o.gumuscu-internal migrations in sixteenth century anatolia

8/9/2019 o.gumuscu-Internal Migrations in Sixteenth Century Anatolia

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ogumuscu-internal-migrations-in-sixteenth-century-anatolia 1/18

Internal migrations in sixteenth century Anatolia

Osman Gumuscu

Department of Geography, University of Ankara, Sihhiye, Ankara 06100, Turkey

Abstract

It is generally believed that during the classical period of the Ottoman Empire, the Anatolian population was

rather static. However, when 16th century tax registers are scrutinized it becomes obvious that the real situation

was very different. According to these registers, there were still many people in Anatolia who migrated from ruralto urban, from rural to rural, and from urban to urban areas. Especially the peasant farmers took part in the

migrations from rural areas to the big cities. During the Classical Period, the Ottoman Empire experienced some

deterioration in its economic, political and social conditions. In addition, the expansion of the agricultural lands

failed to match the rapid increase in population. There was a rapid division of the agricultural land as well; and as aresult of this, the increase of agricultural production lagged behind the population growth. Due to the above

mentioned reasons, peasants abandoned their lands and moved to the cities. Beginning in the 1550s, migration

increased steadily, and provoked by the Celali ( Djelali) Rebellions, reached its peak at the end of the century. This

study, which deals with migrations, migration patterns, and some socio-economic characteristics of migrants in

16th century Ottoman society, has been prepared by choosing only the data related to migrations from the data

available in the tahrir defters and by evaluating this data.

q 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Introduction

Migration can be defined as people leaving their places of settlement and moving to live elsewhere,

either for a short period of time or permanently. Components such as movement, place, distance, time,

and permanence are part of the definition of migration.1 Migration, however, is not only a social, legal,

and economic process; it is also embedded in cultural activity.2 Due to the difficulties in obtaining data,

migration is the most difficult subject to study among the key demographic processes.3 Migrations,

which have various influences on social life, can be divided into three principal categories: voluntary,

compulsory, and unconscious migration. Voluntary migrations are further divided into two sub-groups:

internal–international migration, and permanent–temporary migration.4 Additionally, migration can be

divided into four groups according to the route of the population movement: migration from rural to

0305-7488/$ - see front matter q 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2003.08.021

Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248www.elsevier.com/locate/jhg

E-mail address: [email protected] (O. Gumuscu).

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jhg

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jhg



urban, from rural to rural, from urban to rural, and finally, from urban to urban areas.5 Consequently,various classifications of migration have been made by researchers from different disciplines of study.

Historical internal migration research has been hampered run-on by two obstacles. The first is theprevalent belief that pre-industrial societies are by definition relatively static; in other words, that therewas no migration to study. The second obstacle arises from the nature of the sources. 6 In particular,consideration of its characteristics and the volume of the population that takes part in the movement,migration is an important phenomenon which has multi-dimensional impacts on the economic and socialstructure of society. Therefore, for many years a great number of social scientists have been interested in

migration, and the subject is thoroughly researched. Recent research on historic migration and mobilityhave concentrated on the character, fields, and routes of migration.7 In recent years, many social scientistshave made internal migration in the Ottoman Empire the subject of their studies.8 However, the scholarswho made use of Ottoman archives while working on migration during the 18th century seem to haveneglected migration in earlier centuries.9 Although there may have been many other reasons, the mostimportant factor in this neglect is that the information on migration in the tahrir defters (land surveyingand tax registers),10 which are the basic source of information on a variety of subjects concerning thepopulation of earlier Ottoman periods, is not as systematic and certain as on other subject matters.

A great many of provincial surveys were carried out in the 16th century to improve the efficiency of tax collection. Called the tahrir defters, the survey registers counted all households, and includedinformation on the names of the heads of the families, agricultural production, and tax rates within eachadministrative unit.11 The tahrir defters are written documents of all males eligible for taxation, listed

under their fathers’ names and living in a sub-province’s cities, towns, villages, mezraa (seasonaldwellings used for agricultural purposes) and any other forms of settlement. In fact, three types of tahrir

defters were prepared at the same time: mufassal (detailed) defters, icmal (summarative) defters andevkaf/vakıf defters (those of charitable organisations). The tahrir defters—in which the taxes of theentire settled and nomadic population’s agricultural, livestock, industrial and service sectors arerecorded—are such an important source for historical geographers that they deserve separate, broad-scaled scholarly investigation.

As Butlin has pointed out, data concerning population, taxes, land proprietorship, land usage, and landpossession of administrative units are the best sources for historical geographers to use in reconstructingthe past of a country. From the above mentioned data, the censuses taken in the past are amongst themost important sources for research on historical geography.12 These censuses were taken in order todetermine the number and status of the tax-paying subjects, and the subjects liable to taxes were

registered in the tahrir defters. For this reason, the tahrir defters can be regarded as the primary source of information about the population in 16th century Ottoman lands.

The tahrir defters are of great importance yet they do not give as much information on migration assome other subjects. That is, while performing their duties, land surveyors were not concernedsufficiently with migrants. This neglect seems to be related to the land surveying system used in theEmpire, as well as to the lack of knowledge, attention, and care on surveyors’ part. In the 16th century, attimes when migration was limited and when population movements did not cross large areas, migration(except deportations and the movements of Turkish nomads) may have been disregarded, and therefore,not recorded in the registers. Up to now, migration has not been mentioned much in the studies based onthe tahrir defters.

An examination of the long history of the Ottoman Empire reveals all kinds of migration classified inthis paper. Besides voluntary migrations and the movements of the nomadic tribes, compulsory

O. Gu mu scu / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248232



migrations occurred as well. This kind of migration had various reasons, and was carried out underdifferent names such as ‘deportation’ (su rgu n)13 or ‘displacement’ (go cu rme)14 at different places andperiods. Exiles and nomadic movements were so widespread that they may require another researchproject, thus, they are not included in this study. For this reason, only voluntary internal migrations inAnatolia are the focus of this study. As it was not possible to scan all of the approximately 1850 tahrir

defters15 from 16th century Anatolia, the method of sampling has been adopted, and representativesamples have been chosen to support the study. While determining the representative samples thisresearcher made use of the studies conducted by previous scholars, as well as a limited number of tahrir

defters. Great care was taken to represent different regions of Anatolia in the study. Therefore, thegeneralizations made in this study, although they may not perfectly represent the whole of Anatolia, can

be regarded as introductory or preliminary ones for future studies on migration.Ottoman society can be divided into three main groups: peasants, nomads, and town-dwellers. All

three groups were allowed to move freely within the boundaries of the state, as long as they observed theexisting laws. However, there were times when this freedom was abused and people moved illegally.Attempts to restrict this mobility with legislative regulations had a negative influence on the military,legal, administrative, and especially on the economic structure of society. Beginning in the 15th and 16thcenturies, provincial law codes (Sancak Kanunnames) and almost all the later law codes includedrestrictive rules about population movements. However, mobility could not be controlled, and continuedduring succeeding periods, though at different intervals and in different ways.

