kiprovska, m. byzantine renegade and holy worrior - kose mihal, jts 40 (2013), 245-269.pdf

BYZANTINE RENEGADE AND HOLY WARRIOR: REASSESSING THE CHARACTER OF KSE

MIHAL, A HERO OF THE BYZANTINO-OTTOMAN BORDERLAND

Mariya KIPROVSKA

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 Evrenosolu 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. Lowrys Festschrift 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 Mihaloullar.

The figure of Kse (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

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 field-research in Bithynia, part of the results of which will be presented in the present article.

Bilkent University. 1 Heath Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003). 2 The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350-1500: The Conquest, Settlement & Infrastructural Development of Northern

Greece (stanbul: Baheehir University Press, 2008); with smail Ernsal, The Evrenos dynasty of Yenice Vardar. Notes and documents on Hac Evrenos and the Evrenosoullar: a newly discovered late-17th century ecere (genealogical tree), seven inscriptions on stone and family photographs, Osmanl Aratrmalar 32 (2008), 9-192; with smail Ernsal, The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice-i Vardar: A Postscript, Osmanl Aratrmalar 33 (2009), 131-208; with smail Ernsal, The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice-i Vardar: Notes & Documents (stanbul: Baheehir University Press, 2010); The Evrenos Family & the City of Selnik: Who Built the Hamza Be Cmii & Why? (stanbul: Baheehir University Press, 2010); Fourteenth Century Ottoman Realities: In Search of Hc-Gzi Evrenos (stanbul: Baheehir University Press, 2012).

3 For extensive historiographical overview of the literature discussing the 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, 5-13. The figure of Kse Mihal was examined in the light of the gazi discussion by Rudi Paul Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983), 5, who denied the gazi identity of the first Ottomans on the grounds that they appear in close cooperation with Christians such as Kse Mihal and

Mariya KIPROVSKA

246 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

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 Kse Mihal was repeatedly explored to suggest that his partnership with Osman was only one example of the Ottoman-Christian 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 Kse 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 Kse Mihal, the aim of the present paper is to emphasise once more the need of considering broader spectrum of sources while studying different

his retainers. See also Lowry, The Nature, 57, 66, where the author claims that clearly Kse 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.

4 In a fundamental study on the Ottoman methods of conquest Halil nalck 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 Kse Mihal) or Muslim, and only then they became their vassals. See his Ottoman Methods of Conquest, Studia Islamica 2 (1954), 103-129. The figure of Kse Mihal as an example of the Ottoman-Christian cooperation was explored by Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, 127, 144-145; Heath Lowry, The Nature, 57, 66, 89-90 and on numerous occasions by Keith Hopwood, 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: Variorum, 1992), 153-154; idem, Peoples, Territories and States: The Formation of the Beliks of Pre-Ottoman Turkey, in C. E. Farah (ed.), Decision Making and Change in the Ottoman Empire (Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1993), 134-135; idem, Mudara, in Amy Singer and Amnon Cohen (eds.), Aspects of Ottoman History: Papers from CIEPO IX, Jerusalem (=Scripta Hierosolymitana 35) (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1994), 157-158; idem, Osman, Bithynia and the Sources, Archv Orientln, Supplementa VIII (1998), 159-160; idem, Tales of Osman: Legend or History? in XIII. Trk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 1999, vol. 3, part 3 (Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu, 2002), 2049-2060; idem, Living on the Margin Byzantine Farmers and Turkish Herders, Journal of Mediterranean Studies 10:1-2 (2000), 101-102.

5 In a number of studies Colin Imber has maintained that due the fictitious 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 Kse Mihal and Ali (Alaeddin) Paa whom the author regards as purely fictitious and invented by the Ottoman chroniclers of later times. Colin Imber, The Legend of Osman Gazi, in Elizabeth Zachariadou (ed.), The Ottoman Emirate, 1300-1389, Halcyon Days in Crete I, A symposium held in Rethymnon 11-13 January 1991 (Rethymnon: Crete University Press, 1993), 67-75; 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. Mnage (Istanbul, 1994), 117-137. Imbers argument for the fictitious character of Kse Mihal was most recently adopted by Rudi Paul Lindner, Explorations in Ottoman Prehistory (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007), 13 and 50, note 70.

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

247 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

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 Kse Mihals character, but also for his figurativeness for the ethos of the Byzantino-Ottoman border.

Assessing the historical accuracy of the narrative sources:

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 menakb of Yahi Fakh, interpolated in the text of Akpaazade,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 sources diverge, they definitely complement one another, especially when one keeps in mind that they were written from a different

6 The extreme thesis of Imber concerning the historicity of Kse 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 Mihalolu family members, and suggests therefore that the Ottoman narrative sources should not be so easily dismissed. The Legend of Kse Mihal Additional Notes, Turcica 34 (2002): 241-252. While I fully comply with Sabevs view, I will attempt to bring forward some other sources not used by him to judge the accuracy of the Ottoman chronicles.

7 Most notable are the works of Halil nalck, 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 Osmn Ghzs Siege of Nicaea and the Battle of Bapheus, in Zachariadou (ed.), The Ottoman Emirate, 77-99; idem, The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines for Nicaea, in Il Akbaygil et al (eds.), znik Throughout History (Istanbul: Trkiye Bankas, 2003), 59-83; idem, Osmanl Beyliinin Kurucusu Osman Beg, Belleten 71 (2007), 479-537. See also Elizabeth Zachariadou, Histoires et lgendes des premiers ottomans, Turcica 27 (1995): 45-89; Irne Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Linstallation des Ottomans, in Bernard Geyer and Jacques Lefort (eds.), La Bithynie au Moyen ge (Paris: ditions P. Lethielleux, 2003), 351-374.

