ANADOLU SELÇUKLU DEVLETİ: 41

CITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN THE EARLY 16TH CENTURY: A CASE STUDY FOR THE APPLICATION OF DIGITAL HISTORY TO OTTOMAN STUDIES

With the penetration of digital technologies in all areas of life, historiography has also undoubtedly been affected by this process and brought new research methodologies to its agenda. The emergence of digital humanities and digital history as a new discipline and directing academic studies should be considered within this framework. This new academic area, which provides an online research environment extending beyond individual desktop-research, and in collaboration with different disciplines, increases the accessibility, sustainability, and comprehensibility of historical studies. The enormous archive sources that have emerged as a result of the dominance of the Ottoman Empire for a long time and tradition of record-keeping have great potential in the Big Data era to allow the condacting of research with effective methods. The current state of Ottoman studies, however, shows that digital methodologies are not yet in use in this area enough. In this context, the present study aims to put digital history and more specifically digital urban history on the agenda of Ottoman studies.

This thesis aims to contribute to Ottoman studies both thematically and methodologically. Its first thematic purpose is to determine, describe and map the Ottoman administrative and provincial organizations in the first half of the 16th century, organized as vilayet, sanjak and kaza, using legal documents such as kanunname and

kadıasker records and sources related to the tax system such as tahrir registers. These various types of sources will show us how the same regions and cities have changed according to the archive records formed for different purposes. Secondly, to define the mobility of these administrative units and to examine the factors of spatial change and transformation in the early 16th century. The methodological contribution of this study is to digitally map archival data with the Geographical Information System (GIS) using ArcGIS, to prepare an accessible and updatable online database.

Keywords: Digital Humanities, Digital History, Ottoman Cities, Urban History, GIS, Sixteenth Century, Vilayet, Eyalet, Sanjak, Kaza, Provinces, Tahrirs, Ruznamçes, Maps

ÖZ

XVI. YÜZYILIN İLK YARISINDA OSMANLI ŞEHİRLERİ VE İDARİ TEŞKİLAT: OSMANLI ÇALIŞMALARI İÇİN BİR DİJİTAL TARİH UYGULAMASI

ALADAĞ, Fatma

Tarih Yüksek Lisans Programı

Tez Danışmanı: Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Yunus UĞUR

Haziran 2020, 308 Sayfa

Dijital teknolojilerin hayatın her alanına nüfuz etmesi ile birlikte şüphesiz tarih yazımı da bu süreçten etkilenmiş ve yeni araştırma metodolojilerini gündemine almıştır. Dijital Beşeri Bilimler ve dijital tarihin yeni bir disiplin olarak ortaya çıkması ve akademik çalışmalara yön vermesi bu çerçevede düşünülmelidir. Masa başı bireysel arşiv çalışmalarının ötesine geçerek, farklı disiplinlerle işbirliği içerisinde online araştırma ortamı sağlayan bu yeni akademik alan tarihsel araşırmaların erişilebilir, sürdürelibilir ve anlaşılabilirliğini artırmaktadır. Osmanlı imparatorluğunun uzun yıllar süren hakimiyeti ve kayıt tutma geleneği ile birlikte ortaya çıkan devasa arşiv kaynakları, Büyük Veri çağında hızlı ve etkili yöntemlerle yapılacak araştırmalar için yüksek potansiyele sahiptir. Ancak Osmanlı araştırmalarının mevcut durumu, dijital metodolojilerin bu alanda henüz yeterince kullanılmadığını göstermektedir. Elinizdeki çalışmada, digital tarihi ve daha özelde dijital şehir tarihini Osmanlı çalışmalarının gündemine almak hedeflenmiştir.

Bu tez çalışması, Osmanlı tarihi çalışmalarına hem tematik hem de metodolojik olarak katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Tematik olarak öncelikli amacı; vilayet, sancak ve kaza olarak organize edilen 16. yüzyılın ilk yarısındaki Osmanlı idari ve taşra teşkilatını, kanunname ve kadıasker kayıtları gibi hukuki belgeler ve tahrir defterleri gibi vergi sistemine dair kaynaklar kullanarak tespit etmek, tanımlamak ve haritalamaktır. Bu çeşitli kaynak türleri bize aynı bölgelerin ve şehirlerin farklı amaçlarla düzenlenmiş arşiv kayıtlarına göre nasıl değiştiğini de göstermektedir. İkinci olarak, 16. yüzyılın başlarında

vii

Osmanlı idari organizasyonundaki değişim ve dönüşümü vilayet, sancak ve kaza bazında incelemek ve sınır değişimlerindeki nedenleri tartışmaktır. Bu çalışmanın metodolojik katkısı, Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemi (GBS) programı ArcGIS ile arşiv verilerini dijital olarak haritalamak, online erişilebilir ve güncellenebilir veritabanı hazırlamaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Dijital Beşeri Bilimler, Dijital Tarih, Şehir Tarihi, Osmanlı Şehirleri, GBS, XVI. Yüzyıl, Vilayet, Eyalet, Sancak, Kaza, Taşra, Tahrirler, Ruznamçeler, Haritalar

viii

To My Mom and Dad

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Yunus UĞUR. He is the most important person in the formation, maturation, and finalization of this thesis. It was a great privilege and honor to work and study with him. Undoubtedly, his contributions are not limited to this thesis. He will always have a valuable place in my life, as he guides my academic studies, generously shares knowledge and friendships, and more importantly, always puts his trust in me.

I also would like to say my heartfelt thanks to professors at Istanbul Şehir University, History Department, Engin Deniz AKARLI, Mehmet GENÇ, Tufan BUZPINAR, Abdulhamit KIRMIZI, Ayşe BAŞARAN, Abdurrahman ATÇIL, Kahraman ŞAKUL, Nicole KANÇAL-FERRARİ, Cengiz KALLEK, and Coşkun ÇAKIR, that always encouraged me towards virtue, goodness, and motivated me to achieve successes that I could not even dream of. I am also grateful to professors at Istanbul Şehir University, Center for Urban Studies, especially Eda YÜCESOY, Alim ARLI and Halil İbrahim DÜZENLİ, and all assistants who make me feel like part of a family. This Center will always be with me as one of the most meaningful places in my life. I also would like to thank Muhammet Zahit ATÇIL, a member of the thesis jury, for his valuable comments and support.

This thesis can be evaluated to a certain extent as an outcome of the project (No: 217K081) entitled "Mapping the Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Conjunctions and Distinctiveness (1520-1540) directed by Yunus UĞUR and supported by TÜBİTAK. I would like to thank TÜBİTAK and Yunus UĞUR for making me a part of this project as one of its assistants.

In addition, I wish to express my gratitude to the staff in Istanbul Şehir University Library for being very helpful. I am extending my special thanks to my friends, Aişegül AKKOYUN, Büşranur BEKMAN, Elif DERİN CAN, Nurdan GÜR, Emine ÖZTANER, Beyza TOPUZ, Fatma

DENİZ, Abdul Basit ADEEL, Ahmet ŞAHİN, Fatma KÖKTAŞ, Elif ALTIN, Hatice Kübra UYSAL, Fatmanur ASİL, Aişe KANOĞLU, Hatice KORKULU and Maryam EKHTIARI, who always support me in all cases, and show me their love and sincerity. I cannot thank them enough for their support.

I am extremely grateful to my parents for their love, prayers, caring, and sacrifices for my future. I especially thank them for their patience during the challenging quarantine period regarding Covid-19 precautions while I struggle to complete this research work. I am also very much thankful to my friends as part of my family, Efnan DEMİRCAN, Tuğçe ÖZKARA, Şahika GÜNEYSU and Hülya YILMAZ for their support and understanding when I can't spare time for them.

Finally, my thanks go to all my friends who have supported me in completing my research work, directly or indirectly.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iv

Öz ...................................................................................................................................... vi

Dedication ....................................................................................................................... viii

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. ix

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. xi

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xiii

List of Maps ..................................................................................................................... xiv

CHAPTERS

1.Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 The Question and the Methodology ........................................................................ 1

1.2 The Literature Review ............................................................................................ 10

1.3 Sources: Urban and Administrative Classifications in Tahrir and Kadıasker Registers ....................................................................................................................... 16

1.3.1 Tahrir Registers ................................................................................................ 16

1.3.2 Kadıasker Registers .......................................................................................... 22

1.4 Outline .................................................................................................................... 28

2.Digital Humanities in Historical Research ..................................................................... 29

2.1 The History of Digital Humanities ........................................................................... 30

2.2 Two Cultures Debate: Science vs. Literature .......................................................... 35

2.3 Knowledge Generation in Digital Humanities ........................................................ 38

2.4 Digital Urban History .............................................................................................. 41

2.5 GIS for Historical Research ..................................................................................... 42

2.6 Ottoman Studies in Digital Age .............................................................................. 51

2.7. Digital Historical Methodologies and Ottoman Administrative Division .............. 55

3.Digitizing The Ottoman Administrative Division in The Early 16th Century .................. 58

3.1 The Ottoman Administrative Division in the Kanunname of 1522 ........................ 58

xii

3.2 The Ottoman Administrative and Urban Division in the Kadıasker Registers of the Early 16th Century ......................................................................................................... 80

3.2.1 The Anatolia Vilayet of the Ottoman Empire in 1513 ..................................... 80

3.2.2 The Rumelia Vilayet of the Ottoman Empire in 1521 ...................................... 87

3.2.3 The Anatolia and Arab Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire in 1523 .................... 94

3.2.4 The Anatolia Vilayet of Ottoman Empire in 1528 .......................................... 106

3.3 The Lands of Ottoman Empire in Tahrir Registers ............................................... 114

3.3.1 Rumelia Vilayet of the Ottoman Empire in 1526-1528 ................................. 114

3.3.2 The Lands of Ottoman Empire in the Tahrirs between 1520 and 1540 ........ 121

3.4. The Aggregate Data of the Ottoman Empire: The Regions and Cities in the Early 16th Century ................................................................................................................ 145

4.Mapping The Dynamic Regional and Urban Divisions of The Ottoman Empire in The Early 16th Century ........................................................................................................... 180

4.1 Debates on the effects of Transformation in Ottoman Provincial Administrative Organization ............................................................................................................... 181

4.2 Mapping Administrative Organization: The Division of Vilayets, Sanjaks and Kazas in the 16th Century Ottoman Empire .......................................................................... 188

4.2.1 Vilayet Division of Ottoman Empire in the Early 16th Century ...................... 188

4.2.2 The Sanjak Division of the Ottoman Empire in the Early 16th Century ......... 195

4.2.3 Kaza Division of Ottoman Empire in the Early 16th Century ......................... 228

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 276

Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 284

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. The Vilayet, Sanjak and Kaza Division of Ottoman Empire in the Kanunname of 1522 ............................................................................................................................. 61

Table 3.2. The Sanjak Distribution of Vilayets in the “Kaza List” .................................... 62

Table 3.3 The Sanjak Distribution in the “Second (Sanjak) List” ..................................... 64

Table 3.4 The Second List of Vilayet of Diyarbekir ........................................................... 65

Table 3.5 The Regions and Cities of Ottoman Empire in 1522 ........................................ 65

Table 3.6 The Distribution of Sanjak in Anatolia in 1513 ................................................. 80

Table 3.7 The Regions and Cities of Anatolia in the Ottoman Empire in 1513 ................ 81

Table 3.8 The Distribution of Sanjak of Rumelia in 1521 ................................................. 88

Table 3. 9 The Regions and Cities of Rumelia in 1521 ..................................................... 88

Table 3.10 The Sanjak Distribution of Ottoman Empire in the Kadıasker Register of 1523 .......................................................................................................................................... 95

Table 3.11 The Regions and Cities of Ottoman Empire in Kadıasker Register of 1523 ... 96

Table 3.12 The Regions and Cities of Vilayet of Anatolia in 1528.................................. 107

Table 3.13 The Distribution of Sanjak in Rumelia in 1526-1528.................................... 114

Table 3.14 The Regions and Cities of Rumelia in 1526-1528 ......................................... 115

Table 3.15 The Distribution of Sanjak by Vilayets between 1520 and 1540 ................. 122

Table 3.16 The Regions and Cities of Ottoman Empire in the Tahrir Registers between 1520 and 1540 ................................................................................................................ 124

Table 3.17 The Regions and Cities of Different Dates from 1530 in Tahrir Registers ... 144

Table 3.18 The Unique Sanjaks of Ottoman Empire in the 16th Century ...................... 146

Table 3.19 The Unique Kazas of Ottoman Empire in the 16th Century ......................... 151

xiv

LIST OF MAPS

Map 4.1. The Vilayet Division of Ottoman Empire in the Early 16th Century ................ 180

Map 4.2.Vilayet of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1513 ..................................... 189

Map 4.3. Vilayet Division of Ottoman Empire in the Kadıasker Register of 1523 ......... 190

Map 4.4. Vilayet of Rumelia in the Kadıasker Register of 1521 .................................... 191

Map 4.5. Vilayet Division of the Ottoman Empire in the Kanunname of 1522 ............. 192

Map 4.6. Vilayet of Rumelia in the Register of 1526-1528 ............................................ 193

Map 4.7. Vilayet of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1528 .................................... 194

Map 4.8 The Difference of the Vilayet of Anatolia between 1513 and 1528 kadıasker registers .......................................................................................................................... 195

Map 4.9. The Vilayet Division of Ottoman Empire in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 ...... 195

Map 4.10. The Sanjak Division of Rumelia in the Kadıasker Register of 1521 .............. 197

Map 4.11. The Sanjak Division of Rumelia in the Kanunname of 1522 ......................... 198

Map 4.12.The Sanjak Division of Rumelia in the Register of 1526-1528....................... 199

Map 4.13. The Sanjak Division of Rumelia in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 ................... 201

Map 4.14. The Sanjak Division of Rum in the Kanunname of 1522 .............................. 207

Map 4.15. The Sanjak Division of Rum in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 ......................... 208

Map 4.16. The Sanjak of division Karaman in the Kadıasker Register of 1513 ............. 211

Map 4.17. The Sanjak Division of Karaman in the Kanunname of 1522 ....................... 212

Map 4.18. The Sanjak Division of Karaman in the Kadıasker Register of 1523 ............. 213

Map 4.19 The Similarities of 1513 and 1523 Kadıasker Registers in the case of Karaman ........................................................................................................................................ 213

Map 4.20. The Sanjak Division of Karaman in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 ................. 214

Map 4.21. The Sanjak Division of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1513 .............. 216

Map 4.22. The Sanjak Division of Anatolia in the Kanunname of 1522 ........................ 216

Map 4.23. The Sanjak Division of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1523 .............. 217

Map 4.24. The Sanjak Division of Anatolia in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 .................. 218

Map 4.25. The Sanjak Division of Diyarbekir in the Kanunname of 1522 ..................... 220

Map 4.26. The Sanjak Divison of Diyarbekir in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 ................ 221

Map 4.27. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Egypt in the Kanunname of 1522 ............. 222

Map 4.28. The Kaza Division of Egypt in the Kadıasker Register of 1523 ..................... 223

Map 4.29. The Sanjak Division of Şam (Arab) in the Kanunname of 1522 .................... 224

Map 4.30. The Sanjak Division of Şam (Arab) in the Kadıasker Register of 1523 ......... 226

Map 4.31. The Sanjak Division of Arab in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 ........................ 227

Map 4.32 The Sanjak Division of Zülkadriye in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 ................ 228

Map 4.33. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1513 ........................................................................................................................................ 230

Map 4.34. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Anatolia in the Kanunname of 1522 ......... 231

Map 4.35. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1523 ........................................................................................................................................ 232

Map 4.36. The Kaza Division of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1528 ................. 233

Map 4.37. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Anatolia in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 ... 234

Map 4.38. The Kaza Division in the Sanjak of Hüdavendigar in the Tahrir Register of 1530 ................................................................................................................................ 240

Map 4.39. The Kaza Division of Diyarbekir in the Kanunname of 1522 ........................ 244

Map 4.40. The Kaza Division of Diyarbekir in the Kadıasker Register of 1523 .............. 245

Map 4.41. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Diyarbekir in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 246

Map 4.42. The Kaza Division of the Sanjak of Karaman in the Kadıasker Register of 1513 ........................................................................................................................................ 247

Map 4.43. The Kaza Division of Karaman in the Kanunname of 1522 .......................... 248

Map 4.44. The Kaza Division of Karaman in the Kadıasker Register of 1523 ................ 249

Map 4.45. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Karaman in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 .. 250

Map 4.46. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Rumelia in the Kadıasker Register of 1521 ........................................................................................................................................ 252

Map 4.47.The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Rumelia in the Kanunname of 1522 .......... 253

Map 4.48. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Rumelia in 1526-1528 ............................... 255

Map 4.49. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Rumelia in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 ... 256

Map 4.50. İstanbul, Hasshâ-i İstanbul and Galata in the Kanunname of 1522 ............. 259

xvi

Map 4.51. Kaza Division of Rum in the Kadıasker Register of 1513 .............................. 260

Map 4.52. The Kaza Division of Rum in the Kanunname of 1522 ................................. 261

Map 4.53. The Kaza Division of Rum in the Kadıasker Register of 1523 ....................... 262

Map 4.54. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Rum in the Tahrir Register of 1530 .......... 263

Map 4.55. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Şam (Arab) in the Kanunname of 1522 .... 265

Map 4.56.The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Şam (Arab) in the Kadıasker Register of 1523 ........................................................................................................................................ 266

Map 4.57.The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Arab in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 ......... 270

Map 4.58.The Turkmen Region in the Kanunname of 1522 .......................................... 272

Map 4.59.The Kaza Division of Turkmen Region in the Kadıasker Register of 1523 ..... 273

Map 4.60.The Kaza Division of Zülkadriye in the Tahrir Registers of 1530 ................... 274

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Question and the Methodology

The aim of this study is first to define, describe and map Ottoman lands in terms of the administrative division of vilayet (province),1 sanjak/liva (district),2 and kaza,3 according to the defterdars4 (accountant) in tahrir5 registers (tax surveys), and to the kadıaskers6 (military kadı7) in kadıasker registers. The second one is to determine the mobility of Ottoman cities that are classified as kaza, sanjak and vilayet within the system of administrative organization, and to examine the factors of spatial changes and transformations of each administrative unit in the early 16th century. Another most significant methodological aim of this study is to put digital historical perspective and tools into the agenda of Ottoman history in general and Ottoman urban history in particular in the case of early 16th century Ottoman regions and cities.

In this thesis, digital urban history techniques such as Geographical Information System (GIS)8 which have an important place in digital humanities will be used for analyses. Holistic maps of the Ottoman cities including vilayet, sanjak division in the early 16th century will be designed through digital programs. Through this study, digital history techniques and methods which have an important place in current historiographical debates will be tested in Ottoman studies. 1 Halil İnalcık, “Eyalet,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1995, pp.548-550. 2 İlhan Şahin, “Sancak,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2009, pp. 97-99. 3 Tuncer Baykara, “Kaza,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2002, pp. 119-120. 4 Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “Defterdar,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1994, pp.94-96. 5 Mehmet Öz, “Tahrir,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2010, pp. 425-429. 6 Mehmet İpşirli, “Kazasker,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2002, pp.140-143. This term is also used as “kadıasker.” 7 İlber Ortaylı, “Kadı,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2001, pp.69-73; Fahrettin Atar, “Kadı,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2001, pp.66-69.

8 Keith C.Clarke, “Advances in Geographic Information Systems,” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol: 10, Issues: 3–4, 1986, pp.175-184.

The selected period of this study covers the early 16th century. During this period, the Ottoman Empire was among the largest empires in the world. In the reign of Bayezid II, the necessary conditions for the great conquests of Selim I and Suleiman the Magnificent were created. With the accession of Arab lands to the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Selim I, the empire evolved from being a border state to the Islamic caliphate, as well.9 By the end of the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the borders of the empire ranged from Algeria to Azerbaijan, from Budapest to Baghdad and Basra, from the Crimea to Katif in the Persian Gulf and Moha in Yemen.10 As we will discuss in more detail later, the fact that there are sources providing information about the whole empire of this period also has been an important factor in our concentration on this period. In order to understand the changes and transformations in this expansionary period of the empire, it would be meaningful to focus on the basic units of the administrative organization in more detail.

The largest administrative unit in the Ottoman Empire is the eyalet that comprises of sanjaks. In the early period, instead of eyalet we come across the term of vilayet or beylerbeyilik in the records.11 After 1361, as a result of the rapid conquests in the Balkans, an administrative structure was needed and Beylerbeyilik of Rumelia was established with Edirne as the first center. Along with the new conquests in Anatolia, the Beylerbeyilik of Anatolia, and Beylerbeyilik of Amasya where the Ottoman prince (şehzade)12 lived was established. As a representation of the separation of powers, the Ottoman Empire appointed two rulers wthin the provincial organization: one of them was the bey (sancakbeyi), who was part of the military class and acted as ruler in the sanjaks. The second was the kadı from the educated (ilmiye) class, which is responsible for legal affairs and directly connected to the Sultan. The geographical area

9 Halil İnalcik, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klasik Çağ (1300-1600), trans. by Ruşen Sezer, Istanbul, 2003, pp. 38-39.

10 İ. Metin Kunt, “Süleyman Dönemine Kadar Devlet ve Sultan: Uç Beyliğinden Dünya İmparatorluğuna,” Yeniçağda Osmanlı Dünyası Kanuni ve Çağı, Eds. Metin Kunt-Christine Woodhead, Istanbul, 2015, p.3.

11 Halil İnalcık, “Eyalet.”

12 For the detail informaton on the relationship of şehzade and provincial organization see Feridun M. Emecen, Osmanlı Klasik Çağında Hanedan, Devlet ve Toplum, Istanbul, 2011, pp.61-82.

corresponding to the jurisdiction of kadı is called a kaza.13 The procedures regarding the appointment and dismissals of the kadıs were carried out by Kadıasker of Rumelia and Anatolia.14

Sanjaks, also know as liva,15 are generally divided into three types: the first are the classic sanjaks, the second are the yurtluk-ocaklık sanjaks and hükümet, and thirdly the piyade and müsellem sanjaks. As we will analyze in more detail in Chapters 3 and 4, classic sanjaks were established in each vilayets and their status changed over time, while the sanjak where the pasha lived was called the Paşa’s sanjak (sanjak of Paşa or sanjak of Mîr-i mîrân). Piyade and müsellem sanjaks represented special military units. Also, the Ottoman Empire gave land to local tribes (aşiret) and ruling families which were loyal to the Sultan. Yurtluk-ocaklık and hükümet sanjaks had this status especially in Eastern Anatolia.16 In the records that contain these regions, the term of eyalet was also used for these yurtluk-ocaklık sanjaks. This type of usage of eyalet refers to small tribal groups rather than to units of geographical integrity.17

As a small unit of provincial organization, nahiye was included as a sub-unit of kaza in the administrative hierarchy by the 16th century. Sanjaks that were under the control of sancakbeyi, and kazas that were part of a kadı's jurisdiction were divided into villages (karye) or tribal groups and these regions were called nahiye. As a geographical region, nahiyes emerged as part of the tımar system and in some tahrir registers, nahiyes were recorded instead of kazas.18 This situation is related to the fact that the tahrirs are not kaza-oriented records. As a matter of fact, although the nahiye was meant as a smaller administrative unit rather than a region in the 16th century, it continued to be recorded

13 Halil İnalcik, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klasik Çağ (1300-1600, pp.108-111.

14 Mehmet İpşirli, “Kazasker.”

15 The term “liva” is used in sources synonymously with the term of “sanjak” which means flag.

16 Nejat Göyünç, “Osmanlı Devleti'nde Taşra Teşkilatı (Tanzimat’a Kadar),” Osmanlı, Vol. 6, Ankara, 1999, pp. 77-88

17 Feridun M. Emecen-İlhan Şahin, “Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilâtının kaynaklarından 957-958 (1550-1551) Tarihli Sancak Tevcih Defteri I”, Belgeler-Türk Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi, XIX/23, Ankara, 1999, pp. 56 18 İlhan Şahin, “Nahiye,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2006, pp.306-308

directly in some regions. We need to emphasize an important distinction here; as a result of our research on tahrir registers of 1530 that we will discuss in Chapter 4, this situation is not valid for the whole of the empire, but only for Arab vilayets and Diyarbekir. As a matter of fact, the kaza unit was recorded in all tahrir records except these two regions. The fact that some places mentioned as nahiye in register were recorded as kaza in kadıasker registers on similar period is an important example of the variability of the definitions in the administrative organization according to differences in resources.