The status of the reaya (the tax-paying subjects of the Ottoman Empire), the basic element of Ottoman

society, was determined by certain rules. Regardless of one’s origins, being an Ottoman subject meanton the one hand, preserving one’s own language, religious belief, cultural, social and ethnic identity; onthe other hand, it required paying taxes to the state, accepting its sovereignty, rendering the requiredservices, and when necessary, yielding to state intervention.16 The reaya, Muslim or non-Muslim, weretreated on equal terms according to Ottoman official ideology. In the eyes of the Sultan, every subjectwho paid his taxes and yielded to state authority had theoretically the same rights. Established within thisstructure, the Ottoman economic system did not allow mobility without apparent necessity. Movementsfrom one place to another were controlled and were possible only under strict rules; the aim of theserestrictions was to avert a drop in productivity, a decrease in the tax returns, and a fall in the number of soldiers.17

A person recorded as a period peasant in possession of a farm of defined size could not escape hisregistered status and its attendant obligations without penalty. As a rule he could not abandon the

cultivation of his land, go to town and acquire the status of a townsman. Every year the reaya had to payresm-i cift (a land tax) for the peasant farm allocated to him and had to give one-tenth of all farmproducts to the sipahi (the central government’s local tax collector). Since all agricultural land belongedto the state (miri), a peasant could not lend, sell or divide the land among his heirs. Moreover, a peasantwas not allowed to let his land lie fallow for more than three years without a particular reason, and couldnot pursue any profession except farming.18 If the peasant abandoned his land and migrated to anotherpart of the country, he had to pay a tax called the ‘farm breaking’ tax ( cift bozan akcesi).19 Even if wesuppose that there are no data concerning migration in the tahrir defters, the statement concerning farmabandonment in the Sanjak law code is enough to prove the existence of migration in 16th centuryAnatolia. Thus, the aim of this study is, first, to render meaningful the migrations already confirmed inthe code of laws, the kanunnanme, by using the data available in the tahrir defters20; second, todetermine the magnitude of the migrations by employing numerical information; third, to point out

O. Gu mu scu / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248 233



the routes of migration by making use of information related to the places preferred by migrants; andfinally, to determine the social and economic characteristics of the migrants.

Migration data in the tahrir defters

Two kinds of information about migration can be found in the tahrir defters: direct and indirect.Indirect information includes the names of settlements, the names of city quarters, personal and familynames, and finally, nicknames. In the tahrir defters, one can find terms such as Antalyalı, Kayserilu ,

Erzincanlı, Kırımi, Balıkesiri written beside the names of the persons recorded there, indicating theplaces from which these people came. (The suffixes -lı, -li, -lu, -lu , -ı, and -i mean native of, born in, or of a place, for example Kırımi means the Crimean, that is, coming from the Crimea). In addition to theseterms, adjectives such as ‘travelling’ (seyyah, yolcu), ‘poor’ ( fakir ), ‘destitute’ (garib) and ‘lost’(gaib),21 together with the notes written alongside some persons’ names can be considered among thedirect information with which tahrir defters provide us, and which prove the existence of migration.

The toponymic data22 in the tahrir defters can be considered to provide indirect information onmigration. These data are of great importance and have permanent nature. Sometimes migrants namedtheir new places of settlement after the places from which they had come, and this is a good example of toponymic data. Especially when migrants settled down in a city, they often gave the new quarters theyestablished the names of the places they had abandoned. For instance, the fact that there were quarters

named Kochisar, U ¨

rgu b, Erzurum, and Tiflisi in Ankara (in 1601)23

; Karamani in Bolu (in 1530)24

;Cermu k , Kemahlu Baba (Sheik h from Kemah), Gu rci Palanı (Georgian Saddle) and Baba Acem (PersianSheikh) in Malatya (in 1560)25; Gu rci (Georgian) in Kayseri (in 1584)26; and Nig˘de, Larende, and

Aksaray in Sultaniye (Karapınar ) (in 1584),27 suggest migration. Apart from the cities, migration tovillages and mezraa was also a frequent event. The presence of village names lik e Saruhanlı,

Germiyanlı, Geredeli, Menteselu in Rumelia, the Ottoman term for its provinces in Europe,28 is a typicalexample of the rural settling of migrants (Fig. 1).

In addition to this, as previously stated, the fine imposed on peasants abandoning their farms (cift-

bozan akcesi), which was defined in the law codes added to some tahrir defters, may be an importantevidence for the existence of internal mobility in 16th century Anatolia. As mentioned, the farm breakertax was primarily imposed so as to prevent the reaya from abandoning their homes and lands, and thus,from migrating.29 In a law code prepared during the reign of Mehmed the Conqueror (1451–1481), and

in a surviving copy dated 1487, it is written that the farm breaker tax is 50 akce (or akca)30

(a silver coin,the chief unit of account in the Ottoman Empire). In the law codes issued during the reign of Suleymanthe Magnificent (1520–1566), the farm breaker tax seems to have increased to 75 akce31; by 1605, inless than 40 years, the tax appears to have increased five times compared to the first amount. It isrecorded in a law code of the sub-province (sancak or sanjak ) Syrmia during the reign of Murad III(1574–1595) that a farm breaker tax of 80 akce was collected from the poor, and 120 akce from thewealthy.32 In another law code from the reign of Selim III (1566–1574) it is recorded that in previousyears, the farm breaker tax was 75 akce, but, because most of the reaya had abandoned their lands andmoved to other places where they occupied themselves with crafts and trade, the tax revenues of thelands they had quitted decreased. In order to prevent such a decrease in the tax revenues of the state,those Syrmians in possession of a cift/ciftlik were required to pay 300 akce (ciftlik ¼ an area of landvarying between 60 and 150 do nu ms, 1 do nu m ¼ 940 m2), those having half a cift were to pay 150 akce;




and those with less than half a cift were to pay 75 akce as a farm breaker tax.33 These amounts varied, of

course, from sub-province to sub-province. The first document proving that the Syrmian farm breakertax was raised to 300 akce is dated 1605; but, other documents could be found to demonstrate that ithappened before this date. Even though tax rates differed in different sub-provinces, and even though theincrease may have been influenced by devaluation and inflationary pressures,34 the fact that the farmbreaker tax increased from 50 to 300 akce within 120 years, shows that the main reason for such anincrease was to curb the reayas’ rising rate of migration.

In addition to the data mentioned so far, tahrir defters also contain direct information about migration,

which is the prime subject of this study. Sometimes the registrars in charge of surveying recorded theplaces from which migrants had come or where they moved to live according to their degree of knowledge and interest. Extra explanations such as der sehr (meaning that the person is in the city), der

Konya (meaning that the person is in Konya), der Aksaray, an I˙cil amede, an Eskiil amede (meaning thatthe person had come from I cil or Eskiil), Haymana (meaning that the person was a nomad but settleddown), Gaib (meaning lost) and Perakendegan-ı Adana (meaning dispersed from Adana) found in thetahrir defters can be regarded as information indicating migration. In addition to these notes writtenabove or beside personal names there are some explanations indicating that taxes should be paid in their

new places of settlement or in the places they had left.35 Such notes sometimes name and define theplaces from which migrants had come. In 1536 in the city of Ayıntab (Gaziantep), explanations such as

Behisnili (coming from Besni), Bireciklu (coming from Birecik ), Kastamoni (coming from Kastamonu),Kayserilu (coming from Kayseri), Kerku klu (coming from Kirkuk), Acem (Persian) and Samlu

Fig. 1. Anatolia and its surroundings in the sixteenth century.




(coming from Damascus or Syria)36 written by the names of the migrants indicate their journeys’ startingpoint. Consequently, it is possible to evaluate all this information as data confirming the existence of migration in 16th century Ottoman society.

Reasons for migration

Recent research on migration has revealed that physical, economic and, socio-political factors wereusually the reasons for population movement.37 These factors can also be classified as pull-factors andpush-factors. Economic opportunities and the promise of religious and political liberty are powerfulpull-factors and it can be said that pull-factors attract people to new destinations. Push-factors, on theother hand, include anything that makes people leave their homes and seek a better life elsewhere.Starvation, political and religious persecution, and other disagreeable circumstances are powerful push-factors.38 Although the reasons for migration differ slightly or greatly, depending on the period and theregion, still, it is possible to say that same pull- and push-factors were influential in 16th centuryOttoman society.