8 Victor Mnage, The Menqib of Yakhshi Faqh, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 26:1 (1963): 50-54; Halil nalck, The Rise of Ottoman Historiography, in Bernard Lewis and P.M. Holt (eds), Historians of the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), 152-167.

9 nalck, The Battle of Bapheus, 77-99; idem, The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines, 59-83; Albert Failler, Les mirs turcs la conqte de lAnatolie au dbut du 14e sicle, Revue des tudes Byzantines 52 (1994), 108-112.

Mariya KIPROVSKA

248 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

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 Yahi Fakhs text, interpolated most fully in Akpaazades 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 Yahi Fakh differ with regard to the figure of Kse 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 of Kse Mihals 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 Kse Mihal is presented, and to try to test their historical accuracy based also on the information given by the Byzantine contemporary George Pachymeres.

10 This was already pointed out by Zachariadou, Histoires et Lgends, 67-68. The biased character of the

Byzantine and oriental sources was emphasized by Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Linstallation des Ottomans, 352-353 and idem, Pachymre et les sources orientales, Turcica 32 (2000): 425-434.

11 nalck, Osman Beg, 479-537; Jacques Lefort, Tableau de la Bithynie au XIIIe sicle, in Zachariadou (ed.), The Ottoman Emirate, 101-117; Zachariadou, Histoires et Lgends, 65-75; Hopwood, Tales of Osman, 2049-2060.

12 This fact alone has prompted some authors to imply that Kse Mihal must have been an unimportant governor of an unimportant fortress, to whom an enormous role is ascribed in the narrative of Yahi Fakh, but indeed he did not play a decisive role in the Byzantino-Ottoman relations in Bithynia. See Failler, Les mirs turcs la conqte de lAnatolie, 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 PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1997), 83. I express my gratitude to Savvas Kyriakidis who brought this extremely interesting work to my attention.

13 The assertion made by Mahmut Ragp Gazimihal that Koutzimpaxis from the text of Pachymeres stands for Kse Mihal is erroneous. See his article stanbul Muhasaralarnda Mihalolular ve Fatih Devrine it

bir Vakf Defterine gre Harmankaya Mliknesi, Vakflar Dergisi 4 (1957), 132-135. Indeed, K stands for the Greek transcription of Kodjabakhshi, a chief magician in Nogays court, who finally entered Byzantine service and after being baptized was appointed by Andronicus II 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 tudes Byzantines 36 (1978), 262-264.


249 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

In the oldest chronicle tradition Kse Mihals 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 (annla dahi gayet dostluk iderdi/with him too he was in really good amity).14 Next Kse Mihal appears as a guide (Mihal nlerince klaguz oldu/Mihal became a guide in the forefront)15 in one of the first military campaigns of Osman toward Mudurnu, Gynk and Tarak 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 Kse 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 Gl. The narrative conveys the relationship of Mihal and Osman in way of the formers 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, Kse 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. Mihals 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 Kse Mihal is mentioned in the narrative is in the course of Osmans 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 year21 alongside Osmans son Orhan in his campaign against the fortresses Kara Tigin and Kara ep.22 Lastly, Kse 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 Kse 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 Friedrich Giese, Die Altosmanische Chronik des kpaazde (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1929), 14-15; Ali

Bey (ed.), Tevrih-i l-i Osmandan Akpzde Trih (stanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1332 [1914]), 11-12. 15 Giese, kpaazde, 15-16; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 12-13; Nihal Atsz iftiolu (ed.), Osmanl Tarihleri

I: Osmanl Tarihinin Anakaynaklar olan Eserlerin, Mtehassslar Tarafndan Hazrlanan Metin, Tercme veya Sadeletirilmi ekilleri Klliyat (Istanbul: Trkiye Basmevi, 1925-1949) (=kpaaolu Ahmed k), 99.

16 This particular part of Akpaazdes narrative was discussed by nalck, Osman Beg, 505-506. 17 Giese, kpaazde, 16-17; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 14-15; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 100-101. 18 Giese, kpaazde, 17-18; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 15-16; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 101-102. 19 nalck, The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines, 71-74, idem, Osman Beg, 516-517. 20 Giese, kpaazde, 24-25; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 23-25; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 107-108. 21 nalck, The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines, 74-77, idem, Osman Beg, 517-519. 22 Giese, kpaazde, 26-28; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 25-28; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 108-110. 23 Giese, kpaazde, 28-30; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 28-31; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 110-112.

Mariya KIPROVSKA

250 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

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 (12591282) 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 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 St in a bee-line. Therefore, it wouldnt be surprising that Osman, already stationed in the high plateau of St,28 formed friendly relations both with the Byzantine lord of 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 Kse 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 Gynk Rivers, where two more important communication arteries were traversing the area the one linking Nicaea with Ankara via Glpazar and the other following the basin of the Gynk River via Geyve-Tarakl-Gynk.31

24 The existence of remains at the site of Harmankaya was already pointed out by Jacques Lefort, Tableau

de la Bithynie au XIIIe sicle, 115 and Keith Hopwood, Osman, Bithynia and the Sources, 159. 25 Albert Failler (ed.), Georges Pachymrs. Relations Historiques, II: Livres IV-VI (Paris: Socit ddition Les

Belles Lettres, 1984) (= Georges Pachymrs, 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: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992), 25, 64; Savvas Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 1204-1453 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2011), 25-26, 157-158.

