15-16; Atsız, Âşıkpaşaoğlu Ahmed Âşıkî , 101-102. İnalcık, “The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines,” 71 -74, idem, 516-517. idem, “Osman Beg,” 516-517. Giese, ―Âšıkpašazâde, 24-25; ―Ali Bey, ―Aşıkpâşâzâde Târihî , 23-25; Atsız, Âşıkpaşaoğlu Ahmed Âşıkî , 107-108. İnalcık, “The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines,” 74 -77, idem, 517-519. idem, “Osman Beg,” 517-519. Giese, ―Âšıkpašazâde, 26-28; ―Ali Bey, ―Aşıkpâşâzâde Târihî , 25-28; Atsız, Âşıkpaşaoğlu Ahmed Âşıkî , 108-110. Giese, ―Âšıkpašazâde, 28-30; ―Ali Bey, ―Aşıkpâşâzâde Târihî , 28-31; Atsız, Âşıkpaşaoğlu Ahmed Âşıkî , 110-112. 249 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Mariya KIPROVSKA

Indeed, the physical remains of a small fort are still clearly distinguishable at the foot of the Harmankaya rock. 24 (illust. 1 and 2) This might well have been one of the small fortresses which were enforced by the Byzantine emperors Michael VIII (1259 –1282) in the 1280s and Andronicus II (1282-1328) between 1290 and 1293 to protect the eastern frontier of Byzantium in Bithynia from the Turkish raids along the Sangarios/Sakarya River. 25 It should be kept in mind that these fortifications had purely defensive features and were mainly used to observe the enemy and assemble for raids against enemy territories. 26 A valuable remark on the way the last Byzantine defensive line at a t the Sangarios/Sakarya River was reinforced is left by Theodore Metochites. He emphasized that while repairing the existing fortifications and building new ones, Andronicus II constructed fortresses making vast use of the geographical features of Asia Minor, such as rivers, inaccessible places and mountains.27 The remains at the foot of the Harmankaya rock should be regarded precisely as such – a small defensive fortification which over watched the entire Sangarios/Sakarya valley to the south. Harmankaya was situated on a strategically important high place which controlled the movement of people rather than protected the area, it was a communication site overseen from Söğüt in a beebee -line. Therefore, it wouldn‖t be surprising that Osman, already stationed in the high plateau of Söğüt, 28 formed friendly relations both with the Byzantine lord of Beloukome/Bilecik, Beloukome/Bilecik, who provided protection for the Ottomans‖ valuables while they were on route in their seasonal migration to their summer pastures, 29 and with the lord of Harmankaya, who controlled the low lands of the Middle Sangarios/Sakarya valley. An alliance with the castellan of Harmankaya was vital for Osman for Köse Mihal was not only controlling the strategic route leading from the Marmara to Ankara along the basin of the Sangarios/Sakarya River, 30 but for his dominance over the region between the Sakarya and Göynük Rivers, where two more important communication arteries were traversing the area – the one linking Nicaea with Ankara via Gölpazarı and the other following the basin of the Göynük River via Geyve-Taraklı Geyve- Taraklı-Göynük. -Göynük. 31 24

The existence of remains at the site of Harmankaya was already pointed out by Jacques Lefort, “Tableau de la Bithynie au XIII e siècle”, 115 and Keith Hopwood, “Osman, Bithynia and the Sources,” 159. 25 Albert Failler (ed.), Georges Pachymérès. Relations Historiques, II: Livres IV-VI (Paris: Société d‖édition «Les Belles Lettres», 1984) (= Georges Pachymérès, II), 634, 656; Angeliki Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins: The Foreign Policy of Andronicus II, 1282-1328 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 23, 79; Mark Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army: Arms and Society, 1204-1453 (Philadelphia: 1204-1453 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992), 25, 64; Savvas Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 1204-1453 (Leiden-Boston: 1204-1453 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2011), 25-26, 157-158. 26 Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, Byzantium , 157. 27 Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, Byzantium, 157-158. 28 For the strategic importance of Söğüt Söğ üt see Lindner, Explorations in Ottoman Prehistory, Prehistory, 35-53. 29 Hopwood, “Mudara,” 154-161. 154-161. 30 Lindner, Explorations in Ottoman Prehistory, Prehistory, 50. 31 Jacques Lefort, “Les communication entre Constantinople et la Bithynie,” in Cyril Mango and Gilbert Dagron (eds.), Constantinople and Its Hinterland. Papers from the Twenty-seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, April 1993 (Aldershot: Variorum, 1995), 207-218; idem, idem, “Les grandes routes médiévales,” in 250 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013


Thus, there are good reasons to assume that the alliance of Köse Mihal with Osman was essential for both sides. On the one hand, it was the practical need for making an agreement with the local Byzantine lords which secured the rearguard of Osman when he was moving south to the summer summer pastures. On the other hand, Osman‖s friendship was a way for the Byzantine lord of Harmankaya to secure his position as a governor of the region he controlled. His familiarity with the local geography was later utilised by Osman when he used him as a guide for his raiding troops north of the Sangarios/Sakarya River. Precisely as such Köse Mihal could be recognised in Pachymeres‖s account, when he states that after falling disappointed and virtually abandoned by the Byzantine rulers, the local Byzantines i n Bithynia cooperated with the Ottomans by forming alliance with the latter and leading them in their military campaigns. 32 Indeed, it suffices to cast a glance at the conditions in Asia Minor at the end of the thirteenth century to understand the estrangement from the imperial Byzantine policies of both the soldiers and the local population. After regaining Constantinople from the Latins in 1261, Byzantium became mainly occupied with the West and with the reconquest of the Balkan territories of the empire, thus neglecting Asia Minor. Moreover, the overtaxation of the Byzantine provinces in Asia, which aimed at collecting cash for the support of a growing army needed in the West, as well as the dispatching of Anatolian military troops to the European front, hardened the conditions and alienated the locals even more. 33 This state of affairs of general despair in the Asian provinces worsened with the intensified Turkish invasion, as the resentment of the locals and the military officials made them prone to rebellion. It is no coincidence that at the turn of the thirteenth century the revolt of Alexios Philanthropenos (1295) was greatly supported by the population and the local soldiers in Asia Minor, who thus gave expression of their discontent with the central government. 34 On the other hand, the abandonment of the East resulted in the absence of centralised control and consistent imperial policy in Asia Minor. This on its turn created favourable conditions for corruption among the local officials, who sought opportunity to enrich themselves. What John Tarchaneiotes, sent to Asia Minor in 1298 to reform the military and fiscal administration, found in the region, was that many of the soldiers have lost their pronoia properties which deprived the local stratiotai from resources and thus made it difficult for them to combat, while others have increased their holdings and were no longer serving as