Previous research on the reasons for migration in Ottoman society, a subject which is very complex, 39

shows the causes of migration to be as follows: the weakness of the central government and its inabilityto rule the Empire; financial difficulties; the undesirable practices of government officials; the burden of heavy taxes on the subjects; the increasing rate of unemployment; lack of sufficient arable land;

epidemics and natural disasters; wars and military expenditures; insufficient public works and publicservices; and finally, the state policy of forcibly settling nomadic tribes.40 Beginning in 1571 and duringthe last decades of the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire experienced a financial crisis, and this crisiswas one of the greatest reasons for the increase in migration towards the end of the century. I nalcık claims that the traditional Ottoman military and monetary system collapsed due to such factors as theincrease in population, the negative effects of Europe’s new military technology and abundant silverreserves, and the long lasting Ottoman-Habsburg and Ottoman-Safavid wars.41 In summary, asRavenstein’s study and various studies on migration show, of all the reasons listed in this study,economic factors have the greatest influence on migration.42

When all studies on migration in the Ottoman Society are taken into consideration, it becomesobvious that all those factors emphasized as leading to migration converge on the same point: that is, thedeterioration in the economic structure of the state weakened state authority. Consequently, both the

government and its subjects suffered from this weakness. In order to avoid the detrimental effects of these problems, people sought solutions most suitable for themselves. When the state was faced withcurrency devaluation or a financial crisis in general, new and heavier taxes were imposed to overcomethe crisis. Government officials took bribes and expensive presents and, while trying to avoid difficulties,abused their duties. Tradesmen and craftsmen took to adulteration, stored their goods and then sold themat higher prices. The unemployed resorted to banditry and robbery. The peasant farmers, who made upthe majority of the Ottoman population and who were, in fact, affected the most by economiccircumstances abandoned their lands, and moved to cities (where charities looked after the poor in amore substantial manner) or to other rural regions where they hoped to earn a better livelihood.

Therefore it is possible to say that the basic reasons for migration were economic, and that peopletried to escape the pressure which developed in connection with economi c difficulties. In other words,most of the migrants abandoned their lands to better their circumstances.43 However, the reasons why




the peasants, the greatest part of the Ottoman population, were in economic straits should be understoodas well. The most important problem which deeply influenced the economic structure of the state was theagrarian system, of which the peasants were a part.

One of the most important push-factors for migration in the rural areas was the fact that people had tolive in places where the land was not suitable for cultivation. In many law codes it is declared that theland was rocky and consequently that agricultural work could not be carried out. In the law codes of I˙cil,

Erzurum, Bitlis, Georgia, Alexandria, Lesbos, Chios, and Khania44 the rocky nature of the land,restricted agricultural possibilities, as well as insufficient agricultural production and the unproduc-

tiveness of the lands are mentioned. In addition to these agricultural limitations, plagues, famines,earthquakes,45 and other natural disasters46 were important push-factors for the rural population whichwas to move.

Also, in the 16th century Anatolia’s agricultural sector experienced a degree of change not felt before.Cook, who researched this change, arrived at striking results about the relation between population andproduction. Cook’s study showed that in the areas of Anatolia studied there was an imbalance betweenthe increase in population and the extension of the arable lands. Relying on the data in the tahrir defters,Cook found that when the population increased, the arable lands expanded as well. However, theincrease in population was greater than the extension of the arable lands. Moreover, he discovered thatthe lands which the peasants cultivated were divided into smaller and smaller parts, and that the unity of the traditional agricultural unit, the cift , could not be preserved. Consequently, considering the highprices of arable fields, the increase in the number of the landless peasants, and the increase in migration,

Cook came to the only possible conclusion: ‘The increase in population was greater than the expansionof the arable lands’. In order to make his thesis more substantial, Cook calculated the ratio of populationgrowth to arable land extension (number of cifts) between 1475 and 1575, and as a result, discovered thatwhen the index of 10 was taken as a base (for 1475), the population increased to 17 whereas the numberof cifts increased only to 12. Furthermore, he found that the average amount of land held by peasantfamilies decreased from half a cift to a quarter of a cift at the end of the period.47

Identical circumstances in Larende (Karaman) district ( ¼ Kaza) reinforce Cook’s findings. In theyears 1500–1584 the number of tax-paying male adults ( ¼ nefer ) in the district increased 230% in thevillages, and 292% in the city. But, the number of the cift -holding farmers in the villages decreased293%. While the number of those in possession of nim cift (half a cift ) increased only 7%, that of thebennak (married peasants in possession of less than half a cift ) increased 786%, and that of the caba

(landless married peasants) increased 1431%. In other words, while in 1500 the number of the complete

cifts in the district of Larende was 905—that is, there were 905 peasant families in possession of a farmextending between 60 and 150 do nums—84 years later, this number had fallen to 309 cifts. The numberof the peasants holding half a cift increased slightly from 2232 to 2370; the number of bennak increasedfrom 482 to 3796, and that of the caba increased from 308 to 4406.48 If the notes entered alongside orabove the names of the peasants in the registers, which prove that the lands were actually acquired andcultivated together with a father, brothers, or some other persons, are taken into consideration, then, itbecomes clear that the insufficiency of land was far greater than bare numbers reveal.49

In the district of Larende the number of nefers increased 2.6 times within 84 years, and as aresult there was one-third decrease in the number of the cift -holding nefers, and consequently, aone-third decrease in the number of ciftliks. Per capita agricultural production and the number of sheep per nefer , decreased one-third as well. From all these facts, it can be deduced that the landsin the villages were broken up, even though according to the law, farm units were never to be




divided.50 Additionally, agricultural output per head, the number of the sheep, and consequently,animal production decreased. As in other regions of the country, economic conditions in thevillages of Larende worsened. Land divisions, population growth, and the fact that agriculturalproduction could not meet the rapid increase in population were contributing factors. Complete cifts

were divided into nim cifts, the nim cifts into smaller pieces, and as a result, bennaks wererendered landless peasants. The increase in the number of landless unmarried peasants, mu cerred ,inevitably led to migration. Of the 132 persons who migrated from the villages of the district, onlytwo persons were ciftlik holders; 110 of them possessed less than half a cift and 20 of them had no

land at all. The data above

51

shows that most of the peasants who migrated were suffering financialdifficulty because they either had no land to cultivate or the land they had was insufficient to feedthem. Therefore, these people had nothing to lose in leaving their rural settlement behind.

The economic activities in the cities meant new opportunities for the peasant population whoabandoned their villages. The larger and the more developed the cities were, the more migrantsthey attracted. Istanbul, Bursa, Edirne, Kayseri, Ankara, Konya, Amid (Diyarbakır), Tokat, Ruha

(Sanlıurfa), Ayıntab (Gaziantep), Amasya, Sivas, Kastamonu, Larende (Karaman), Nig˘de, Aksaray,

Manisa, Maras (Kahramanmaras) were some of the large, prominent cities in 16th century Anatoliain terms of their population, the goods produced there, and public services they offered.52 Thesecities had administrative functions as well. With their huge market places and bazaars of varioussizes, with their religious and educational institutions, with their law courts, security and easytransportation opportunities these cities were the main attraction for migrants. Braudel, in his

research on migration, pointed out that in the 16th century there was no ci ty which did not acceptmigrants coming from the rural areas and who were ready to do any job.53

The variety of jobs and professions in big cities, as well as the opportunities provided to migrantsmade them attractive destinations. For instance, in 1564 Amid had 80 quarters and 6572 nefers, 3717 of whom were working in 174 kinds of jobs and professions.54 Similarly, in 1531 in Manisa there were 87persons recorded as working in 36 different jobs. Professions and jobs must have not been recorded withgreat care in 1575 because, according to the registers, there were 35 persons working in 21 different jobsin Manisa, and some of these jobs were not mentioned in the 1531 records.55 In 1536, 225 out of 1856nefers were recorded as working in 82 different jobs and professions in Ayıntab.56 The fact that therewere so many kinds of jobs and professions in the cities, even though they did not pay much, meant jobopportunities for migrants. The high number of urban charities offering poor households assistance alsoattracted rural migrants. Finally, Ottoman law codes openly stated that ‘the farm breaker tax is not taken

from the city residents’,57

which meant that rural peasants could move freely and comfortably to urbanareas. Together with the reasons mentioned before, this statement in the Ottoman law codes made thepeasants want to leave their rural settlements and become townsmen.