26 Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 157. 27 Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 157-158. 28 For the strategic importance of St see Lindner, Explorations in Ottoman Prehistory, 35-53. 29 Hopwood, Mudara, 154-161. 30 Lindner, Explorations in Ottoman 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, Les grandes routes mdivales, in


251 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Thus, there are good reasons to assume that the alliance of Kse 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 pastures. On the other hand, Osmans 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 Kse Mihal could be recognised in Pachymeress account, when he states that after falling disappointed and virtually abandoned by the Byzantine rulers, the local Byzantines in 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 ge, 461-472; Raif Kaplanolu, Osmanl Devletinin Kuruluu (stanbul: Avrasya Etnografya Vakf, 2000), 51-55.

32 Albert Failler (ed.), Georges Pachymrs. Relations Historiques, I: Livres I-III (Paris: Socit ddition Les Belles Lettres, 1984) (= Georges Pachymrs, I), 292.

33 Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 23-24; Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 78-79. 34 Albert Failler (ed.), Georges Pachymrs. Relations Historiques, III: Livres VII-IX (Paris: Institut Franais

dtudes Byzantines, 1999) (= Georges Pachymrs, III), 242-244; Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 82-83; Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army, 74-75; Kyritses, The Byzantine Aristocracy, 317-318; Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 28.

Mariya KIPROVSKA

252 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

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 Kse 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.

Kse 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 (zmit) 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 Pachymrs, III, 284; Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 87-88; Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army, 75;

Kyritses, The Byzantine Aristocracy, 319; Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late 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 tudes Byzantines 51 (1993), 248-258. See also Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 77.

37 Giese, kpaazde, 24-25; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 23-25; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 107-108. 38 nalck, The Battle of Bapheus, 77-99; idem, The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines, 61-

68; idem, Osman Beg, 509-514. 39 Zachariadou, Histoires et Lgends, 73; idem, Some Turcica of Pachymeres, 262-264; Paul Wittek,

Yazijioghlu Al on the Christian Turks of the Dobruja, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 14:3 (1952), 665.


253 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 Kse 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.

Vindicating the accuracy of the chronicles with the help of the Ottoman defters of later times:

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 defters 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 Kse Mihals exploits were associated, I will attempt to test the accuracy of the chronicles and propose that the data from the defters also gives credence to the narratives.

Strangely enough, Colin Imbers assertion that the figure of the founder of the Mihalolu family of raider commanders 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 nalck, How to Read Ashk Pasha-zades History, in Colin Heywood and Colin Imber (eds.), Studies in Ottoman History in Honour of Professor V. L. Mnage (Istanbul: sis Press, 1994), 139-156; idem, The Battle of Bapheus, 77-99; idem, The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines, 59-83; idem, Osman Beg, 479-537; Lefort, Tableau de la Bithynie au XIIIe sicle, 101-117; Irne Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Osmanl Devletinin Kuruluunun ncelemesinden Tahrir Defterlerinin nemi, in XIII. Trk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 1999, vol. 3, part 3 (Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu, 2002), 1315-1319; idem, Linstallation des Ottomans, 351-374.

Mariya KIPROVSKA

254 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

and that his initial place of origin in Byzantine Bithynia, 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. Harmanky) by a Mihalolu family member in the second half of the fifteenth century as recorded in the administrative records triggered the Ottoman chroniclers imagination in inventing the eponymous founder of the house of Mihal. The fabrication of the figure of the Byzantine lord of Harmankaya, in Imbers view, should be regarded as a simple celebration of this land acquisition on the part of the Ottoman writer Akpaazade, who might well have known personally Mihalolu 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 Akpaazade 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 Menakb of Yahi Fakh, which the chronicler has acquired in 1413 by the latter in his own house in Geyve.43 In 1422, when Mihalolu 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 elebi, where the then young Akpaazade has joined him on his way to the sultans camp.44 Hence, the relationship between the Ottoman chronicler and the Mihalolu 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 Hdavedigr province, on the grounds of which Imber dismisses the historicity of Kse 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 prominent raider commander.

Yet, the sixteenth-century surveys of Hdavedigr province published by mer Ltfi Barkan and Enver Merili and used by Imber to support his thesis, reveal a whole long ownership story prior and after the purchase of the Harmankaya village by Mihalolu Ali Beg,45 a fact neglected by Imber.46 Indeed, the defters reveal that the village of Harmankaya

41 Imber, The Legend of Osman Gazi, 324; idem, Canon and Apocrypha, 131-132. 42 Imber, The Legend of Osman Gazi, 325; idem, Canon and Apocrypha, 131-132. 43 Mnage, The Menqib of Yakhshi Faqh, 50. 44 Giese, kpaazde, 86; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 97; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 157-158; nalck,

How to Read Ashk Pasha-zade, 140-141. 45 Mihalolu 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 Agh Srr Levend, Gazavt-nmeler ve Mihalolu Ali Beyin Gazavt-nmesi (Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu, 1956), 187-195; Olga Zirojevi, Smederevski sandjakbeg Ali beg Mihaloglu, [The sancakbegi of Smederevo Ali Beg Mihalolu] Zbornik za istoriju Matitsa Srpska (Novi Sad, 1971): 9-27.