Geyer-Lefort (eds.), La Bithynie au Moyen Âge, 461-472; Raif Kaplanoğlu, Osmanlı Devleti‖nin Kuruluşu Âge , 461-472; (İstanbul: Avrasya Etnografya Vakfı, 2000), 51-55. 32 Albert Failler (ed.), Georges Pachymérès. Relations Historiques, I: Livres I-III (Paris: Société d‖édition «Les Belles Lettres», 1984) (= Georges Pachymérès, I), 292. 33 Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, Byzantium, 23-24; Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, Latins , 78-79. 34 Albert Failler (ed.), Georges Pachymérès. Relations Historiques, III: Livres VII-IX (Paris: Institut Français d‖Études Byzantines, 1999) (= (= Georges Pachymérès, III), 242-244; Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, Latins, 82-83; Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army, Army, 74-75; Kyritses, The Byzantine Aristocracy, Aristocracy , 317-318; Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, Byzantium, 28. 251 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Mariya KIPROVSKA

soldiers.35 This deteriorating situation in Anatolia was not solved and it was apparently still prevailing in 1303 when the central government considered the confiscation of large ecclesiastical properties, as well as of pronoiai held by wealthy individuals, and their distribution amongst the dispossessed stratiotai, thus hoping that the new pronoia holders would be encouraged to fight effectively while defending their own properties. 36 Indeed, it is not hard to imagine that the desolation of the Anatolian troops induced many Byzantine soldiers to apostatize and side with the Ottomans, thus securing their properties while continuing to perform their military service. Perhaps it is no coincidence that after the round of ineffective governmental measures to provide for the local stratiotai as well as to ensure the security of the population at the Anatolian borderland, we find the frontier general Köse Mihal embracing Islam (in 1304/5 according to the Ottoman narrative)37 and becoming a subordinate to Osman, attesting on the other hand to a shift in the nature of their relationship from one of partnership and alliance to one of vassalage and full incorporation. Moreover, the recent territorial gains of the Ottomans, as well as their increasing victories on the battlefield, most notable of which was the battle of Bapheus/Koyun Hisar (1302),38 made it easy for the local troops to decide to switch over to the winning side, thus assuring their lives and properties, something that the Byzantine governance proved unable to offer. Köse Mihal, on the other hand, became an important associate of Osman, as he benefited both from the profound knowledge of the Byzantine apostate in the local geography and from his familiarity with the other Christian lords of the area. The lord of Harmankaya was repeatedly used by the Ottomans as a mediator in the low level diplomacy between the Ottomans and the Bithynian castellans, while transmitting the messages of both sides. This reveals the pragmatism in the early Ottoman policies, pragmatism clearly perceivable in the Byzantine rule in Bithynia as well. There is no doubt that it was precisely the practicality that drove the decision of the Byzantine emperor Andronicus II in installing two Christianized Turks as governors in Bithynia – Koutzimpaxis in Nicomedia (İzmit ( İzmit)) and Isaak Melek in Pegai (Kara Biga) – hoping that their common origin would help them establish peaceful relations with the invading Turks. 39

35

Georges Pachymérès, III, 284; Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, Latins , 87-88; Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army, Army , 75; Kyritses, The Byzantine Aristocracy, Aristocracy, 319; Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, Byzantium , 78. 36 The project for the confiscation and redistribution of the pronoia holdings in Anatolia is discussed in length by Albert Failler, “Pachymeriana Alia,” Revue des Études Byzantines Byzantines 51 (1993), 248-258. See also Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, Byzantium , 77. 37 Giese, ―Âšıkpašazâde, 24-25; ―Ali Bey, ―Aşıkpâşâzâde Târihî , 23-25; Atsız, Âşıkpaşaoğlu Ahmed Âşıkî , 107-108. 38 İnalcık, “The Battle of Bapheus,” 77-99; 77 -99; idem, idem, “The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines,” 6168; idem, idem, “Osman Beg,” 509-514. 509-514. 39 Zachariadou, “Histoires et Légends,” 73; idem, idem, “Some Turcica of Pachymeres,” 262-264; 262-264; Paul Wittek, “Yazijiogh “Yazijioghlu lu ―Alī on the Christian Turks of the Dobruja,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 14:3 (1952), 665. 252 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013


Taking into account the desolate conditions in which the Byzantine soldiers were left in Asia Minor, described by the Byzantine contemporaries, there are good reasons to assume that the information from the Ottoman chronicles regarding the figure of Köse Mihal and his apostasy is accurate. He must have been one of the many discontent military leaders in the area who sought shelter in cooperation and submission to the Ottomans, as the latter could guarantee their military posts and protect their properties. The prospect of enrichment through plunder must have been among the chief reasons which induced the local soldiers to accept the supremacy of Osman, who at that time already proved to be one of the successful military leaders in the area.

A crushing mass of Ottoman administrative records was produced by the central imperial administration since the fifteenth century, which became the core instrument of generations of scholars in elucidating different aspects of Ottoman history from the fifteenth century onwards. The accuracy of the Ottoman defter s incited numerous studies on the social and economic history of the Ottoman Empire, thus unveiling important details, lacking in the narrative sources. The chronological limitation of these sources, however, makes it difficult to apply their information to earlier periods. Despite these restraints of the records, though, noteworthy attempts have been recently made to read the information from these documents back into the period of the emerging Ottoman state, especially with regard to the verification of the accuracy of the chronicles concerning the toponymy in the birthplace of the Ottoman Empire, thus vindicating the stories of the narratives. 40 Moreover, recent studies have shown that putting together the results from archaeological and numismatic research, the topographical evidence and data from later administrative documents, lends to the critical reading of the Ottoman chroniclers narrative. In light of this general trend and using the information from a number of Ottoman administrative records of the region with which Köse Mihal‖s exploits were associate d, I will attempt to test the accuracy of the chronicles and propose that the data from the defter s also gives credence to the narratives. Strangely enough, Colin Imber‖s assertion that the figure of the founder of the Mihaloğlu family of raider commanders commander s was a mere invention of the Ottoman chroniclers 40

A number of authors have used the information of the Ottoman registers to vindicate stories from the narrative Ottoman sources and to prove that the toponymy in the chronicles is not fictitious. Most notable among these are the studies of Halil İnalcık, “How to Read ―Ashık Pasha -zade‖s History,” in Colin Heywood and Colin Imber (eds.), Studies in Ottoman History in Honour of Professor V. L. Ménage (Istanbul: İsis Press, 1994), 139-156; idem, 77 -99; idem, idem, “The Battle of Bapheus,” 77-99; idem, “The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines,” 59-83; 59-83; idem, idem, “Osman Beg,” 479479-537; Lefort, “Tableau de la Bithynie au XIII e siècle,” 101101117; Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “Osmanlı Devleti‖nin Kuruluşunun İncelemesinden Tahrir Defterlerinin Önemi,” in XIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 1999 1999,, vol. 3, part 3 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2002), 13151319; idem, 351 -374. idem, “L‖installation des Ottomans,” 351-374. 253 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Mariya KIPROVSKA

and that his initial place of origin in Byzantine Bithynia, B ithynia, namely the fortress of Harmankaya north of the Sangarios/Sakarya, should be regarded as pure fiction, rest on information from a sixteenth-century Ottoman survey of the region. 41 According to the British historian the purchase of the Harmankaya village (mod. Harmanköy) by a Mihaloğlu family member in the second half of the fifteenth century as recorded in the administrative records triggered the Ottoman Ottoman chronicler‖s imagination in inventing the eponymous founder of the house of Mihal. The fabrication of the figure of the Byzantine lord of Harmankaya, in Imber‖s view, should be regarded as a simple celebration of this land acquisition on the part of the Ottoman writer Aşıkpaşazade, who might well have known personally Mihaloğlu ―Ali Beg who purchased Harmankaya as a freeholding. 42 This assumption, however, is in itself highly unconvincing and extremely dubious. Suffice it to say that half a century prior to the purchase of the freehold in question Aşıkpaşazade met another member of this warlords‖ family from whom most probably he had heard about the family traditions in Harmankaya, traditions which he was already familiar with while reading the Menakıb of Yahşi Fakıh, which the chronicler has acquired in 1413 by the latter in his own house in Geyve. 43 In 1422, when Mihaloğlu Mehmed Beg was released by Murad II from imprisonment in Tokat to receive his support in the rivalry with the pretender for the throne and his uncle Mustafa, the former has passed through the convent of Elvan Çelebi, where the then young Aşıkpaşazade has joined him on his way to the sultan‖s camp. 44 Hence, the relationship between the Ottoman chronicler and the Mihaloğlu family certainly predates the purchase of Harmankaya by ―Ali Beg, which was used by Imber as his chief argument to suggest the late connection of the family to that particular place. It is therefore credible to assert that the information from the Ottoman sixteenth-century survey of Hüdavedigâr province, on the grounds of which Imber dismisses the historicity of Köse Mihal out of hand, was a mere recording of an alteration in land proprietorship, rather than a stimulus for the invention of a Christian Lord of Harmankaya and a “fictitious ancestor” of a fifteenth-century fifteenth-century prominent raider commander. Yet, the sixteenth-century surveys of Hüdavedigâr province published by Ömer Lütfi Barkan and Enver Meriçli and used by Imber to support his thesis, reveal a whole long ownership story prior and after the purchase of the Harmankaya village by Mihaloğlu ―Ali Beg,45 a fact neglected by Imber. 46 Indeed, the defter s reveal that the village of Harmankaya 41