Pattern and process of migration

Considering that the farm breaker tax was first imposed during the reign of Mehmed the Conqueror, itcan easily be deduced that in Ottoman society migration was a phenomenon occurring from at least thatpoint onward. The farm breaker statement, which first appeared in the law codes of Mehmed theConqueror, and which, in fact, confirms the existence of migration during this period, was renewed in allthe following law codes. Apart from the law codes, there is not much information on migration in




the first tahrir defters. However, beginning in the mid-16th century, and especially in the documentstowards the end of the century, many migration cases were registered.

One of the regions of 16th century Anatolia where internal migration was frequently experienced was Hu davendigar ( Bursa) sub-province. In a tahrir defter dated 1574, migrants who had come fromRumelia and Anatolia, and who settled down in Bursa or other towns of the sub-province, are mentioned.For example in Kapluca, a town in the Bursa district, 13 hanes (khana or households) which had comefrom Ku tahya, Beypazarı, Mentese, Karaman, Manavgat, Balıkesir, Edremit, Tavsanlı and Timurcu, andwho settled in the town are recorded. Considering that the total number of households in Kapluca was

107, the proportion of the migrants is notable. In a quarter of Bursa

named Simaviyan

, there were 73households, 35 of which were non-Muslim, and 20 households of migrants coming from Morea, Euboea,Athens, Ioannia, Salonica, Larissa, Komotini, Lesbos, Alasoia, and Edirne. In addition, the tahrir defters

report that some of the villages of Hu davendigar sub-province were thoroughly abandoned, and as aresult, were ruined. For instance, while in 1574 Marmaracık was a deserted village in the district of Yenisehir , in 1648 after the settlement of 51 Armenian nefers (adult males) it regained village status.58

In another region of Anatolia, in Larende, which was a town situated between the Konya Plain and theTaurus Mountains, the scale of migration was very significant, especially when the time period isconsidered. In 1584 there were 2048 nefers registered as living in Larende, and 115 nefers had taken partin population movements. In other words, 115 nefers had migrated either to or from Larende. Out of those incoming 115 nefers, 108 came from the villages of I cil sub-province, five from Silifke ( I˙cil) andone from Eskiil (Konya). In contrast to the migrants who moved to live in Larende, only one person

migrated from there to Istanbul. Circumstances in the rural areas were somewhat different. From the 184villages in the district of Larende, 216 persons (1.6% of the total population) living in 74 differentvillages were involved in population movement; 75 of those persons came from I cil sub-province andsettled in 28 different villages. The town of Larende received migrants from the villages attached to theadministrative district of Larende as well. Forty-six of these villages sent 122 nefers to Larende, sixnefers to Konya and four nefers to Istanbul. Obviously, Larende was not only a place that attractedmigrants, but was at the same time one that sent migrants to other regions.59

Before 1584 no migration was recorded in the tahrir defters of I˙cil, a sub-province on the southerncoast of Anatolia; however, beginning in 1584 and towards the end of the century, migration began toappear in the registers. The sub-province of I˙cil consisted of eight districts: Ermenek, Anamur, Gu lnar,

Selendi, Karatas, Mut, Sinanlı, and Silifke. According to the registers of 1584, migrants from all of thesedistricts had moved, though the number of the migrants differed. For example, in Ermenek there were 14

households and one mu cerred or bachelor who migrated from a village of the district to another villageof the same district, and 10 households and one mu cerred who moved from the villages of the district tothe town of Ermenek . Additionally, eight households and one mu cerred from another district movedto live in the villages of Ermenek , and 34 households and four mu cerreds from these villages migrated toanother district. There were 388 households and 345 mu cerreds who took part in the populationmovements among the districts of Anamur, Gu lnar , and Selendi; 42 households and 37 mu cerreds

coming from another sub-province settled in these villages; in turn, those who migrated from the villagesof these districts and settled in another sub-province totaled 465 households and 314 mu cerreds.For instance, 70 households and 38 mu cerreds moved between the villages named Sinanlı and Mut , and84 households and 37 mu cerreds came to live in these two towns from other places.However, 108 households and 26 mu cerreds migrated from Sinanlı and Mut to other places. In Silifke

there were 94 households and 105 mu cerreds who moved from one village of the district to another while




49 households and 40 mu cerreds settled in Silifke’s villages. The number of those who left their villagesfor other places totaled 201 households and 104 mu cerreds.

Migration in the sub-province of I cil was as follows: there were 574 households and 493mu cerreds who migrated among the villages of the districts; 277 households and 149 mu cerreds whomoved from other sub-provinces to the villages, and 1052 households and 552 mu cerreds who, inturn, migrated from these villages to other (unspecified) places. There were 28,003 households in totalin I˙cil sub-province; the fact that 1828 of them moved, means that 7% of the households migrated.The total sum of mu cerreds was 29,033; the fact that 1203 of them migrated, means that 4% of themu cerreds

in the sub-province migrated elsewhere from there. It is not difficult to deduce from theabove that population movement in this sub-province was rather high, and that landless and unmarriedpeasants, mu cerreds, made up a great part of the migrants. An examination of the routes of migrationreveals that, first, there was a large amount of migration among the villages of I cil district; second,there were corresponding migrations either from the villages of the district to places outside the sub-province, or just the opposite, from outside the sub-province to these villages or towns of the district.

I˙cil received migrants especially from the neighbouring sub-provinces, and in turn sent migrants tosurrounding areas such as Larende, Aladag˘, Tarsus, Adana, Konya, Mentese, Eskiil, Ereg˘li, Turgud,

and Aksaray.60 It is obvious that in I˙cil, population movement took place in both directions, to I cil

and from I˙cil, which supports Ravenstein’s observation that ‘each migration produces a movement inthe opposite direction’.61

Migrants in pre-industrial England usually moved short distances, but this was by no means a

consistent pattern. For example, between 1588 and 1699, Lancashire received migrants from longdistances, but between 1700 and 1840, the pattern, of migrate were more restricted geographically.62 Aslightly different observation can be made about internal migration in 16th century Anatolia, namely,that short- and long-distance migration occurred simultaneously. For example, migrants who had settledin Ayıntab by 1536, had come from both remote and neighbouring areas. In 1536 Ayıntab had 1856nefers, 147 of whom migrated either from neighbouring regions such as Birecik, Darende, Elbistan,

Ergani, Malatya, and Maras, or from rather remote places such as Erzincan, Harput, Karaman,

Kastamonu, Kayseri, Persia, Kirkuk, and Damascus. The fact that there were no migration records in theregisters of the later 16th century does not mean that there was no migration, but rather, that theregistrars neglected their duties.