In the context of these studies, we need to state more clearly what is an Ottoman city? This study uses the word of "city" for the "kaza" unit of the Ottoman administration. However, the "kaza" had some different meanings in the Ottoman system and the Ottoman urban history. As we said earlier, the Ottoman administrative system contains vilayet, sanjak, kaza, and nahiye. Although the criterions are not as clear as in the modern period, the city is expressed nefs-i kaza means the center of kaza in Ottoman sources, which is a term that defines both the geographic region and administrative zone of kadı.19 The point to be noted here is that the kaza covers a broader area under the responsibility of kadı, but the nefs-i kaza is the only place where important elements for being a city such as a mosque, market, madrasa, and neighborhood. The word nefs can also mean a very small administrative unit that consists of a few households (hâne). We have to underline that this definition is part of administrative positioning of cities within certain categories such as kaza, nefs, and nahiye by the state. However, cities can go beyond these categories with their demographic, economic and sociological characteristics, and be part of different city definitions.20 In this case, it is vital to pay attention to the distinction and difference between kaza, nefs, and nahiye and their internal dynamics for those who trace development of cities from Ottoman sources beyond their official/administrative definitions. For instance a place that is positioned as nahiye in the provincial system, it may have a capacity to be included in the category of 19 İlhan Şahin, “Şehir,” 2010, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, pp. 449-451 20 Yunus Uğur, "Mapping Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Definitions and Groupings (1450–1700)." Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 18, no. 3 (2018): pp.18-19

city according to its thematic features. Another point to note is the terms of kaza, nefs, and nahiye mean a city according to different resources. For example, in the case of kadıasker records that were created with judicial-administrative goal, only the name of the kaza is mentioned without nefs-i kaza, since the duty area under the responsibility of the kadı is the key issue. When we look at the tahrirs, since they were created as tax survey due to a military-administrative purpose, the data of the kaza, and nefs-i kaza were recorded separately. The nefs in these records can represent the center of the city or a village with a population of almost ten people. Those who try to reveal data from these sources only on the number of cities and their position in the administrative organization can make a kaza-oriented inventory rather than the nefs-i kaza. As we focus on the administrative organization, in this thesis we will examine cities through kaza-oriented analysis. Also, in this thesis, the city is not just an urban area but the urban area along with its subdistricts and villages. However, the situation is somewhat different for those who make the dynamic, and thematic analysis through urban history as well as reveal the new definitions of cities. It is necessary to understand whether the nefs mentioned in tahrirs has the potential for being a city in terms of demographic features including mosques, madrasas, foundations, populations or tax capacity.

The sources through which we can follow this administrative organization are diverse. Within the scope of this thesis, a chronological city map of the early 16th century of the Ottoman Empire will be created by combining the individual studies in the literature made using the primary sources that are related to this thesis in terms of period and content. The primary sources of these studies that we will examine in more detail in the next section, are the tahrir registers (tax survey), kadıasker registers and kanunname21 (preamble). For the strong central order of the expanding empire, Suleiman the Magnificent attempted to create an inventory of all assets that could be considered as taxable resource of the state for his military campaigns. The tax-based assets were 21 Halil İnalcık, “Kanunname,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2001, pp.333-337

recorded by conducting studies on the basis of the whole empire called tahrir.22 Tahrir registers recorded the inhabitants, occupations, goods, and income of the people in the country.23 These survey registers include numerical data on people from different religions, ethnicities, occupations, statuses, genders, and neighborhoods (mahalle).24 These records are available in short (icmal) or long (mufassal) versions which are about 3,500 volumes, mostly covering the years 1450-1600. While the shorter ones include the total tax on cities, long surveys contain detailed data on residents, environment, land, agriculture, and products as well as taxes.25 They provide detailed information about the administrative organization and economic status on the basis of vilayet, sanjak, kaza, nahiye, and karye.26 Especially in the period of 1520-1530, tahrir registers covering the entire empire are unique resources that provide information about the administrative organization and social structure of cities.27 The 15th and 16th centuries are called "The Age of Tahrir Registers"28 and an abundance of sources in this period especially influenced the focus period of this thesis. Heath Lowry's claim that tahrir registers in the 22 Feridun Emecen, “Süleyman I,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2010, p.63

23 Mehmet Öz, “Tahrir.” 24 Yunus Uğur, "Big Data in Ottoman Urban Studies: A Relational Approach to the Archival Data and to Socio-Spatial Analyses of an Early Modern Ottoman City," Social Sciences, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(4), pp. 1-12, April, 2018. 25 Yunus Uğur, "Mapping Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Definitions and Groupings (1450–1700)," pp.20; for detailed inventory information on the density ratios of tahrir records by periods and cities, and the regional distribution of tahrir studies, see https://trdizin.gov.tr/publication/show/pdf/project/TVRVMk5UYzM=

26 For detailed information about the Ottoman administrative organization, see Halil İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klasik Çağ (1300-1600); Yusuf Halaçoğlu, XIV-XVII. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlılarda Devlet Teşkilâtı ve Sosyal Yapı, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara 2007; Nejat Göyünç, “Osmanlı Devleti'nde Taşra Teşkilatı (Tanzimat’a Kadar)”; Mehmet İpşirli, “Osmanlılar,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2007, pp.504-505; Şerafettin Turan, “XVII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun İdarî Taksimatı (H. 1041) M. 1631-32 Tarihli bir İdarî Taksimat Defteri", Atatürk Üniversitesi 1961 Yıllığı, Erzurum, 1963, p.201-232; Orhan Kılıç, “Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilatı: Beylerbeylikler, Eyaletler, Kaptanlıklar, Voyvodalıklar, Melikler (1362-1799), Türkler Ansiklopedisi, Vol.9, Ankara, 2002, pp. 887-898; Orhan Kılıç, “XVII. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Osmanlı Devleti'nin Eyalet ve Sancak Teşkilatlanması", Osmanlı, Vol. 6, Ankara 1999, pp. 89-110; Mehmet Ali Ünal, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Merkezi Otorite ve Taşra Teşkilatı,” Osmanlı, Vol. 6, Ankara, 1999, pp. 111-122; İlhan Şahin, “XV ve XVI. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilatı’nın Özellikleri,” in XV ve XVI. Asırları Türk Asrı Yapan Değerler, İstanbul, 1997, pp.233-258; Bilgin Aydın and Rıfat Günalan, ‘‘Ruus Defterlerine Göre XVI. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Eyalet Teşkilatı ve Gelişimi’’, The Journal of Ottoman Studies, XXXVIII (2011), pp.27-160.

27 Feridun Emecen,"Mufassaldan İcmale", The Journal of Ottoman Studies XVI, (1996), p. 41

28 Feridun Emecen, “Sosyal Tarih Kaynağı Olarak Tahrir Defterleri” in Osmanlı Klasik Çağında Hanedan, Devlet Toplum (2011), İstanbul: Timaş, p.326.

first half of the 16th century were more reliable than those in the second half of the period29 is another reason why this study is narrowed down to 1500-1550. Within the scope of this thesis, we will use these sources to reveal the number of the cities and their vilayet and sanjak information rather than go over the detailed demographic information. Thus, we will use these survey records, which are recorded to reveal the empire's tax potential, as a source of urban history to map the empire's cities.

Another primary source are kadıasker registers including the amount of daily stipends (akçe value) of kadıs. This source type is very similar to ruznamçe registers which we will examine in more detail in the following sections. These sources include information about the kadı and müderris30 (religious scholar) appointments made by the Kadıaskers of Anatolia and Rumelia including the positions of the kadıs, their promotion, dismissals, and changes in their duties, and thus contain important information about the provincial administrative organization. Since the records of ruznamçe first systematically appeared in the middle of the 16th century, we named the sources recorded by the kadıaskers that contain information on kadıs as kadıasker registers. Using these records concerning the kadıs, we will reveal the city data of the empire in different periods by tracing the kadı assigned to each kaza.

The last source of this thesis are kanunnames, referring to the legal provisions of the Sultanon particular issues for the whole empire.31 Thanks to the kanunname, which provides general information on the empire regarding administrative management, we will have information about the cities included in each administrative unit.

Studying the various types of sources that contain information about the same regions and cities of the empire will show us how the data contains similarities and differences

29 Heath Lowry, “The Ottoman Tahrir Defterleri as a Source for Social and Economic History: Pitfalls and Limitations” in H. Lowry, Studies in Defterology: Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Istanbul: Isis,1992), p. 14 30 Nebi Bozkurt, “Müderris,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2006, pp.467-468.

31 Halil İnalcık, “Kanunname.”

according to the sources. The kanunname and kadıasker records prepared for legal purposes, and tahrir registers which are the sources of the provincial organization within the tax system, were formed for disparate purposes. Thus, we will have the opportunity to observe how the same regions and cities differ according to the records of two different systems in terms of border changes in the administrative organization. This will provide us with an idea of the impact of the choice of source on the analysis of the administrative organization and the Ottoman lands and cities.

Throughout this thesis, we will use digital history tools as a part of the main methodology to understand these resources more effectively with which we will examine the changes and transformations in the administrative organization of the Ottoman Empire. Technological developments have started an important period in terms of enabling new research methods and techniques in humanities. In this process, called the Big Data era, historiography and many historical studies have been involved in the design and creation of an interdisciplinary and computing-oriented research environment. The emergence of digital humanities in general and digital urban history in particular as an academic discipline or approach should be considered within this framework. This thesis examines how Ottoman historical studies can benefit from the approaches and research methods provided by digital history. This study aims to answer the basic questions such as: what is the place of digital history in Ottoman historiography and more specifically in Ottoman urban history, and what are the consequences of applying the digital approach in Ottoman historical studies? In the literature, there has been limited study examining and testing the potentials and possibilities of new digital methods in Ottoman studies, which reveal the studies of Ottoman history in the orbit of digital history. For this reason, it is expected that this study will give an idea about the place, contribution, and limits of digital research methods in Ottoman studies and will contribute to the integration of the innovations brought by the digital age into academic and historical studies.

In sum the aim of this thesis is to determine, to map, and to examine the changes and transformations of Ottoman administrative systems. The factors affecting changes in boundaries will be discussed through the arguments in the secondary literature.

There are certain stages for our study here; first of all, we will create a chronological database of Ottoman administrative organization at the level of vilayet, sanjak and kaza and their revenues using Microsoft Excel. Then, the geographical coordinates of each city will be found and added to this database. ArcGIS32 software, an important georeferencing program for urban historians, will be used to reveal the spatial positioning and create maps of this database, thus, all information will be transferred to this digital program. Through the ArcGIS, Ottoman cities will be marked as points on the map and vilayet and sanjak divisions will be drawn as polygons that give an idea of the boundaries of administrative units. In the sources, the names of administrative units may have been recorded differently, although they are same region or city. In order to use the original reading of the sources, we will prepare tables according to the different reading styles in each source. However, the locations of these administrative units will be mapped to the same location on the maps. Each Ottoman city will be digitized into unique data by assigning an "Objected ID" in the digital database, and multiple layers by different dates will be created. Thanks to this digital method, the geographical boundaries, changes, and transformations of the administrative organization can be analyzed through the geo-reference system. This program is suitable for observation of the periodic mobility of administrative units through spatial analysis. The analysis of the data through GIS will provide the basis for revealing the existing situation of cities in the administrative organization from a holistic perspective. In her study on the historical geography of the empire, Pınar Emiralioğlu underlined that there was no general mapping work in the empire, and the reason for this indifference was that the systematic tahrir registers were mapping the entire structure of the empire as written.33 The maps

32 www.arcgis.com 33 Pınar Emiralioğlu. Geographical Knowledge and Imperial Culture in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. (Transculturalisms, 1400–1700.) Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2014, p.83.

that we will create within the scope of this thesis will enable these records to be part of the digital world by maintaining their function in the empire, and this study will be a representative of the interest in creating the general map of the empire even centuries later. The maps to be prepared within the scope of this thesis will reveal images that can be used for many studies carried out within the Ottoman studies and will create an analysis database that allows comparing different periods. More importantly, all digital maps designed on the basis of vilayet, sanjak and kaza in the early 16th century of the Ottoman Empire in this thesis, will be made publicly available on the website.34

All these case studies will represent a sampling of the suitability of digital humanities for Ottoman studies as a new method of historical research. The potential of digital programs for interaction with Ottoman studies in the case of urban history will emerge and provide insights for possible new studies. Before proceeding with digital history as a new historiography, we would like to mention the literature review on the sources. Thus, it would be meaningful to comprehend the potential of this study in terms of Ottoman urban history and digital studies. We will give a more comprehensive insight into digital history and digital urban history in following chapters.

1.2 The Literature Review

In terms of administrative organization, as we mentioned before, Ottoman lands were divided and classified into different administrative units as vilayets, sanjaks, kaza, nahiye, and villages. Within this organization, hundreds of kaza, dozens of sanjak and vilayets have changed administratively and changed into different categories in different periods. In the existing literature, many studies have been conducted within the framework of administrative units. These are usually monographic studies in the form of “Vilayet of…”, “Sanjak of....” or “Kaza of..." over a particular city or region.35 These

34 http://www.digitalottoman.maps.arcgis.com 35 For the bibliography of the studies see Adnan Gürbüz, XV. XVI. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Sancak Çalışmaları, Değerlendirme ve Bibliyografik Bir Deneme (İstanbul: Dergah Yayınları) 2001; Levent Kuru and Ahmet Önal, Osmanlı Kaza Teşkilatı (1078/1667-1668 Düzenlemesine Göre), Yeditepe Yayınevi, İstanbul 2018; Fahameddin Başar, Osmanlı Eyalet Tevcihatı (1717-1730), Türk Tarih Kurumu: Ankara, 1997.

studies, which mainly focus on units in economic and administrative terms, have not considered the relationship and interaction between each other.36 Yunus Uğur has elaborated the problems of these monographic studies in detail, especially regarding the cities. According to Uğur, cities are for instance approached independently from each other without comparison. Similarly, every unit of the city is interpreted as existing by itself. Focusing on the cities only according to the administrative organization and not examining them dynamically and categorically constitutes an important problem regarding the studies of Ottoman cities.37 Although we will carry out our analysis on the cities through their political/administrative definitions in the provincial organization, this thesis differs from other monographic studies in terms of approaching the empire as a whole, examining the geographical distribution, continuity or differences of the regions and cities.

For the 16th century, there are a few exceptional examples of studies on the entire Ottoman administrative boundaries and structure at the imperial level, although they do not contain any analysis of the changes and continuities in the boundaries, focusing especially on urban and regional economic capacities. Donald Edgar Pitcher revealed the historical geography of the Ottoman Empire from the beginning to the end of the 16th century. In addition, Pitcher provides maps on the administrative division of the empire by using various sources. Through this study, we can obtain information about the empire's vilayets and sanjaks according to different periods, including the date of foundation and the square kilometers of the area of regions.38 There are also recent regional and thematic studies on the historical geography of the Ottoman Empire which

36 Yunus Uğur, "Şehir Tarihi ve Türkiye'de Şehir Tarihçiliği: Yaklaşımlar, Konular ve Kaynaklar". Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi (2005), p. 21 37 Yunus Uğur, "Mapping Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Definitions and Groupings (1450–1700),” pp.17-19.

38 Donald Edgar Pitcher, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Tarihsel Coğrafyası. Translated by Bahar Tırnakçı, Yapı Kredi Yayınları: İstanbul, 2018

rely on primary sources including tahrir registers. Fariba Zarinabaf et.al,39 Sahar Bazzaz,40 Pınar Emiralioğlu,41 and Palmira Brummett42 are pioneers of these studies.

There are studies concerning the second half of the 16th century that have used the sancak tevcih registers, which show the distribution of the vilayets and the sanjaks of the empire. Ömer Lütfi Barkan published a budget list in the Topkapı Palace Museum archives, which he estimated to be dated 1520, and gave information about the Ottoman Empire's vilayet and sanjak division without kaza distribution.43 İ. Metin Kunt, as another example, deals with the changes in and transformation of the administrative divisions of the sanjak and vilayets throughout the empire in 1550-1650. Although Kunt gives data on sanjaks and vilayets, there is no information about the kaza divisions of the period.44 Feridun Emecen and İlhan Şahin published a record of 1550-1551, which includes beylerbeyliks45 (vilayet) such as Cezâyir-i Bahr-i Sefîd and Kapûdânî, Mağrib, Budin, Erdel, Anatolia, Karaman, Şam, Haleb, Zülkadriye/Dulkadir, Rum, Erzurum, Diyarbekir, Van, Bağdad, Luristan, Gürcistan, Basra, Egypt, Cezâyir and Zebid-Aden/Yemen without including kaza divisions.46 Kanunnames47 which reveal the legal articles on a particular

39 Fariba Zarinebaf, John Bennet, Jack L. Davis, A Historical and Economic Geography of Ottoman Greece: The Southwestern Morea in the Eighteenth Century The American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Greece, 2005.

40 Sahar Bazzaz, Yota Batsaki, and Dimiter Angelov, eds. 2013. Imperial Geographies in Byzantine and Ottoman Space. Hellenic Studies Series 56. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. 41 Pınar Emiralioğlu, Geographical Knowledge and Imperial Culture in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire.

42 Palmira Brummett, Mapping the Ottomans: Sovereignty, Territory, and Identity in the Early Modern Mediterranean .New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

43 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, XV/1-4 (1953-54), pp. 303-307.

44 İ.Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi, İstanbul 1978, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, No:154.

45 There were some changes in the definitions in the Ottoman administrative organization over time in the sources. “Beylerbeyilik” for instance, was used for the duty zone of Beylerbeyi, represents a military function, while the "vilayet" which represents an administrative duty region, was used synonymously in the 15th and 16th centuries. Towards the end of the 17th century, we see the usage of “eyalet” see Mehmet İpşirli, “Beylerbeyi,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1992, pp. 69-74; İlhan Şahin, “XV ve XVI. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilatı’nın Özellikleri,” pp.235.

46 Feridun M. Emecen-İlhan Şahin, “Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilâtının kaynaklarından 957-958 (1550-1551) Tarihli Sancak Tevcih Defteri I,” pp. 53-122.

47 For the literature review of the studies on Ottoman kanunnames, and the different kinds of meanings see M. Macit Kenanoğlu, “Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri Neşriyatı Üzerine Bir Tahlil,” Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, Vol: 3, Issue: 5, 2005, pp. 141-186.

issues enable us to observe the provincial organization of the empire and its sanjak and vilayet division. There are some kanunnames from the time of Suleiman the Magnificent concerning public and provincial organizations which Ahmet Akgündüz analyzed with transcriptions in his study titled Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri. He also examined eyalet and sanjak-specific kanunnames in the book.48 Ayn Ali Afendi collected the kanunnames and practices regarding the tımar system in the period of Ahmed I and published his book titled Kavânîn-i Âl-i Osmân der Hulâsa-i Mezâmîn-i Defter-i Dîvân49 in 1607.50 Enver Çakar also published a kanunname of Suleiman the Magnificent that covers the whole empire on the base of vilayet, sanjaks, and kaza including the akçe (silver currency) values in 1522.51 In terms of showing the administrative distribution of the whole empire, this study is very important. Within the scope of this thesis, we will create a spatial map of the Ottoman Empire according to this specific kannuname dated 1522, and compare it with other records.

In order to better understand kazas as one of the main administrative units in the context of urban history, it is very important to link and compare cities with similar and different characteristics. This relational approach examines cities not only by administrative and political classification as vilayet, sanjak and kaza, but also by their similarities or distinctiveness in economic, demographic or social terms. Yunus Uğur has explored such a relational approach in networks of more than 150 neighborhoods of Edirne by using avârız52 registers as a type of tax survey records compatible with Big Data techniques, and suggests “defining and grouping the available historical information corresponding 48Ahmet Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kânûnnâmeleri ve Hukûkî Tahlilleri, Vol: 1, İstanbul: Fey Vakfı Yayınları, 1990. 49 Ayni Ali Efendi, Kavânîn-i Âl-i Osman Der Hulâsa-i Mezâmin-i Defter-i Divân, Tasvîr-i Efkar Matbaası: İstanbul, 1280. 50 Mehmet İpşirli, “Ayn Ali Efendi,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1991, pp. 258-259.

51 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İdarî Taksimatı”, Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, XII/1 (Elazığ 2002), pp. 261-282. 52 Halil Sahillioğlu, “Avârız,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1991, pp.108-109; Oktay Özel, “Avarız ve Cizye Defterleri”, in Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bilgi ve İstatistik, (Halil İnalcık, Şevket Pamuk), T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, Ankara, 2000, pp.35 -50

with each other, thereby reaching a dynamic process.”53 Also within the scope of another project of his titled “Typologies and Atlas of Ottoman Cities, 1450-1700,” forty-five Ottoman cities selected from various regions were re-classified and assembled on the basis of population size, economic characteristics, settlement data, social structure and demographic characteristics beyond the classical administrative division. The project offers the opportunity to redefine Ottoman cities according to similar and different characteristics, to contextualize them both in Ottoman and world cities, and to advance a better understanding of them in urban history.54 Yet another project of his that will be used as a primary source in this thesis is "Mapping the Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Conjunctions and Distinctiveness (1520-1540)" which covers all cities of the Ottoman Empire in 1530 using the tahrir registers from the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent as a main source to reveal socio-spatial neighborhoods, and similarities and distinctiveness of the cities in detail.55 The primary source of the project is the tahrir registers, called the Muhasebe-i Vilayet dated 1530. Feridun Emecen states that the 1530 tahrirs representing the main financial resources of the whole Ottoman state are an exception belonging only to the period of Suleiman the Magnificent. This kind of practice covering the entire empire points out that it can be seen in the 17th century avârız registers.56 Since there is not any study in the literature that reveals the administrative division of the whole empire for 1530 at the level of vilayet, sanjak and kaza, this project represents a unique study.

53 Yunus Uğur, “The Historical Interaction of the City With Its Mahalles: Ottoman Edirne In The Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Boğaziçi University 2014), p. 154; Yunus Uğur, "Big Data in Ottoman Urban Studies: A Relational Approach to the Archival Data and to Socio-Spatial Analyses of an Early Modern Ottoman City" 54 Yunus Uğur, "Mapping Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Definitions and Groupings (1450–1700)."

55 Yunus Uğur, “Mapping the Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Conjunctions and Distinctiveness (1520-1540)” TÜBİTAK 1001 - Scientific and Technological Research Projects Funding Program

56 Feridun Emecen,"Mufassaldan İcmale," p. 41

In addition, there are regional studies by Mustafa Çetin Varlık57, Turan Gökçe58, Tayyib Gökbilgin59, Tuncer Baykara60, M. Kemal Özergin61, Yasemin Beyazıt62, Ercan Alan63 and Levent Kuru.64 These studies provide detailed information on the Ottoman kadı institution, organization of kazas, and akçe values of cities in Rumelia or Anatolia. In the next section, in order to better understand the resources to be used in the thesis, we will review the ones that belong to the early 16th century from these studies according to their types such as kadıasker and tahrir registers.