Imber, “The Legend of Osman Gazi,” 324; idem, idem, “Canon and Apocrypha,” 131 -132. Imber, “The Legend of Osman Gazi,” 325; idem, idem, “Canon and Apocrypha,” 131 -132. 43 Ménage, “The Menāqib of Yakhshi Faqīh,” 50. 44 Giese, ―Âšıkpašazâde, 86; ―Ali Bey, ―Aşıkpâşâzâde Târihî , 97; Atsız, Âşıkpaşaoğlu Ahmed Âşıkî , 157-158; 157-158; İnalcık, “How to Read ―Ashık PashaPasha -zade,” 140-141. 140-141. 45 Mihaloğlu ―Ali Beg was a famous raider commander in the reigns of Mehmed II and Bayezid II. He created a large pious foundation in the region of Plevne (mod. Pleven) in modern northern Bulgaria not far from the Danube, which was in the hands of the family well until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. For his military exploits see Agâh Sırrı Levend, Gazavât-nâmeler ve Mihaloğlu Ali Bey‖in Gazavât -nâmesi (Ankara: -nâmesi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1956), 187-195; 187-195; Olga Zirojević, “Smederevski sandjakbeg Ali beg Mihaloglu,” [The sancakbegi of Smederevo Ali Beg Mihaloğlu] Zbornik za istoriju Matitsa Srpska (Novi Srpska (Novi Sad, 1971): 9-27. 42

254 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013


was previously held as a freehold by Mahmudoğlu Bali Beg. Later its proprietorship wa s handed over to Musa, most likely a son of Bali Beg. ―Ali Beg has only purchased it from the heirs of Bali Beg and hereafter, probably after ―Ali Beg‖s death, the mülk was handed over to his son Mehmed Beg. This was the situation reflected in a register of the pious foundations in the sancak of Hüdavedigâr from 1520. 47 Later on, in 1573, as revealed by the other sources used by Barkan and Meriçli for this year, the mülk of Harmankaya has been purchased by the nişancı and beglerbegi of Haleb Boyalı Mehmed Paşa (d. 1593), who endowed its incomes to his mu‖allimhane in Tosya with an endowment deed from the very same year. 48 Although the registers used by Barkan and Meriçli did not explicitly mention the lineage of none of the mentioned individuals who hold Harmankaya as a mülk prior to its purchase by Boyalı Mehmed Paşa, their Mihaloğlu descent is undoubtedly acknowledged by a number of vakf documents from the second half of the sixteenth century, which reveal the property transfer from one Mihaloğlu family member to another prior to the lands‖ endowing to the newly formed pious foundation of Boyalı Mehmed Paşa in 1573. 49 Thus, it becomes clear that close to 20 villages, mezra―as and çiftliks in the districts of Gölbazarı, Göynük and Bilecik, among which the village of Harmankaya itself, forming the mülk of the Mihaloğulları, were held on a hereditary basis by the family members. Hence, it was recorded that previously the freeholding was in the hands of Mahmud Beg oğlu Bali Beg, one of the sons of Gazi Mihal Beg. Later L ater the freeholding was purchased by Mihaloğlu ―Ali Beg from the offspring of Bali Beg. When ―Ali Beg died, the mülk was inherited by his two sons, Ahmed Beg and Mehmed Beg, children of Mahitab Hatun and Selimşah Hatun respectively. When the two brothers died, the land was inherited by their mothers (both former Christians and wives of ―Ali Beg). After the death of Selimşah Hatun, her share of the land came into an inheritance of her sister Hürrem Hatun. Thereupon, the family mülk was 46

Ömer L. Barkan – Enver Meriçli, Hüdavendigâr Livâsı Tahrir Defterleri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988), 313, no. 539. 47 The exact register used by Barkan and Meriçli for this particular region under their heading “B” could be safely identified with the detailed vakf defteri from the Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi in İstanbul (=BOA), namely the Tapu Tahrir (=TT) 453 from 926 H./1520, fol. 275a. 48 Barkan – Meriçli, Hüdavendigâr Livâsı, p. 313, no. 539. The information derives from some of the defter s housed in Tapu ve Kadastro Genel G enel Müdürlüğü, KuyudKuyud-u Kadime Arşivi (=KuK) in Ankara from the year 981 H./1573 combined by Barkan and Meriçli under the heading “C”, i.e. KuK 67, 68, 75, 80, 570, 580, or 585. I was unable to identify which particular register was used by the authors for their Harmankaya entry. 49 The content of these documents was first revealed by the amateur historian Mahmut Ragıp Gazimihal, himself a descendent of the Mihaloğlu family, in his short articles “Harmankaya nerededir,” Uludağ: Bursa 1-4 and “Rumeli Mihaloğulları ve Harmankaya,” Uludağ: Bursa Halkevi Dergisi 81 Halkevi Dergisi 72-73 Dergisi 72-73 (1945): 1-4 (1947): 21-26. 21-26. It was most comprehensively published in his later and more elaborate work “Harmankaya Mâlikânesi,” 128-130. These conveyance documents were bound together in a small defter comprising comprising of 20 pages, the first 4 of which appeared to be blank. The small booklet was kept in the mosque of the then Harmankaya nahiye nahiye centre Akköy and was brought to the attention of Mahmut Gazimihal by the then administrative head of the district Mustafa Karabuda. The information from these documents as presented by Gazimihal was used by Orlin Sabev as a counterargument of Imber‖s thesis to show the patrimony of the Mihaloğlu family over the mülk of Harmankaya. See his “The Legend of Köse Mihal,” 244. 255 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Mariya KIPROVSKA

bought by Boyalı Mehmed Paşa from the then proprietors, most likely Mahitab Hatun and Hürrem Hatun themselves.50 What can be deduced from the above mentioned information is that the mülk north of the Middle Sangarios/Sakarya valley was held on a hereditary basis by the Mihaloğlu family prior its purchase by Mehmed Paşa in the second half of the sixteenth century. Moreover, it could be safely affirmed that the freeholding was in the hands of Mihaloğlu Bali Beg, son of Mahmud Beg, before his offspring sold it to their famous relative ―Ali Beg of Plevne. Bali Beg was a son of Mihaloğlu Mahmud Beg, 51 who established a pious foundation in the Balkan town of İhtiman (southeast of Sofia), 52 where a branch of the family has settled and whose members were subsequently referred to in the Ottoman sources with the epithet İhtimanî/İhtimanlu/İhtimanoğlu.53 Hence, it appears that Mihaloğlu ―Ali Beg has purchased the Mihaloğulları‖s hereditary freeholding from from one of his own relatives most probably after Bali Beg‖s death sometime during the second half of the fifteenth century. Yet, the family inheritance story appears to be far more complicated than the one presented in the documents of Boyalı Mehmed Paşa‖s Paşa‖s pious foundation, published in summary by Mahmut Ragıp Gazimihal. Coming back to the Ottoman administrative records 50