Kayseri, one of the greatest cities in Central Anatolia, was remarkable not only for the migrants itreceived from various places (these migrants named the quarters they established in the manner

mentioned before), but for the considerable number of non-Muslim migrants it attracted as well.According to Jennings, the Shirkyan (Sarkiyan) community, which came from the East, and the Sisyan(Sisiyan) community, which came from Sis (Kozan), both of which were registered in Ka yseri, consistedof Armenian and Greek migrants who joined the non-Muslim population of the city. 63

In 1584, circumstances in Aksaray, another sub-province in Central Anatolia, were no different. Aksaray sub-province consisted of five districts; and 240 nefers from the 70 villages of the centraldistrict, 129 nefers from the 145 villages of Eyyubili district, 56 nefers from the 36 villages of

Hasandag˘ı district, 57 nefers from the 40 villages of Bekir district, and 29 nefers from the villages of Kochisar district (whose population consisted mainly of nomads) took part in population movements.The migrating population moved first to Aksaray, and then to Istanbul, Kayseri, Nig˘de, Larende,

Ankara, Er eg˘li, Eskiil, and U ¨ rgu p. In turn, some migrants moved from I cil sub-province and settled in Aksaray.64




In the central district of Aksaray sub-province, which had 3857 nefers in its villages, 143 nefers of

those who took part in population movement migrated from the villages of the district to Aksaray city;

two persons moved to live in Istanbul and four persons coming from I cil sub-province on the southern

border settled in Kurdini village. Together with the 12 persons registered as perakendegan-ı Adana (i.e.

persons dispersed from Adana) and the 79 persons registered as haymana (settled nomads), the migrants

totaled 240, which is equivalent to 6% of the rural population. The land ownership status of 67 of the

migrants is undefined, 55 were caba (landless), and 58 of them were mu cerreds. When the population of

all the districts, (except Aksaray town and the nomadic tribes), is included, the total rural population of

Aksaray sub-province was 22,520 persons. The fact that 541 of them took part in population movements,means that 2% of the rural population migrated. Since 199 out of 541 migrants were bennak , 127 of them

were caba, and 30 were mu cerred , it can be said that migrants were mainly persons who had difficulty in

sustaining a livelihood. In other words, 84% of the migrants had either no land at all, or possessed land

amounting to less than half a cift . And when we take into consideration those whose land ownership

status is unknown, and who were most likely no better off than the rest of the migrants, it becomes clear

that migrants mainly migrated to better their economic conditions (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Migration in the Karaman Province and its surroundings in sixteenth century.




In line with what Ravenstein proposed as the rules of migration, during this period migrants inAnatolia, and especially those who moved from the villages, preferred neighbouring areas. However,there were some migrants who moved to distant places, too, and particularly to Istanbul, the capital of the Empire, and a city which for many reasons was a destination for migrants. 65 When the small numberof migrants moving from every part of the vast empire is calculated, it is not difficult to estimate that thenumber of the migrants who settled in Istanbul was rather high. Istanbul, with an estimated population of 400,000– 500,000 (or 80,000 households) in the early 16th century and one of 700,000 in the late 16thcentury, was a giant city for that time period.66 Migrations to Istanbul must have increased at an early

date, for in 1567 the government issued a law demanding that migrants who had come from Anatolia andRumelia and settled in Istanbul should be sent back to their previous settlements.67 The fact that lawsincluding the same statement were frequently passed in the following periods,68 and especially in the18th century, shows that Istanbul was one of the permanent and the most important migrationdestinations.

Towards the end of the 16th century, survey registrars openly recorded events closely linked withmigration, which proves that migrations were occurring during this period. Apart from the abovementioned areas of migration, in the tahrir defters of Ankara, and Nig˘de sub-provinces and many othertahrir defters, data about those involved in migration exists. Moreover, when it is considered that insome sub-provinces migrants may not have been recorded at all, or if they were recorded, some mayhave been omitted, then it is probable that the number of actual migrants was greater than reflected in theregisters.

As reflected in the documents, migrants during this period were not great in number. In addition tothis, the fact that although migration was forbidden by law, nothing could be done, or was done to sendback the migrants, shows that population movement did not reach the scale of proceeding periods. Inother words, migration during the 16th century disturbed neither the state officials nor the public.However, since the reasons for migration were not addressed, migration increased steadily during the17th century, and in the course of time reached such a point that nothing could prevent it.

When the subject of internal migration is evaluated, consideration should also be given to those whowere deported into lands conquered in later periods, such as Trabzon and Cyprus. The area of Trabzon,conquered by Ottoman rulers in 1461, was one of the regions subject to a systematic influx of deporteesdue to the central government’s Turkification policies. In Trabzon’s 1486 tahrir defter , 252 householdsare reported as having arrived from various parts of Anatolia, and especially from closer regions such as

Niksar, Amasya, Corum and Samsun via deportation. In this year, records of voluntary migrants who

moved alongside the deportees also exist. For instance, in the same tahrir defter , 56 Muslims householdsare recorded as having moved to Azablar quarter ‘of their own will.’ Similarly, more than 20,000 personswho lived in Karaman, Rum, and Zulkadriye provinces of Anatolia in 1572 were deported to Cyprus.These 20,000 included unemployed persons, persons working as farm labourers, and peasants with eitherno land or unsufficient land to cultivate.69 Many families who lived in rural Anatolia and who were ineconomic difficulties were also forced to migrate to Cyprus. Some other peasants were able to delay theirmigration thanks to the deportation of their neighbours. Consequently, deportations, which wereundertaken for more or less the same reasons as voluntary migrations, became one of the factors whichdetermined the nature and amount of voluntary internal migration.

Migrations in 16th century Ottoman society, and especially those from rural to urban areas, weresomewhat different from the migrations which occur today in Turkey. For example, migrants who settledin Larende in 1584, unlike the ‘ghetto dwellers’ of today, were not predisposed to gather in the same




parts of the city; quite the contrary, they dispersed to 27 of the city’s 38 quarters. As the awarid ( Avarız)tax was collected from each village and quarter as a whole, migrants were usually welcome, because thenewcomers meant partners for the residents of these quarters or villages to share the tax burden. 70

Because they were generally welcomed, incoming migrants tended to spread out and settle in all quartersof a city.71

As stated before, if different tahrir defters from different regions of Anatolia are examined, a greatdeal of data of the same nature can be obtained. Even the documents examined in this study show that theOttoman peasants, contrary to common belief, were rather mobile.72 The documents show that apart

from administrative officials, military personnel, religious men, tradesmen, and nomads, whoseprofessions required them to move, the remaining 16th century Anatolian population was quite mobile,too, and seems similar to the mobile population of 14th century England.73

Results of migration

Ottoman subjects, who were already in great distress due to the economic and social pressuresmentioned above, also faced a series of rebellions which began in 1570 and lasted many years. The firstrebellions were called Suhte revolts (the uprising of the students of madrasas, Islamic higher educationinstitutions) and were followed by the Celali Rebellions, whose effects were felt from 1590 onwards.74

The most destructive of peasant migrations, in fact, occurred between 1593 and 1610, during the Celali

depredations in Anatolia, and were called the ‘great flight’.75

Some researchers attribute different datesto the Celali Rebellions; but, this does not change the well-known fact that during them many villages inAnatolia were reportedly ruined, and peasants had to abandon their lands and migrate to the cities orother places where they felt safer.76

Migration had already started in the second half of the 16th century, but since its causes were notaddressed, it gradually increased in scale. As a result of the migrations, which were further provoked bythe Celali Rebellions, agricultural production and the tax revenues of the state decreased, and publicorder deteriorated both in the abandoned villages and in the cities, whose population had increased.77

Especially towards the end of the 16th century, as a result of the rebellions and migrations, which areregistered in the tahrir defters as well, the number and distribution of abandoned and ruined villagesmust have increased. One of the greatest scholars of the 17th century, Katib Celebi, wrote the followingon this subject: ‘The author of this book wandered twelve years in the Ottoman State, beginning in 1635.