255 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

was previously held as a freehold by Mahmudolu Bali Beg. Later its proprietorship was 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 Begs death, the mlk was handed over to his son Mehmed Beg. This was the situation reflected in a register of the pious foundations in the sancak of Hdavedigr from 1520.47 Later on, in 1573, as revealed by the other sources used by Barkan and Merili for this year, the mlk of Harmankaya has been purchased by the nianc and beglerbegi of Haleb Boyal Mehmed Paa (d. 1593), who endowed its incomes to his muallimhane in Tosya with an endowment deed from the very same year.48

Although the registers used by Barkan and Merili did not explicitly mention the lineage of none of the mentioned individuals who hold Harmankaya as a mlk prior to its purchase by Boyal Mehmed Paa, their Mihalolu 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 Mihalolu family member to another prior to the lands endowing to the newly formed pious foundation of Boyal Mehmed Paa in 1573.49 Thus, it becomes clear that close to 20 villages, mezraas and iftliks in the districts of Glbazar, Gynk and Bilecik, among which the village of Harmankaya itself, forming the mlk of the Mihaloullar, 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 olu Bali Beg, one of the sons of Gazi Mihal Beg. Later the freeholding was purchased by Mihalolu Ali Beg from the offspring of Bali Beg. When Ali Beg died, the mlk was inherited by his two sons, Ahmed Beg and Mehmed Beg, children of Mahitab Hatun and Selimah 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 Selimah Hatun, her share of the land came into an inheritance of her sister Hrrem Hatun. Thereupon, the family mlk was

46 mer L. Barkan Enver Merili, Hdavendigr Livs Tahrir Defterleri (Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu, 1988),

313, no. 539. 47 The exact register used by Barkan and Merili for this particular region under their heading B could be

safely identified with the detailed vakf defteri from the Babakanlk Osmanl Arivi in stanbul (=BOA), namely the Tapu Tahrir (=TT) 453 from 926 H./1520, fol. 275a.

48 Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, p. 313, no. 539. The information derives from some of the defters housed in Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Mdrl, Kuyud-u Kadime Arivi (=KuK) in Ankara from the year 981 H./1573 combined by Barkan and Merili 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 Ragp Gazimihal, himself a descendent of the Mihalolu family, in his short articles Harmankaya nerededir, Uluda: Bursa Halkevi Dergisi 72-73 (1945): 1-4 and Rumeli Mihaloullar ve Harmankaya, Uluda: Bursa Halkevi Dergisi 81 (1947): 21-26. It was most comprehensively published in his later and more elaborate work Harmankaya Mliknesi, 128-130. These conveyance documents were bound together in a small defter 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 centre Akky 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 Imbers thesis to show the patrimony of the Mihalolu family over the mlk of Harmankaya. See his The Legend of Kse Mihal, 244.

Mariya KIPROVSKA

256 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

bought by Boyal Mehmed Paa from the then proprietors, most likely Mahitab Hatun and Hrrem Hatun themselves.50

What can be deduced from the above mentioned information is that the mlk north of the Middle Sangarios/Sakarya valley was held on a hereditary basis by the Mihalolu family prior its purchase by Mehmed Paa in the second half of the sixteenth century. Moreover, it could be safely affirmed that the freeholding was in the hands of Mihalolu 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 Mihalolu Mahmud Beg,51 who established a pious foundation in the Balkan town of htiman (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 htiman/htimanlu/htimanolu.53 Hence, it appears that Mihalolu Ali Beg has purchased the Mihaloullars hereditary freeholding from one of his own relatives most probably after Bali Begs 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 Boyal Mehmed Paas pious foundation, published in summary by Mahmut Ragp Gazimihal. Coming back to the Ottoman administrative records

50 Gazimihal, Harmankaya nerededir, 2-3; idem, Rumeli Mihaloullar ve Harmankaya, 21-23; idem,

Harmankaya Mliknesi, 129-130. 51 Mahmud Beg was mentioned by Enver in his Dstr-nme as still living in htiman. Enver, Dstr-nme,

ed. by Mkrimin Halil Ynan (stanbul: Devlet Matbaas, 1928), 90-91. According to Enver, Mahmud Beg was the son of lyas Beg, a su-ba and close companion of Bayezid I (1389-1402) in his Ankara battle against Timur (1402), where he lost his life heroically. lyas Beg was, as Enver puts it, a son of Balta Beg, with whom Mihal Beg (supposedly Kse Mihal) has come from am (Damascus). This passage in Envers text was first interpreted by Yaar Gkek and became a basis of the established by Gkbilgin genealogy of the first generations family members and the htiman branch in particular. See Yaar Gkek, Kse Mihal Oullar (stanbul niversitesi Edebiyat Fakltesi Mezuniyet Tezi, 1950), 33-34 and idem, Trk mparatorluk Tarihinde Aknc Tekilt ve Gazi Mihal Oullar (Konya: Alagz yay., 1998), 48, 76; M. Tayyib Gkbilgin, Mihal-oullar, slm Ansiklopedisi, vol. VIII (1960), 286, 290-291. Machiel Kiel and Orlin Sabev misunderstood Envers text and suggested that it was not his father lyas Beg, but Mahmud Beg himself who lost his life in the battle of Ankara. Sabev, The Legend of Kse Mihal, 245; Machiel Kiel, htiman, Trkiye Diyanet Vakf slm Ansiklopedisi, vol. 21 (2000), 571.

52 Semavi Eyice, Sofya Yaknnda htimanda Gazi Mihalolu Mahmud Bey mret-Camii, Kubbealt Akademi Mecmuas 2 (1975): 49-61; idem, Gazi Mihalolu Mahmud Bey Camii, Trkiye Diyanet Vakf slm Ansiklopedisi, vol. 13 (1996), 462-463; Kiel, htiman, 571-572.