In this thesis, we think that we will make an important contribution to the literature both in terms of revealing the cities through administrative division of the whole Ottoman Empire in 1530 for the first time and to make comparisons with studies focused on earlier dates.

57 Mustafa Çetin Varlık, "XVI. Yüzyılda Anadolu Beylerbeyliği Sancakları ve Kadılıkları Üzerine", Atatürk Üniversitesi'nin Kuruluşunun XX Yıl Armağanı, IV. Kitap, Atatürk Üniversitesi Yayınları, Ankara, 1978, pp.19-39

58 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri", TlD IX, (1994); Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları", 3 Mayıs 1944, 50. Yıl Türkçülük Armağanı, İzmir, 1994.

59 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve Kasabaları,” Belleten C. XX, TTK Basımevi, Ankara, 1956

60 Tuncer Baykara, Anadolu'nun Tarihi Coğrafyasına Giriş. I. Anadolu'nun İdari Taksimatı. Türk Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü Yayınları: Ankara, 1988.

61 M. Kemal Özergin, “Eski bir Rûznâmeye Göre İstanbul ve Rumeli Medreseleri.” İÜEF Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4-5 (1973-1974); M. Kemal Özergin, “Rumeli Kadîlıkları’nda 1078 Düzenlemesi.” in Ord. Prof. İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı’ya Armağan, Ankara, 1998.

62 Yasemin Beyazıt, “Osmanlı İlmiyye Tarîkinde İstihdam ve Hareket: Rumeli Kadıaskerliği Ruznâmçeleri Üzerine Bir Tahlil Denemesi”, (Ph.D. Dissertation, Ankara University Institute of Social Sciences, 2009); Yasemin Beyazıt, “Rumeli Kadılıklarının Rütbelerine Dair 1253/1837 Tarihli Bir Yazma”, Belgeler, XXVIII/32 (Ankara 2008), pp. 11-56; Yasemin Beyazıt, “Rabia’dan İnebahtı’ya Rumeli Kadılık Rütbeleri,” Yeni Türkiye, Rumeli ve Balkanlar Special Issue-I, 66, Ankara, 2015, pp.1228-1235. 63 Ercan Alan, "Kadıasker Ruznamçelerine Göre XVII. Yüzyılda Rumeli'de Kadılık Müessesesi” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Marmara University, 2015); Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”, Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi (Asos Journal), XXXIII (November 2016), pp. 337-377; Ercan Alan, "Kadıasker Ruznamçe Defterlerine Göre XVII. Yüzyılda Rumeli'de Kaza Teşkilatı Ve Kadılar". Güneydoğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, (2013 ), pp 53-97

64 Levent Kuru, “Kazasker Ruznamçelerine Göre 18. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli’de Kadılık Müessesesi,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Marmara University, 2016); Levent Kuru, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Döneminde Rumeli Kadılıkları (XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısı),” The Pursuit of History, 2019, Issue: 21, pp.247‐272.

1.3 Sources: Urban and Administrative Classifications in Tahrir and Kadıasker Registers

1.3.1 Tahrir Registers

In this thesis, the muhasebe (accounting) registers numbered 166, 167, 367, 370, 387, 438 and 998 published in 15 volumes by the Presidential State Archives (BOA) will be used. In addition, missing information has been completed through icmal (summary) registers numbered 94, 101, 114, 390 and 1078. Thus, a total of 12 registers were indexed. Eight of these registers (166, 167, 367, 370, 387, 438, 998, 1078) are dated to 1530 and the other four are from previous periods. Within the scope of this thesis, we will mainly focus on registers dated 1530.

Before analyzing the studies on tahrir registers, it will be meaningful to understand the tahrir system. Tahrir means writing and counting, with tahrir registers (defters) referring to the defterdars’ records of censuses carried out in different cities at different periods for the determination of taxes, recording the names of the taxpayers in the administrative structure of the Ottoman state.65 The salaries of civil and military officials were not paid from the treasury in the center, but they were given the right to income from certain taxes in a particular region.66 The state had allocated agricultural incomes to the soldiers as tımar to provide the money needed to pay the army's salaries. These land units, which were left as soldiers' salaries, were a system that was implemented both in the Byzantine Empire (pronoia) and other Islamic countries (ikta).67 Tımar refers to the non-heritable allocation made in order to support a cavalry unit and military-administrative hierarchy in the Ottoman central eyalets.68 These cavalry known as the

65 See for more information on the reasons of tahrir and benefits for the state Ömer Lütfi Barkan, Hüdavendigar Livası Tahrir Defterleri, I, Ankara, 1988. pp. 3-7; Halil İnalcık, The Ottoman Empire: Conquest, Organization and Economy. London: Variorum, 1978, pp. 107-112; Erhan Afyoncu, "Osmanlı Devleti'nde Tahrir Sistemi", Osmanlı, Vol. 6, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, Ankara 1999, pp. 312-313.

66 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, "Research on the Ottoman Fiscal Surveys,” in M. A. Cook (ed.), Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 163.

67 Halil İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klasik Çağ (1300-1600), pp.111-112; İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilâtına Medhal, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara 1988, p.17. 68 Halil İnalcık, “Tımar,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2012, p.170

tımarlı-sipahi used to carry out their military duties and go to war in return for their income from the tımar allocated to them.69 Within the tımar system, the state had to determine its resources in all vilayets and record them in order to maintain systematic and continuous central power.70 Tahrir has been renovated every 20-30 years. Tahrir registers consisted of all taxable assets of individual peasants and they also were used as official land records.71 Many registers also include kanunnames with a schedule of tax rates for the specific provinces. These kanunnames are a mix of Islamic law, Ottoman legislation, and local practices.72 The tahrir officer (emin) collected all the information on people and taxable assets from each village of vilayets and recorded them into registers.73 After the calculations, the owners of the dirlik (livelihood or prebend) were given the tımar memorandum (tezkire) with the amount they have rights over. Then, two copies of the registers were cleared and the Sultan's tughra (signature of Sultan) was added. One was sent to the sanjak to which it belonged and the other was kept in the defterhâne (the Imperial Cadastral Office).74

Tahrir registers have been used in many historical studies as they are an important archival resource of the Ottoman Empire on social and economic themes. They provide 69 Yusuf Halaçoğlu, XIV-XVII. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlılarda Devlet Teşkilâtı ve Sosyal Yapı, p. 56.

70 Halil İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klasik Çağ (1300-1600, p. 112; Ömer Lütfi Barkan stated that the survey period was conducted every 30-40 years, Ömer Lütfi Barkan, "Research on the Ottoman Fiscal Surveys,” p. 1

71 Halil İnalcık, The Ottoman Empire: Conquest, Organization and Economy, p. 109; Nicoara Beldiceanu, XIV. Yüzyıldan XVI. Yüzyıla Osmanlı Devleti'nde Tımar, trans. By Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay, Teori Yayınları, Ankara 1985.

72 Halil İnalcık, “Kanunname”; Amy Singer, “Tapu Tahrir Defterleri ve Kadı Sicilleri: A Happy Marriage of Sources,” p. 97

73 Halil İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klasik Çağ (1300-1600), p. 112; Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “Türk İktisat ve Mâliye Tarihi İçin Kaynaklar: Türkiye'de İmparatorluk Devirlerinin Büyük Nüfus ve Arazi Tahrirleri ve Hakana Mahsus İstatistik Defterler I,” İÜ İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 11/1(1940), pp. 20- 59;ll/2(1941), pp.214-247; Kaldy-Nagy, J. “The Administration of the ṣanǰāq Registrations in Hungary” In Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 21, No. 2 (1968), pp. 181- 223; Lajos Fekete, “Türk Vergi Tahrirleri", Translated by Sadettin Karatay, Belleten, Xi(1947), pp.299-328; Rhoads Murphey, “Ottoman Census Methods in The Mid-sixteenth Century: Three Case Histories,” Studia Islamica 71: 115-26; See also Amy Singer, “Tapu Tahrir Defterleri ve Kadı Sicilleri: A Happy Marriage of Sources,” pp. 96-102

74 Erhan Afyoncu, “Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilâtında Defterhâne-i Âmire (XVI-XVIII.Yüzyıllar),” p.21.

an opportunity to examine the administrative division, historical geography, demography and ethnic population of the Ottoman Empire. In particular, it is possible to understand the rates of rise and fall of the population and make comparisons with other regions such as Europe, thanks to serial tahrir registers.75 Tahrir registers consist of information for regions ranging from Anatolia and the Balkans, to Syria and Palestine, Georgia, Hungary, and Poland.76 These sources enable us to study spatial distributions in the case of psychical, human and economic geography.77 Yunus Uğur emphasizes the importance of the tahrir registers for urban history. These registers include detailed information on urban demography (number of households, ethnic-religious status, gender, etc.), topographic/settlement status (neighborhood-village numbers and sizes, architectural works), social structure (title-adjectives of individuals), economic status (tax types and amounts) information on topics such as production types and quantities, occupations, wealth distribution). According to Uğur, all kinds of changes in cities and villages can be followed through these records, revealing the capacities and obligations of the cities.78

The studies on tahrir register were defined as defterology, with the first use of this term by Heath Lowry.79 The first studies on tahrir registers were led by Ömer Lütfi Barkan.80 Barkan became the leading historian for the emergence of economic statistical data on

75 Feridun Emecen, “Sosyal Tarih Kaynağı Olarak Tahrir Defterleri” pp. 326-327; Mehmet Öz, "Tahrir Defterlerinin Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırmalarında Kullanılması Hakkında Bazı Düşünceler." Vakıflar Dergisi, 22 (1991): 429-439; Mehmet Öz, “Tahrir Defterlerindeki Sayısal Veriler” in Halil İnalcık and Şevket Pamuk (eds.), Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bilgi ve İstatistik. Ankara: Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü Matbaası, 2000.

76 Metin M. Coşgel, "Ottoman Tax Registers (Tahrir Defterleri)" (2002). Economics Working Papers. 200247, p. 2

77 Osman Gümüş, “The Ottoman Tahrir Defters as a Source for Historical Geography,” Belleten, (265):911-941.

78 Yunus Uğur, “Osmanlı Şehirleri ve Şehirleşmesi,” Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Çevre ve Şehir, İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi-TC. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı Özel Yayını, (Aralık 2015), p. 298.

79 Heath W. Lowry, Trabzon Şehrinin İslamlaşma ve Türkleşmesi 1461-1588, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları No. 159, İstanbul 1981; for the stages of defterology in recent years see Fatma Acun, Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırmalarının Genişleyen Sınırları: Defteroloji”, Türk Kültürü İncelemeleri Dergisi, I (1999), pp.319-332.

80 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, "Türk İktisat ve Mâliye Tarihi İçin Kaynaklar: Türkiye'de İmparatorluk Devirlerinin Büyük Nüfus ve Arazi Tahrirleri ve Hakana Mahsus İstatistik Defterler I”; Ömer Lütfi Barkan, Hüdavendigar Livası Tahrir Defterleri; Ömer Lütfi Barkan "Tarihi Demografi Araştırmaları ve Osmanlı Tarihi", Türkiyat Mecmuası , X(1951-53), pp.1-26, Ömer Lütfi Barkan, "Research on the Ottoman Fiscal Surveys,” pp.1-11

state budget through tahrir registers. Halil İnalcık has examined the tahrir register of sanjak of Arnavid dated 1431, which is the oldest tahrir in the Ottoman archives, and provided detailed information about its system.81 J. Kaldy-Nagy82, Nejat Göyünç83, İsmet Miroğlu84, Yusuf Halaçoğlu85, Heath Lowry86, Bistra Cvetkova87, Bruce McGowan88, Bahaeddin Yediyıldız89, Linda Daling90, Feridun Emecen91, Mehmet Ali Ünal92, Fatma Acun93, Mehmet Öz94, Suraiya Faroqhi,95 Özer Ergenç96, Süleyman Demirci97, Oktay Özel98, Yunus Uğur,99 and Nora Lafi100 all pioneered important studies that use tahrir registers as a source.101 Erhan Afyoncu has published a detailed inventory of literature studies on tahrir registers.102 A similar list of published tahrir registers studies is available

81 Halil İnalcık, Hicrî 835 Tarihli Sûret-i Defter-i Sancak-i Arvanid. Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1954.

82 J. Kaldy-Nagy, “The Administration of the ṣanǰāq Registrations in Hungary” 83 Nejat Göyünç, XVI. Yüzyılda Mardin Sancağı, Edebiyat Fakültesi, İstanbul 1969; Nejat Göyünç, “Diyarbekir Beylerbeyiliğinin İlk İdârî Taksimatı”, Tarih Dergisi, Issue: 23 (1969), pp. 23-34.

84 İsmet Miroğlu, XVI. Yüzyılda Bayburd Sancağı. İstanbul: Üçler Matbaası, 1975.

85 Yusuf Halaçoğlu, "Tapu-tahrir Defterlerine Göre 16. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Sis (Kozan) Sancağı", İUEF Tarih Dergisi, XXXII (1979). 86 Heath Lowry, Trabzon Şehri’nin İslâmlaşma ve Türkleşmesi 1461-1583; Heath Lowry, "The Ottoman Liva Kanunnames Contained in the Defter-i Hakani", Journal of Ottoman Studies II, 1981

87 Bistra Cvetkova, “Early Ottoman Tahrir Defters As a Source for Studies on The History of Bulgaria and The Balkans,” Archivum Ottomanicum, 8 (1983), pp.131-213. 88 Bruce W. McGowan, Sirem Sancağı Mufassal Tahrir Defteri. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, 1983.

89 Bahaeddin Yediyıldız, Ordu Kazası Sosyal Tarihi, T.C.Kültür Bakanlığı Yayını, Ankara 1985. 90 Linda Darling, “Avarız Tahriri: Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Ottoman Survey Registers,” Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 10 (1986), pp.23–26.

91 Feridun Emecen, XVI. Yüzyılda Manisa Kazası. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara 1989.

92 Mehmet Ali Ünal, XVI. yüzyılda Harput Sancağı (1518-1566). Ankara : Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1989.

93 Fatma Acun, “Ottoman Administration in the Sancak of Karahisar-ı Şarki (1485-1569): An Analysis Based on Tahrir Defters,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Birmingham,1993).

94 Mehmet Öz, XV.-XVI. Yüzyıllarda Canik Sancağı, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara 1999.

95 Suraiya Faroqhi, Osmanlı’da Kentler ve Kentliler, trans. by Neyyir Kalaycıoğlu, İstanbul 2004.

96 Özer Ergenç, 16. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Bursa. Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2006.

97 Süleyman Demirci, “XVII. Yüzyılda Trabzon Eyâletinin İdarî Taksimati Ve Vergilendirilebilir Nüfus: Giresun, Keşap, Kürtün Ve Yavabolu Nam-I Diğer (Görele) Kazâlari Örneği,” Journal of Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences, 2012/1, Number:15 98 Oktay Özel, The Collapse of Rural Order in Ottoman Anatolia: Amasya 1576‒1643. Brill: Leiden 2016.

99 Yunus Uğur, “Historiography and Historical Sources: Remapping of Tax Registers (Tahrir and Avarız Defters) in the Ottoman Studies” II. Uluslararası Osmanlı Coğrafyası Arşiv Kongresi Arşiv Belgeleri, 2017.

100 Nora Lafi, Esprit civique et organisation citadine dans l’Empire ottoman (XVe-XXe siècles). Brill: Leiden, 2018. 101 See Bahar Aksel, and Filiz Öğretmen, eds. Kent Araştırmaları Bibliyografyası. İstanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, 2001.

102 Erhan Afyoncu , "Türkiye'de Tahrir Defterlerine Dayalı Olarak Hazırlanmış Çalışmalar Hakkında Bazı Görüşler", Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi , Vol: 1, No: 1 (2003),

online.103 When we look at studies related to the use of tahrir registers as sources for urban history, it is generally focused on urban population, urban social structure, inner spatial organization, production and commercial activities of cities.104

There are some studies in the literature which trace out Ottoman administrative division in the 16th century. Tayyib Gökbilgin examined a register dated 1526-1528 and published a list of sanjak and kaza divisions including total revenues of the cities in the vilayet of Rumelia, albeit stating that the register is not as detailed as the tahrir records. Gökbilgin also published the 17th century maps from Katip Çelebi’s book titled Cihannüma at the end of his article.105 This study is important in terms of learning the administrative division of Rumelia. However, it is limited only to the Rumelia and the maps used are very old and belong to a later date containing limited information in order to make a spatial analysis of the empire. As another study, Mustafa Çetin Varlık provides important information about the sanjak division and their akçe values in the 16th century using the tahrir registers of the vilayet of Anatolia, including the 1530 records.106 However, this study is limited only to the Anatolian region and does not provide an opportunity for an analysis of the cities as it does not give information about the kazas. Tuncer Baykara also published a list of the administrative division of Anatolia in the 16th century into sanjaks and kazas according to the tahrir registers in the Archive of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre.107 This study is very important in terms of showing the kaza

103 List of published Ottoman Tax Registers (Tahrir Defterleri), University of Connecticut. https://ottoman.uconn.edu/bibliography/published-tahrirs/

104 Fatma Acun, “A Portrait of Ottoman Cities,” The Muslim World, Vol:92, Fall 2002, pp.255-285; Uğur Altuğ, “Ankara Örneğinde Tahrir Defterlerinin Şehir Tarihi Araştırmalarındaki Yeri ve Önemi Üzerine,” 4. Milletlerarası Şehir Tarihi Yazarları Kongresi, Türkiye Yazarlar Birliği, 2017.

105 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve Kasabaları”

106 Mustafa Çetin Varlık, "XVI. Yüzyılda Anadolu Beylerbeyliği Sancakları ve Kadılıkları Üzerine"; see also Mustafa Çetin Varlık, “Anadolu Eyaleti Kuruluşu ve Gelişmesi,” Osmanlı, Vol: 6, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, Ankara, 1999, pp.123-129; Mustafa Çetin Varlık, “Anadolu Eyaleti,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1991, pp.143-144; Mustafa Çetin Varlık, “XVI. Yüzyıl Osmanlı İdari Teşkilatında Kütahya”, Marmara Üniversitesi Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol:2, 1986, İstanbul 1987. In this study, Varlık states that there is a record in the Topkapı Palace Museum Archive numbered D. 5246 which includes Rumelia, Karaman, Rum, Damascus and Egypt, Diyarbekir, Kurdistan, and Zülkadriye provinces.

107 Tuncer Baykara, Anadolu'nun Tarihi Coğrafyasına Giriş. I. Anadolu'nun İdari Taksimatı.

distribution of the whole Anatolia. However, since the archival sources are used to cover a scattered date range spanning the entire century, it does not allow an analysis of the early 16th century and covers only the Anatolian region.

There have been discussions in the literature regarding the limits of using tahrir registers as historical sources for social and economic history. Heath Lowry, a well-known scholar on tahrir registers, touched upon certain important aspects he calls “pitfalls and limitations” of these registers. Lowry underlines the need to use tahrir registers with other additional sources for a comprehensive assessment. He suggests using mufassal registers that contain detailed information than icmal registers as summary and using serial tahrir registers for historical research rather than single registers. Another critique of tahrir registers is that due to the fact that some population data was excluded from tahrir registers for their own purpose, they omit certain information on censuses or population registers.108 Ömer Lütfi Barkan has also emphasized the uncertainties regarding available population information and stated the possibility of errors in the calculations.109 In addition, Özer Ergenç mentions some points to consider when using tahrir registers as a source of urban history. According to Ergenç, these financial records give the status of the cities only in a certain time period rather than the long term situation.110 In the records, it is not completely clear what the information on the population or production in the settlements covers and excludes.111 Amy Singer criticizes the positive stance of W.D. Hütteroth and K. Abdulfettah's claim that these registers

108 Heath Lowry, Studies in Defterology: Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, pp.3-19; Heath Lowry, "The Ottoman Tahrir Defters as a source for urban demographic history: The case study of Trabzon (ca. 1486-1583)” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, 1977) pp.248-312.

109 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “Tarihî Demografi Araştırmaları ve Osmanlı Tarihi,” pp.13-14; see also for the differences between mukataa and iltizam records in tahrir registers Özer Ergenç, “Şehir Tarihi Araştırmaları Hakkında Bazı Düşünceler,” Belleten, LII (203), 1988, p. 681; Rhoads Murphey, “The Conceptual and Pragmatic Uses of the ‘Summary’ (idjmal) Register in Sixteenth Century Ottoman Administrative Practice”, Archivum Ottomanicum , Vol. 14 (1996), pp. 111-13; Colin Heywood, “Between Historical Myth and ‘Mytho-history’The Limits of Ottoman History”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 12, pp. 315-345.

110 Özer Ergenç, Osmanlı Tarihi Yazıları: Şehir, Toplum, Devlet. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2012, pp.17-23.

111 Kemal Çiçek,“Osmanlı Tahrir Defterlerinin Kullanımında Görülen Bazı Problemler ve Yöntem Arayışları”, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, 97 (1995), pp.45-56

were produced for the state without the need of exaggerating of sources. Singer states that this approach on registers misrepresents the social context of the registers and the processes of compilation.112 Michael A. Cook also points out the reliability of data in terms of using as fiscal statistics.113

The aim of this thesis is not to reveal a study based on the statistical data discussed in terms of reliability. Instead of social history, we hope to contribute to these debates from the perspective of urban history focusing on cities that will be conducted within the framework of spatial information through the data on the administrative organization in the sources.

1.3.2 Kadıasker Registers

Another important source of information about the Ottoman administrative organization and cities are the kadıasker registers that contain information on appointments and dismissals of kadıs, their names and place of duty. The jurisdiction of the kadı who belonged to the ilmiye organization114 within the Ottoman administration system and served as the legal representative of the state covers judicial fields of the property, municipal, financial, military.115 Within the scope of this thesis, we will examine sources that contain information about kadıs in detail in the following paragraphs, specifically the documents analyzed by Turan Gökçe dated 1513116 and 1528,117 by Ercan Alan dated 1521118 and Abdurrahman Atçıl dated 1523.119

112 Amy Singer, “Tapu Tahrir Defterleri ve Kadı Sicilleri: A Happy Marriage of Sources,” p.106.

113 Michael A. Cook, Population Pressure in Rural Anatolia, 1450-1600. London: Oxford University Press, 1972. pp. 12-13.

114 For literature review of the studies on ilmiyye organization see Yasemin Beyazıt, “Osmanlı İlmiyye Tarîkinde İstihdam ve Hareket: Rumeli Kadıaskerliği Ruznâmçeleri Üzerine Bir Tahlil Denemesi,” pp. 2-4

115 İlber Ortaylı, “Kadı”

116 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri."

117 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları"

118 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”

119 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11,” Abdurrahman Atçıl and Ercan Alan, XVI. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Ulema Defterleri, Ankara, 2018, pp.119-200.

The conquests of the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Mehmet the Conqueror in the East and West led to the emergence of new kazas, resulting in the formation of two Kadıaskers; Rumelia and Anatolia. During the reign of Yavuz Sultan Selim, the office of Kadıasker of Arab and Acem was established, based in Diyarbekir. However, this third office of kadıaskers was later abolished due to centrist policies. To ensure order in the ever-growing army of the Ottoman Empire, the chief kadı of Bursa participated in the wars. However, while the chief kadı was at war, the works such as appointments or dismissals in the center should not be interrupted. For this reason, the institution of Kadıasker was established at the beginning of the reign of Murad I.120 The Kadıs were appointed to the cities by the order of the Sultan and were held responsible for the areas within the limits of authority. The appointments, biographies, current posts, income, and status of the judges were recorded in the registers. These kadıasker registers, with the earliest one dated to the beginning of the 16th century, have different contents. However, since the purpose of the creation of each register may differ from each other, not all of them contain the same level of detail or encompass the whole empire.