51

52

53

Gazimihal, “Harmankaya nerededir,” 2-3; 2 -3; idem, idem, “Rumeli Mihaloğulları ve Harmankaya,” 21 -23; idem, idem, “Harmankaya Mâlikânesi,” 129-130. 129 -130. Mahmud Beg was mentioned by Enverî in his his Düstür-nâme as still living in İhtiman. Enverî, Düstûr-nâme, Düstûr-nâme, ed. by Mükrimin Halil Yınanç (İstanbul: Devlet Matba―ası, 1928), 90 -91. According to Enverî, Mahmud Beg was the son of İlyas Beg, a su-başı and close companion of Bayezid I (1389-1402) in his Ankara battle against Timur (1402), where he lost his life heroically. İlyas Beg was, as Enverî puts it, a son of Balta Beg, with whom Mihal Beg (supposedly Köse Mihal) has come from Şam (Damascus). This passage in Enverî‖s text was first interpreted by Yaşar Gökçek and became a basis of the established by Gökbilgin Gökbil gin genealogy of the first generations‖ family members and the İhtiman branch in particular. See Yaşar Gökçek, Köse 33 -34 and idem, Mihal Oğulları (İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Mezuniyet Tezi, 1950), 33-34 idem, Türk İmparatorluk Tarihinde Akıncı Teşkilâtı ve Gazi Mihal Oğulları (Konya: Alagöz yay., 1998), 48, 76; M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Mihal“Mihal -oğulları,” İslâm Ansiklopedisi, vol. VIII (1960), 286, 290-291. Machiel Kiel and Orlin Sabev misunderstood Enverî‖s text and suggested that it was not his father İlyas Beg, but Mahmud Beg himself who lost his life in the battle of Ankara. Sabev, “The Legend of Köse Mihal,” 245; Machiel Kiel, “İhtiman,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, vol. 21 (2000), 571. Semavi Eyice, “Sofya Yakınında İhtiman‖da Gazi Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey İmâret -Camii,” Kubbealtı Akademi Mecmuası 2 (1975): 49-61; idem, kiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm idem, “Gazi Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey Camii,” Tür kiye , vol. 13 (1996), 462-463; 462463; Kiel, “İhtiman,” 571-572. 571 -572. Ansiklopedisi, Ansiklopedisi In a synoptic register of the sancak of Niğbolu from 884 H. (1479/80) it was recorded that the ze―amet of Gigen was in the hands of İsa Bali, son of Bali Beg İhti manî (the same Bali Beg who held Harmankaya as a freeholding). See National Library “Sts. Cyril and Methodius”, Sofia, Oriental Department, OAK 45/29, fol. 41a. İhtimanoğulları Kasım and Mehmed Beg were among the supporters of the prospective sultan Selim I in his struggle for the throne in 1511. The two brothers have joined the troops of Selim at Akkirman on his way to the capital. See Hakkı Erdem Çıpa, The Centrality of the Periphery: The Rise to Power of Selim I, 14871512 (unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2007), 258, 260. It was in all probability the very same İhtimanlu Kasım Beg, one of prince Selim‖s supporters, who in 1521/22 held the sancakbeglik of Humus. See Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 933 -934 (M. 1527-1528) 1527-1528) Malî Yılına Ait Bir Bütçe Örneği,” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası , 15:1-4 (1953-1954), 306.

256 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013


of the Hüdavendigâr province from the sixteenth century, it becomes apparent that indeed it was only the village of Harmankaya, which was previously held as a freeholding by Mihaloğlu Bali Beg. Almost all other villages, mezra―as and çiftliks mentioned in Boyalı Mehmed Paşa‖s vakf documents appear to have been mülk of Mihaloğlu ―Ali Beg or were in the hands of his two sons Ahmed Beg and Mehmed Beg, with only two notable exceptions – the village of Dutman 54 and the mezra―a of Seğid/Sel-Bükü Seğid/Sel-Bükü55 in the vicinity of Harmankaya, which were bought by Mihaloğlu ―Ali Beg from the offspring of their previous owner Paşa Yiğit Beg. Hence, it is logical to suppose suppose that the large mülk was apportioned and was held simultaneously until the second half of the fifteenth f ifteenth century by the two cousins – Mihaloğlu ―Ali Beg and Mahmud Beg oğlu Bali Beg. It has subsequently been brought together under the ownership of one person after ―Ali Beg purchased part of it from the offspring of Bali Beg, to be yet again distributed amongst his own sons after his death. If the so presented information on the landholdings of the Mihaloğulları in the area undoubtedly showed that at least from the second half of the fifteenth century the family members were inevitably linked with Harmankaya and the region, the data from the sixteenth-century registers could be hardly read back into the period of the emerging Ottoman state. Such an opportunity is given, however, by the first preserved registers of the Ottoman foot ( yaya/piyade) troops in the sancak of Sultanönü. The sancak of Sultanönü, among the first administratively organized units of the Ottoman realm, was initially associated with the yaya (foot) regiments, the primary military troops of the Ottoman soldiery. 56 Unsurprisingly, the oldest preserved administrative records of the province are the yaya defterleri of Sultanönü district, the first going back in time to H. 871 (1466/7). 57 At that time the foot soldiers‖ district ( piyade sancağı ) of Sultanönü was divided into 17 smaller yaya nahiyeleri. 8 of them were under the direct control of the sancakbegi and 9 nahiyes were under the leadership of his subordinate serpiyade leaders.58 What is of interest for the present research is the presence of two serpiyade nahiyes with the name Harmankaya – Harmankaya ―an liva -yi Sultanönü (Harmankaya from the district/ liva of Sultanönü) and Harmankaya tabi― Göl ―an liva -yi Sultanönü (Harmankaya, [subordinate] to Göl from the district/ liva of Sultanönü), providing 60 and 70 active infantrymen accordingly. 59 54

55

56

57 58 59

Wrongly read by Barkan and Meriçli as Doğan. See BOA, TT 453, fol. 275b; Barkan – Meriçli, Hüdavendigâr Livâsı, 313, no. 540. The previous ownership of Paşa Yiğit Beg becomes apparent only in one synoptic yaya register from 927 H./1520. See BOA, Maliyyeden Müdevver Defteri (=MAD) 64, fol. 113b; Halime Doğru, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Yaya-Müsellem-Taycı Teşkilatı (XV. ve XVI. Yüzyılda Sultanönü Sancağı) (İstanbul: Eren Yayınevi, 1990), 172-173. 172-173. This information is omitted in the vakf registers of the province, where the mezra―a mezra―a of SilSil-bükü is said to be purchased by ―Ali Beg from certain İlyas Beg, most probably a descendent of Paşa Yiğit Beg himself. BOA, TT 453, fol. 276 a; Barkan – Meriçli, Hüdavendigâr Livâsı, 314, no. 542. Doğru, Yaya-Müsellem-Taycı Teşkilâtı and idem, idem, XVI. Yüzyılda Eskişehir ve Sultanönü Sancağı (Odunpazarı Belediyesi, 2005). BOA, Maliyeden Müdevver (=MAD), No. 8. See also Doğru, Yaya-Müsellem-Taycı Teşkilâtı, XV, 55. Doğru, Yaya-Müsellem-Taycı Teşkilâtı, 55-58; 73-95. BOA, MAD 8, fol. 56b and fol. 69 b. Doğru, Yaya-Müsellem-Taycı Teşkilâtı, 88, 91. 257 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Mariya KIPROVSKA