53 In a synoptic register of the sancak of Nibolu from 884 H. (1479/80) it was recorded that the zeamet of Gigen was in the hands of sa Bali, son of Bali Beg htiman (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. htimanoullar Kasm 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 Hakk Erdem pa, The Centrality of the Periphery: The Rise to Power of Selim I, 1487-1512 (unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2007), 258, 260. It was in all probability the very same htimanlu Kasm Beg, one of prince Selims supporters, who in 1521/22 held the sancakbeglik of Humus. See mer Ltfi Barkan, H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Mal Ylna Ait Bir Bte rnei, stanbul niversitesi ktisat Fakltesi Mecmuas, 15:1-4 (1953-1954), 306.


257 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

of the Hdavendigr 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 Mihalolu Bali Beg. Almost all other villages, mezraas and iftliks mentioned in Boyal Mehmed Paas vakf documents appear to have been mlk of Mihalolu Ali Beg or were in the hands of his two sons Ahmed Beg and Mehmed Beg, with only two notable exceptions the village of Dutman54 and the mezraa of Seid/Sel-Bk55 in the vicinity of Harmankaya, which were bought by Mihalolu Ali Beg from the offspring of their previous owner Paa Yiit Beg. Hence, it is logical to suppose that the large mlk was apportioned and was held simultaneously until the second half of the fifteenth century by the two cousins Mihalolu Ali Beg and Mahmud Beg olu 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 Mihaloullar 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 Sultann.

The sancak of Sultann, 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 Sultann district, the first going back in time to H. 871 (1466/7).57 At that time the foot soldiers district (piyade sanca) of Sultann 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 Sultann (Harmankaya from the district/liva of Sultann) and Harmankaya tabi Gl an liva-yi Sultann (Harmankaya, [subordinate] to Gl from the district/liva of Sultann), providing 60 and 70 active infantrymen accordingly.59

54 Wrongly read by Barkan and Merili as Doan. See BOA, TT 453, fol. 275b; Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 313, no. 540.

55 The previous ownership of Paa Yiit Beg becomes apparent only in one synoptic yaya register from 927 H./1520. See BOA, Maliyyeden Mdevver Defteri (=MAD) 64, fol. 113b; Halime Doru, Osmanl mparatorluunda Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilat (XV. ve XVI. Yzylda Sultann Sanca) (stanbul: Eren Yaynevi, 1990), 172-173. This information is omitted in the vakf registers of the province, where the mezraa of Sil-bk is said to be purchased by Ali Beg from certain lyas Beg, most probably a descendent of Paa Yiit Beg himself. BOA, TT 453, fol. 276a; Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 314, no. 542.

56 Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt and idem, XVI. Yzylda Eskiehir ve Sultann Sanca (Odunpazar Belediyesi, 2005).

57 BOA, Maliyeden Mdevver (=MAD), No. 8. See also Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, XV, 55. 58 Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 55-58; 73-95. 59 BOA, MAD 8, fol. 56b and fol. 69b. Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 88, 91.

Mariya KIPROVSKA

258 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Moreover, as it becomes apparent from the defter, the two subdistricts were under the leadership of two Mihalolu family members Mihalolu Ali Beg and Mahmud Beg olu Bali Beg, the very same ones who held portions of the hereditary mlk 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 Mihaloullar generations. Hence, in 1520 the piyade chief of both Harmankaya districts was the son of Mihalolu 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 Sultann from 1466/7 extremely valuable in regard to the Mihaloullar 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 Mihalolu Ali Beg, begins with the following heading: Piyadegn-i Harman Kaya an liva-yi Sultan n, kadimden Mihal Beg tasarruf idermi, imdi Hzr Beg olu Ali Beg mutassarfdr [Harmankaya foot soldiers from the Sultann district, previously at the disposition of Mihal Beg, now in possession of Hzr Beg olu 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 Mihalolu Ali Beg, undoubtedly sets a terminus post quem for the hereditary leadership of the Mihalolu 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 Mihalolu 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 elebis 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 (142144 and 144651) who released him from the Tokad prison to use him in his struggle for the throne against the claimant Dzme Mustafa,64 which according to the chronicles cost the life of the Mihalolu. Mihal Beg was

60 Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 89, 91. 61 BOA, MAD 8, fol. 56b. Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 88. 62 Halil nalck, 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 (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 Tevrih-i l-i Osmn. Teil I: Text und Variantenverzeichnis (Breslau: Selbstverlag, 1922), 49; idem, kpaazde, 73-74; Faik Reit Unat and Mehmed Kymen (eds.), Kitb- Cihan-Nm. Ner Tarihi, vol. 2 (Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu, 1957), 487-491; Franz Babinger, Die Frhosmanischen Yahrbcher des Urudsch (Hannover: Orient-Buchhandlung Heinz Lafaire, 1925), 39, 107.

63 Giese, Die Altosmanischen Anonymen Chroniken, 52; Babinger, Urudsch, 40, 108. 64 Giese, Die Altosmanischen Anonymen Chroniken, 57; idem, kpaazde, 86-87; Unat Kymen, Ner Tarihi,

vol. 2, 559-561; Babinger, Urudsch, 46-47, 112-113.