Another very important source on Ottoman cities are the kadıasker ruznamçe registers. Ruznamçes, meaning daily records include information about kadı and müderris (religious scholar) nominations, dismissals, the names of the persons who are entitled to carry out the profession of ilmiye, and the income of kadıs. The first of these belongs to the mid-sixteenth century and separated into two, corresponding to the Kadıaskers of Anatolia and Rumelia. In 1979, Cahid Baltacı discovered 377 kadıasker ruznamçe registers in the İstanbul Müftülüğü Şeriyye Sicilleri Arşivi (Bab-ı Meşihat Şeyhülislamlık Arşivi) and pioneered the use of ruznamçe as sources in academic studies.121 After him, İsmail Erünsal published an article about the 52 ruznamçe registers in Nuruosmaniye

120 Mehmet İpşirli, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kazaskerlik,” Belleten, LXI/232 (1998), pp. 605- 611

121 Cahid Baltacı, “Kadıasker Rûznâmçelerinin Tarihi ve Kültürel Ehemmiyeti,” İslam Medeniyeti Mecmuası, Vol: 4, No.1, 1979, pp. 55-100; Bilgin Aydın, İlhami Yurdakul, İsmail Kurt, Bâb-ı Meşîhat Şeyhülislâmlık Arşivi Defter Kataloğu, İSAM Yayınları, İstanbul 2006; İsmail Gündoğdu, “Osmanlı Tarihi Kaynaklarından Kazaskerlik Rûznâmçe Defterleri Ve Önemi,” Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, Vol:6, Issue: 2,200p, pp.697-722.

library.122 Although the catalogs date the first ruznamçe of Kadıasker of Anatolia as 1076 hicri (1665), Ercan Alan states that an earlier ruznamçe dated 1073-1076 hicri (1162-1665) was registered to the Kadıasker of Rumelia.123 The earliest dated ruznamçe of the Kadıaskerlik of Rumeli belongs to the year 952 hicri (1545).124 Following these, Mehmet İpşirli125, Halil İnalcık126, and Yuriko Matsuo127 all conducted studies on ruznamçe registers. The works of Ercan Alan and Yasemin Beyazıt on kadıasker registers of Rumelia are also very important contributions. Beyazıt examines the ruznamçe registers of Rumelia between 1581 and 1592 focusing on the sanjak centers. The study comprises the entrances, employment, and mobility of kadıs in the ilmiye system, including evaluations of their daily akçe values. However, since the time period of her study lies outside the scope of the thesis, it will not be used as a resource.128 Ercan Alan’s works, on the other hand, stands out by focusing on the lesser studied ruznamçe from the first half of the 16th century, as regular ruznamçe records are available only for the second half of the century. He analyzes the register of the Rumelia region dated 1528 in terms of akçe values and administrative distributions by comparing them with different sources. This was a comparative analysis using information on the akçe values in publications covering the years 1522, 1528, 1581-1592 and 1595-1670. However, this study also lacks any complementary information about the administrative division of the empire and the cities, as it contains only the records of the müderris and kadıs working

122 İsmail Erünsal, “Nuriosmaniye Kütüphanesinde Bulunan Bazı Kazâsker Rûznâmçeleri,” İslam Medeniyeti Mecmuası, Vol:.4, No. 3, İstanbul, 1980, p. 20; İsmail Erünsal, “Kazasker Ruznamçeleri ve Nuruosmaniye Kütüphanesi’nde Bulunan Bazı Ruznamçeler”, Osmanlı Kültür Tarihinin Bilinmeyenleri, İstanbul, 2014, p. 405. 123 Ercan Alan, "Kadıasker Ruznamçelerine Göre XVII. Yüzyılda Rumeli'de Kadılık Müessesesi,” p. 57

124 Cahid Baltacı, “Kadıasker Rûznâmçelerinin Tarihi ve Kültürel Ehemmiyeti,” p.60.

125 Mehmet İpşirli, “Osmanlı İlmiyye Teşkilatında Mülâzemet Sisteminin Önemi ve Rumeli Kadıaskeri

Mehmed Efendi Zamanına Ait Mülâzemet Kayıtları”, Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10-11, İÜEF Basımevi, 1983, pp.221-231.

126 Halil İnalcık, “The Ruznâmçe Registers of The Kadıasker of Rumeli as Preserved in the Istanbul Müftülük Archives” Turcica XX , 1988, pp. 251-275.

127 Yuriko Matsuo, “The Mülâzemet System in the İlmiye Organization in the Ottoman Empire (1520- 1620): According to Candidate Registers (Rumeli Kazaskerliği Ruznâmesi),” Japan Association for Middle East Studies, No 11, 1996, pp. 39-69.

128 Yasemin Beyazıt, “Osmanlı İlmiyye Tarîkinde İstihdam ve Hareket: Rumeli Kadıaskerliği Ruznâmçeleri Üzerine Bir Tahlil Denemesi”

for three years or more, and therefore it will not be used as a source in this thesis.129 One work that this current study will rely on is, Ercan Alan examination of the sanjak and kaza organization and the judicial institutions of the Rumeli region according to a document dated 1521. Alan stated that although its type is not clear, this document is the first source to give information about kadıs and their affiliated kazas in the Rumelia for early 16th century. Alan also compared this document with the Rumelia region in the kanunname of 1522, published by Enver Çakar. In addition, it is a very important study in terms of grouping kazas based on the akçe value and percentage rates and sharing the results with graphs and tables, but is limited to the region of Rumelia.130 We hope that the maps produced within the scope of this thesis will enable the spatial analysis of the kaza organization in Rumelia clearly and allow comparisons with their counterpart in 1530.

Hurûfât registers are another kind of ruznamçe that provide information about Ottoman cities. There are 206 kazas listed in alphabetical order in these vakıf131-oriented records, available in the archives of the General Directorate of Foundations (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, Vakıf Kayıtları Arşivi). Yasemin Beyazıt stresses the importance of these hurûfât registers for urban history and argues that they complement other sources such as tahrir, avârız, and sicil. Şerife Eroğlu Memiş, while examining the kaza of Kudüs-i Şerif, also gives detailed information about the studies on the hurûfât registers.132 Since the earliest of these records belong to the second half of the 16th century, they will not be used as a source in this thesis.

Sicil133 registers (court records) are another type of kadıasker register that includes information on Ottoman urban organization and is useful for the history of the family,

129 Ercan Alan, “934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Belgeye Göre Rumeli’de Kadılık Müessesesi”, Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Vol: 9, No: 46, 2016, pp. 168-177

130 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar” 131 Hacı Mehmet Günay, “Vakıf,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2012, pp. 479-486

132 Şerife Eroğlu Memiş, Hurûfât Defterleri’nde Kudüs-i Şerîf Kazası: Vakıflar, Görevler ve Görevliler. Yeditepe Yayınevi, İstanbul, 2017. 133 Yunus Uğur, “Şer’iyye Sicilleri,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, p.8-11.

society, economy, and law in the Ottoman Empire. The information on cities in sicils makes them resources for studies on Ottoman urban history. Özer Ergenç, for instance, has used sicils for studying the urban history of Ankara and Konya in the 16th century.134 Yunus Uğur‘s master thesis on urban history of Mudanya in the 17th century also makes use of sicils.135

Turan Gökçe’s pioneering work on the kadıasker registers of the early 16th century uses the kadıasker register of vilayet of Anatolia dated 1513 to provide information about the kadı system and a list of kazas with the names of the 235 kadıs to which they belonged, complete with akçe values and sanjak.136 Turan Gökçe also published another kadıasker register of the Anatolia dated 1528 and compared and examined differences between that and the register dated 1513. The 1528 register also includes 211 kazas and kadı names, but does not contain records regarding the sanjaks.137 Both of these studies are very important for examining the Ottoman Empire’s kazas and the kadı system, as well as to observe and compare changes and transformations in them over different periods. As such, they are important points of comparison for studying kadı akçe values and kaza distribution of Anatolia in the tahrir registers dated 1530. Using these, we will have the opportunity to discuss whether there is a difference in the division of the kazas in the tahrir and kadıasker registers, both of which were recorded for different purposes. The studies of Gökçe have some limitations in terms of covering only Anatolia and lack of sanjak information. The fact that visual materials such as maps that allow us to more clearly observe and analyze changes in regions were not used in the technical aspect caused these studies to contain only a list level of information on kazas. However, thanks

134 Özer Ergenç, Osmanlı Klasik Dönemi Kent Tarihçiliğine Katkı, XVI. Yüzyılda Ankara ve Konya. Ankara : Ankara Enstitüsü Vakfı, 1995.

135 Yunus Uğur, “The Ottoman Court Records and the Making of ‘Urban History’, with Special Reference to Mudanya Sicils (1645-1800),” (Master Thesis, Boğaziçi University, 2001).

136 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri", Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi IX, (1994), pp.163-259.

137 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları"; for the information on madrasah and müderris in this register, see Turan Gökçe, “934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilâyeti Medreseleri ve Müderrisleri”, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, S. XI, İzmir, s.163-175.

to the kaza lists published by Gökçe, we can obtain information about the kaza division in Anatolia in the first years of the 16th century and we can say that kadıasker registers are an important source for urban history.

In addition, Levent Kuru has published a register belonging to the first half of the 16th century, including lists of 220 kazas and akçe values in the Rumelia.138 This study, which Kuru claims is dated 1552, including important discussions and graphs showing the grouping of kazas according to akçe values, although it does not contain sanjak information and is limited to Rumelia. Kuru has another study on the kaza division of Rumelia in the second half of the 16th century dated between 1566 and 1593.139 This study includes information on 463 kazas and their akçe values under the rule of Kadıasker of Rumelia. These studies are very important to examine the changes and transformations of kazas in the later periods of the empire. Another record of the Rumelia kazas of 1667-1668 (1078) was published by M. Kemal Özergin and gives a list of all the kazas of the period. Both Kuru’s study regarding the second half of the 16th century and Özergin’s work lie beyond the scope of our current study.140 A recent study titled XVI. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Ulema Defterleri contains extensive kadıasker records which have not been published before.141 Abdurrahman Atçıl examines the document numbered D.8823.1 in the Archive of the Topkapı Palace Museum that includes a summary list of all religious scholars (ulema) in 1523 who were serving in positions, as well as those who had been removed and were waiting for new positions. He also compares this record with the 1513 kadıasker register published by Turan Gökçe. This study is very important for studying the kaza distribution in the wider region, including East Anatolia, Southeast Anatolia, Syria, and Egypt. Although it covers only the Anatolian

138 Levent Kuru, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Döneminde Rumeli Kadılıkları (XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısı),” The Pursuit of History, 2019, Issue: 21, pp.247‐272.

139 Levent Kuru, “XVI. Yüzyılın İkı̇nci̇ Yarısında Rumeli̇ Kadiılıkları,” Journal of Balkan Research Institute, Volume: 8, Number: 2, December 2019, pp. 261-294.

140 M. Kemal Özergin, “Rumeli Kadılıklarında 1078 Düzenlemesi” pp. 251-309.

141 Abdurrahman Atçıl and Ercan Alan, XVI. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Ulema Defterleri, Ankara, 2018.

and Arab regions without Rumelia, this study will allow us to observe the difference with records of 1530 through the spatial map in this thesis.142

These studies provide important information and analysis about the Ottoman judicial organization. In this thesis, however, we aim to reveal the status of the Ottoman cities in the administrative organizations by using the kadıasker registers as a source for urban history.

1.4 Outline

This thesis consists of four chapters and multiple subheadings. The first chapter will present the research question, methodology, literature review, and the resources to be used. The second chapter is devoted to historiographical discussion of Digital Humanities, digital history (specifically digital urban history) as well as the advantages of digital historical tools for the studies on Ottoman administrative organizations. The third chapter will consist of a detailed examination of the main sources of the thesis. This section contains the inventory of the archival sources, their noteworthy aspects and chronological order, and tables. In the fourth chapter, all data will be mapped and the changes and transformations in the administrative organization will be determined and analyzed through reasons behind the changes.

142 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

CHAPTER 2

DIGITAL HUMANITIES IN HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Digital history methods and their usage within the Ottoman studies are the distinctive aspects of this thesis, and it is important to shed light on new digital methods in digital humanities and historical research before proceeding. We will focus on questions as: what advantages does the digital historical methodology have to determine the Ottoman administrative organization in the 16th century? What kind of contributions do digital historical programs to observe the changes and transformation in the administrative organization? What opportunities does the digital history methodology offer for thematic analysis on the Ottoman lands and cities? What are the distinctives of analyzing administrative organization by using digital history tools? We will try to find answers to these questions in the section of 2.7. Thus, the contribution of this thesis to digital history studies from the Ottoman perspective will be better understood.

Historiography has witnessed many turns such as the cultural, post-colonial, spatial, and global, and has now also taken its share from the digital age through a digital turn. Thenew field of the digital humanities has made its mark on the agenda of the humanities with pioneering research methods and techniques. The process that begins with the infiltration of computer programs and technical tools into traditional humanities is discussed within the framework of "tradition" and "innovation." In this context, historiography has begun to develop the process of projecting and creating an interdisciplinary and computational environment beyond archive-based individual work. The aim of this part is to examine the historical processes of digital humanities and digital urban history as a sub-area, and to discuss the situation and potential of Ottoman studies in the digital age.

2.1 The History of Digital Humanities

Digital humanities is the fusion of digital technology and humanities disciplines. The term “humanities” was created in the Renaissance to emphasize the importance of man as the "measure of all things.” The addition of “digital” to the humanities refers to acts of digitization, the creation of digital projects, the migration of sources, and the development of network analyses as digital technology is playing a significant role. The origins of the digital humanities lie outside the academic world. In 1949, an Italian Jesuit priest, Father Roberto Busa wanted to make an index for the 11 million words of St. Thomas Aquinas. Father Busa thought that a machine might be helpful for indexing and when he heard about computers he went to visit Thomas J. Watson at IBM in the United States to demand support.143 The texts were converted into punched cards through a concordance program, and the words were re-organized and alphabetized according to their graphic shapes.144 Busa also wanted lemmatization of words that were "listed under their dictionary headings, not under their simple forms."145 With the help of IBM, Father Busa's team produced the software program to deal with this project. Susan Hockey thus defines the "beginning" of the digital humanities to be between 1949 and early 1970s. During the 1960s, scholars who were interested in computational humanities came together to create the journal Computers and the Humanities because of “the need for an international newsletter serving the community of humanistic scholars who employ computers.”146 The journal was published by Queens College of The City University of New York with financial assistance from IBM in September 1966. Inthe prospect of the first issue, the editorial board explains the intention of the journal:

Our interests include literature of all times and countries, music, the visual arts, folklore, the non-mathematical aspects of linguistics, and all phases of the social sciences that stress the humane. When, for example, the archeologist is concerned with fine arts of the past, when the sociologist studies the non-material facets of culture when the linguist analyzes poetry, we may define their

143Susan Hockey, “The History of Humanities Computing,” in A Companion to Digital Humanities, eds. Schreibman, Susan, Raymond George Siemens, and John Unsworth. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publication, 2004. p.4.

144 Susan Hockey, “The History of Humanities Computing,” p.4

145 Susan Hockey, “The History of Humanities Computing,” p.4 146"Prospect.” Computers and the Humanities, vol. 1, no.1, 1966, p.1.

intentions as humanistic; if they employ computers, we wish to encourage them and to learn from them.147

The distance between the humanities and computational humanities could also be read in the fonts chosen for use in the title of the journal. A more mechanical font was chosen for the word "computers" but a romantic handwriting font was found suitable for “humanities.” Nevertheless, the journal brought together discussions on this new field that blended traditional humanities methods and computer programs. In addition, academicians from different disciplines created an interdisciplinary network through this journal. The most important discussion of the period is, of course, that the use of computers was suspect in terms of the reliability or quality of the research. In the "Prospect" part of the first issue, there was an awareness of the fear of scholars that machines might destroy intangible intuitions and humanitarian responses, and that they may be diverted from meaningful goals and hence should not be captivated by computers. They also stressed that their priorities are "humanistic imagination" in all of their activities.148 Obviously, the publishers of the journal were aware of the ideas of the period, which claim that computer programs would harm the humanities side. Although there is an attempt to bring together and support researchers who are willing to use computers, the journal’s editorial board seems to have taken on the responsibility of appealing to the traditional humanities. The activities at this time were concentrated on research by concordance, and producing indexes. Some researchers, however, started to shift focus: "the use of quantitative approaches to style and authorship studies predates computing." Scholars investigated and contested the authorship of Shakespeare‘s works. Computers allowed, for the first time, to see word frequencies accurately. The first use of computers in a disputed authorship study is believed to be the one undertaken on the Junius Letters by Alvar Ellegård and published in 1962. Ellegard focused on Junius Letters and tried to reveal authorship through word frequency 147Susan Hockey, “The History of Humanities Computing,” p.2. 148Susan Hockey, “The History of Humanities Computing,” p. 2

that needs a huge effort for the workload.149 Frederick Mosteller and David L. Wallace tried to identify the authorship of the Federalist Papers. Their findings were accepted as a test for new methods of authorship determination and example of using computers in humanities research.150 The produced data was serially stored on magnetic tape. Hence, scholars could not access these data as part of random choice. Hockey defines the storing process that was created in a serial fashion causing historians to be suspiscious of computational research. The data had to be stored in a series because random access to the data was not possible, such as on a disk. Although this was not a problem for textual data, for historical data representing different aspects of objects, a linear database means simplification of data. Historians have avoided computer-based projects because of this situation.151

The regular series of conferences related to linguistic computing started under the title of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing/ Association for Computers and the Humanities (ALLC/ACH) by the University of Cambridge in 1970. There was “the emphasis of interest on input, output, and programming as well as lexicography, textual editing, language teaching, and stylistics. Even at this time the need for a methodology for archiving and maintaining electronic texts was fully recognized.”152 The 1970s to mid-1980s was described "consolidation" period of digital humanities by Hockey.153 More people started to interact with computers, and simultaneously mapping tools became useful for historians to conduct geospatial analyses. GIS software, which emerged in the early 1960s and became more widely accessible in the early 1980s, was adopted by a few groups of historians. Digital history scholars used the geospatial web to present their historical sources. Since visualization of sources such as maps supports to display data,it

149 Kori Levy-Minzie, “Authorship Attribution In The E-Mail Domain: A Study of The Effect of Size of Author Corpus And Topic on Accuracy of Identification.” Master Thesis. Naval Postgraduate School. 2011.

150 Helle Porsdam, “Too much ‘Digital’, too little ‘Humanities’? An attempt to explain why many Humanities scholars are reluctant converts to Digital Humanities.” Arcadia Papers, 2011. Cambridge University Library, p.8. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42337087.pdf

151 Susan Hockey, “The History of Humanities Computing,” p.6

152 Susan Hockey, “The History of Humanities Computing,” p.7

153 Susan Hockey, “The History of Humanities Computing,” p.7

also creates an environment to integrate multilayered sources through the geographical location.154 Scholars increased interest in benefiting from the computational tool for their research, since the advantage of increasing capacity of as storage and processing during the late 1970s onward. This process developed by electronic text and digital archives and the emergence of the Internet after the 1990s expanded the level by the collaboration of users.155 In this period, the courses of humanities computing emerged. Academics and students who were interested in using software programs produced digital projects. They also debated whether students should learn about computer programs or not. Storage on tape also transformed to disk-based storage. Hence datasets no longer had to be stored serially.

The mid-1980s to early 1990s156 witnessed the rise of personal computers and the internet. Scholars had a chance to discuss their ideas through electronic emails. IBM and Apple Macintoshes started to locate in the agenda of the research. “Humanist,” as the first electronic discussion list, was created by Willard McCarty (King's College London), and was born as a result of an international seminar in 1987 focusing on digital humanities. It created a platform for intellectual discussion of social studies and exchange ideas among scholars from different regions.157 According to Hockey, a new development on the encoding system gave a respite to scholars who were tired of reformatting texts to fit software programs in 1986. The Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) published by ISO produces schemes that can process many different types of text, work with many metadata, and enable both complex scientific interpretation and reveal the basic structural features of data.158 The markup technology allows humanities scholars to examine new questions and hypotheses quickly by tags

154 Stephen Robertson, “The Differences between Digital Humanities and Digital History.” Retrieved December 10,2018 from http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/part/12

155 Chris Alen Sula and Heather Hill, “The Early History of Digital Humanities” Making of the Humanities V. Conference -Society for the History of Humanities- Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 2016

156 For this periodization see Susan Hockey, “The History of Humanities Computing,” p.10

157“Humanist Discussion Group.” Retrieved 9 December, 2018 from https://dhhumanist.org/

158 Susan Hockey, “The History of Humanities Computing,” p. 12

and classify documents according to their attributes.159 Hence researchers are able to reveal and analyze different networks among the huge amounts of data. Following these developments, scholars agreed on a set of principles on the encoding system to create marked-up text called Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange. The publication of a new encoding system emerged with the same period of digital library developments. Hence, digital library projects that did not have any relation with humanities computing before, preferred to work with TEI rather than invention of a different scheme program.160

From the 1990s onwards, the emergence of the World Wide Web and web browsers helped in the proliferation of knowledge among scholars and students, andmade academic studies accessible to a wider community. Students or scholars could now publish their works within minutes and access primary sources without being limited to printed books. In this process, relevant BA programs were launched in many universities. King's College London launched the pioneering "Humanities Computing" program, while many universities in the United States also began to offer similar programs. Academic journals and scholarly organizations started to come to the fore: Blackwell’s Companion to Digital Humanities began published in 2005, and the “Alliance for Digital Humanities Organizations” [ADHO] was established.161 Today, the relationship of humanities scholars with the digital world is progressing on three levels. The first is the use of virtualized and digitized archives at a basic level, the second is the use of digital tools as a method of analysis, and the third is the rise of digital studies that create their own programming language and software.162 While all these developments were emerging,

159 Daniel J. Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig, “Becoming Digital: To Mark Up, Or Not To Mark Up” in Digital

History. A Guide to Gathering, Preserving, and Presenting the Past on the Web. Fairfax, VA: Center

for History and New Media, 2005. For Web-book: http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/digitizing/3.php

160 Susan Hockey, “The History of Humanities Computing,” p.12

161 Matthew Kirschenbaum, “What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English Departments?” in Debates in Digital Humanities, ed. Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 2012, p.6

162 Elias Muhanna, The Digital Humanities and Islamic & Middle East Studies. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2016, p.6.

discussions between the supporters of the use of digital instruments and scholars of conservative humanities continued to represent "two cultures."