Moreover, as it becomes apparent from the defter , the two subdistricts were under the leadership of two Mihaloğlu family members – Mihaloğlu ―Ali Beg and Mahmud Beg oğlu Bali Beg, the very same ones who held portions p ortions of the hereditary mülk of the family in the area. It appears that not only the freeholding of the family was held on a hereditary basis but it was the leadership of the yaya/infantry regiments of Harmankaya nahiyeleri as well that was handed over to the after Mihaloğulları generations. Hence, in 1520 the piyade chief of both Harmankaya districts was the son of Mihaloğlu ―Ali Beg, Mehmed Beg, as the hereditary leadership of the Harmankaya infantrymen was preserved in the family as late as 1579, attested by the last yaya registers.60 What makes the first yaya register of Sultanönü from 1466/7 extremely valuable in regard to the Mihaloğulları leadership over the Harmankaya infantry is the fact that it refers to an earlier period, indicating that part of the piyade/infantry forces in the region was under the command of yet another member of the family. Thus, the district of Harmankaya, whose leader in 1466/7 appears to be Mihaloğlu ―Ali Beg, begins with the following heading: “Piyadegân-i Harman Kaya ―an liva - yi Sultan önü, kadimden Mihal Beg tasarruf idermiş, şimdi Hızır Beg oğlu ―Ali Beg mutassarıfdır ” [Harmankaya foot soldiers from the Sultanönü district, previously at the disposition of Mihal M ihal Beg, now in possession of Hızır Beg oğlu ―Ali Beg]. 61 The mention that the leadership of the yaya/foot soldiers in the Harmankaya region was in the hands of Mihal Beg before it was transmitted to Mihaloğlu ―Ali Beg, undoubtedly sets a terminus post quem for the hereditary leadership of the Mihaloğlu family over the infantry troops of the region, i.e. the first quarter of the fifteenth century when Mihal Beg was active. This Mihal Beg could be safely identified with Mihaloğlu Mehmed Beg who was one of the most vigorous military leaders during the dynastic struggles after the battle of Ankara (1402). He was elevated to the post of beglerbegi during Musa Çelebi‖s reign62 and was subsequently imprisoned by the victorious sultan Mehmed I (1413-1421). 63 He then rose to prominence once more in the reign of Murad II (1421 –44 and 1446– 1446 –51) who released him from the Tokad prison to use him in his struggle for the throne against the claimant Düzme Mustafa,64 which according to the chronicles cost the life of the Mihalo ğlu. Mihal Beg was 60

Doğru, Yaya-Müsellem-Taycı Teşkilâtı, 89, 91. BOA, MAD 8, fol. 56b. Doğru, Yaya-Müsellem-Taycı Teşkilâtı, 88. 62 Halil İnalcık, “The Rise of the Ottoman Empire,” in M. A. Cook (ed.), A History of the Ottoman Empire to 1730 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 33-34; Dimitris Kastritsis, Sons of Bayezid: Empire Building and Representation in the Ottoman Civil War of 1402-1413 1402-1413 (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2007), 137-142, 161-162; Rhoads Murphey, Exploring Ottoman Sovereignty: Tradition, Image and Practice in the Ottoman Imperial Household, 1400-1800 (London: Continuum, 2008), 46-47; Friedrich Giese, Die Altosmanischen Anonymen Chroniken Tevârih-i Âl-i Osmân. Teil I: Text und Variantenverzeichnis (Breslau: Selbstverlag, 1922), 49; idem, idem, ―Âšıkpašazâde, 73-74; 73-74; Faik Reşit Unat Un at and Mehmed Köymen (eds.), Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ. Neşrî Tarihi, vol. 2 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957), 487-491; Franz Babinger, Die Frühosmanischen Yahrbücher des Urudsch (Hannover: Orient-Buchhandlung Heinz Lafaire, 1925), 39, 107. 63 Giese, Die Altosmanischen Anonymen Chroniken, Chroniken , 52; Babinger, Urudsch, Urudsch, 40, 108. 64 Giese, Die Altosmanischen Anonymen Chroniken, Chroniken, 57; idem, idem, Âšıkpašazâde, 86-87; Unat – Köymen, Neşrî Tarihi, vol. 2, 559-561; Babinger, Urudsch, Urudsch, 46-47, 112-113. 61

258 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013


buried in Edirne65 next to the monumental complex ( zaviye/―imaret , hamam and a bridge) commissioned by himself in H. 825 (1421/22) shortly before his death. 66 (illust. 3 and 4) Mihal Beg‖s close relation to the region north of the river Sangarios/Sakarya is also attested by his architectural patronage in the centre of the nahiye of Göl, where in the town of Gölpazarı itself he commissioned a zaviye and a hamam, as the latter was endowed for the upkeep of the zaviye.67 To these one should also add a menzil hanı (inn), which being built not for profit, was included neither in the Ottoman defter s nor was it endowed to the zaviye. The dedicatory inscription over its entrance, however, allows a firm dating of the so-formed

65

66

67

The tombstone of the founder is a subject of controversial readings. It was initially Ahmed Ahmed Badî Efendî at the turn of the nineteenth century who suggested that the tomb of the founder of Gazi Mihal mosque in Edirne refers to him as “Mihal bin ―Aziz bin Firenk bin Cavund”. Hereafter, this assertion was reiterated by Mahmud Ragıb Gazimihal, “Çavunt oğlu Kösemihâl Bahşi,” Türk Folklor Araştırmaları 113:5 (1958), 18011804, who even put forward the hypothesis that Köse Mihal was of Turkic descent. The erroneous reading was most recently adopted by Orlin Sabev, who went on to suggest that behind Frenk bin Cünd/Frank son of a warrior (in warrior (in his interpretation) may well be hidden Köse Mihal, “who would then have been one of the Catalan mercenaries of Roger de Flor‖s expedition of 1308, who entered enter ed the service of the recently established emirate of Karasi, and from there moved on to serve the Ottomans”. Sabev, “The Legend of Köse Mihal,” 244. Indeed, the matter in hand is that Badî Efendî misread both stones at the head and at the foot of the tomb. Actually, the tombstone to which Badî Efendî refers is no other but the grave of ―Aziz bin Mihal Beg, Beg, who died in H. 850 (1446/47), and not of Mihal bin ―Aziz. In fact, a closer look at the inscription shows that the tombstone of this ―Aziz Beg is comprised compri sed of only one stone, engraved on both sides, which gives both the name of the deceased and the date of his death. The tombstone at the foot-site of the grave, which in all probability reads the erroneously spelled name of certain Firuz bin Cüneyd and not Firenk bin Cavund, is wrongly placed on top of this grave and has no connection to the gravestone of ―Aziz bin Mihal Beg. This mistake has been already pointed out by Gökçek, Köse Mihal Oğulları, 53, idem, and Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mi‖mârîsinin İlk Devri: Ertuğrul, Akıncı Teşkilâtı ve Gazi Mihal Oğulları , 10-11 and 150Osman, Orhan Gazîler Hüdavendigâr ve Yıldırım Bâyezîd 630 -805 (1230-1402) (İstanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1966), 150151, idem, idem, Osmanlı Mi‖mârîsinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806 -855 (1403-1451) (İstanbul: Damla Ofset, 1989), 392-393. The grave of the founder of the Edirne complex is different from the one just discussed, has two legible head- and footstones, which contain both the name of the deceased “El -emir‖ül-kebir emir‖ül-kebir Mihal bin ―Aziz Paşa” and the date of his death – H. 839 (1435/36). Gökçek, Köse Mihal Oğulları, 50 and idem, Akıncı Teşkilâtı ve Gazi Mihal Oğulları O ğulları, 14; Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mi‖mârîsinin İlk Devri , 151, idem, idem, Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, Devri, 390; Mustafa Özer, “Edirne‖de Mihaloğulları‖nın İmar Faaliyetleri ve bu Aileye Ait Mezar Taşlarının Değerlendirilmesi,” in I. Edirne Kültür Araştırmaları Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 23 -25 Ekim 2003 (Edirne: Edirne Valiliği, n.d.), 317317-325; Hikmet Turhan Dağlıoğlu, Edirne Mezarları (İstanbul: Devlet Basımevi, 1936), 24 who misread the date of Mihal Beg‖s death. For Mihal Beg‖s vakf in Edirne see M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, XVGökbilgin, XV XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı. Vakıflar – Mülkler – Mukataalar (İstanbul: Mukataalar (İstanbul: Üçler Basımevi, 1952), 246 ff. The dedicatory inscription of the complex was published and analyzed in detail detail by Fokke Theodoor Dijkema, The Ottoman Historical Monumental Inscriptions in Edirne (Leiden: Edirne (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 17-18. “Nefs“Nefs-i Göl‖de merhum Mihal Beg bir zaviye bina idüb, mezkûr zaviye içün bir hamam bina idüb vakf etmiş.” See Barkan – Meriçli, – Meriçli, Hüdavendigâr Livâsı, 320. The authors have wrongly supposed that the Mihal Beg mentioned in the defter is is indeed Köse Mihal and have thus supposed that the vakf was established in the reign of sultan Orhan. 259 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Mariya KIPROVSKA