259 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 Begs 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 Gl, where in the town of Glpazar 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 han (inn), which being built not for profit, was included neither in the Ottoman defters nor was it endowed to the zaviye. The dedicatory inscription over its entrance, however, allows a firm dating of the so-formed

65 The tombstone of the founder is a subject of controversial readings. It was initially Ahmed Bad Efend 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 Ragb Gazimihal, avunt olu Ksemihl Bahi, Trk Folklor Aratrmalar 113:5 (1958), 1801-1804, who even put forward the hypothesis that Kse Mihal was of Turkic descent. The erroneous reading was most recently adopted by Orlin Sabev, who went on to suggest that behind Frenk bin Cnd/Frank son of a warrior (in his interpretation) may well be hidden Kse Mihal, who would then have been one of the Catalan mercenaries of Roger de Flors expedition of 1308, who entered the service of the recently established emirate of Karasi, and from there moved on to serve the Ottomans. Sabev, The Legend of Kse Mihal, 244. Indeed, the matter in hand is that Bad Efend misread both stones at the head and at the foot of the tomb. Actually, the tombstone to which Bad Efend refers is no other but the grave of Aziz bin Mihal 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 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 Cneyd 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 Gkek, Kse Mihal Oullar, 53, idem, Aknc Tekilt ve Gazi Mihal Oullar, 10-11 and Ekrem Hakk Ayverdi, Osmanl Mimrsinin lk Devri: Erturul, Osman, Orhan Gazler Hdavendigr ve Yldrm Byezd 630-805 (1230-1402) (stanbul: Baha Matbaas, 1966), 150-151, idem, Osmanl Mimrsinde elebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806-855 (1403-1451) (stanbul: 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-emirl-kebir Mihal bin Aziz Paa and the date of his death H. 839 (1435/36). Gkek, Kse Mihal Oullar, 50 and idem, Aknc Tekilt ve Gazi Mihal Oullar, 14; Ayverdi, Osmanl Mimrsinin lk Devri, 151, idem, elebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, 390; Mustafa zer, Edirnede Mihaloullarnn mar Faaliyetleri ve bu Aileye Ait Mezar Talarnn Deerlendirilmesi, in I. Edirne Kltr Aratrmalar Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 23-25 Ekim 2003 (Edirne: Edirne Valilii, n.d.), 317-325; Hikmet Turhan Dalolu, Edirne Mezarlar (stanbul: Devlet Basmevi, 1936), 24 who misread the date of Mihal Begs death. For Mihal Begs vakf in Edirne see M. Tayyib Gkbilgin, XV-XVI. Asrlarda Edirne ve Paa Livs. Vakflar Mlkler Mukataalar (stanbul: ler Basmevi, 1952), 246 ff.

66 The dedicatory inscription of the complex was published and analyzed in detail by Fokke Theodoor Dijkema, The Ottoman Historical Monumental Inscriptions in Edirne (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 17-18.

67 Nefs-i Glde merhum Mihal Beg bir zaviye bina idb, mezkr zaviye in bir hamam bina idb vakf etmi. See Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 320. The authors have wrongly supposed that the Mihal Beg mentioned in the defter is indeed Kse Mihal and have thus supposed that the vakf was established in the reign of sultan Orhan.

Mariya KIPROVSKA

260 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

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 Mihalolu family in all probability this was the father of Ali Beg, Hzr Beg, who was subsequently inherited by his son. Be it as it may, Mihal Begs command of the yaya infantry definitely supports the assertion that the leadership of the Harmankaya foot soldiers was traditionally in the hands of the Mihaloullar who held the post of yaya leaders on a hereditary basis, similarly to the hereditary leadership of the family members over the aknc/raiders corps.69

On the other hand, what is brought to ones 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 olu Bali Beg, who possessed the village of Harmankaya. According to the registers from 1520 Bali Begs houses (evler) and pieces of land (yerler) in his own mlk were listed with the explicit note that they were previously excluded from registration (haric ez-defter).71 Evidently, the modern village of Harmanky was a site of a Roman and

68 Mahmud Ragb Gazimihal, Harmankaya Nerededir III: Kitabe, Trbe ve Rivayetler, Uluda: Bursa Halkevi

Dergisi 77 (1946): 1-7; Gkek, Aknc Tekilt ve Gazi Mihal Oullar, 18; Ayverdi, elebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, 169-171; Abdlhamit Tfekiolu, Erken Dnem Osmanl Mimarsinde Yaz (Ankara: T. C. Kltr Bakanl, 2001), 133-134; H. etin Arslan, Trk Aknc Beyleri ve Balkanlarn marna Katklar (1300-1451) (Ankara, 2001), 67-79.

69 The right wing (sa kol) of the aknc corps was traditionally known as the Mihallu- wing, whose leaders were members of the Mihalolu family. See Mariya Kiprovska, The Military Organization of the Akncs in Ottoman Rumelia (unpublished M.A. thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara, 2004).

70 See Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 182-184 and the map at the back of the book. 71 BOA, TT 453 (detailed vakf register of Hdavendigr province) from H. 926/1520, fol. 275a: karye-i

Harmankayada Mahmud Beg olu Bali Beg mlk iinde olan evler, haric ez-defter and Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 313, no. 539; BOA, MAD 64 (icmal yaya defteri) from H. 927/1529, fol. 113b: Harmankayada Mahmud Beg olu Bali Begin mlk iinde kendnn evleri ve yerleri varm and Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 172-173.


261 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 Mihaloullars mlk 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 Alnca. 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 Ak ve Alnca, kadimden Mihal Begin mlkymi, elinde hkm-i hmayunlar vardr, suret-i defter-i khne dahi budur. imdiki halde Hzr Beg olu Ali Beg mutasarrfdr, mlkiyet zere hkm-i hmayunlar var ve dahi avarz-i divaniyeden muaf ve msellem ola deyu mektublar var ve reaya bunlardr ki zikr olunur...73

The village of Ak and Alnca, since olden times it was a freeholding (mlk) of Mihal Beg, [who] possesses imperial decrees, this is [according to] a copy of the old registration. Now it is held by Hzr Beg olu Ali Beg, he has imperial decrees attesting his ownership, as well as letters approving the exemption from extraordinary levies; the subject population (reaya) 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 (iftlik), a garden (ba) 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 reaya should be regarded as inhabiting the place from earlier times.