Most of the villages he saw or visited were in ruins’. In order to emphasize that this was a well-knownfact among the public he added, ‘A rumour that the rural areas were completely destroyed within twentyyears’ time is circulating’.78

Conclusion

In conclusion, Anatolia’s population during the 16th century was rather mobile, even when forceddeportations and the movement of nomadic tribes are excluded. The period of general crisis experiencedby the Ottoman Empire brought about many other problems. The fact that population growth was greaterthan the expansion of the arable lands led to the division of agricultural fields, and consequently, to anincrease in the number of landless peasants. As a result, peasants who had difficulties in earning their




livelihood migrated to towns and cities, where they expected to obtain jobs more easily. The great revoltsin Anatolia broke out at the same time as the migrations. These revolts and migrations had more or lessthe same causes; and consequently, the number of the migrants swelled, especially at the beginning of the 17th century.

Migration in Anatolia in the 16th century can be divided into three groups with respect to their routes:migrations from rural to urban areas, from rural to rural areas, and finally, from urban to urban areas.Different from the migration patterns identified in Friesland,79 migration from urban to rural areas didnot occur in Anatolia during this period, or if it did, it was not registered in the tahrir defters. The number

of the migrants at the beginning of the 16th century is insignificant. However, beginning in the secondhalf of the century, migration increased approximately 3–5%, though this percentage varied in thedifferent regions of the Empire. The greater part of the migrating population moved from rural to urbanareas during this period, and mainly preferred to settle in the neighbouring towns. However, manymigrants moved to distant great cities, particularly to Istanbul. Those who took part in the populationmovements were mainly rural subjects, people who had difficulty in sustaining a livelihood in thecountry. In other words, among the migrants there were persons holding less than half a cift , peasantswith no land to cultivate, and finally, poor and unmarried peasants. Thus, even in this short paper, as ithas been possible to show that migration was widespread in 16th century Anatolia for primarilyeconomic reasons.

Acknowledgements

The author of this paper would like to thank the following individuals: the Kuyud-ı Kadime archivistsfor their assistance; his colleagues, the professors in the Department of Geography (at AnkaraUniversity), who offered many helpful insights and suggestions during the development of the study;Hamide Albayrak, who translated the text into English, and Assoc. Prof. Dr Nese Ozden, Prof. DrMehmet Oz and Jeannette Squires Okur, who enriched and verified the translation of the text intoEnglish. All the remaining errors are the author’s alone.

Notes

1. C. Whynne-Hammond, Elements of Human Geography, London, 1987, 57–62.2. D. Postles, Migration and mobility in a less mature economy: English internal migration, c. 1200 – 1350, Social History 25

(2000) 299.

3. Y.Z. Ozcan, Icgocun Tanımı ve Verileri ile Ilgili Bazı Sorular, Tu rkiye’de I˙cgo c Konferansları (1998) 78.

4. C. Whynne-Hammond, Elements of Human Geography, London, 1987, 58.

5. E. Tumertekin, Internal Migrations in Turkey, Istanbul, 1968, 35.

6. A. McCants, Internal migration in Friesland, 1750 –1805, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 22 (1992) 388.

7. D. Postles, Migration and mobility in a less mature economy: English internal migration, c. 1200 – 1350, Social History 25

(2000) 285.

8. Most of the studies on this subject are concerned with Republican Period migrations. Studies on migration during the

Ottoman Period usually deal with migrations in the 18th century and the years afterwards and with migrations from regions

outside Anatolia to Anatolia. For bibliography on the subject, see: J. McCarthy, Age, family, and migration in nineteenth

century Black Sea provinces of the Ottoman Empire, International Journal of Middle East Studies 10 (1979) 309–323; D.

Panzac, La population de l’Empire Ottoman et de ses marges du XVe au XIXe sie cle: bibliographie (1941–80) et bilan




provisoire, Revue de l’accident musulmane et de la Me diterrane e 31 (1981) 119–137; G. Eren (Eds), Osmanlı, vol. IV,

Ankara, 1999, 605– 702; I. Guler XVIII, Yuzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nnde Nufus Hareketleri Olarak Ic Gocler, Edebiyat

Faku ltesi Dergisi 36 (2000) 155–212.

9. There is not much research in Turkey on migration in the 16th century, but, it must be pointed out that some studies have

been carried out abroad on this subject. The important point to be remembered here is that in the Ottoman documents

relating to the Balkans and lands beyond them, for example Hungary, the names of the people living in the region were

written in the registers together with their surnames so, if these surnames are taken as a starting point, studying the region’s

migration patterns becomes much easier. For an example, see: G. David, 16. Yu zyılda Simontornya Sancag˘ı, Istanbul,

1999, 68–73; The research carried out by H. Arslan on this subject is based solely on the data in the Mu himme Defters, and

for this reason is different from our study. See: H. Arslan, 16 Yu zyıl Osmanlı Toplumunda Yo netim, Nu fus, I˙skan, Go c ve

Su rgu n, Istanbul, 2001.10. For information on tahrir defters, their characteristics and terminology, see: H. Inalcık, The Ottoman State: economy and

society, 1300– 1600, in: H. Inalcık, D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914,

London, 1994, 132–139; Also see: S. Faroqhi, Approaching Ottoman History: An Introduction to the Sources, Cambridge,

1999, 97–101.

11. For information on the importance of the tahrir defters for historical geography, see: M. Elibuyuk, Turkiye’nin Tarihi

Cografyası Bakımından Onemli Bir Kaynak: Mufassal Defterler, Cog˘rafya Arastırmaları Dergisi 2 (1990) 11–42; O.

Gumuscu, Osmanlı Mufassal Tahrir Defterlerinin Turkiye’nin Tarihi Cografyası Bakımından Onemi, XIII , Tu rk Tarih

Kongresi III/III (2002) 1321–1337.

12. R.A. Butlin, Historical Geography, Through the Gates of Space and Time, London, 1993, 73–87.

13. For information on the deportations in the Ottoman Empire, see: O.L. Barkan, Osmanlı Imparatorlugunda Bir Iskan ve

Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Surgunler, I˙.U ¨ . I˙ktisat Faku ltesi Mecmuası 11 (1950) 524–569; O.L. Barkan and Osmanlı

Imparatorlugunda Bir Iskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Surgunler, I˙.U ¨ . I˙ktisat Faku ltesi Mecmuası 13 (1952)

56–78; O.L. Barkan, Osmanlı Imparatorlugunda Bir Iskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Surgunler, I˙.U ¨ . I˙ktisat

Faku ltesi Mecmuası 15 (1954) 209–237; H. Arslan, 16 Yu zyıl Osmanlı Toplumunda Yo netim, Nu fus, I˙skan, Go c ve

Su rgu n, Istanbul, 2001, 317–346.

14. N. Atsız, Asıkpasaog˘lu Tarihi, Ankara, 1992, 142–150; I. Erunsal, Mu neccimbası Tarihi, Istanbul, 1979, 336–341.

15. H. Inalcık, 438 Numaralı Muhasebe-i Vilayet-i Anadolu Defteri, Giris (937/1530), Ankara, 1993, 1.

16. A.Y. Ocak, Osmanlı Toplumunda Zındıklar ve Mu lhidler , Istanbul, 1998, 91.

17. H. Arslan, 16 Yu zyıl Osmanlı Toplumunda Yo netim, Nu fus, I˙skan, Go c ve Su rgu n, Istanbul, 2001, 185–202.

18. M.A. Unal, XVI. Yu zyılda Cemisgezek Sancag˘ı, Ankara, 1999, 88; H. Inalcık, The Ottoman State: economy and society,

1300–1600, in: H. Inalcık and D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914 ,

London, 1994, 135.