complex – its construction started in H. 818 (1415/16) and was completed in H. 821 (1418/19).68 (illust. 5 and 6) All this said, it is apparent that the piyade defteri of 1466 refers to the first half of the fifteenth century, when the leader of the Harmankaya infantry troops was Mihal Beg. This, on the other hand, suggests that in the time between the leadership of Mihal Beg and his grandson ―Ali Beg, the head of this particular military unit was yet another member of the Mihaloğlu family – in all probability this was the father of ―Ali Beg, Hızır Beg, who was subsequently inherited by his son. Be it as it may, Mihal Beg‖s command of the yaya infantry definitely supports the assertion that the leadership of the Harmankaya foot soldiers was traditionally in the hands of the Mihaloğulları who held the post of yaya leaders on a hereditary basis, similarly to the hereditary leadership of the family members over the akıncı/raiders‖ corps.69 On the other hand, what is brought to one‖s attention is the toponymy of the region in 1466/67, when Harmankaya is mentioned as a piyade nahiye under the simultaneous leadership of two distinct commanders. This fact implies that Harmankaya should in all probability be rather regarded as a landmark, most notably envisaging the imposing rock of Harmankaya itself, than as a denomination of a single village. The geographical setting of the two yaya districts with the same name supports this hypothesis. It appears that one of the Harmankaya nahiyes lay south of the rock, while the other seems to encompass territories northeast of it. 70 Furthermore, the very village of Harmankaya was not mentioned in the yaya defteri of 1466/7. It is plausible to suggest, therefore, that in 1466/7 a village of this name did not exist on that particular place, but it might well have been established only later on by Mahmud Beg oğlu Bali Beg, who possessed the village of Harmankaya. According to the registers from 1520 Bali Beg‖s houses ( evler ) and pieces of land ( yerler ) in his own mülk were listed with the explicit note that they were previously excluded from registration (haric ez-defter ). ).71 Evidently, the modern village of Harmanköy was a site of a Roman and

68

Mahmud Ragıb Gazimihal, “Harmankaya Nerededir III: Kitabe, Türbe ve Rivayetler,” Uludağ: Bursa Halkevi Dergisi 77 (1946): 1-7; Gökçek, Akıncı Teşkilâtı ve Gazi Mihal Oğulları, 18; Ayverdi, Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, Devri, 169-171; Abdülhamit Tüfekçioğlu, Erken Dönem Osmanlı Mimarîsinde Yazı (Ankara: T. C. Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001), 133-134; 133-134; H. Çetin Arslan, Türk Akıncı Beyleri ve Balkanların İmarına Katkıları (1300 -1451) (Ankara, 2001), 67-79. 69 The right wing ( sağ kol ) of the akıncı corps was traditionally known as the “Mihallu” - wing, whose leaders were members of the Mihaloğlu family. See Mariya Kiprovska, The Military Organization of the Akıncıs in Ottoman Rumelia (unpublished Rumelia (unpublished M.A. thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara, 2004). 70 See Doğru, Yaya-Müsellem-Taycı Teşkilâtı, 182-184 and the map at the back of the book. 71 BOA, TT 453 (detailed vakf register of Hüdavendigâr province) from H. 926/1520, fol. 275 a: “karye-i “karye-i Harmankaya‖da Mahmud Beg oğlu Bali Beg mülkü içinde olan evler, haric ez-defter” ez-defter” and Barkan – Meriçli, – Meriçli, Hüdavendigâr Livâsı, 313, no. 539; BOA, MAD 64 (icmal (icmal yaya defteri) defteri) from H. 927/1529, fol. 113b: “Harmankaya‖da Mahmud Beg oğlu Bali Beg‖in mülkü içinde kendünün evleri ve yerleri varmış” and Doğru, Yaya-Müsellem-Taycı Teşkilâtı, 172-173. 260 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013


early Byzantine settlement, 72 but it appears to have been abandoned during the late Byzantine era, since no material of this period is noticeable at the present. In all likelihood the village of Harmankaya inherited an ancient settlement tradition but came into being and developed precisely around the housing built by Bali Beg, in which he most probably resided while summoning the infantry troops of the region under his direct control. In support of such a hypothesis bespeaks the fact that the actual centre of the Mihaloğulları‖s mülk in the Harmankaya region seems to have been not at the foot of the great rock where the village of Harmankaya is situated but several kilometres southeast of it in the joint village of Ak ve Alınca . Thus, the data of the yaya defteri from 1466/7 testifies that the personal freeholding of Mihal Beg, which was later inherited by his grandson ―Ali Beg, was located on that particular spot: Karye-i Karye-i Ak ve Alınca, kadimden Mihal Beg‖in mülküymiş, elinde hükm-i hükm -i hümayunları vardır, suret-i suret-i defter-i defter-i köhne dahi budur. Şimdiki halde Hızır Beg oğlu ―Ali Beg mutasarrıfdır, mülkiyet üzere hükmhükm -i hümayunları var ve dahi ―avarız―avarız-i divaniyeden mu‖af ve müsellem ola deyu mektubları var ve re―aya bunlardır ki zikr olunur...73 The village of Ak and Alınca, since olden times it was a freeholding ( mülk) of Mihal Beg, [who] possesses imperial decrees, this is [according to] a copy of the old registration. Now it is held by Hızır Beg oğlu ―Ali Beg, he has imperial decrees attesting his ownership, as well as letters approving the exemption from extraordinary levies; the subject population ( re―aya) is listed [as follows]... Thereafter the defter enlists name by name the heads of 59 households, all of them Muslim. Apart from them, the register records the presence of 10 small farms ( çiftlik), a garden (bağ) of the size of 10 mud and 10 Christian households, all private property of ―Ali Beg, which inevitably indicates that the latter were obtained by ―Ali Beg himself, as the above-cited re―aya should be regarded as inhabiting the place from earlier times.