72 I am indebted to Kaan Harmankaya, a descendent of the Mihalolu family from Vienna, who first pointed

out to me the existence of some early Byzantine stone material in Harmanky. 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 Harmanky 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.

73 BOA, MAD 8 (icmal yaya defteri) from H. 871 (1466/7), fols. 68a-69b; Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 171-172.

Mariya KIPROVSKA

262 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Hence, it appears that it is precisely at the place of the joint village of Ak ve Alnca where one should locate the centre of the Mihaloullar 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 (mteaddid 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 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 Mihaloullar 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 mens 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 slaves75 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 gulms76 (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 residence of the Mihaloullar 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 Merili, and by Halime Doru, and thus the site of the settlement was not presently established. Barkan and Merili read it as Aln, supposing that it well may be the village of Al.78 Halime Doru proposed the reading Ilca and thus left it unidentified.79 What should be kept in mind is that the two villages of Ak and Alnca 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 divan-hane; Saray iinde mteaddid evler;

bir ahur; bir hamam; koyun: 500; yund: 80 aded; aygr: 4. See BOA, TT 453 (from 1520), fol. 277b; Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 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 Numaral Muhsebe-i Vilyet-i Anadolu Defteri (937/1530): Hdvendigr, Biga, Karesi, Saruhn, Aydn, Mentee, Teke, Aliye livlar (Ankara: Babakanlk Basmevi, 1995), 63. In 1539/40 the same parts of the residence were enlisted, as were also 500 sheep (koyun) registered. There is no mention of the 80 mares (yund) and 4 stallions (aygr). BOA, TT 531 (detailed vakf defteri from H. 946), 272.

75 Altogether 9 concubines were registered amongst the 27 gulms 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 Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 315, note 30.

76 Besides the female slaves, there were additionally 18 male slaves (gulm) registered. BOA, TT 453 (from 1520), fol. 277b; Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 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 Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 315).

77 Halil nalck, Ghulm, IV: Ottoman Empire, Encyclopedia of Islam2 (Leiden: E.J. Brill), Vol. 2: 1085-1091. 78 Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 315. 79 Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 89, 171, 172.


263 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

toponymy with only one of its names Akky, situated only a few kilometres southeast of the village of Harmankaya and the great rock of the same name. The village of Alnca 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 Akky. (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 Alnca was located suggests that it was precisely there where the family residence of the Mihaloullar 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 Akky. (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 Akky undoubtedly sets the location of the centre of the Mihalolu family base in the region of Harmankaya.

Conclusion

The location of the family residence of the Mihaloullar in the region north of the Middle Sangarios/Sakarya in the joint village of Ak ve Alnca 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 Akky and not at the foot of the gorgeous rock Harmankaya. Furthermore, it is safe to state that the Mihalolu 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 Mihalolus 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 familys hereditary command of the infantry troops of the area strongly implies that this situation originates in the nascent years of the Ottoman state with the forefather of the family Kse 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, Kse 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 leader and was among the first Byzantines to form an alliance with Osman. The so established mutually

Mariya KIPROVSKA

264 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

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 Kse 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 aknc corps.


265 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

List of illustrations:

illust. 1: The rock of Harmankaya

Mariya KIPROVSKA

266 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

illust. 2: Ruins of the Byzantine fortification at the foot of the Harmankaya rock

illust. 3: Gazi Mihals complex in Edirne, 1422 (the bridge and the zaviye/imaret at its rear)


267 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

illust. 4: Gazi Mihal hamam in Edirne (part of the complex)

illust. 5: Mihal Begs han in Glpazar (1415/6-1418/9)

Mariya KIPROVSKA

268 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

illust. 6: Mihal Begs zaviye in Glpazar

illust. 7: The site of the Alnca village


269 TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

illust. 8: Remains of the Mihaloullars hamam in the village of Akky

JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES

TRKLK BLGS ARATIRMALARI VOLUME 40

December 2013

Edited by - Yaynlayanlar Cemal KAFADAR Gnl A. TEKN

DEFTEROLOGY FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF HEATH LOWRY

Guest Editors Selim S. KURU Baki TEZCAN

Editorial Board - Tahrir Heyeti Cem al KAF ADAR Sel im S . KURU Gnay KUT Gnl A. T EK N

Consulting Editors - Yardmc Yaz Kurulu

N. AIKGZ m ula E. BIRNB AUM toronto M. CANPOL AT ank ara R. DANKOFF chicago C. DL N ankara P. FODOR budapest E . HARMANCI kocael i H . NAL CI K ankara C. KAFADAR cambridge, mass M. KAL PAKLI ankara C . KURNAZ ank ara A. T . KUT istanbul G. KUT ist anbul G . NEC POL U cambridge, mass M. LMEZ ist anbul Z . NLER anakkale K. RHRBORN gtt ingen W. THACKSTON, Jr . cambridge, m ass T . TEK N ank ara S . T EZCAN ankara Z. T OSKA ist anbul E. TR YJARSKI w arsaw P. ZIEME ber l in


TRKLK BLGS ARATIRMALARI VOLUME 40

December 2013

Edited by Cemal KAFADAR Gnl A. TEKN

DEFTEROLOGY FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF HEATH LOWRY

Guest Editors Selim S. KURU Baki TEZCAN

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

2013

TRKLK BLGS ARATIRMALARI

JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES CLT 40

Aralk 2013

Yaynlayanlar Cemal KAFADAR Gnl A. TEKN

DEFTEROLOJ HEATH LOWRY ARMAANI

Yayna Hazrlayanlar Selim S. KURU Baki TEZCAN

Harvard niversitesi Yakndou Dilleri ve Medeniyetleri Blmnde yaynlanmtr

2013

Copyright 2013 by the editors All rights reserved

Btn telif haklar yaynlayanlara aittir

Managing Editor of


Gnay KUT

Composer of the JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES

brahim Tekin

Bask: KTAP 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 dzeni By Sinan AKTA

Tughra, Mehemmed II (1481) Ak Paa : Garib-nme (. Koyunolu Ktp., Konya)

[Cover background] IK P (d. 1333): arb-Nme (. Koyunolu Ktp., Konya)

[ve m erseln min reslin ill bilisni kavmihi liybeyyine lehm]

(K 14:4 "Onlara apak anlatabilsin diye her peygamberi kendi halknn diliyle gnderdik!")