2.2 Two Cultures Debate: Science vs. Literature

This history of digital humanities reflects these changes over time. The area known as "humanities computing" was often seen “as a technical support to the work of the ‘real’ humanities scholars”163 in the early period, and has been described as "digital humanities" representing a larger category in later periods. Digital Humanities is more generative by producing knowledge through new tools for sources of humanities that are born and live digitally.164 N. Katherine Hayles underlines that digital humanities represents a development through which this field went from a low-prestige status to professional and intellectual status that has its own rules, theories, and standards.165 Schnapp and Presner’s 2009 ‘Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0’ explains the first and second wave of digital humanities, which is also related to discussion on the difference between the digital and the traditional:

The first wave of digital humanities work was quantitative, mobilizing the search and retrieval powers of the database, automating corpus linguistics, stacking hypercards into critical arrays. The second wave is qualitative, interpretive, experiential, emotive, generative in character. It harnesses digital toolkits in the service of the Humanities’ core methodological strengths: attention to complexity, medium specificity, historical context, analytical depth, critique and interpretation.166

The debates on the dichotomy between digital and traditional or “real” humanities arose in the 1960s. Quantitative analysis, which started to be used more frequently in historical studies in the 1960s, was critically criticized in later periods and its field of use was

163 David M. Berry, Undertsanding Digital Humanities. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, p.2 164 Todd Presner, Jeffrey Schnapp, and Peter Lunenfeld. “Digital Manifesto 2.0.” p.6 Retrieved 5 December,2018 from http://www.humanitiesblast.com/manifesto/Manifesto_V2.pdf

165 N. Katherine Hayles, “How We Think: Transforming Power and Digital Technologies” in Undertsanding Digital Humanities. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, p. 43 166 Todd Presner, Jeffrey Schnapp, and Peter Lunenfeld, “Digital Manifesto 2.0.” p.2

reduced to economic history and demographic studies.167 Yunus Uğur underlines the general perception on distinction between qualitative and quantitative methods; aim sciences (theoretical, conceptual, based on sources) are accepted as the center of the research, while instrumental sciences (technology) providing to access, collect, analyze data and present the results or narrative better such as graphical and mapping programs, are seen as passive phases of the research process which do not contribute to the essence of research.168 The Snow-Leavis controversy is an important example of discussions on digital and traditional humanities. Two public intellectuals, Charles Percy Snow and Frank Raymond Leavis discussed the value of two disciplines, art and science, as two cultures. This conflict among scholars also illustrate the debates on the fusion of technology and humanities. Snow was an English physical chemist who gave the Rede Lecture at the Senate House in Cambridge. He gave a talk titled “The Two Cultures” arguing in favor offscientific culture over literary culture. Leavis, professor of English at Cambridge, responded to Snow through his talk titled “Two Cultures? The Significance of C. P. Snow.” He emphasized that literary culture is not more important than scientific culture, but rather that it is important to understand the human world beyond disciplines.169 Bernhard Rieder and Theo Röhle, however, claim that the digital humanities created a positive environment easing this tension. According to them, the digital humanities represent the bridge between the "two cultures" of the quantitative research of natural sciences and the cultural discourses of humanities. They also argued that computer-based research methods allow producing knowledge that was previously unavailable.170

167 Yunus Uğur, “The Historical Interaction of the City With Its Mahalles: Ottoman Edirne In The Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries” p.8. 168 Yunus Uğur, “Tarihçilik Sahasında Teknolojik İmkânlardan Yararlanma” in M. Y. Ertaş (Ed.) Tarih Bilimi ve Metodolojisi, Istanbul: İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık, 2019, p.377.

169 Benjamin Fraser, Digital Cities: The Interdisciplinary Future of the Urban Geo-Humanities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, p.34.

170 Bernhard Rieder and Theo Röhle, “Digital Methods: Five Challenges “ in Undertsanding Digital Humanities. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, p.72

Digital history does not imply underestimation of traditional research methods. As part of the commitment to digital media through the rapid advance of technology, the process of adaptation to the environment is inevitable. These new tools provide the ability to visually process information, reveal relationship networks, and generate new questions. Kristen Nawrotzki and Jack Dougherty also agree that digital media tools enhance and change the way of our relationship with knowledge in terms of how we understand it or how we read it, and enable us to access it as a nonlinear form.171 Many studies, such as specialization, and data analysis methods, provide unrecognizable details when reading archive documents.

Todd Presner, and Chris Johanson underline the important relationship of "humanities" and "digital" in "The Promise of Digital Humanities." They emphasize that digital humanities are in line with the development of humanities as a natural consequence. This does not mean rejecting the humanities or replacing any of their unique aspects. In this case, the scholars of humanities are faced with a more critical position in the transformation process of history and cultural heritage into the digital world and in the production of new concepts.172 Even though digital humanities has a short history, it has a strong capacity to provide an interdisciplinary environment using tools and techniques developed by the digital age. Without loss of academic value of humanities, this dynamic field, which started digitization and encoding then, evolved toward producing projects, and created a space to realize imagination thanks to its innovative features such as “capacity, accessibility, flexibility, diversity, manipulability, interactivity, and hypertextuality (or nonlinearity).”173

171 Kristen Nawrotzki and Jack Dougherty. “Writing History in the Digital Age” Retrieved 7 December, 2018 from https://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dh/12230987.0001.001/1:7/--writing-history-in-the-digital-age?g=dculture;rgn=div1;view=fulltext;xc=1#top

172 Todd Presner and Chris Johanson, “The Promise of Digital Humanities,” A Whitepaper, 2009. Retrieved 6 December, 2018 from http://www.itpb.ucla.edu/documents/2009/PromiseofDigitalHumanities.pdf

173 Daniel J. Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig, Digital History: A Guide to Gathering, Preserving, and Presenting the Past on the Web.

The interaction of history and digital technology has also become the subject of discussion in the production, representation, and form of knowledge in the field of humanities. In this case, we must ask: to what extent does the technology influence the production of knowledge in the humanities? Does technology merely visualize resources creating a representation of the past taken to be real, or provide opportunities for new research questions and answers? In the next part, the relationship of digital tools with humanities in terms of knowledge generation will be analyzed.

2.3 Knowledge Generation in Digital Humanities

As digital technology has begun to engulf the entire world, the humanities have also been influenced by this rapid change. With the advent of the Internet, we have become comfortable in our new ability to access archival sources through digital databases without leaving our desks, produce multi-user documents with Google Drive, and to conduct location-oriented research with tools such as Google Maps or OpenStreetMap so much so that is difficult to imagine our lives without them. These changes have echoed in humanities research by transforming the methods and knowledge through the vast amount of accessible sources, digital techniques of computers, and circulation of information. The meeting of the digital world with humanities, which began with Father Busa's visit to IBM in 1949, has now evolved to the level of producing information, moving beyond the mission of technological service to research. Busa argued, “the use of computers in the humanities has as its principal aim the enhancement of the quality, depth, and extension of research and not merely the lessening of human effort and time.”174 The main advantage of the digital technology for humanities is its capacity to store information within a small scale named Big Data. It is a hub of information which stretches the limits of traditional databases that comprise rows and columns and demands new methods of research, and exceeds the human capacity to analyze it.175 Jo

174 David M. Berry and Anders Fagerjord. Digital Humanities: Knowledge and Critique in a Digital Age. Cambridge, England ; Malden, MA : Polity Press, 2017, p.9

175 David M. Berry and Anders Fagerjord. Digital Humanities: Knowledge and Critique in a Digital Age, p. 26

Guldi and David Armitage state that Big Data enables social scientists to solve problems of a larger scale. By giving an example of economic and climate analysis, they argue that historians too have an important role in terms of studies for the future thanks to the new datasets they produce. Big Data gives historians the power to make decisions about “the hierarchy of causality.”176 It is actually not a surprise that changing the speed, method and quantity of access to information affects the change of the social, cultural, economic, artistic and political knowledge produced within the disciplines of humanities. Todd Presner describes the impact of digital humanities on knowledge production as follows:

Digital Humanities explores a universe in which print is no longer the exclusive or the normative medium in which knowledge is produced and/or disseminated; instead, print finds itself absorbed into new, multimedia configurations, alongside other digital tools, techniques, and media that have profoundly altered the production and dissemination of knowledge in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences.177

Like the discovery of the printing press, digital tools are expected to give societies that have witnessed their increasing spreadcertain features adapted to this digital age. In this case, digital humanities provide a critical perspective to understand emerging and developing cultures in this technological environment. In order to meet the needs of the society in which academic knowledge is produced, it is essential that the human sciences keep themselves alive in order to match their production capacity in accordance with the conditions of that society and to advance at a similar pace.

With the use of technological tools to produce knowledge, humanities scholars strive for encoding, projecting and systems recognition. In this process, the representation of knowledge “as the application of logic and ontology to the task of constructing

176 Jo Guldi and David Armitage, “Big Questions, Big Data” in The History Manifesto, Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 88-116. For Web book edition: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/history-manifesto/big-questions-big- data/F60D7E21EFBD018F5410FB315FBA4590

177 Todd Presner, “Digital Humanities 2.0: A Report on Knowledge” Retrieved 15 December, 2018 from https://cnx.org/contents/J0K7N3xH@6/Digital-Humanities-2-0-A-Report-on-Knowledge

computable models for some domain”178 provides a consciousness to be aware of what the materials in the hands of the scholars do or do not represent. It is essential to encourage scholars to focus on such details.

Research with computational tools reshapes the relationship between knowledge and information for the humanities scholars and allows them to see new patterns that are not discovered directly from the documents. The digital maps we have prepared within the scope of this thesis enable us to visually see details that have not been noticed before in the texts. For example, when a city in the administrative organization is pictorially represented on the computer screen from the lines of the archival document, it turns out that it is registered to a sanjak in a geographically distant location. This is an important example in terms of reshaping knowledge with technological possibilities and providing opportunities for new research topics. Stephen Ramsay says that databases, for instance, are the most useful technology for computing humanities that create new types of “habits of seeing”179 besides visualization, textual analysis, or geo-referenced researches. According to Stefan Tanaka, digital technologies reveal the properties of hereditary social forms by allowing us to understand the data differently, and by connecting the data with our new methods. This allows us to have more tools to represent the past.180 Digital humanities change not only the methods of reading, writing and thinking, but also the institutions in which these occur. Universities where academic knowledge is produced need to keep up with digital technologies to incorporate new opportunities provided by digital tools into the institution. A report by the American Sociological Association underlines the importance of the way scholars communicate through social media for their academic careers, representing the level of integration of

178 Tanya Clement et. al., "Sounding for Meaning: Using Theories of Knowledge Representation to Analyze Aural Patterns in Texts" in DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly 2013, Volume 7, Number 1. Retreived 1 January, 2018 from http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/7/1/000146/000146.html

179 Stephen Ramsay, “Databases” in A Companion to Digital Humanities, eds. Schreibman, Susan, Raymond George Siemens, and John Unsworth. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publication, 2004, p.195

180 Stefan Tanaka, “Pasts in a Digital Age” in Writing History in the Digital Age, Web-book edition, eds. Jack Dougherty and Kristen Nawrotzki. (Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2013), pp. 35-46. For web-book edition: https://writinghistory.trincoll.edu/revisioning/tanaka-2012-spring/

the scholarly world into digital technology.181 For this reason, humanities scholars may be outstripped in the production of quality and level of knowledge required by the era they live in, and are under the risk depriving themselves of the ability to develop society within the digital world unless they expand the field of interaction with the technology and humanities.

The most important area that absorbs the development of digital technology in the field of historical studies is urban history. The fact that urban history allows spatial studies through geo-reference systems, and the multilayered nature of cities in of social, cultural, economic, and artistic terms, provides a wide range of research area where digital instruments can be fully implemented. In the next section, digital urban history and its relation with knowledge production will be discussed and exemplified through the projects of spatial analysis conducted using Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Since discussions and analysis of databases through GIS and thematic mapping are one of the original aspects of the thesis, it will be meaningful to focus on the projects that have previously been conducted in this field.

2.4 Digital Urban History

The spatial turn, originating in the discipline of geography has shown its influence in many departments from history to sociology and has come to life in many projects in the humanities with the development of digital programs during the last few decades. Antony Giddens argues that space is not just an empty dimension but is the "constitution of systems of interaction.”182 Hence, space, which is the area of active interaction, exists as a field of dynamism of lives converging with time. This process is linked with geography that encourages the humanities to be interested in locations. In the digital age, historians re-discovered Geographical Information Systems (GIS) as a new method

181 Colleen Flaherty, “Tweeting Your Way to Tenure,” Inside Higher Ed, retrieved by 06.02.2020 h..ttps://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/09/08/sociologists-discuss-how-departments-should-consider-soc.i.al-media-activity-and-other

182 Antony Giddens. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984. p. 368

of research that widens the spectrum of their studies. There are several reasons why humanities scholars discover the importance of geographical information as it is mentioned in Deep Maps and the Spatial Narratives by Bodenhamer et al.: the rapid development of GIS, the fusion of web and mobile technologies, and the growth of a global economy reliant on location-based information. GIS, in addition, facilitates the integration of data that is essential for interdisciplinary research. The importance of the map in displaying information cartographically helps create a fresh perspective and new insights for social and cultural studies.183 The digital maps that we created in this thesis allow us to analyze the territory of the empire through all the archive resources prepared for different purposes, holistically and separately. The tahrir registers of the tax system and kadıasker registers of the legal system integrate to reveal administrative organization spatially. This integration is an important example of the fusion of different systems for geographic analysis in the database. Thus, we have the opportunity to place and discuss the geographical information in archive records in their real positions as they should be. In the case of urban history, the mission of maps is more than other disciplines because they reconstruct the past places or regions through the geographical information in the data.184

2.5 GIS for Historical Research

Geographical Information System (GIS) is one of the key research tools in urban studies to observe the change and transformation of cities and societies through time and space. GIS is generally defined as “a system for capturing, storing, checking, integrating, manipulating, analysing and displaying data which are spatially referenced to the Earth.”185 Although historians have used GIS as a tool for quantitative data in the 1980s, the rapid increase of interest in using GIS in historical research started mid-1990s. The

183 David J. Bodenhamer et. al. Deep Maps and the Spatial Humanities, eds. David J. Bodenhamer, John Corrigan, and Trevor M. Harris. Bloomington and Indiana, USA: Indiana University Press, 2015, pp.1-2

184 David Rumsey and Meredith Williams, “Historical Maps in GIS” in Past Time, Past Place: GIS for History, ed. Anne Kelly Knowles. US: ESRI Press, 2002, p.1

185 Lord Chorley, Handling Geographic Information: Report of the Committee of Enquiry, Department of the Environment. London: HMSO, 1987,p. 132.

technology has now been developed to enable us to use any type of data including textual or visual in GIS providing qualitative research that is the most important concern of humanities scholars. Different kinds of data such as books, photographs or web links can be included within GIS, removing demand for only quantitative data. Integrating data in different formats in the same layer and the same digital platform and thus analyzing a huge amount of information requires innovative solutions.186 In this thesis, for instance, we have visualized different types of sources that were previously analyzed only textually in tables, lists and graphs. This study makes an important contribution in terms of representing a qualitative historical study by using digital methods. In this sense, GIS is a vital tool for urban historians in visualizing, analyzing, and revealing patterns that cannot be discovered in written archives. GIS opens the door to multi-layered urban history writing, as it offers the opportunity to conduct simultaneous analysis by incorporating many different data types. “As a kind of computer software designed to facilitate the mapping of very large quantitative datasets, GIS has been embraced most readily by social science historians.”187 Focusing on how GIS operates can be meaningful in understanding how it contributes to the production of knowledge and creates an area for new research questions in terms of urban history. Ian Gregory and Alistair Geddes explain the two data models of GIS in the book, Toward Spatial Humanities: Historical GIS and Spatial History. There are two types of data in the GIS; attribute and spatial data. Attribute data are usually quantitative and answer the researcher's question of “what.” Spatial data, on the other hand, represents data with locations through point, line, polygon, and pixels formats for the question of ”where.”188 Attribute data is put into tables comprise rows and columns including information about a single entity.

186 Keti Lelo, “A GIS Approach to Urban History: Rome in the 18th Century” in ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 2014, p.1294

187 Anne Kelly Knowles (Ed.) Placing History: How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS AreChanging Historical Scholarship. Redland: ESRI Press; 2008. p.2.

188 Ian Gregory and Alistair Geddes, “Introduction: From Historical GIS to Spatial Humanities: Deepening Scholarship and Broadening Technology” in Toward Spatial Humanities, eds. Ian Gregory and Alistair Geddes. Bloomington and Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2014, p.10; Ian N. Gregory and Paul S. Ell, “GIS and its role in historical research: an introduction” in Historical GIS: Technologies, Methodologies and Scholarship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p.3.

Information about a city could be structured as attribute tables such as name, population, date founded and location.189 In addition, time is part of GIS as a third kind of data for observing changes in space over time to focus on the question of ”when.” Mapping and graphs created by GIS transform data beyond traditional visualization into data that can be observed, questioned and concretely analyzed.190 GIS, which consists of raster layers and vector data such as point, polygon, and line, has been criticized for being poor in handling the temporal dimension.191 However, thanks to the different layers created for time data sets, changes and transformations over time can be observed on a space. Especially by new multimedia plugins, the analysis becomes more understandable and readable with both timelines and outputs in different formats such as graphics, 3D renderings, videos, photos or timelines. Thanks to GIS technology, the relationship and correlation between data which previously seemed unrelated to each other is revealed. By the textual data spatialized over longitude and latitude coordinates, the relationships of historical data with space and time occur simultaneously. GIS is an ideal tool for the analysis and visualization of qualitative data with a complexity above human capacity for humanities research. Researchers have the opportunity to conduct complex analysis through geocoding and visualizations of a huge amount of historical data in computer-based GIS.192 There are certain GIS softwares such as ArcGIS, QGIS, MapInfo, AtlasGIS, GRASS, ERDAS, GeoMedia, and TNTlite. Through these softare packages, humanities researchers can analyze an unlimited number of attribute data sets thematically, and make interpretations on newly revealed links they discover as part of their qualitative research and open the door for new questions. GIS technology, however, is not just a tool for making fancy maps or graphics, but a means for the user

189 Karen K. Kemp, “Geographic Information Science and Spatial Analysis for the Humanities” in Spatial Humanities: GIS and Future of Humanities Scholarship eds. David J. Bodenhamer, John Corrigan, Trevor M. Harris, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2010, p.41.

190 Ian N. Gregory and Paul S. Ell, “GIS and its role in historical research: an introduction” pp. 119-144.

191 Ian Gregory, “Exploiting Time and Space: A Challenge for GIS in the Digital Humanities” in Spatial Humanities: GIS and Future of Humanities Scholarship eds. David J. Bodenhamer, John Corrigan, Trevor M. Harris, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2010, p.59.

192 John Corrigan, “Qualitative GIS and Emergent Semantics” in Spatial Humanities: GIS and Future of Humanities Scholarship eds. David J. Bodenhamer, John Corrigan, Trevor M. Harris, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2010, pp.76-89.

and reader to produce new scholarly knowledge.193 There are criticisms that the maps produced in GIS are too descriptive and are merely diagrams that provides a summary of complex data rather than a map. 194 Although it has limits for a detailed cartographic study, the maps produced thanks to GIS are important outputs in terms of effective and clearly understandable representation of the data.

By combining different data formats in GIS, researchers can integrate historical sources with modern geographic information, and historical maps as raster layers, touching base with today's world and comparing, analyzing and measuring to generate new perspectives. GIS technology and its contribution to historical research can be better understood through examples already undertaken by humanities scholars. In recent years, there are countless studies in history and especially in urban history that use GIS for research.195 It would be meaningful to mention a few examples that are important in terms of both the research method and visuality. Visualization Venice196 is a good example for the application of digital technology to historical research. The project is conducted with experts from multiple disciplines such as art, architectural, urban history, and engineering. Alessandra Ferrighi, as one of the members of the project team, states that the project has two purposes: to provide urban historians with new research and communication tools, and to produce content that can be shared with a general, non-specialised audience.197 The project demonstrates how technological methodologies can change revolutionary the way our study and think as in the case of teaching and research. Furthermore, the project represents a test of technology for visualization of change in

193 Ian N. Gregory and Paul S. Ell, “Using GIS to Visualise Historical Data”, p.118.

194 Ian N. Gregory and Paul S. Ell, “Using GIS to Visualise Historical Data” p.94

195 For a list of studies in this area, see http://www.hgis.org.uk/resources.htm

196 Visualization Venice is an international and interdisciplinary urban history project collaboration with Duke University, Università Iuav di Venezia, and Università degli Studi di Padova. See the website of the project http://www.visualizingvenice.org/visu/

197 Alessandra Ferrighi, “Visualizing Venice: A Series of Case Studies and A Museum on The Arsenale’s Virtual History” in Built City, Designed City, Virtual City:The Museum Of The City:, ed. Donatella Calabi. Roma: CROMA, 2013, p.137

urban environment and buildings throughout history.198 Another motivation for this project is the fact that urban history, with its 150-year history as a field, can be shaped according to new paradigms within the scope of digital humanities.199 Ferrighi claims that Venice, with its unique political, administrative and trade history is a suitable case for the application of GIS to urban history. This is made possible by the huge amount of historical data available on the city, including republican documents, maps, topological surveys, and cadastral archives.200 The city continues to go through an important process of transformation even today.

In the aforementioned project, the first phase involved the application of time-of-flight laser scans and photogrammetry techniques based on primary and secondary sources to create a database. After this dataset is classified according to locations and time, it was shared among interdisciplinary project members. The team produces Venice's contemporary maps using GIS technology. They then use 2D and 3D modeling techniques to reveal changes in the urban landscape201 through professional 3D graphic programs such as AutoCAD and 3D Studio Max.202 They also use Building Information Modeling (BIM) for 3D historical reconstruction that enables them to reconstruct buildings with their attributes including bibliographic data, materials, and geolocation.203 The project is devoted to the questions of “what” and “how” when creating textual and iconographic databases. This methodology and visualization also create a series of new questions and

198 Caroline Bruzelius, “Overview: The Visualizing Venice Enterprise” in Visualizing Venice: Mapping and Modeling Time and Change in a City, (eds.) Kristin L Huffman, Andrea Giordano, and Caroline Bruzelius. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2017, p.2.

199 Donatella Calabi, “The Role of Digital Visualization for The History of The City” in Visualizing Venice: Mapping and Modeling Time and Change in a City, (eds.) Kristin L Huffman, Andrea Giordano, and Caroline Bruzelius. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2017, p.12

200 Alessandra Ferrighi, “Visualizing Venice: A Series of Case Studies and A Museum on The Arsenale’s Virtual History” p.151

201 Andrea Giordano and Mark Olson, “Visualizing Venice Developing a Methodology for Historical Visualization” in Visualizing Venice: Mapping and Modeling Time and Change in a City, (eds.) Kristin L Huffman, Andrea Giordano, and Caroline Bruzelius. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2017, p.21

202 Alessandra Ferrighi, “Visualizing Venice: A Series of Case Studies and A Museum on The Arsenale’s Virtual History” p.144

203 Andrea Giordano and Mark Olson, “Visualizing Venice Developing a Methodology for Historical Visualization” in Visualizing Venice: Mapping and Modeling Time and Change in a City, (eds.) Kristin L Huffman, Andrea Giordano, and Caroline Bruzelius. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2017, p.22.

answers through maps of qualitative and quantitative data.204 The project team experienced that technology would have an opportunity to reveal new questions and conclusions in academic research. They also state that the research that is not only humanities-based but including science through international collaboration is useful for an emerging new type of scholarly culture.205

Since an image or archival document is dull at the time, it is often impossible for a researcher to observe changes and transformations. Time Machine (TM)206 that “builds a Large Scale Simulator mapping 2000 years of European History, transforming kilometres of archives and large collections from museums into a digital information system,”207 using a large team to re-write the historical transformation in Europe. The project creates a “Big Data of the Past” fusing artificial intelligence and machine learning with humanities. GIS is one of the most important tools for mapping of European history that frees historical maps from their static limits and improves our understanding through them.208 With data is superimposed in layers in GIS, changes in thousands of years can be observed and interpreted from a single screen. GIS has the power to discover dynamics and systems in the place, and enable researchers to go beyond two-dimensional maps.209

The project aims to make Europe the leader of complex micro and macro levels of data analysis with the support of Artificial Intelligence and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), enabling the social sciences and humanities to focus on a huge research agenda. Thanks to this project, European history will be made publicly

204 Alessandra Ferrighi, “Visualizing Venice: A Series of Case Studies and A Museum on The Arsenale’s Virtual History” p.144

205 Caroline Bruzelius, “Conclusion” in Visualizing Venice: Mapping and Modeling Time and Change in a City, (eds.) Kristin L Huffman, Andrea Giordano, and Caroline Bruzelius. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2017, p.137. 206 The Time Machine FET Flagship is an interdisciplinary project including 233 partners in 33 countries. See the website of the project: https://timemachine.eu/

207 The Time Machine FET Flagship, https://timemachine.eu/

208 David Rumsey and Meredith Williams, “Historical Maps in GIS,” p.02

209 David J. Bodenhamer et. al., Deep Maps and the Spatial Humanities, p. 18

accessible with all its archival details and will contribute to Europe in the case of education, and the economy by producing new fields of professions.210 Time Machine (TM) is an umbrellla organization that includes local time machine projects on cities such as Venice, Amsterdam, Paris, Antwerp, Budapest, and Jerusalem. Venice Time Machine, as the first prototype which digitized 1000 years of Venetian history, is important for understanding the methodology of TM in terms of its contribution to digital urban history.