72

73

I am indebted to Kaan Harmankaya, a descendent of the Mihaloğlu family from Vienna, who first pointed out to me the existence of some early Byzantine stone material in Harmanköy. A subsequent correspondence with Klaus Belke, who currently prepares for publication vol. 13 from the series Tabula Imperii Byzantini, dedicated to Bithynia and the Hellespont, made it clear that the evidence from Harmanköy helps define the existence of an ancient necropolis and an early Byzantine church at the site. I am extremely grateful to Prof. Belke for sharing with me his unpublished entry on Harmankaya. BOA, MAD 8 (icmal yaya defteri) defteri) from H. 871 (1466/7), fols. 68a-69b; Doğru, Yaya-Müsellem-Taycı Teşkilâtı, 171172. 261 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Mariya KIPROVSKA

Hence, it appears that it is precisely at the place of the joint village of Ak ve Alınca where one should locate the centre of the Mihaloğulları Miha loğulları hereditary holding in the region. Moreover, later Ottoman administrative records reveal that exactly this village the raider commanders transformed into their family residence. It was in this very settlement where they erected their palace ( saray) with numerous housings ( müte―addid evler ),), have built a bathhouse and a stable for the horses and sheep bred in the country residence. 74 It seems that the family mansion was quite ostentatious. The presence pr esence of a reception hall ( divanhane), where the official meetings were held, suggests that it once had the appearance of quite a stately residence, which was used not only as a country dwelling, but was the seat of the Mihaloğulları when they were performing their administrative and military duties in their capacity of the Harmankaya infantry leaders. In all likelihood the reception room was part of the men‖s quarters in the palace, and was one of the most notable living spaces in the large abode. On the other hand, the recording of several female slaves 75 suggests that there must well have been a harem section in the female quarters of the seraglio. Some of the other living spaces must have been reserved for the personal gulâms76 (in origin prisoners of war or purchased slaves) of the begs, which were most probably trained in various duties in the family mansion, itself a microcosm of the imperial palace. 77 The exact location of the one-time one- time residence of the Mihaloğulları is easily identifiable in the topography of the area. Nonetheless, one of the names of the joint village was previously read wrongly both by Barkan and Meriçli, and by Halime Doğru, and thus the site of the settlement was not presently established. Barkan and Meriçli read it as Alınç , supposing that it well may be the village of Alıç. 78 Halime Doğru Doğru proposed the reading Ilıca 79 and thus left it unidentified. What should be kept in mind is that the two villages of Ak and Alınca were always put together under one heading in the Ottoman administrative records, suggesting therefore their very close proximity. Indeed, the village survived in the present 74

In 1520 the family mansion comprised of the following: “bir divandivan -hane; Saray içinde müte―addid evler; bir ahur; bir hamam; koyun: 500; yund: 80 ―aded; aygır: 4.” See BOA, TT 453 (from 1520), fol. 277 b; Barkan – Meriçli, Hüdavendigâr Livâsı, 315, no. 546 and 547. This information was copied in the summary register of 1530 with no alteration in the number of households living in the village and in its revenues. 166 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Anadolu Defteri (937/1530): Hüdâvendigâr, Biga, Karesi, Saruhân, Aydın, Menteşe, Teke, Alâi ye livâları (Ankara: Başbakanlık Basımevi, 1995), 63. In 1539/40 the same parts of the residence were enlisted, as were also 500 sheep (koyun (koyun)) registered. There is no mention of the 80 mares ( yund ( yund)) and 4 stallions (aygır ).). BOA, TT 531 (detailed vakf defteri from H. 946), 272. 75 Altogether 9 concubines were registered registered amongst the 27 gulâm 27 gulâmss residing in the village, as 3 of them were registered with the patronymic “Abdullah”, pointing to their Christian origin. BOA, TT 453 (from 1520), fol. 277b; Barkan – Meriçli, Hüdavendigâr Livâsı, 315, note 30. 76 Besides the female slaves, there were additionally 18 male slaves ( gulâm) gulâm) registered. BOA, TT 453 (from 1520), fol. 277b; Barkan – Meriçli, Hüdavendigâr Livâsı, 315, who give a wrong number. In 1539/40 the male slaves numbered 30 (BOA, TT 531, 272), and in 1573 they were 18 (See Barkan – Meriçli, Hüdavendigâr Livâsı, 315). 77 Halil İnalcık, “Ghulâ “ Ghulâm, m, IV: Ottoman Empire,” Encyclopedia of Islam2 (Leiden: E.J. Brill), Vol. 2: 1085-1091. 78 Barkan – Meriçli, Hüdavendi gâr gâr Livâsı, 315. 79 Doğru, Yaya-Müsellem-Taycı Teşkilâtı, 89, 171, 172. 262 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013


toponymy with only one of its names – Akköy, situated only a few kilometres southeast of the village of Harmankaya and the great rock of the same name. The village of Alınca continued to exist well until the nineteenth century when it was depopulated and thus ceased to exist. Its location, though, could be established with a great degree of certainty thanks to the ruin field to the northeast of the modern village of Akköy. (illust. 7) It seems that the two villages were once located on two neighbouring hills, separated by a small gulch. The more flatly terrain of the hill where once the village of Alınca was located suggests that it was precisely there where the family residence of th e Mihaloğulları was situated, the only sign of its presence being the abundant stone material scattered all over the place. The availability of better water resources in the neighbouring Ak village, on the other hand, must have been the chief reason for the choice of the family to build precisely there their bathhouse. The remains of the hamam are still clearly observable in Akköy. (illust. 8) It is in a much ruinous condition and is covered with exuberant vegetation, as it is presently used as a sheepfold by the local villagers. Now much of it appears to be under the ground level, but two domes are still clearly discernible. It was most probably a single bath used consecutively by the male and female residents, as well as by the family of its benefactors. Although it is difficult to say something more definite about the physical appearance of the bathhouse due to its ruinous condition, its presence in the village of Akköy undoubtedly sets the location of the centre of the Mihaloğlu family base in the region of Harmankaya.

The location of the family residence of the Mihaloğulları in the region north of the Middle Sangarios/Sakarya in the joint village of Ak ve Alınca shows that the family was undoubtedly bound to the area, but not necessarily to the very village of Harmankaya. It is highly probable that the initial landholding of the family was at the place of the modern village of Akköy and not at the foot of the gorgeous rock Harmankaya. Furthermore, it is safe to state that the Mihaloğlu family was traditionally linked to the leadership of the infantry troops from the Harmankaya district and not with the very village of the same name. The extant archival documents establish that since the first decades of the fifteenth century several generations of Mihaloğlus held the post of Harmankaya piyade leaders. It is difficult to take any statement on the preceding years beyond the realm of conjecture, but the explicit evidence for the family‖s hereditary command of the infantry troops of the area strongl y strongl y implies that this situation originates in the nascent years of the Ottoman state with the forefather of the family – Köse Mihal. Moreover, it appears that the above statement is in full corroboration with the information from the Ottoman chronicles, which present the founder of the family, Köse Mihal, as a military leader of the Christian troops of the Harmankaya region. Being stationed to the north of the Sangarios/Sakarya valley, the Christian lord of Harmankaya became an immediate neighbour of the newly settled to the south of the valley Ottoman O ttoman leader and was among the first Byzantines to form an alliance with Osman. The so established mutually 263 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Mariya KIPROVSKA

beneficial relations between the two sides guaranteed the life and property of the Byzantine lord in the unstable conditions of the Byzantine border zone. The general situation of despair in the Asian frontiers of the Empire, on the other hand, and the impossibility of the central Byzantine authorities to secure the payments and properties of the soldiers, made it easy for the local leaders such as the Beardless Mihal to ally with the emerging masters of the region. This alliance proved to be more prosperous for not only keeping intact the properties of the apostate, but his military post as well. It is credible to affirm that Osman assured the position of his Christian companion and he continued to lead a small contingent of soldiers from the Harmankaya region under the Ottoman flag. In all likelihood, the leadership of Köse Mihal over these forces was handed over to his successors as it was transmitted well into the sixteenth century – a period in which different branches of the family have already firmly established themselves in the European provinces of the Ottoman empire and have hereditarily been leading much larger military formation – the akıncı corps.