19. O.L. Barkan, XV. ve XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı I˙mparatorlug˘u’nda Zirai Ekonominin Hukuki ve Mali Esasları I , Istanbul,

1943, for Trabzon sub-province, see: 58– 60, for Yeniil sub-province, see: 79, for Diyarbekir Province, see: 132, for Mosul

sub-province, see: 174, for Vize sub-province, see: 234, for Silistre sub-province, see: 273 and 288, for Syrmia sub-

province, see: 312.

20. For data on migration in the 16th century the tahrir defters in the Kuyud-ı Kadime Archives (hereafter TK) in the AnkaraRegistration and Cadastre Head Office were used; for Larende, see: TK 104, TK 113, and TK 584; for Aksaray, see: TK

131; for Amid, see: TK 155; for Nigde; see: TK 135, for Ankara, see: TK 132; for Aydın, see: TK 129.

21. F. Emecen, Sosyal Tarih Kaynagı Olarak Osmanlı Tahrir Defterleri, Tarih ve Sosyoloji Semineri (1991) 154; H. Ozdeger,

Onaltıncı Asırda Ayıntab Livası, Istanbul, 1988, 115–116.

22. For information on the use of toponymic data in migration studies, see: D. Postles, Migration and mobility in a less mature

economy: English internal migration, c. 1200–1350, Social History 25 (2000) 287– 292; R.H. Stoddard, B.W. Blouet and

D.J. Wishart, Human Geography, New Jersey, 1986, 59–61.

23. Department of the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives in Istanbul (hereafter TT) 438, 337–339. O. Ergenc, Osmanlı Klasik

Do nemi Kent Tarihcilig˘ine Katkı XVI. Yu zyılda Ankara ve Konya, Ankara, 1995, 29–31.

24. TT 438, 420.

25. TK 142, 7– 16, and TT 387, 886– 890.

26. TT 387, 199–200, and also see: R.C. Jennings, Urban population in Anatolia in the sixteenth century: a study of Kayseri,

Karaman, Amasya, Trabzon and Erzurum, International Journal of Middle East Studies 7 (1976) 27–34.




27. O. Gumuscu, Tarihi Cog˘rafya Acısından Bir Arastırma: XVI. Yu zyıl Larende (Karaman) Kazasında Yerlesme ve Nu fus,

Ankara, 2001, 189.

28. H. Arslan, 16 Yu zyıl Osmanlı Toplumunda Yo netim, Nu fus, I˙skan, Go c ve Su rgu n, Istanbul, 2001, 182– 184; For

information about this process in the 15th century, see: H. Selcuk, Rumeli’ye Yapılan I˙skanlar Neticesinde Kurulan Yeni

Yerlesim Yerleri, 1432–1481. H.C. Guzel, K. Cicek and S. Koca (Eds), Tu rkler , Tu rkler , vol. IX, Ankara, 2002, 177– 186.

29. In his later study, H. Inalcık points out that the ease with which peasants moved from one place to another caused enactment

of the farm breaker law. For example, see: H. I nalcık, An overview of the Otoman Empire, in: K. Cicek (Ed.), The Great

Ottoman-Turkish Civilasition, vol. I, Ankara, 2000, 55.

30. A. Akgunduz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri V/I , Istanbul, 1990, 351.

31. A. Akgunduz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri V/I , Istanbul, 1990, VII, 233, see also 508.

32. O.L. Barkan, Osmanlı Imparatorlugunda Bir Iskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Surgunler, I˙.U ¨ . I˙ktisat Faku ltesi Mecmuası 11 (1950) 312. To obtain an idea of the akce’s value in the 16th century, keep in mind that 1 gold ducat was

worth 57 akce in 1527, 59 akce from 1560–74, 60 akce in 1583 and 120 akce in 1584. See: H. Inalcık, The Ottoman State:

economy and society, 1300–1600, in: H. Inalcık and D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman

Empire, 1300–1914, London, 1994, 67; H. Inalcık, An overview of the Otoman Empire, in: K. Cicek (Ed.), The Great

Ottoman-Turkish Civilasitionı, vol. I, Ankara, 2000, 83. It is also known that in 1560 one sheep was worth 70–80 akce;

25.6 kg. of wheat was worth 10–12 akce, an done worker’s daily earning totaled 5–6 akce; See: M. Akdag, Tu rkiye’nin

I˙ktisadi ve I˙ctimai Tarihi, vol. II, Istanbul, 1974, 437.

33. A. Akgunduz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri V/I , Istanbul, 1990, VII, 330; A. Uysal, Zanaatkarlar Kanunu

(Kanunname-i Ehl-i Hıref), Ankara, 1982, 28.

34. For information on currency devaluation in 1584 as a result offinancial crisis, see: H. Inalcık, The Ottoman State: economy

and society, 1300–1600, in: H. Inalcık and D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire,

1300–1914, London, 1994, 68, see also 100; S. Faroqhi, Crisis and change, 1590–1699, in: H. I nalcık and D. Quataert

(Eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914, London, 1994, 433.

35. For example see, TK 131, 81 – 82, and TK 104, 147– 148.

36. H. Ozdeger, Onaltıncı Asırda Ayıntab Livası, Istanbul, 1988, 115–116.

37. C. Whynne-Hammond, Elements of Human Geography, London, 1987, 60–64.

38. E.F. Bergman, Human Geography Cultures, Connections, and Landscapes, New Jersey, 1995, 158.

39. For a successful formulation of the reasons for migration in the 18th century Ottoman Empire, see: I. Guler XVIII,

Yuzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Nufus Hareketleri Olarak Ic Gocler, Edebiyat Faku ltesi Dergisi 36 (2000) 162–184.

40. H. Arslan, 16 Yu zyıl Osmanlı Toplumunda Yo netim, Nu fus, I˙skan, Go c ve Su rgu n, Istanbul, 2001, 207– 232; I. Guler

XVIII, Yuzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Nufus Hareketleri Olarak Ic Gocler, Edebiyat Faku ltesi Dergisi 36 (2000) 162– 174.

41. H. Inalcık, An overview of the Otoman Empire, in: K. Cicek (Ed.), The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilasition, vol. I, Ankara,

2000, 81– 82.

42. For Ravenstein’s laws of migration, see: E.G. Ravenstein, The laws of migration, Journal of the Statistical Society 48

(1885) 167–227; E.G. Ravenstein, The laws of migration, Journal of the Statistical Society 52 (1889) 214– 305; R.H.

Stoddard and B.W. Blouet, D.J. Wishart, Human Geography, New Jersey, 1986, 73–76.

43. For information on the migrants in England between 1200– 1350 who migrated to better their conditions, see: D. Postles,Migration and mobility in a less mature economy: English internal migration, c. 1200–1350, Social History 25 (2000) 286.

44. O.L. Barkan, Osmanlı Imparatorlugunda Bir Iskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Surgunler, I˙.U ¨ . I˙ktisat Faku ltesi

Mecmuası 11 (1950) 524– 569. for I cil, see: 52–53 and Mu himme Defters 27, 291, for Erzurum see: 72, for Bitlis see: 193,

for Georgia see: 197, for Alexandria see: 291, for Lesbos see: 333–338, for Chios see: 346–347, for Khania see: 353.