In the first phase, the books and archival documents are scanned and digitized using a robotic arm to turn pages. It also made use of computed tomography (CT) scanning technology, creating 3D images using X-rays and without opening the books' pages. Then scanned pages are turned to digital text to create network analyses that reveal the links between actors and places. In this process, the major challenge is the text recognition process of handwriting in the manuscripts. The standard Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software only recognizes printed texts as letters, which is not usable for handwriting. To solve this problem, the European Union developed Recognition and Enrichment of Archival Documents (READ) as part of machine learning technology for manuscripts and their transcriptions. This technique reveals the frequency of repetitions of virtualized words and their places in the manuscripts. Using this, the project team discovered the connection between individuals in the city who appear in different documents. These network analyses allow historians to build a past in detail regarding the lives and status of the huge number of unknown people in Venice and also to produce endless lists of historical questions. Thanks to the project, beyond the lives of famous people who were generally attracted by historians, archive documents belonging to ordinary people are being revealed for the first time, which provides glimpses into everyday life for people in the past. The data is then represented through maps and the city is reconstructed digitally by adding historical images to buildings. Hence a

210 https://www.timemachine.eu/about-us/

multilayered dataset was used to recreate Ancient Venice for the benefit of historians and members of the public.211

Another important digital urban history project carried out in recent years is The Map of Early Modern London (MoEML) that includes four projects; “the 1561 Agas woodcut map of London; an Encyclopedia and Descriptive Gazetteer of London people, places, topics, and terms; a Library of marked-up texts rich in London toponyms; and a versioned edition of John Stow’s Survey of London.”212 The project focuses on the spatial perception of Shakespeare regarding London and how the city's “spaces and places were named, traversed, used, repurposed, and contested by various practitioners, writers, and civic officials.”213 MoEML uses GIS to explore cultural representation of space in London through the eyes of Shakespeare. The Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)214 technology is another technique that enables researchers to work on primary and secondary sources simultaneously and create an environment for linked databases through machine-readable texts. Users can access spatially linked data of primary and secondary sources and transcriptions thanks to a digital map of London called the "Agas Map."215 Users can see the locations of places and buildings on the coloured map through the web interface and can access resources related to this location. Digital technology is hereby allowing us to observe relational networks between places, structures, and individuals in primary sources. Thus, the project is very important in terms of enabling access to historical sources and providing spatial analysis for both scholars of literature and history as well as the public. This project exemplifies how digital technology provides a huge information pool and analysis environment by application to urban history and literature studies.

211 Alison Abbott, "The 'time machine' reconstructing ancient Venice's social networks" in Nature. 546 (7658),(2017), pp. 341–344. See also introductory video of the project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQQGgYPRWfs

212 https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca

213The Map of Early Modern London (MoEML), https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/mission_statement.htm

214 https://tei-c.org/

215 https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/agas.htm

Another example of the multi-layered research field provided by GIS is the Deep Map, which allows observing the cultural, political, ecological, economic, and artistic historical transformations of cities and regions beyond two-dimensional images. Deep Map includes a detailed multimedia representation of place, individuals, animals, and objects to simulate the complex and endless dynamism of cities. Deep Map Bodenhamer et al., state that deep map is a platform that connects data into time and space and allows us to produce spatial narrative and arguments. Thus, it enables the emergence of new information that strengthens or radically changes our research.216

Deep maps have the potential to create a "deep" understanding of interactions of the places. Different kinds of data such as sounds, historical texts, images, maps, and current environmental databases creates a multilayered research area. The Deep Map of West Cork217 is an interdisciplinary project that focuses on cultural history of the south west coast of Ireland between 1700 and 1920. “The aim of the project is researching, analyzing and visualising the complex history of cultural interactions with the marine environment in relation to conservation priorities.” One of the research questions of the project is “what can literary, cultural and visual representations of this coastline tell us about the origins of environmentalism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries?”218 that represent the importance of the deep map to create new questions and historical understanding. The different layers are formed by statistical surveys, maps, travellers accounts, literatures, conversations with local people, and photographs.219 As Bodenhamer claims that deep maps allows researchers to produce complex spatial narratives through recreated landscapes.220 While generating information through

216 David J. Bodenhamer et. al., Deep Maps and the Spatial Humanities, p.3

217 The Deep Map of West Cork is a transdisciplinary project that merges cultural, scientific, and environmental research creating a deep map of West Cork Coastal by the University College Cork, Ireland. See the website of the project: http://www.deepmapscork.ie/

218 The Deep Map of West Cork, https://www.ucc.ie/en/english/deep-maps/

219 The Deep Map of West Cork, http://www.deepmapscork.ie/about/about-the-project/

220 David J. Bodenhamer “Making the Invisible Visible Place, Spatial Stories and Deep Maps” in Digital Research in Arts and Humanities, eds. David Cooper, Christopher Donaldson, Patricia Murrieta-Flores. New York: Routledge, 2016, p. 218.

digital tools, each new layer of research added allows us to discover questions and answers in different areas. Deep map, as its name suggests, serves this purpose.

As the production of digital humanities is more common in universities in America and Europe, the projects are generally related to these geographical regions. However, it will be meaningful to focus on historical studies representing the locations outside these geographic areas in order to see exactly which propagation phase the digital humanities have reached nowadays. With all this in mind, it is time to examine the digital initiatives for Ottoman Studies and the Middle East in general.

2.6 Ottoman Studies in Digital Age

In an online world, the use of digital technology in the humanities is one of the most important research motivations for simultaneously evaluating large amounts of data, analyzing connections, and more importantly protecting and accessing archival resources. At this point, the density and diversity of archival material suitable in terms of use of digital tools is considerable. We have access to ample, well-preserved archival sources of information on the six centuries spanning Ottoman history and the different ethnic and religious communities in Ottoman domains. The multicultural nature of the Ottoman Empire and the record-keeping sensitivity of the Ottoman bureaucracy laid the basis for the diversity of archive resources.221 The longevity of the Ottoman Empire is another reason for the richness of the Ottoman resources. Amy Singer underlines the potential of Ottoman archives that encompasses huge amounts of sources including chronicles, poetry, art, material objects, and buildings.222 Erhan Afyoncu states that the most important factor in the continuation of the Ottoman Empire for 600 years was the bureaucracy that enabled the state organization to operate within a certain system and swiftly address local disruptions. The Ottomans developed and used the bureaucratic procedures which they had taken as an example from the previous Turkish-Islamic

221 Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi Rehberi, Başbakanlık Basımevi, İstanbul 2010, p.3.

222 Amy Singer, “Tapu Tahrir Defterleri ve Kadı Sicilleri: A Happy Marriage of Sources,” Tarih, Vol.1 (1990), p. 95.

states.223 One of the most important Ottoman state organizations, the Defterhâne-i Âmire, is an outcome of this bureaucratic tradition. Suraiya Faroqhi provides detailed information about the distribution of the enormous number of archival sources in Turkey, Europe and Arab lands. Undoubtedly, the existence and diversity of Ottoman archival sources in various geographies owes itself to the Ottoman tradition of record-keeping over centuries.224 This density of archives makes the Ottoman archives a suitable resource pool for studies in the field of digital humanities. Yunus Uğur, as one of the leading scholars of Ottoman cities, states that the integration of archives with geographical information thanks to technological developments, increases the depth of urban history studies.225 It is also necessary to mention Amy Singer's article on the “Digital Ottoman Project (DOP)” workshop to understand the importance of studies on the Ottoman Empire in the digital world. Singer underlines the fact that studying the Ottoman Empire is essential for understanding the present situation of a vast geography:

The Empire also left legacies with direct implications for the history of the ex-Ottoman lands even today. Addressing the largest Muslim state from the sixteenth to the twentieth century, Ottoman history is also integral to the study of Islamic thought and practice. The Ottoman Empire included a geography that today encompasses some twenty-five to thirty countries, including Anatolia, large portions of the Arab world, the Balkans and Eastern Europe, the Crimea, the Caucasus, and western Iran.226

According to Singer, the studies conducted on the Ottoman Empire require interdisciplinary working systems provided by Digital Humanities. Especially considering the diversity of resources, the new tools promised by digital humanities will give historians the opportunity to ask new questions through new methods and to save time. Referring to the wealth of Ottoman sources, Singer states that no one has the ability to work through the entirety of such a variety of resources. In addition, the projects and

223 Erhan Afyoncu, “Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilâtında Defterhâne-i Âmire (XVI-XVIII.Yüzyıllar)”

224Suraiya Faroqhi, Approaching Ottoman History: An Introduction to the Sources (Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp.46-82.

225 Yunus Uğur, "Şehir Tarihi ve Türkiye'de Şehir Tarihçiliği: Yaklaşımlar, Konular ve Kaynaklar," p. 24.

226 Amy Singer, “Designing the Digital Ottoman Project: Six Hundred Years, Twenty-Five Languages, And Eight Alphabets” in The Institute Letter, (Fall 2015). Retrieved 1 December, 2019 from https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2015/singer-digital-ottoman

methods carried out in cooperation will be beneficial for Ottoman historians to contribute to comparative research.227 The potential for digital humanities is evident in the Ottoman Empire's rich archive materials, geographic domain, and management systems that host different religions. Thousands of Ottoman archival documents waiting to be discovered in archive warehouses have the potential to become a center for systematic and versatile projects using the opportunities of the Big Data era. The enormous archive inherited from the Ottoman Empire is a mine of information that can be used in many areas from urban history to military and political history, from economic history to intellectual history. Digitization, classification, and relationship analysis are essential for the periodical and thematic comparison of Big Data of Ottoman Empire.228 Nir Shafir argues that “digitization actually provides historians a new set of opportunities to ask new questions, discover unknown texts, and gain a different understanding of intellectual and cultural life in the early modern Islamic world in particular.”229 In terms of improving historical research, understanding the relationship between traditional research methods and new digital approaches and techniques, and testing its place in Ottoman historiography, will make a significant contribution to the debates on digital history methods. Many digital projects, platforms and attempts to digitize resources have been developed about the Islamic world, including the history of Ottoman Empire, in recent years. The Open Islamicate Texts Initiative (OpenITI)230, The Islamisation of Anatolia231, al-Ṯurayyā Project232, Database for Ottoman Inscriptions233, Mapping

227 Amy Singer, “Designing the Digital Ottoman Project: Six Hundred Years, Twenty-Five Languages, and Eight Alphabets” 228 Kahraman Şakul, Yunus Uğur, Abdulhamit Kırmızı, (2019). “Türkiye'de Deneysel ve Dijital Tarihçiliğin Gelişimi İçin Bir Strateji Çerçevesi” A. S. Özkaya (Ed.), Türk Askeri Kültürü: Tarih, Strateji, İstihbarat, Teşkilat, Teknoloji, İstanbul: Kronik Yayınları,p. 719

229 Nir Shafir, “How Digitization Has Transformed Manuscript Research: New Methods for Early Modern Islamic Intellectual History,” 38, in Chris Gratien, Michael Polczyński, and Nir Shafir, “Digital Frontiers of Ottoman Studies,” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 1, no. 1–2 (2014): 37–51.

230 https://iti-corpus.github.io/

231 https://www.islam-anatolia.ac.uk/

232 https://althurayya.github.io/

233 http://info.ottomaninscriptions.com/

Ottoman Epirus234, Grave, Treasury and Tombs of Istanbul235, Mapping Ottoman Damascus through News Reports236, OpenOttoman (OO)237, Digital Islamic Humanities Project238 and Ottoman Text Archive Project (OTAP)239 are important examples in the field. Digital studies on the Islamic world, including the Ottoman Empire, have been published recently sharing the methods, results, and experiences. Islamic Area Studies with Geographical Information Systems by Okabe Atsuyuki is an important study that gives information on the studies conducted by georeferencing systems and spatial analysis.240 The book, The Digital Humanities and Islamic & Middle East Studies, edited by Elias Muhanna, includes projects and discussions on digital turn in Islamic studies.241 Among Digitized Manuscripts: Philology, Codicology, Paleography in a Digital World that was published online in 2019 by L.W. Cornelis (Eric) van Lit, is one of the freshest studies in this field. The book shares important information and experiences on the coding and virtualization of manuscripts written in Arabic letters. The author underlines the impossibility of traditional research methods avoiding adapting to the digital age. The book also shares text analysis programs and methods that can be used for Arabic letters through his personal research experience.242

The objective of this thesis is to increase the interaction of digital humanities with Ottoman studies, revealing similarities or differences between sources that cannot be seen with traditional humanities methods, and enabling researchers to produce exciting

234 https://web.stanford.edu/group/spatialhistory/cgi-bin/site/project.php?id=1147

235https://www.academia.edu/38518173/Sessizler_Diyar%C4%B1na_Giri%C5%9F_%C4%B0stanbul_T%C3%BCrbe_Hazire_ve_Kabirleri_

236 Till Grallert, “Mapping Ottoman Damascus through News Reports: A practical approach” in Digital Humanities and Islamic & Middle East Studies, ed. Elias Muhanna (Boston, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), pp. 175–198.

237 https://openottoman.org/

238 https://islamicdh.org/

239 “OTAP Project Description” Retrieved 1 January, 2020 from http://courses.washington.edu/otap/archive/data/arch_inf/info_en/des_eng.html

240 Okabe Atsuyuki, Islamic Area Studies with Geographical Information Systems. London/New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004.

241 Elias Muhanna, The Digital Humanities and Islamic & Middle East Studies.

242 L.W.C. van Lit, Among Digitized Manuscripts. Philology, Codicology, Paleography in a Digital World. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 1, The Near and Middle East, Volume: 137. Leiden: Brill, 2019.

new works with databases and visualization techniques accessible worldwide. Through this, it will help to make the Ottoman archive a part of the digital transformation that affects historiography and the production of knowledge, thus providing methods and a basis for new studies and research questions. Its aim is to demonstrate the meaning of digital studies and techniques for Ottoman archives, which contain large amounts of data, and thus to make a pilot study for future research by discussing the possibilities and limits of digital research methods. In addition, this study aims to contribute to the process of integrating the innovations brought by the digital age into academic and historical studies from the perspective of Ottoman urban history. For this purpose, in this study, we will investigate the question of the geographical changes and transformations in the administrative organization through the tahrir registers, kanunname and kadıasker registers, which are the sources of detailed information about the Ottoman cities in the early 16th century. The inventory and detailed information on the geographical distribution of the administrative organization and its overlap and decomposition with urban networks will provide an opportunity to identify periodic differences and analyze the reasons for changes.

In the next section, we will focus on the database through resources of early 16th century. Thus, we will present the imperial cities separately and simultaneously in chronological order. The tables of the data contained in each source will give us the opportunity to analyze the cities of the empire in digital programs.

2.7. Digital Historical Methodologies and Ottoman Administrative Division

Digital history methods have an important contribution to our understanding of the changes and transformations in the administrative organization in the Ottoman lands. The amalgamation of historical studies with digital methods that are dynamic, effective, and visually powerful has undoubtedly affected the readability and comprehensibility of archive sources. Especially in Ottoman studies, beyond the fact that archive sources are only transcribed, translated, and put in historical context, the doors of research are

opened with these new digital methods as in the aforementioned examples. In this thesis, it is necessary to evaluate the digital maps we will present in Chapter 4 within this framework.

The contributions of this digital methodology are not limited to creating visual material. First of all, all the data related to administrative organization in the archival sources needs to be placed in geographical locations like pieces of a puzzle. In this way, the boundaries, changes and transformations of administrative units were created not only by reading from archive sources, but also an environment that can be observed and analyzed comparatively. This makes it convenient for us to understand the mobility of administrative units through digital history methodology. We can easily examine the changes of vilayets, sanjaks and kazas in the Ottoman system in case of their boundaries and status according to different periods. This enables us to ask new questions regarding the reasons of changes behind it.

Another contribution of thematic studies, thanks to digital history tools, is the creation of maps based on the types of sources and to analyse similarities and differences spatially. Within the scope of the thesis, the differences in kadıasker and tahrir records, which were written for different legal and administrative purposes as emphasized in Chapter 3 and 4, are made visible and traceable through digital maps. Thus, maps are useful examples of how the types of resources used for the studies on the Ottoman administrative system could affect the analysis.

Both the studies we examined in Chapter 1 and the sources we have considered within the scope of this thesis have either never used maps or contain maps prepared only for a certain period of a particular region. Therefore, cities and regions are limited in the textual analysis, and administrative organization, which is part of geographical integrity, is discussed without geographic locations. This thesis is the first study that reveals the entire geography of the Ottoman Empire in various periods on the basis of vilayet,

sanjak, and kaza. It is undoubtedly difficult to perform these thematic and comparative analyses manually from many sources without using digital history tools. The high-resolution visual maps can only be created with digital tools such as ArcGIS.

In addition, obviously, an accessible and upgradeable geographic base creates an environment for historical studies on various topics ranging from demography to economy, from administrative history to legal and military history, urban history to biography studies. This digital base provided multipurpose reference maps for the lands and borders of the empire. In particular, for the studies in the field of administrative organization, the boundaries of the administrative and legal system in the Ottoman lands can be spatially revived by going beyond the generally geographically-limited monographic studies mentioned earlier.

CHAPTER 3

DIGITIZING THE OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION IN THE EARLY 16TH CENTURY

In this section, we will create a holistic database by gathering data of the early 16th century on the basis of vilayets, sanjaks and kazas of the Ottoman Empire as we mentioned general definitions of them in the Introduction. However, we must stress the fact that these terms and definitions are not yet clear as a result of a dynamic process that was experienced in the historical period we examined. Since thee sources which we are using to gain information about administrative organization were new and still in formation in this period, certain terms were used interchangeably. In this context, the database will be created on the basis of the archival sources under three main headings: The administrative divisions according to 1) kanunnames, 2) kadıasker registers and 3) tahrir registers. Using this database, we will have the opportunity to periodically observe the information in the sources created for different purposes, as tahrir and kadısker register. Later, the database will enable us to create digital maps and see all sources simultaneously in a digital platform to discuss the changes and transformations in Chapter 4.

3.1 The Ottoman Administrative Division in the Kanunname of 1522

The kanunname of 1522 published by Enver Çakar, as mentioned before, gains importance in terms of being a study that shows all the sanjaks and kazas together with akçe values of kadı salaries in a certain period of time. Referring to his work, Enver Çakar claims that there was no previous work representing the whole empire at the level of sanjak and kaza.243 The kanunname started with the title of Kanun-nâme-i Sultan Süleyman Han, and it includes the Arabic letters sent by Suleiman the Magnificent to the

243 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 263.

emirs244 (administrative power) of Mecca, Medina, Yenbû‘ and Sa‘îd. The kanunname also comprises the laws about elkâb (forms of address) to be used for government officials, and different subjects including statements given to officials in various positions, crimes such as adultery, fighting, and killing. The entire kanunname is 243 folios, and the section of the kaza and sanjak division of the Ottoman Empire is located in the 111b-121b folios. Enver Çakar claims that although the kanunname was issued in 1523, it contained information on the administrative division of the empire from a year ago belonging to 1522. The sanjak of Elbistan and Mar‘aş were annexed to the vilayet of Karaman on the 23rd Cemâziye'l-ahir 929 (9 May 1523) after exclusion from the vilayet of Rum. Enver Çakar stated that since these two sanjaks were still registered in the vilayet of Rum in the list, the kanunname belongs to 1522.245

In the kannuname of 1522, the administrative division of the entire empire consisted of 8 vilayets including Turkmen Region, 103 sanjaks and 500 kazas. There are 34 sanjaks in vilayet of Rumelia, 17 in Anatolia, 7246 in Karaman, 16247 in Rum, 13 in Şam, 12248 in Diyarbekir, 4249 in Egypt. The kaza division of Ottoman Empire in 1522 as follows: 169 were in the vilayet of Rumelia, 168 in Anatolia, 25 in Karaman, 39 in Rum (including Trabzon), and 25 in Egypt (including the Hijaz regions), 47 in Şam, 21 in Diyarbekir. There are also 6 kazas in Turkmen250 regions as separate administrative province of Şahsuvar oğlu Ali Bey who was the ruler of Zülkadir/Dulkadir Turkmen region.251 This region is also

244 Abdülazîz ed-Dûrî, “Emîr,” İA, 1995, pp.121-123

245 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İdarî Taksimatı”, Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, XII/1 (Elazığ 2002), p. 264.

246 Since sanjak of Elbistan and Mar'aş were written in both vilayet of Rum and Karaman, they are not counted here.

247 It includes sanjak of Trabzon.

248 Enver Çakar underlines that another list in the kanunname shows the administrative division of Diyarbekir comprises of 30 sanjaks/livas including yurtluk-ocaklık status and its list will be given later; see Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 281, footnote:70.

249In Egypt, the cities of Mecca and Medina are also written as Eyâlet-i Mekke-i Müşerrefe and Eyâlet-i Medîne-i Münevvere representing a separate administrative district.

250 It is written in the kanunname as “Kazâhâ-yı Türkman-ı Diyâr-ı Şehsuvar oğlu Ali Bey” 251 Refet Yınanç, “Dulkadıroğulları,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1994, pp. 553-557.

known as vilayet of Zülkadriye in the records after 1526.252 The region consisting of Mecca, Medina and Jeddah and the related kazas and nahiyes was called the province of Hejaz in the Ottoman administrative division. After the conquest of Egypt by Yavuz Sultan Selim in 1517, Mecca and Madina came under the Ottoman rule and were governed by Egyptian governors.253 For this reason, the kazas written under the title Haremeyn-i Muharremeyn are included in the vilayet of Egypt. We need to underline an important point regarding the addition of this region to the tables in this thesis. In the kanunname, we see that the cities of Mecca and Medina are registered four times in connection with different denominations. This situation is related to special administration of Ottoman Empire in the region. In the Ottoman period, the kadı and müftü of four denominations (Hanbeliyye, Hânifiyye, M'alikiyye and Şâfi’yye) appointed to major city centers such as Mecca, Medina, Damascus, Haleb, Cairo and Jerusalem.254 However, the repetitions that occur together with the sects do not refer to separate cities. Hence, the kaza of Hanbeliyye, Hânifiyye, M'alikiyye and Şâfi’yye are recorded in the list as only two cities as Mecca and Medina. The table 3.1 shows the distribution of the whole empire at the level of vilayet, sanjak and kaza according to the kanunname.

252 İlhan Şahin, “ Dulkadır Eyaleti,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi,, 1994, pp.552-553. 253 Zekeriya Kurşun, “Hicaz,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1998, pp. 437-439; Zekeriya Kurşun, “Osmanlı Devleti İdaresinde Hicaz (1517-1919),” Osmanlı, Vol:1, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, Ankara, 1999, pp.316-325; regarding the administration of Mecca by the Ottoman Empire in the early the 16th century, see Tuğba Aydeniz, “Osmanlı Döneminde Mekke’nin Yönetimi (1517-1617),” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Marmara University Institute of Turkic Studies, Istanbul, 2010).

