During the reign of Selim I(1512-1520), the Ottoman Empire conquered the Diyarbakir region, which was an important area including major routes linked to Anatolia and Northern Syria, and a border area between Ottoman and Safavid territories. Most scholars have taken great interest over the years in the politicohistorical developments of the Ottoman conquest of the Diyarbakir lands. This paper, however, high-lights the social developments during the conquest of the Diyarbakir region by utilizing primary Ottoman and Diyarbakir sources. The man behind the conquest was Kurd-born Idris Bidlisi, who was in the service of Selim I, and the author of an Ottoman source. He was ordered to promote submission by the Kurdish amirs(chieftains)to Ottoman rule due to his knowledge of Kurdish affairs. Most of the amirs accepted Idris's counsel and allied themselves against their common enemy, the Safavids. Although amirs and some leaders of the Ruzeki tribe ruled Bidlis in a tribal society, as seen from the case of Bidlis, they did not come from any sub-tribes of Ruzeki as previously thought. Besides this fact, amirs had various kinds of relations with the neighboring Kurdish amirs from the mid-14th century. The reason for an alliance between the amirs and the Ottomans was the result of a hostile policy of contempt by the Safavids toward the amirs. The Ottomans, on the other hand, permitted the amirs to maintain rulership over their territories, land-holding and their traditional way of life, even under the suzerainty of the Ottomans.

抄録全体を表示

Selim I's expedition against the Mamluks during 1516-1518 resulted in the extinction of the Mamluk Empire and the establishment of the Ottoman Empire as an Islamic universal empire. This event left enormous effects on the history of the Middle East. However there are rather few studies on this subject.
As for the early condition of the ancient Mamluk lands under Ottoman rule, a document which is preserved in the Topikapi Sarayi Archive and numbered D 9772 is one of the most important source materials.
It is a list of the livas (sancaks) and sancakbeyis of the Ottoman Empire. Prof. Ömer Lütfi Barkan published it and dated it Sevval 927 H—Receb 928 H. Though, according to Prof. Miroglu, Dr. Dündar Aydin re-dated it A. D. 1517 in his dessertation in 1972, most of Ottomanists have been still accecpting Prof. Barkan's conclusion.
Here I tried to date the document D 9772 more exactly. My conclusion is that it reflects the location of sancaks and sancakbeyis just after the large scale appointments on 26th Ramazan 923 H. With this new fact, I will try to re-examine the process of Selim's attempts to reorganize the ancient Mamluk lands under the new Ottoman system in this article.

抄録全体を表示

Thanks to the vast number of the documents of the Ottoman Empire, there are many studies in the social and economic history of the Ottoman Empire. But at the same time, there are also some problems in the trends of studies. Suraiya Faroqhi is one of the first-rate scholars who try to make a new type of study to overcome some problematic aspects of existing studies in the field. Therefore, by examining her studies, we can understand the general trends of the field and its problems. In 1930's. studies in the social and economic history of the Ottoman Empire began at first on the subject of the timar system. Especially Omer Lutfi Barkan successfully showed the importance of this kind of study, and gave great influences to the scholars all around the world. Now individual researches go down even to the smallest detail. Local history is in full bloom and specialization of research subjects is speeding up. So there is a danger to lose a sense of balance, and be isolated from others. And what is worse, as for the total picture of the Ottoman Empire, many scholars blindly adopted the theory invented in the West. According to this theory, the Ottoman Empire enjoyed her golden age until the end of the 16th century and after this fell into a period of decline. But this is clearly a one-sided view of the history. It puts too strong an emphasis on the external factors like the change of the world trade system and the influx of Spanish silver to the Ottoman Empire. Criticizing this tendency, some scholars began to make a new type of study based on detailed researches of the internal factors, such as the domestic economic system and the social structure. Today two major theoretical frameworks in the world historical studies, i.e. Immanuel Wallerstein's "Modern World-System" theory and that of the Annales school, are giving great impacts on a new generation of historians who seek a new total picture of the Ottoman Empire. Faroqhi is considered to belong to the Annales school. She tries to apply Fernand Braudel's theory to her studies. And using many documents, she makes detailed researches on various subjects like socio-religious aspects of Islam and rural and urban societies. In this way she tries to draw a more realistic picture of the Ottoman Empire. The 16th and 17th centuries are her specialized period. She chose them because, according to the old Western view, the Ottoman social system underwent a period of stagnation after the end of the 16th century. She criticizes this view by showing evidences of internal developments in these centuries. Towns and Townsmen of Ottoman Anatolia is a book with this intention in mind. The book is divided into three parts as the subtitle shows. Part One dealing with the trade among towns consists of four chapters; commercial constructions, overland trade, maritime trade and port towns. In Part Two, three crafts are studied in three chapters; textile, leather and metal crafts. Part Three is concerned with food production in four chapters; relationships of towns with their agricultural hinterlands, meat supply, land problems of townsmen and internal migrations. Finally she concludes that towns were still developing even in these days in contrast to the Western view. Though stimulating, this book is not free from problems. As she herself says, she investigated only in the western and central Anatolia and dealt with only a few aspects of urban life. And it seems that she attempts to unite into one volume two themes rather independent to each other; a monographic study of towns on one hand and a theorization of historical urban development on the other. The reviewer doesn't think she is necessarily successful in this regard. This book is the first attempts to show a hypothesis of the activeness of the Ottoman society and economy in consideration of the internal factors in these centuries. In spite of her weakness, Faroqhi

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

The burgus(Lat.)=bourg(Fr.)mentioned frequently in medieval texts of northwest France was a new settlement grafted in a nucleus of the existing one. The diversity of its from does not permit us to qualify it globally as either urban or rural. The term burgensis=bourgeois appeared originally in the meaning of inhabitant of this new wettlement. In recent years, bourg and bourgeois have been studied from the point of view of feudal development. In Normandy, there developed a tenure called burgagium=bourgage, which, generally thought to be an indicator of bourg/bourgeois, gave rise to L.Musset's skillful formula of the inseparable trinity of burgus/burgensis/burgagium. Nevertheless, two facts oblige us to reconsider this view. First, the earliest mention of burgagium is dated a century later than that of burgus/burgensis. Secondly, the propagation of bourgage was limited to Normandy. Beyond the Channel, the burgus=borough in the contemporary English texts is a settlement generally more urban than the French bourg. Here also, it has often been said that the burgagium=burgage was a tenure peculiar to borough. However, the earliest mention of burgagium concerns settlements not qualified as burgus. Moreover, it is very interesting that the appearance of burgagium in English documents was slightly earlier than in Normandy. This study is founded on a criticism of the rather loose conventional methodology, which tends to regard all tenures somewhat privileged as bourgage/burgage. To this end, the author attempts to trace the appearance and the diffusion of bourgage/burgage, by relying exclusively on the term burgagium in the documentation. Considering Normandy and England at the same time, her findings confirm for tboth regions a substantial discordance between the geographical or chronological distribution of the burgagium and of burgus/burgensis. The term burgagium was created first in northeast England, during the period of the systematic settlement of Normans under colonisation into this frontier area. It designated globally privileges that the inhabitants in the old great boroughs had progressively obtained. The intention was to grant them to recent settlements which needed immigrants ; the burgagium served as a device to attract new inhabitants. In the following stage, the burgagium was introduced into Normandy ; it was applied not to the great towns from the early Middle Ages, but to developing settlements, like in Ingland. In addition, the propagation of burgagium in both the regions can be interpreted as a phenomenon indicating the integration of social structure in the "Anglo-Norman Realm."

抄録全体を表示