45. S. Faroqhi, Approaching Ottoman History: An Introduction to the Sources, Cambridge, 1999, 441–442.

46. For information on natural disasters in the Ottoman Lands, see:, in: E. Zachariadou (Ed.), Natural Disasters in the Ottoman

Empire, Crete, 1999.

47. M.A. Cook, Population Pressure in Rural Anatolia 1450–1600, London, 1972, 30–82 and quoted from Cook in H. I nalcık,

The Ottoman State: economy and society, 1300–1600, in: H. Inalcık and D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and Social

History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300 – 1914, London, 1994, 30.

48. O. Gumuscu, Osmanlı Mufassal Tahrir Defterlerinin Turkiye’nin Tarihi Cografyası Bakımından Onemi, XIII, Tu rk Tarih

Kongresi III/III (2002) 178–188.

49. Such notes could be seen on every page of TK 104, TK 113, TT 615.




50. H. Inalcık, The Ottoman State: economy and society, 1300– 1600, in: H. Inalcık and D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and

Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914, London, 1994, 148–149.

51. TK 104, 133– 169, TK 113, 170–223, TK 615, 20–30.O. Gumuscu, Osmanlı Mufassal Tahrir Defterlerinin Turkiye’nin

Tarihi Cografyası Bakımından Onemi, XIII, Tu rk Tarih Kongresi III/III (2002) 178–191.

52. L. Erder and S. Faroqhi, The development of the Anatolian urban network during the sixteenth century, Journal of the

Economic and Social History of the Orient 23 (1980) 272–295; S. Faroqhi, Taxation and urban activities in sixteenth

century Anatolia, International Journal of Turkish Studies 1 (1980) 39–42.

53. F. Braudel, II. Felipe Do neminde Akdeniz ve Akdeniz Du nyası I , Ankara, 1993, 405–410.

54. TK 155, 1–55.

55. F. Emecen, XVI. Asırda Manisa Kazası, Ankara, 1989, 76–77.

56. H. Ozdeger, Onaltıncı Asırda Ayıntab Livası, Istanbul, 1988, 125–126.57. O.L. Barkan, Osmanlı Imparatorlugunda Bir Iskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Surgunler, I˙.U ¨ . I˙ktisat Faku ltesi

Mecmuası 11 (1950) 7.

58. O.L. Barkan and E. Mericli, Hu davendigar Livası Tahrir Defterleri I , Ankara, 1988, 8–254.

59. For additional information on migrations in the district of Larende, see: O. Gumuscu, Osmanlı Mufassal Tahrir

Defterlerinin Turkiye’nin Tarihi Cografyası Bakımından Onemi, XIII, Tu rk Tarih Kongresi III/III (2002) 178–191.

It should be pointed out that since a number of migrations were mistakenly omitted in this work, the number of migrants

noted is fewer than its real number. The number is corrected in this article.

60. For more detailed information on migration in the sub-province of I cil, see: S. Celik, Osmanlı Tasra Teskilatında I˙cel

Sancag˘ı, 1500–1584, unpublished PhD thesis, Istanbul University, 1994, 110 – 163.

61. Similarly, in the areas, there were migrations in the 18th century Anatolia in the opposite directions, as well. See: I.

Guler XVIII, Yuzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Nufus Hareketleri Olarak Ic Gocler, Edebiyat Faku ltesi Dergisi 36 (2000)

158–159.

62. S. Nicholas and P.R. Shergold, Internal migration in England, 1818– 1839, Journal of Historical Geography 13

(1987) 157.

63. R.C. Jennings, Urban population in Anatolia in the sixteenth century: a study of Kayseri, Karaman, Amasya, Trabzon and

Erzurum, International Journal of Middle East Studies 7 (1976) 27–34.

64. TK 131, 15– 192.

65. A. Refik, Onuncu Asr-ı Hicride I˙stanbul Hayatı, Ankara, 1987, 204–206.

66. In his later study, H. Inalcık points out that the ease with which peasants moved from one place to another caused enactment

of the farm breaker law. For example, see: H. I nalcık, An overview of the Otoman Empire, in: K. Cicek (Ed.), The Great

Ottoman-Turkish Civilasition, vol. I, Ankara, 2000, 49, see also 78.

67. H. Arslan, 16 Yu zyıl Osmanlı Toplumunda Yo netim, Nu fus, I˙skan, Go c ve Su rgu n, Istanbul, 2001, 389.

68. For such laws, see:Y. Ozkaya, Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda XVIII. Yuzyılda Goc Sorunu, D.T.C.F Tarih Arastırmaları

Dergisi 25 (1982) 171–211.

69. For further information on Trabzon see: H.W. Lowry, Trabzon Sehrinin I˙slamlasması ve Tu rklesmesi 1461 –1583,

Istanbul, 1998, 2025; For –Cyprus, see: H. Inalcık, An overview of the Otoman Empire, in: K. Cicek (Ed.), The Great

Ottoman-Turkish Civilasition, vol. I, London, 2000, 72, see also 82.70. S. Faroqhi, Osmanlı’da Kentler ve Kentliler , Istanbul, 1993, 331.

71. O. Gumuscu, Osmanlı Mufassal Tahrir Defterlerinin Turkiye’nin Tarihi Cografyası Bakımından Onemi, XIII, Tu rk Tarih

Kongresi III/III (2002) 182.

72. S. Faroqhi, Osmanlı’da Kentler ve Kentliler , Istanbul, 1993, 329.

73. R.H. Stoddard, B.W. Blouet, D.J. Wishart, Human Geography, New Jersey, 1986, 59.

74. S. Faroqhi, Osmanlı’da Kentler ve Kentliler , Istanbul, 1993, 415–418. For two successful analyses of the Djelali

Rebellions, see: M. Akdag, Celali I˙syanları, Ankara, 1963; W.J. Griswold, The Great Anatolian Rebellion, Berlin, 1983,

1591–1611.

75. H. Inalcık, The Ottoman State: economy and society, 1300–1600, in: H. I nalcık, D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and Social

History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300 –1914, London, 1994, 165–166.

76. Koci Bey, one of the most famous writers of reform treatises in the 17th century, stated that many villages were in ruins

from 1595 onwards as a result of the Celali Rebellions and that nomadic tribes had done considerable harm to villages.

Although Koci Bey’s narrative style contains some exaggerative elements, his observations can be regarded as reliable.




See: Y. Kurt, Koci Bey Risalesi, Ankara, 1994, 64; H. Inalcık, An overview of the Otoman Empire, in: K. Cicek (Ed.), The

Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilasitionı, vol. I, Ankara, 2000, 83. Katip Celebi ( Hadji Khalife) writes in his book Dusturu’l-

amel li-ıslahi’l-halel that because of the rebellions, people were in great distress and had to move to the cities, and that in

1652, the year he wrote his book, the areas surrounding Istanbul were full of migrants. Katip Celebi’s observations may also

be regarded as reliable. See: K. Celebi, Du sturu’l-amel li-ıslahi’l-halel, Ankara, 1982, 24.

77. For the results of the 18th century migrations, see: I. Guler XVIII, Yuzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nnde Nufus Hareketleri

Olarak Ic Gocler, Edebiyat Faku ltesi Dergisi 36 (2000) 179–192.

78. K. Celebi, Du sturu’l-amel li-ıslahi’l-halel, Ankara, 1982, 24.

79. For migration patterns in Friesland, see: A. McCants, Internal migration in Friesland, 1750– 1805, Journal of

Interdisciplinary History 22 (1992) 393–400.


o.gumuscu-internal migrations in sixteenth century anatolia

Documents