254Abdurrahman Atçıl, “Memlükler’den Osmanlılar’a Geçişte Mısır’da Adlî Teşkilât ve Hukuk (922-931/1517-1525),” İslâm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 38 (2017), pp. 89-121; Muhammad Adnan Salamah Bakhit, “The Ottoman Province of Damascus in the sixteenth century,” (PhD Dissertation, SOAS University of London, 1972) pp. 132-150; Joseph H. Escovitz, “The Establishment of Four Chief Judgeships in the Mamlūk Empire,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 102, No. 3 (Jul. - Oct., 1982), pp. 529-531; Amy Singer, Kadılar, Kullar, Kudüslü Köylüler. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul, 1996; Zekeriya Kurşun, "Osmanlı Devleti İdaresinde Hicaz (1517–1919)"; Tuğba Aydeniz, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Mekke’nin Yönetimi (1517-1617)”

Table 3.1. The Vilayet, Sanjak and Kaza Division of Ottoman Empire in the Kanunname of 1522

Vilayet

Sanjak

Kaza

Rumelia

169

Anatolia

168

Karaman

Rum

Şam (Arab)

Diyarbekir

Turkmen Region

Egypt

There are two separate lists showing the administrative organization in the kanunname: the first list indicates the kaza division including vilayets and sanjaks while the second list shows only sanjaks with their vilayets. In the second list, even though the sanjak distributions of the vilayets of Diyarbekir, Karaman, Rum, and Egypt were registered, they were not recorded in the kaza list of the kanunname.255 The registration of more sanjaks, especially in the second sanjak list, may indicate that these two lists were prepared using different sources. The type of sancak tevcih registers that only show sanjak distribution have similarities with this kind of list. The fact that the first list showing the distribution of the kazas gives information about the akçe value of the kadı salaries suggests that this part was prepared by kaza-oriented kadıasker registers. In addition, as Enver Çakar mentioned, since the second list points to the changes in 1523,256 this situation supports the idea that the kanunname was prepared by compiling from different sources resulting in separate administrative organization lists. Additionally, Galata, Hâsshâ-i İstanbul, Hâsshâ-i Marmara and İstanbul were recorded as kazas in the vilayet of Rumelia but have no sanjak information. These kazas, which we will analyze in the next chapter, were called Bilâd-ı Selâse and directly connected to the

255 Only sanjak of Trabzon in vilayet of Rum and liva of Sa’îd in the vilayet of Egypt are recorded in this part of kanunname.

256 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İdarî Taksimatı,” p.264.

kadı of Istanbul.257 The absence of sanjak information in the kanunname regarding these kazas also suggests that this list may have been prepared by making use of kadıasker registers.

As we mentioned before, the definition of administrative units is not clear. Although some places such as Trabzon and Sa’îd were registered as vilayet, they have sanjak status, too. The term vilayet is sometimes used in the archives to represent a small administrative region. 258 After Trabzon was conquered in 1461, it was given to sanjak status. However, the vilayet that Trabzon was affiliated in the administrative organization is not clear. During the reign of Yavuz Sultan Selim, this place was administered like a detached sanjak. It is known that Trabzon was connected to the vilayet of Rum in 1520 and to the vilayet of Erzurum in 1535. 259 The use of the term vilayet for Trabzon in the kaza list of the kanunname can be evaluated within this framework and reveals the dynamic and unstable period of formation of the administrative system. It shows that naming such as vilayet and sanjak was not formalized properly, and that their definitions can be used interchangeably. These definitions become clear fully later, and they clarified by the emergence of other register series such as ruznamçes. Hence, Trabzon and Sa’îd were added to the tables as the sanjak. The table 3.2 shows the sanjak distribution of the first kaza list in the kanunname.

Table 3.2. The Sanjak Distribution of Vilayets in the “Kaza List”

Vilayet

Sanjak

Anatolia

‘Alâiyye, Ankara, Aydın, Biga, Bolu, Hamid, Hüdâvendigâr, Kangırı, Kara-Hisâr-ı Sâhib, Karesi, Kastamonu, Koca-ili, Kütahiyye, Menteşa, Saruhan, Sultan-Öni, Teke

Rumelia

Ağrıboz, Alaca-Hisar, Avlonya, Bosna, Çirmen, Filibe, Florina, Gelibolu, Hersek, İlbasan, İnebahtı, İskenderiyye, İzvornik, Karlı, Kefe, Köstendil, Mora, Niğbolu, Ohri, Paşa (Mîrimiran), Prezrîn, Semendire, Silistre, Sofya, Tırhala, Vidin, Vulçıtrın, Vize, Yanina (Yanya) 257 Mehmet İpşirli, “Bilâd-ı Selâse,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1992, pp.151-152

258 Halil İnalcık, “Eyalet.” 259 Heath W. Lowry and Feridun Emecen, “Trabzon,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2012, pp. 302-304; M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “XVI. Yüzyıl Başlarında Trabzon Livâsı ve Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesi”, TTK Belleten, XXVI/102 (1962), p. 293.

Table 3.3. (continued)

Şam (Arab)

‘Ayntâb, Adana ve Çukur-âbâd, Antakiyye, Bayburd, Beyre (Birecik), Dârü’s-Selâm-ı Şam, Divriği, Haleb, Hama ve Hums, Kâhta ve Gerger, Kemâh, Kuds-i Şerîf, Malatiyye, Sis, Tarsus, Trablus

Rum

Trabzon

Karaman

Diyarbekir

Egypt

Sa’îd

In the details of the record, we see that some nahiyes such as Nevâhi-i Bergama, Nevâhi-i ‘Alâiyye, Nâhiye-i Yanbolu, Nâhiye-i Üsküb were added to the list as a separate kaza. As we mentioned earlier, there is no sanjak distribution of the vilayet of Rum, Karaman, Diyarbekir and Egypt in terms of kaza division. However, in the next pages of the kanunname, the sanjaks, the sanjak-beys260 (the highest administrator of sanjaks), and their revenues are recorded for these vilayets. The sanjak of Bayburd, Kemâh, Divriği261, Kâhta ve Gerger262 and Malatiyye are recorded in two different places in the kanunname; while they are registered as part of vilayet of Şam in the list of the kaza distribution, they are recorded in vilayet of Rum in the list of sanjak in next pages. This once again shows that the definitions are not clear till this point and naming changed according to local conditions as part of the dynamism and adaptation processes brought about by new conquests. In the part concerning the vilayet of Rum, there is information that these 5 sanjaks were involved in the Rum afterwards.263 The number of sanjaks in the vilayet of Rumelia also varies between the two lists. While 29 sanjaks were recorded in the kaza list, there are 33 sanjaks in the sanjak list, and this number does not include the sanjak of Çirmen, Filibe, Florina and İnebahtı that we see in the kaza list. Kara-Dağ was recorded in the kaza list as subject to İskenderiyye, and Midilli also was added as a kaza in the sanjak of Mora, while they were both registered as separate sanjaks in the sanjak list. In

260 İlhan Şahin, “Sancak.”

261 It is recorded as “Divriği ve Darende” in the sanjak list.

262 It is recorded as “Gerger ve Kâhta ve Behisni” in the sanjak list.

263 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 280, footnote:63.

addition, in the sanjak list, Kızılca-Müsellem, Voynuk and Çingene were added as separate sanjaks, but were removed from the total number of sanjaks since they were military zones, 264 making a total of 34 sanjaks in Rumelia. The table 3.3 shows the second list that includes sanjak division of empire. We will discuss all these data in Chapter 4 through the maps.

Table 3.4 The Sanjak Distribution in the “Second (Sanjak) List”265

Vilayet

Sanjak

Anatolia266

‘Alâiyye ma‘a Manavgâd, Ankara, Aydın, Biga, Bolu, Hamid, Hüdâvendigâr, Kangırı, Kara-Hisâr-ı Sâhib, Karesi, Kastamonu, Koca-ili, Kütahiyye, Menteşa, Saruhan, Sultan-Öni, Teke

Rumelia

Ağrıboz, Alaca-Hisar, Avlonya, Bosna, Gelibolu, Hersek, İlbasan, İskenderiyye, İzvornik, Karlı, Kefe, Köstendil, Mora, Niğbolu, Ohri, Paşa (Mîrimiran), Prezrîn, Semendire, Silistre, Sofya, Tırhala, Vidin, Vulçıtrın, Vize, Yanya, Midilli, Çingene, Harman, Kara-Dağ, Kızılca-Müsellem, Voynuk, A’lâ, Rodos

Karaman

Konya, Kayseri, İç-il, Niğde, Beğ-Şehri, Aksaray, Ak-Şehir, Mar‘aş, Elbistan

Rum

Sivas, Amasiyye, Kara-Hisâr-ı Şerefî, Çorum, Canik, Trabzon, Bayburd, Kemâh, Gerger ve Kahtâ ve Behisni, Malatiyye, Divriği ve Darende, Kırşehir ma‘a Bozok, Elbistan, Mar‘aş, Ulu-Burun, İspir267

Şam (Arab)

Şam, Gazze ma‘a Remle, Kuds-i Şerîf, Safed, Haleb, Trablus, Hama ve Hums, ‘Ayntâb, Antakiyye, Birecik ve Rum-kal‘a, Adana, Tarsus, Sis

Diyarbekir

Amid, Çemişgezek, Ergani, Harput, Biğı (Kiğı), Arabgir, ‘Anâ ve Hît, Musul, Ruha, Ulus (Aşâir-i Ulus), Beyre (Birecik),268 Deyr ve Rahba

Egypt269

Yenbû’, Cidde, Sâid270 , Katiyye (Katya)

264 Feridun Emecen, “Yaya ve Müsellem,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2013, pp.2354-356; M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve Kasabaları,” Emine Dingeç,”Osmanlı Ordusunda Bir Geri Hizmet Kurumu Olarak “Vize Müsellemleri,” Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17 (2007), s. 241-256.

265 We added those sanjaks that differ from other (kaza) lists in the kanunname as bold to the tables.

266 This part includes sanjaks under the title of “Piyâdegân-ı Vilâyet-i Anadolu” and “Müsellemân-ı Vilâyet-i Anadolu.”

267 It is written as “İsphir” by Enver Çakar.

268 This sanjak is also mentioned as “Beriyyecik” in the sources; Nejat Göyünç, XVI. Yüzyılda Mardin Sancağı, pp.35-43.

269 There are also Eyâlet-i Mekke-i Müşerrefe, Eyâlet-i Medîne-i Münevvere in the record but they were not recorded as sanjak.

270 It is written as “Vilâyet-i Saîd-i A’lâ.”

In the kanunname there was second list for the vilayet of Diyarbekir under the title Elviye-i Diyarbekir ma'a Kurdistan that comprises the sanjak of local tribes and families called yurtluk-ocaklık.271 The table 3.4 shows the second list of vilayet of Diyarbekir.

Table 3.5 The Second List of Vilayet of Diyarbekir272

Diyarbekir

Mîrimirân-ı Kara Amid ma‘a Mardin, Harburt, Birecik, Musul, Ruha, Kiğı, Ergani, ‘Anâ ve Hît, ‘Arabgir, Deyr ma‘a Rahba, Çermik, ‘Aşâir-i Ulus, Çemişgezek, Eğil, Hısn-ı Keyf, Sincar, Siverek, Bidlis, Atak, Hizân, Zerikî, Gence, Çüngüş, Haçuk, Soran, ‘İmadiyye, Cezîre, Sason, Palu, Çabakçur

In the table 3.5, the vilayet, sanjak and kaza division including akçe values of kadı salaries of the entire empire are listed based on the records in the kanunname of 1522.

Table 3.6. The Regions and Cities of Ottoman Empire in 1522273

Vilayet

Sanjak

Kaza

Akçe Values

Rumelia

Hâsshâ-i Marmara

Rumelia

Hâsshâ-i İstanbul

Rumelia

Galata

Rumelia

İstanbul

400

Rumelia

Vize

Burgûz (Lüleburgaz)

Rumelia

Vize

Baba-Eskisi

Rumelia

Vize

Pınar-Hisâr

Rumelia

Vize

Silivri

Rumelia

Vize

Çorlu

Rumelia

Vize

Rumelia

Vize

Kırk-Kilise

Rumelia

Vize

Hayrebolu

55 271 Orhan Kılıç, “Ocaklık,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2007, pp.317-318. Nejat Göyünç, “Yurtluk-Ocaklık Deyimleri Hakkında”, Prof. Dr. Bekir Kütükoğlu’na Armağan, İstanbul 1991, s. 269-277; Martin van Bruinessen, “The Ottoman Conquest of Diyarbekir and the Administrative Organisation of the Province in the 16th and 17th Centuries”, in Evliya Çelebi in Diyarbekir, The Relevant Section of the Seyahatname, edited with translation, commentary and introduction by Martin van Bruinessen and Hendrik Boeschoten (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988), pp 13-28

272 We added those sanjaks that differ from other (kaza) lists in the kanunname as bold to the tables. For the source of the list see Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 281, footnote:70.

273 We listed kazas at the same sanjak from less to more in terms of akçe value of kadı salaries. For the source of list see Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İdarî Taksimatı.”

Table 3.7. (continued)

Rumelia

Gelibolu

Keşan

Rumelia

Gelibolu

İpsala

Rumelia

Gelibolu

Tekür-Dağ

Rumelia

Gelibolu

Miğalğara

Rumelia

Gelibolu

130

Rumelia

Gelibolu

İnoz

Rumelia

Silistre

Külfetler

Rumelia

Silistre

Rus-Kasrı

Rumelia

Silistre

Nâhiye-i Yanbolu

Rumelia

Silistre

Karin-Ovası

Rumelia

Silistre

Ahyolu

Rumelia

Silistre

Rumelia

Silistre

Prâvadi

Rumelia

Silistre

Varna

Rumelia

Silistre

Aydos

Rumelia

Silistre

Harbak

Rumelia

Silistre

Kili

Rumelia

Silistre

Yanbolu

Rumelia

Silistre

Ak-Kermen

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Limni

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Karacik (Ferecik)

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Zîhne

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Temür-Hisâr

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Nevrekob

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Bihlişte

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Görice

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Serfice

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Köprülü

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Yenice-Kızıl-Ağaç

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Drama

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Nâhiye-i Üsküb

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Kırçova

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Kesriye

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Hurpişte

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Pirlepe

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Beder-Kapısı (Sidre-Kapısı)

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Avrat Hisarı

Table 3.8. (continued)

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Kalkan-Delen

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Yenice-Vardar

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Selânik

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Yenice-Karasu

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Gümülcine

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Manastır

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Dimetoka

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Eski-Hisâr

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Kara-Ferye

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Siroz

100

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Üsküb

130

Rumelia

Paşa (Mîrimiran)

Edirne

300

Rumelia

Filibe

Tatar-Bazarı

Rumelia

Filibe

Samakov

Rumelia

Filibe

130

Rumelia

Sofya

Perkofça

Rumelia

Sofya

Şehir-Köy

Rumelia

Sofya

100

Rumelia

Çirmen

Zağra-Yenicesi

Rumelia

Çirmen

Hâs-Köy

Rumelia

Çirmen

Akça-Kızanlık

Rumelia

Çirmen

Rumelia

Niğbolu

İvraca

Rumelia

Niğbolu

Lofça

Rumelia

Niğbolu

Denvi

Rumelia

Niğbolu

Şumnu

Rumelia

Niğbolu

Tırnova

Rumelia

Niğbolu

Rumelia

Vidin

İsferlik

Rumelia

Vidin

Bâte

Rumelia

Vidin

Rumelia

Alaca-Hisar

Ürgüb

Rumelia

Alaca-Hisar

Bebroş (Petros)

Rumelia

Alaca-Hisar

Zaplana

Rumelia

Alaca-Hisar

Rumelia

Alaca-Hisar

Niş

Rumelia

Semendire

Uzîçe

Table 3.9. (continued)

Rumelia

Semendire

Rudnik

Rumelia

Semendire

Barançak

Rumelia

Semendire

120

Rumelia

İzvornik

Serâbriniçe

Rumelia

Hersek

Mostar

Rumelia

Hersek

Prepolye

Rumelia

Hersek

Nova

Rumelia

Hersek

Foça

Rumelia

Bosna

Zitve

Rumelia

Bosna

Brûd

Rumelia

Bosna

Vişegrad

Rumelia

Bosna

Yeni-Bazar

Rumelia

Bosna

Saray

100

Rumelia

Vulçıtrın

Priştina

101

Rumelia

Vulçıtrın

102

Rumelia

Vulçıtrın

Novaberde

103

Rumelia

Köstendil

İvrâniye

104

Rumelia

Köstendil

Ustrumça

105

Rumelia

Köstendil

Ilıca

106

Rumelia

Köstendil

İştib

100

107

Rumelia

Prezrîn

Buhur

108

Rumelia

Prezrîn

Hâslar

109

Rumelia

Prezrîn

110

Rumelia

Prezrîn

Pervenik

111

Rumelia

İskenderiyye

Podgoriçe

112

Rumelia

İskenderiyye

Kara-Dağ ma‘a Tîmâr

113

Rumelia

İskenderiyye

Dukakin

114

Rumelia

İskenderiyye

İpek

115

Rumelia

İskenderiyye

116

Rumelia

İlbasan

Erandanlı

117

Rumelia

İlbasan

Eşbat

118

Rumelia

İlbasan

119

Rumelia

İlbasan

Drac

120

Rumelia

Avlonya

Temür-Yenice

121

Rumelia

Avlonya

Kavâgina

122

Rumelia

Avlonya

Delvine

123

Rumelia

Avlonya

Depedelen

Table 3.10. (continued)

124

Rumelia

Avlonya

Premedi

125

Rumelia

Avlonya

Ergir-Kasrı

126

Rumelia

Avlonya

Belgrad

127

Rumelia

Avlonya

128

Rumelia

Ohri

Mat

129

Rumelia

Ohri

Akça-Hisar

130

Rumelia

Ohri

Debrî

131

Rumelia

Ohri

132

Rumelia

Yanina (Yanya)

İnasa

133

Rumelia

Yanina (Yanya)

Kerbene?

134

Rumelia

Yanina (Yanya)

Yanina

135

Rumelia

Yanina (Yanya)

Narda

136

Rumelia

Florina

137

Rumelia

Tırhala

Kernîş

138

Rumelia

Tırhala

Badracık

139

Rumelia

Tırhala

Alasonya

140

Rumelia

Tırhala

Fenâr

141

Rumelia

Tırhala

142

Rumelia

Tırhala

Yeni-Şehir

143

Rumelia

Tırhala

Çatalca

144

Rumelia

İnebahtı

145

Rumelia

Ağrıboz

İstefa

146

Rumelia

Ağrıboz

Atina

147

Rumelia

Ağrıboz

Livadya

148

Rumelia

Ağrıboz

149

Rumelia

Ağrıboz

İzdin

150

Rumelia

Karlı

Ayamavra

151

Rumelia

Karlı

Ereğli-Kasrı

152

Rumelia

Mora

Holomça

153

Rumelia

Mora

Arkadya

154

Rumelia

Mora

Koridos

155

Rumelia

Mora

Kalamete

156

Rumelia

Mora

Kartına

157

Rumelia

Mora

Mezestre

158

Rumelia

Mora

Arhoz

159

Rumelia

Mora

Meson

160

Rumelia

Mora

Yalyabadra

Table 3.11. (continued)

161

Rumelia

Mora

Koron

162

Rumelia

Mora

Kalavorta

163

Rumelia

Mora

Midillü

164

Rumelia

Kefe

Kerş

165

Rumelia

Kefe

Soğdak

166

Rumelia

Kefe

Maykûb (Mankub)

167

Rumelia

Kefe

Taman

168

Rumelia

Kefe

Azak

169

Rumelia

Kefe

100

170

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Ermeni

171

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Gönan

172

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Yar-Hisâr

173

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Söğüd

174

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

İne-Göl

175

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Domaliç

176

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Taraklu-Yenicesi

177

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Edrenos

178

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Kepsud

179

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Turhala

180

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Yeni-Şehir

181

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Mihaliccik

182

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Ak-Hisâr

183

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Aydıncık

184

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Nevâhi-i Bergama

185

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Tuzla

186

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Geyve

187

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Ak-Yazı

188

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Göynük

189

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Bergama

190

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Kite

191

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Beğ-Pazarı

192

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Sivri-Hisâr

193

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Mihalic

194

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Burusa

300

195

Anatolia

Koca-ili

Görele

196

Anatolia

Koca-ili

Yorâs

197

Anatolia

Koca-ili

Yalak-Âbâd

Table 3.12. (continued)

198

Anatolia

Koca-ili

İznikmid

199

Anatolia

Koca-ili

Şile

200

Anatolia

Koca-ili

Kandırı

201

Anatolia

Koca-ili

Gegibze

202

Anatolia

Koca-ili

İznik

203

Anatolia

Aydın

Sultan-Hisârı

204

Anatolia

Aydın

Sârt

205

Anatolia

Aydın

Tire-Bölmesi

206

Anatolia

Aydın

Yurd ve ‘Âlâ ve Arpaz

207

Anatolia

Aydın

Yeni-Şehir

208

Anatolia

Aydın

Güzel-Hisâr

209

Anatolia

Aydın

Kestel

210

Anatolia

Aydın

Ala-Şehir

211

Anatolia

Aydın

Çeşme

212

Anatolia

Aydın

Beş-Tekke

213

Anatolia

Aydın

Ayasluk

214

Anatolia

Aydın

Tire

130

215

Anatolia

Aydın

İzmir

150

216

Anatolia

Menteşa

İsravlos

217

Anatolia

Menteşa

Milâş

218

Anatolia

Menteşa

Tavâs

219

Anatolia

Menteşa

Pürnâz

220

Anatolia

Menteşa

Boz-Öyük

221

Anatolia

Menteşa

Mazûn

222

Anatolia

Menteşa

Boycuğaz

223

Anatolia

Menteşa

Balât

224

Anatolia

Menteşa

Muğla

225

Anatolia

Menteşa

Çine

226

Anatolia

Menteşa

Mekri

227

Anatolia

Menteşa

Peçin

228

Anatolia

Teke

Laz

229

Anatolia

Teke

Kalkanlu

230

Anatolia

Teke

Kaş

231

Anatolia

Teke

Kara-Hisâr-Beği

232

Anatolia

Teke

Elmalu

233

Anatolia

Teke

Antalya

100

234

Anatolia

Hamid

Ağlasun

Table 3.13. (continued)

235

Anatolia

Hamid

Gönan

236

Anatolia

Hamid

İrle

237

Anatolia

Hamid

Keçi-Borlu

238

Anatolia

Hamid

İsparta

239

Anatolia

Hamid

Afşar ma‘a Bârla

240

Anatolia

Hamid

Burdur

241

Anatolia

Hamid

Kara-Ağaç

242

Anatolia

Hamid

Ulu-Borlu

243

Anatolia

Hamid

Yalvac

244

Anatolia

Hamid

Göl-Hisâr

245

Anatolia

Hamid

Eğirdir

246

Anatolia

Kara-Hisâr-ı Sâhib

Bolvadin

247

Anatolia

Kara-Hisâr-ı Sâhib

Oynaş

248

Anatolia

Kara-Hisâr-ı Sâhib

Yarçınlu

249

Anatolia

Kara-Hisâr-ı Sâhib

Sandıklu

250

Anatolia

Kara-Hisâr-ı Sâhib

Şühûd

251

Anatolia

Kara-Hisâr-ı Sâhib

Kara-Hisâr

252

Anatolia

Kangırı

Karı-Bazarı

253

Anatolia

Kangırı

Kargu

254

Anatolia

Kangırı

Mîlân

255

Anatolia

Kangırı

Çerkeş

256

Anatolia

Kangırı

Koç-Hisâr?