264 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013


: The rock of Harmankaya

265 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Mariya KIPROVSKA

Ruins of the Byzantine fortification at the foot of the Harmankaya rock

: Gazi Mihal‖s complex in Edirne, 1422 (the bridge and the zaviye/―imaret at at its rear) 266 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013


: Gazi Mihal hamamı in Edirne (part of the complex)

: Mihal Beg‖s han in Gölpazarı (1415/6-1418/9) (1415/6-1418/9)

267 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Mariya KIPROVSKA

: Mihal Beg‖s zaviye in Gölpazarı

: The site of the Alınca village 268 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013


: Remains of the Mihaloğulları‖s Mihaloğulları‖ s hamam in the village of Akköy

269 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

TÜRKLÜK BİLGİSİ ARAŞTIRMALARI ARAŞTIRMALARI VOLUME 40 December 2013

Edited by - Yayınlayanlar Cemal KAFADAR • Gönül A. TEKİN

Guest Editors Selim S. KURU Baki TEZCAN

Editorial Board - Tahrir Heyeti Cemal KAFADAR • Selim S. KURU • Günay KUT • Gönül A. TEKİN

Consulting Editors - Yardımcı Yazı Kurulu N . AÇIKGÖZ muğla E. BIRNBAUM toronto M. CANPOLAT ankara R. DANKOFF chicago C . DİLÇİN ankara P. FODOR budapest E. HARMANCI kocaeli H. İNALCIK ankara C. KAFADAR cambridge, mass M. KALPAKLI ankara C. KURNAZ ankara A. T. KUT istanbul G. KUT istanbul G. NECİPOĞLU cambridge, mass M. ÖLMEZ istanbul Z. ÖNLER çanakkale K. RÖHRBORN göttingen W. THACKSTON, Jr. cambridge, mass T. TEKİN ankara S. TEZCAN ankara Z. TOSKA istanbul E. TRYJARSKI warsaw P. ZIEME berlin

TÜRKLÜK BİLGİSİ ARAŞTIRMALARI ARAŞTIRMALARI VOLUME 40 December 2013

Edited by Cemal KAFADAR • Gönül A. TEKİN

Guest Editors Selim S. KURU Baki TEZCAN

Published at the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Harvard University 2013

JOURNAL OF TURKISH TURKISH STUDIES STUDIES CİLT 40 Aralık 2013

Yayınlayanlar Cemal KAFADAR • Gönül A. TEKİN

Yayına Hazırlayanlar Selim S. KURU Baki TEZCAN

Harvard Üniversitesi Yakındoğu Dilleri ve Medeniyetleri Bölümünde yayınlanmışt yayınlanmış tır 2013

Copyright © 2013 by the editors All rights reserved • Bütün telif hakları yayınlayanlara aittir

Managing Editor of JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES Günay KUT

Composer of the JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES İbrahim Tekin

Baskı: KİTAP MATBAACILIK

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 70-131003 ISSN: 0743-0019

Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in HISTORICAL ABSTRACTS and AMERICA: HISTORY AND LIFE

Cover design and background • Kapak düzeni By Sinan AKTA Ş Tughra, Mehemmed II (1481) Aşık Paşa : Garib-nâme ( İ. Koyunoğlu Ktp., Konya)

[Cover background] ―ÂŞIK PÂŞ PÂŞÂ (d. 1333): ĠarîbĠarîb-Nâme (İ. Koyunoğlu Ktp., Konya) [ve mâ erselnâ min resülin illâ bilisâni kavmihi liyübeyyine lehüm]

(K 14:4 "Onlara apaçık anlatabilsin diye her peygamberi kendi halkının diliyle gönderdik!") KAMU DİLDE VARİDİ ZABT U USÛL BUNLARA DÜŞ DÜŞMİŞİD İŞİDİ CÜMLE ―UKÛL TÜRK DİLİNE KİMSENE BAKMAZIDI TÜRKLERE HERGİZ GÖÑÜL AKMAZIDI TÜRK DAKI BİLMEZİDİ OL DİLLERİ İNCE YOLI OL ULU MENZİLLERİ BU GARÎB-NÂME GARÎB-NÂME ANIN GELDİ DİLE KİM BU DİL EHLİ DAKI MA―NÎ BİLE TÜRK DİLİNDE YA―NÎ MA―NÎ BULALAR TÜRK Ü TÂCİK CÜMLE YOLDAŞ OLALAR YOLDAŞ OLALAR YOL İÇİNDE BİR BİRİNİ YİRMEYE DİLE BAKUP MA―NÎYİ HOR GÖRMEYE TÂ Kİ MAHRÛM OLMAYA TÜRKLER DAKI TÜRK DİLİNDE AÑLAYALAR OL HAK[K]I Bütün dillerde ifâde ş ifâde şekilleri ekilleri vardı vardı Herkes bunlara rağbet ederdi Türk diline kimsecikler bakmazdı Türkleri kimseler sevmezdi Türk ise zâten bilmezdi bu dilleri İnce ifâde usûllerini, ifâde biçimlerini İşte İşte Garîb-Nâme bunun için yazı yaz ıldı ldı Yalnız Türkçe bilenler de gerçeği anlasınlar diye Yani Türk dilinde gerçeği bulsunlar Türklerle İranlılar hep yoldaş olsunlar yoldaş olsunlar diye İfâde hususunda birbirlerini kötülemesinler Dile bakıp manâyı hor görmesinler diye Bu suretle Türkler de mahrum olmasınlar Hakk'ı dillerinde anlasınlar diye

, Farewell ............................................................................................................................................... 1 A Life in Ottoman Studies: An Interview with Prof. Heath Lowry ............................................. 5 , Publications ............................................................................................................. 53

....................................................... ......................... ...... 67 On the Story of Varqa and Gülşah ....................................

With Evliya Çelebi from Alanya to Ermenek: An Initial Exploration of the Central Taurus Stages of His 1671 Pilgrimage Itinerary (October 2012) ................................................................................................................... 97 , An Early Eighteenth-Century Theory of the Ottoman Caliphate .................... .................. .. 119 , Households in the Administration of the Ottoman Empire E mpire ....................... ............... ........ 127 , Some Notes on the Muslim vakfs in Ottoman Thessaloniki (Selânik) ....................................................................................................................... 151

, Khāyir Beg: a Bad Man but a Good Thing ............................................................... 169 ,1830 Yılı Nüfus Sayımına Göre Bursa'da Sosyal Yapı ve Kölelik Kurumu ............................................................................................................................. 189 ................. .. 207 207 Mısrî Dergâhı Son Şeyhi: Şemseddin Efendi‖nin Bazı Tahmisleri ................... , Founding new towns as means of conflict solving: ................ ............................. ............ 225 The case of Eğridere Palanka (Kriva Palanka, Rep. of Macedonia)................................. , Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Köse Mihal, a Hero of the Byzantino-Ottoman Borderland........................... 245

,The Monks and the Sultan outside the Newly Conquered Ottoman Salonica in 1430 ................................................................................................................. 271 , Gülşehrî, the Seventh Sheikh of the Universe: Authorly Passions in Fourteenth-Century Anatolia ..................................................................... 281 , German Academics in Turkish Universities, 1933-1946 ........................... .. 291 , Problems of Incorporating the Holocaust into the Greek Collective Memory: The Case of Thessaloniki ............................................................................... 301 , Some Notes on Hersekzade Ahmed Pasha, his Family, and his Books .................................................................................................................. 315 , Legitimizing the Ottoman Sultanate in Early Modern Greek ................... ................. .. 327

, Erken Modern Osmanlı‖da Sağlık Hizmetleri ............................................................ 353 , Güneş ve Kılıç ............................................................................................................. 373 385 , Erken Osmanlı Tarih Yazımında Moğol Hatıraları ............................. ................. 385 , 18. Yüzyılda Klasik Mesnevide Değişim ve Sürerlik Bağlamında Şeyh Gâlib‖in Hüsn ü Aşk‖ının “ışknâme” Olarak Kurgusu............................................................ 401 ................. .. 425 , Barkan‖ın Tarihçiliğinde Fiyat Meselesi ve Süleymaniye İnşaatı ...................

X TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

KIPROVSKA, M. Byzantine Renegade and Holy Worrior - Kose Mihal, JTS 40 (2013), 245-269.pdf

Recommend Documents