KAMU DLDE VARD ZABT U USL

BUNLARA DMD CMLE UKL

TRK DLNE KMSENE BAKMAZIDI

TRKLERE HERGZ GL AKMAZIDI

TRK DAKI BLMEZD OL DLLER

NCE YOLI OL ULU MENZLLER

BU GARB-NME ANIN GELD DLE

KM BU DL EHL DAKI MAN BLE

TRK DLNDE YAN MAN BULALAR

TRK TCK CMLE YOLDA OLALAR

YOL NDE BR BRN YRMEYE

DLE BAKUP MANY HOR GRMEYE

T K MAHRM OLMAYA TRKLER DAKI

TRK DLNDE ALAYALAR OL HAK[K]I Btn dillerde ifde ekilleri vard

Herkes bunlara rabet ederdi

Trk diline kimsecikler bakmazd

Trkleri kimseler sevmezdi

Trk ise zten bilmezdi bu dilleri

nce ifde usllerini, ifde biimlerini

te Garb-Nme bunun iin yazld

Yalnz Trke bilenler de gerei anlasnlar diye

Yani Trk dilinde gerei bulsunlar

Trklerle ranllar hep yolda olsunlar diye

fde hususunda birbirlerini ktlemesinler

Dile bakp many hor grmesinler diye

Bu suretle Trkler de mahrum olmasnlar

Hakk' dillerinde anlasnlar diye

HEATH LOWRY

NDEKLER CONTENTS

TRKLK BLGS ARATIRMALARI 40 2013 JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES 40 2013

Norman ITZKOWITZ, Farewell ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Selim S. KURU, Baki TEZCAN A Life in Ottoman Studies: An Interview with Prof. Heath Lowry ............................................. 5

Heath LOWRY, Publications ............................................................................................................. 53

ARTICLES

Fatma ERKMAN-AKERSON, On the Story of Varqa and Glah ............................................................. 67

Caroline FINKEL, With Evliya elebi from Alanya to Ermenek: An Initial Exploration of the Central Taurus Stages of His 1671 Pilgrimage Itinerary (October 2012) ................................................................................................................... 97

Haim GERBER, An Early Eighteenth-Century Theory of the Ottoman Caliphate .................... 119

Jane HATHAWAY, Households in the Administration of the Ottoman Empire ....................... 127

Evanghelos HEKIMOGLOU, Some Notes on the Muslim vakfs in Ottoman Thessaloniki (Selnik) ....................................................................................................................... 151

Colin IMBER, Khyir Beg: a Bad Man but a Good Thing ............................................................... 169

Raif KAPLANOLU,1830 Yl Nfus Saymna Gre Bursa'da Sosyal Yap ve Klelik Kurumu ............................................................................................................................. 189

Mustafa KARA, Msr Dergh Son eyhi: emseddin Efendinin Baz Tahmisleri ................... 207

Machiel KIEL, Founding new towns as means of conflict solving: The case of Eridere Palanka (Kriva Palanka, Rep. of Macedonia) ............................................. 225

Mariya KIPROVSKA, Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Kse Mihal, a Hero of the Byzantino-Ottoman Borderland........................... 245

X TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

Elias KOLOVOS,The Monks and the Sultan outside the Newly Conquered Ottoman Salonica in 1430 ................................................................................................................. 271

Selim S. KURU, Glehr, the Seventh Sheikh of the Universe: Authorly Passions in Fourteenth-Century Anatolia ..................................................................... 281

Jacob M. LANDAU, German Academics in Turkish Universities, 1933-1946 ............................. 291

Rena MOLHO, Problems of Incorporating the Holocaust into the Greek Collective Memory: The Case of Thessaloniki ............................................................................... 301

Hedda REINDL-KIEL, Some Notes on Hersekzade Ahmed Pasha, his Family, and his Books .................................................................................................................. 315

Henry R. SHAPIRO, Legitimizing the Ottoman Sultanate in Early Modern Greek ................... 327

Hlya TA, Erken Modern Osmanlda Salk Hizmetleri ............................................................ 353

Gnl TEKN, Gne ve Kl ............................................................................................................. 373

Baki TEZCAN, Erken Osmanl Tarih Yazmnda Mool Hatralar .............................................. 385

Nuran TEZCAN, 18. Yzylda Klasik Mesnevide Deiim ve Srerlik Balamnda eyh Glibin Hsn Aknn knme Olarak Kurgusu............................................................ 401

Fikret YILMAZ, Barkann Tarihiliinde Fiyat Meselesi ve Sleymaniye naat ................... 425

kiprovska, m. byzantine renegade and holy worrior - kose mihal, jts 40 (2013), 245-269.pdf

Documents

ottoman centuries

ottoman state foundation

ottoman service

ottoman ruler

ottoman balkans

ottoman state berkeley

ottoman state formation

early ottoman state