257

Anatolia

Kangırı

Kurşunlu

258

Anatolia

Kangırı

Tosya

259

Anatolia

Kangırı

Kal‘acık

260

Anatolia

Kangırı

261

Anatolia

‘Alâiyye

Perâkende-i ‘Alâiyye

262

Anatolia

‘Alâiyye

Nevâhi-i ‘Alâiyye

263

Anatolia

‘Alâiyye

Manavgat

264

Anatolia

‘Alâiyye

265

Anatolia

Karesi

İvrindi

266

Anatolia

Karesi

Fart

267

Anatolia

Karesi

Sındırgı

268

Anatolia

Karesi

Karacalar

269

Anatolia

Karesi

Manyâs

270

Anatolia

Karesi

Ayâzmend

271

Anatolia

Karesi

Balıkesri

Table 3.14. (continued)

272

Anatolia

Karesi

Edremid

273

Anatolia

Karesi

Bigadic

100

274

Anatolia

Biga

Çan

275

Anatolia

Biga

Balya

276

Anatolia

Biga

Çatal-Burgûz ve Labseki

277

Anatolia

Biga

278

Anatolia

Biga

Ezine-Bazarı

279

Anatolia

Saruhan

Güzelce-Hisâr

280

Anatolia

Saruhan

Kabacık

281

Anatolia

Saruhan

Gördos

282

Anatolia

Saruhan

Ilıca

283

Anatolia

Saruhan

Gördük

284

Anatolia

Saruhan

Nif

285

Anatolia

Saruhan

Ak-Hisâr

286

Anatolia

Saruhan

Marmara

287

Anatolia

Saruhan

Demürci

288

Anatolia

Saruhan

Adala

289

Anatolia

Saruhan

Tarhanyat

290

Anatolia

Saruhan

Mağnisa

100

291

Anatolia

Kütahiyye

Honaz

292

Anatolia

Kütahiyye

Selendi ma‘a Küre

293

Anatolia

Kütahiyye

Homâ

294

Anatolia

Kütahiyye

Eğrigöz ma‘a Sîmâv

295

Anatolia

Kütahiyye

Kula

296

Anatolia

Kütahiyye

‘Uşşâk

297

Anatolia

Kütahiyye

Şeyhlü

298

Anatolia

Kütahiyye

Lâzikiye

299

Anatolia

Kütahiyye

120

300

Anatolia

Sultan-Öni

Seydi-Gazi

301

Anatolia

Sultan-Öni

Bölme-i Seydi-Gazi

302

Anatolia

Sultan-Öni

Bilecük

303

Anatolia

Sultan-Öni

İn-Önü

304

Anatolia

Sultan-Öni

Sultan-Önü

305

Anatolia

Ankara

Bacı

306

Anatolia

Ankara

Yaban-Âbâd

307

Anatolia

Ankara

Murtâza-Âbâd

308

Anatolia

Ankara

Çubuk

Table 3.15. (continued)

309

Anatolia

Ankara

Ayaş

310

Anatolia

Ankara

Yörük

311

Anatolia

Ankara

130

312

Anatolia

Bolu

Kıbrûz

313

Anatolia

Bolu

Cağa

314

Anatolia

Bolu

Yorunes

315

Anatolia

Bolu

Mengen

316

Anatolia

Bolu

Mendirekli ma‘a Yörük

317

Anatolia

Bolu

Amasra

318

Anatolia

Bolu

Aklağan-Yenicesi

319

Anatolia

Bolu

Konrapa

320

Anatolia

Bolu

Yörük-i Bolu ma‘a Çeharşenbih

321

Anatolia

Bolu

Taraklu-Borlu

322

Anatolia

Bolu

Mudurnu

323

Anatolia

Bolu

Viran-Şehir

324

Anatolia

Bolu

Gerede

325

Anatolia

Bolu

326

Anatolia

Kastamonu

Göl

327

Anatolia

Kastamonu

Yörük

328

Anatolia

Kastamonu

Turhân

329

Anatolia

Kastamonu

Ayandon

330

Anatolia

Kastamonu

Boy-Âbâd

331

Anatolia

Kastamonu

Arâc

332

Anatolia

Kastamonu

Taş-Köprü

333

Anatolia

Kastamonu

Sinob

334

Anatolia

Kastamonu

Tatay

335

Anatolia

Kastamonu

336

Anatolia

Kastamonu

Küre

337

Anatolia

Kastamonu

Hoş-Alây

338

Karaman

Karı-Taş

339

Karaman

Kuş-Hisâr

340

Karaman

Ilgun

341

Karaman

Ürgüb

342

Karaman

Ala-Dağ

343

Karaman

Anduğu

344

Karaman

Ereğli

345

Karaman

Bil-Virân

Table 3.16. (continued)

346

Karaman

Ermenâk

347

Karaman

Kara-Hisârcıklu

348

Karaman

Orta-Köy

349

Karaman

Eski-il

350

Karaman

İshaklu

351

Karaman

Seydi-Şehri

352

Karaman

Ak-Saray

353

Karaman

Mût

354

Karaman

Ak-Şehir

355

Karaman

Turgud-ili ve Zengicek

356

Karaman

Niğde

357

Karaman

Gülnâr

358

Karaman

Beğ-Şehri

359

Karaman

Larende

360

Karaman

Kayseriyye

361

Karaman

Konya

100

362

Karaman

Çimen-ili

100

363

Rum

Trabzon

Koğans

364

Rum

Trabzon

Atina

365

Rum

Trabzon

Râdva

366

Rum

Trabzon

Körtün

367

Rum

Trabzon

Torul

368

Rum

Trabzon

Girasun

369

Rum

Trabzon

370

Rum

Trabzon

Rize

371

Rum

Trabzon

372

Rum

Trabzon

Bayburd? (Batum)

373

Rum

Ünye

374

Rum

Zeytûn nâm-ı diğer Koca-Kayası

375

Rum

Koylu-Hisâr

376

Rum

Kavak

377

Rum

Nîksâr

378

Rum

Gümüş

379

Rum

Turhal

380

Rum

Demürlü-Kara-Hisâr

381

Rum

Kattâr

382

Rum

Artuk-Âbad

Table 3.17. (continued)

383

Rum

Terme

384

Rum

Kedagra

385

Rum

Zîle

386

Rum

Erîm

387

Rum

Çorumlu

388

Rum

Engelîn

389

Rum

Bafra

390

Rum

Kır-Şehir

391

Rum

Merzifon

392

Rum

Sona

393

Rum

Osmancık

394

Rum

Sivâs

395

Rum

Samsun

396

Rum

Bayramlu-Caniği

397

Rum

Kara-Hisâr-ı Şerefî

398

Rum

Yörük

399

Rum

Tokat

120

400

Rum

Amasiyye

155

401

Rum

Satılmış

402

Egypt

Reşîd

403

Egypt

Borullus

404

Egypt

Fevr? ma‘a Menâsmînü’t-Tertîb?

405

Egypt

Nehâriyye

406

Egypt

Minûfiye

407

Egypt

Demenhûr ve Buheyre

408

Egypt

Münzele

409

Egypt

Dimyât

410

Egypt

İskenderiyye

411

Egypt

Cânke (Hânke) ma‘a Bivâlbîs

412

Egypt

Mahalle

413

Egypt

Mekke

414

Egypt

Medine

415

Egypt

Cidde-i Ma‘mûre

416

Egypt

Yenbû‘

417

Egypt

Mînâ

418

Egypt

‘Alâ

419

Egypt

Mahrûse-i Mısır

Table 3.18. (continued)

420

Egypt

Sa‘îd

Miklût ve (A)syût

421

Egypt

Sa‘îd

Menû? ve Circe ve Fercût ve Melesnâ?

422

Egypt

Sa‘îd

Kûs

423

Egypt

Sa‘îd

Behcûre

424

Egypt

Sa‘îd

Semhûd

425

Egypt

Sa‘îd

Berdîs

426

Egypt

Sa‘îd

Ahmîm ve Menşâthâ?

427

Şam (Arab)

Kuds-i Şerîf

Kerek-i Derrîd ma‘a Şevbek

428

Şam (Arab)

Kuds-i Şerîf

Hâlilü’r-Rahmân

429

Şam (Arab)

Kuds-i Şerîf

430

Şam (Arab)

Dârü’s-Selâm-ı Şam

Kerek-Nûh

431

Şam (Arab)

Dârü’s-Selâm-ı Şam

Fârâ ve 'amâlihâ

432

Şam (Arab)

Dârü’s-Selâm-ı Şam

Ba‘albek

433

Şam (Arab)

Dârü’s-Selâm-ı Şam

Sayd(a) ma‘a İklîm-i Harnûb

434

Şam (Arab)

Dârü’s-Selâm-ı Şam

Beyrût ma‘a Bilâd-ı Seyfüddin el-Velî

435

Şam (Arab)

Dârü’s-Selâm-ı Şam

Mahrûse-i Şam

500

436

Şam (Arab)

Trablus

Hısnü’l-Ekrâd274

437

Şam (Arab)

Trablus

Cebeliye275

438

Şam (Arab)

Trablus

439

Şam (Arab)

Hama ve Hums

Hums

440

Şam (Arab)

Hama ve Hums

Hama

441

Şam (Arab)

Haleb

‘Amik276

442

Şam (Arab)

Haleb

Erîhâ277

443

Şam (Arab)

Haleb

Bakrâs278

444

Şam (Arab)

Haleb

Ma‘arra

445

Şam (Arab)

Haleb

Kefr Tâb279

446

Şam (Arab)

Haleb

Hârim280

447

Şam (Arab)

Haleb

Yörük

274 Kaza-i Hısnü’l-Ekrâd ma‘a nevâhi-i Merkab ve Menâsif ve Sâfitâ ve Antartûs ve Mi‘âr ve ‘Ulleyka

275 Kaza-i Cebeliye ma‘a nevâhi-i Sahyûn ve Lazkiye ve Hevâbî ve Balâtnûs ve Kadmûs ve Kehf ve Manîka ve Kuley‘a

276 Kaza-i ‘Amik ma‘a Tîzîn ve Şeyhü’l-Hadîs

277 Kaza-i Erîhâ ve Zâviye-i Erûcîn

278 Kaza-i Bakrâs ma‘a Derbsâk-Gündüzlü

279 Kaza-i Kefr Tâb ve Şeyzer ve Efâmiye ve Masyâf ve Ebî Kubeys

280 Kaza-i Hârim ma‘a Cebel-i A‘lâ ve Cebel-i Barîşâ ve Halkalar

Table 3.19. (continued)

448

Şam (Arab)

Haleb

A‘zâz281

449

Şam (Arab)

Haleb

Sermîn282

450

Şam (Arab)

Haleb

Mahrûse-i Haleb283

500

451

Şam (Arab)

Antakiyye

Antakiyye284

100

452

Şam (Arab)

‘Ayntâb

Ayntâb285

453

Şam (Arab)

Adana ve Çukur-âbâd

Berendi286

454

Şam (Arab)

Adana ve Çukur-âbâd

Ayâs ma‘a Tuzla

455

Şam (Arab)

Adana ve Çukur-âbâd

Kınık287

456

Şam (Arab)

Adana ve Çukur-âbâd

‘Üzeyr288

457

Şam (Arab)

Adana ve Çukur-âbâd

Kara ‘İsalu ve Hâslu

458

Şam (Arab)

Adana ve Çukur-âbâd

Kosunlu ve Kuştemürlü

459

Şam (Arab)

Adana ve Çukur-âbâd

Adana

460

Şam (Arab)

Tarsus

Tarsus ma‘a Cemâ‘at-i Ulaşlu

461

Şam (Arab)

Sis

462

Şam (Arab)

Divriği

Darende

463

Şam (Arab)

Divriği

464

Şam (Arab)

Kâhta ve Gerger

Behisni nâhiye-i Hısn-ı Mansûr

465

Şam (Arab)

Kâhta ve Gerger

466

Şam (Arab)

Malatiyye

467

Şam (Arab)

Kemâh

Kemâh ma‘a nâhiye-i Puşları

468

Şam (Arab)

Kemâh

Erzincan

469

Şam (Arab)

Bayburd

Kelkit ma‘a Gökvâs

470

Şam (Arab)

Bayburd

İspir

471

Şam (Arab)

Bayburd

472

Şam (Arab)

Beyre (Birecik)

473

Şam (Arab)

Beyre (Birecik)

Kal‘atü’r-Rûm

474

Diyarbekir

Si‘ird

475

Diyarbekir

Kiğı ma‘a Küçük

476

Diyarbekir

‘Anâ ve Hadse

Table 3.20. (continued)

281 Kaza-i A‘zâz ma‘a nevâhi-i Kilisî ve Munbûc ve Com ve Vâdî Haşb ve Râvendân

282 Kaza-i Sermîn ma‘a Cebel-i Samâk ve Cebel-i Benî ‘Alîm

283 Kaza-i Mahrûse-i Haleb ma‘a nevâhi-i Cebel-i Sem‘ân ve Matah ve Hâss ve Cebbûl ve Nukre-i Benî Esed ve Bâb

284 Kaza-i Antakiyye ma‘a nevâhi-i Kuseyr ve Deyrgüş ve Şuğur ve Altun-özü ve Cebel-i Akra‘ ve Süveydiye

285 Kaza-i ‘Ayntâb ma‘a nevâhihâ ve a‘mâlihâ

286 Kaza-i Berendi ma‘a Dündarlu

287 Kaza-i Kınık ma‘a Şeyh Meleklü ve Peçeneklü

288 Kaza-i ‘Üzeyr ma‘a İskenderun ve ‘Arsuz-ili ve Ağaslu

Table 3.21. (continued)

477

Diyarbekir

Hît

478

Diyarbekir

Bîrecik (Berriyecik)289

479

Diyarbekir

Eğil290

480

Diyarbekir

Ergani ma‘a Medrese

481

Diyarbekir

Çabakçur ve Haçuk

482

Diyarbekir

Palu ma‘a tevâbi‘ihi

483

Diyarbekir

Çermük291

484

Diyarbekir

Musul292

485

Diyarbekir

Atak293

486

Diyarbekir

Arabgir294

487

Diyarbekir

Siverek295

488

Diyarbekir

Rûhâ296

489

Diyarbekir

Hısn-ı Keyf

490

Diyarbekir

Çemişgezek297

491

Diyarbekir

Harput298

492

Diyarbekir

Mardin299

493

Diyarbekir

Âmid ma‘a Ulus

200

494

Diyarbekir

Sâvur300

495

Turkmen Region

Göğercinlik

496

Turkmen Region

Kars

497

Turkmen Region

Samântu

498

Turkmen Region

Elbistan

499

Turkmen Region

Mar‘aş

500

Turkmen Region

Boz-Ok

100

289 Kaza-i Bîrecik (Berriyecik) ma‘a Tîl-Göran ve Çemlem

290 Kaza-i Eğil ma‘a Hanî ve Berdenic

291 Kaza-i Çermük (ve) Çüngüş ve Hisârân ve Ebû Tâhir

292 Kaza-i Musul ma‘a Sincâr ve Til‘Afer

293 Kaza-i Atak ma‘a Çıska ve Kulb52 ve Başika ve Azmed? ve Batmân ve Meyyâfarikin ve Tercîl ve Mihrânî

294 Kaza-i Arabgir ma‘a Şîrner? ve Puşları

295 Kaza-i Siverek ma‘a Çıbıkdân ve İn ve Oşûb (Oşun)

296 Kaza-i Rûhâ ma‘a tevâbi‘ihi

297 Kaza-i Çemişgezek ma‘a tevâbi‘ihi

298 Kaza-i Harput ma‘a tevabi’

299 Kaza-i Mardin ma‘a Nusaybin ve Hâbûr

300 Kaza-i Sâvur ma‘a Berâzî ve Besyân ve Zemlân

3.2 The Ottoman Administrative and Urban Division in the Kadıasker Registers of the Early 16th Century

3.2.1 The Anatolia Vilayet of the Ottoman Empire in 1513

Turan Gökçe's research is one of the earliest works on kadıasker registers that provide information about the regions and cities of the empire.301 Gökçe examined the record numbered D.929 and dated 1513 in the Topkapı Palace Museum Archive. This kadıasker record in the form of akdiye302 register contains information on kazas, kadıs and organization of the appointments as one of the types of kadıasker register. The record includes on information of 235 kazas and 20 sanjaks belonging to the vilayet of Anatolia. The table 3.6 shows the distribution of kazas by sanjaks.303

Table 3.22 The Distribution of Sanjak in Anatolia in 1513304

Vilayet

Sanjak

Kaza

Sanjak

Kaza

Anatolia

Alâiye

Kütahya

Anatolia

Sultanönü

Menteşe

Anatolia

Biga

Saruhan

Anatolia

Karahisar

Hamid

Anatolia

Teke

Kastamonu

Anatolia

Ankara

Aydın

Anatolia

Karesi

Bolu

Anatolia

Kocaili

Karaman

Anatolia

Trabzon

Hüdavendigâr

Anatolia

Kankırı

Amasya

Turan Gökçe compares the count of sanjak in tahrir records and the sanjak tevcih register of 1527 and 1530 with this kadıasker register in a few sentences. He pointed out that the number of sanjaks is 17 in the future periods. He also underlined that Karaman, which was seen as a separate vilayet with the following periods, and also Amasya and Trabzon,

301 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

302 İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin İlmiye Teşkilatı, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 1984, pp.87-88.

303 A kaza belonging to liva of Trabzon is not added to the list as “-” since it could not be read.

304 We listed sanjaks according to their kaza number from less to more.

which are affiliated to the vilayet of Rum, appear as sanjaks of the vilayet of Anatolia in this kadıasker register. Gökçe also states that the akçe values of the kadı salaries in the register are an important sign indicating the status of the kazas in their vilayet and sanjak. Ermeni has the lowest akçe value by 4, and Bursa has the highest by 300 akçe. In this record, although the kadı was not appointed, the Honaz, Seydi Gâzi Bölmesi, Ayandon and Tire Bölmesi were recorded separately as kazas without akçe values. In the record they belong to other kazas, with Honaz affiliated with Lazıkiyye, Seydi Gazi to Seydi Gazi, Ayandon to Küre and Tire Bölmesi to Tire. We will discuss these kazas in detail in the next chapter. The table 3.7 shows the distribution of the cities in Anatolia according to the 1513 kadıasker register.

Table 3.23. The Regions and Cities of Anatolia in the Ottoman Empire in 1513305

Vilayet

Sanjak

Kaza

Akçe Values

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Ermeni

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Tomaniç

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Taraklu Yenicesi

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Gönan

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Söğüt

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Yarhisar

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Akhisar

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Ayduncuk

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Edrenaz

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Kebsud

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Tarhala

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Sındırgı

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Eynegöl

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Yenişehir

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Mihaliçcık

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Göl

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Nevâhi-i Bergama

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Tuzla

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Akyazı

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Gevye

305 We listed kazas at the same sanjak from less to more in terms of akçe value.

Table 3.7. (continued)

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Kite

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Göynük

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Bergama

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Begpazarı

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Sifrihisar

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Mihaliç

Anatolia

Hüdâvendigâr

Bursa

300

Anatolia

Karesi

Bigadiç

Anatolia

Karesi

Fart

Anatolia

Karesi

İvrindi

Anatolia

Karesi

Karacalar Hâneleri

Anatolia

Karesi

Ayazmend

Anatolia

Karesi

Manyas

Anatolia

Karesi

Balıkesri

Anatolia

Karesi

Edremid

Anatolia

Biga

Lapseki

Anatolia

Biga

Çatal Bergoz

Anatolia

Biga

Çan

Anatolia

Biga

Balya

Anatolia

Biga

Nefs-i Biga

Anatolia

Biga

Eynecik

25 'ale'l-emr's-sultânî 30

Anatolia

Saruhan

Güzelce Hisar

Anatolia

Saruhan

Kayacuk

Anatolia

Saruhan

Gördes

Anatolia

Saruhan

Ilıca

Anatolia

Saruhan

Marmara

Anatolia

Saruhan

Nif

Anatolia

Saruhan

Akhisar

Anatolia

Saruhan

Gördük

Anatolia

Saruhan

Demürci

Anatolia

Saruhan

Tarhanyat

Anatolia

Saruhan

Atala

Anatolia

Saruhan

Mağnisa

Anatolia

Kütahya

Egrigöz

Anatolia

Kütahya

Küre-i Selendi

Anatolia

Kütahya

Homa

Anatolia

Kütahya

Simav

Table 3.7. (continued)

Anatolia

Kütahya

Şeyhlü

Anatolia

Kütahya

Uşak

Anatolia

Kütahya

Kula

Anatolia

Kütahya

Lâzıkıyye

Anatolia

Kütahya

Nefs-i Kütahya

Anatolia

Kütahya

Honaz

Anatolia

Sultanönü

Seydi Gâzi

Anatolia

Sultanönü

Bilecik

Anatolia

Sultanönü

İnönü

Anatolia

Sultanönü

Nefs-i Sultanönü

Anatolia

Sultanönü

Seydi Gâzi Bölmesi

Anatolia

Ankariyye

Bacı

Anatolia

Ankariyye

Yabanâbâd

Anatolia

Ankariyye

Ayaş

Anatolia

Ankariyye

Murtazâbâd

Anatolia

Ankariyye

Çubuk

Anatolia

Ankariyye

Yörük

Anatolia

Ankariyye

Nefs-i Ankara

130

Anatolia

Bolu

Petros

Anatolia

Bolu

Çarşanba

Anatolia

Bolu

Çaga

Anatolia

Bolu

Eflegân Yenicesi

Anatolia

Bolu

Yedi Divan

Anatolia

Bolu

Devrek

Anatolia

Bolu

Mengen

Anatolia

Bolu

Benderegli

Anatolia

Bolu

Amasra

Anatolia

Bolu

Konrapa

Anatolia

Bolu

Oniki Divan

Anatolia

Bolu

Tarakluborlı

Anatolia

Bolu

Mudurnı

Anatolia

Bolu

Viranşehir

Anatolia

Bolu

Gerede

Anatolia

Bolu

Nefs-i Bolı

Anatolia

Kocaili

Gürle

Anatolia

Kocaili

Yoros

Anatolia

Kocaili

Yalakâbâd

Table 3.7. (continued)

Anatolia

Kocaili

İznikmid

Anatolia

Kocaili

Şile

Anatolia

Kocaili

İznik

Anatolia

Kocaili

Kandırı

Anatolia

Kocaili

Gekböze

100

Anatolia

Kastamoni

Yörük

101

Anatolia

Kastamoni

Göl

102

Anatolia

Kastamoni

Turagan

103

Anatolia

Kastamoni

Hoşalay

104

Anatolia

Kastamoni

Arac

105

Anatolia

Kastamoni

Boyâbâd

106

Anatolia

Kastamoni

Taşköprü

107

Anatolia

Kastamoni

Sinob

108

Anatolia

Kastamoni

Tatay

109

Anatolia

Kastamoni

Nefs-i Kastamoni

110

Anatolia

Kastamoni

Küre me'a Ayandon

111

Anatolia

Kastamoni

Ayandon

112

Anatolia

Aydın

Arpaz

113

Anatolia

Aydın

Sultan-Hisarı

114

Anatolia

Aydın

Bozdoğan

115

Anatolia

Aydın

Sart

116

Anatolia

Aydın

Kestel

117

Anatolia

Aydın

Yenişehir

118

Anatolia

Aydın

Çeşme

119

Anatolia

Aydın

Ayasuluğ

120

Anatolia

Aydın

Alaşehir

121

Anatolia

Aydın

Güzelcehisar

122

Anatolia

Aydın

Birgi

123

Anatolia

Aydın

İzmir

124

Anatolia

Aydın

Tire

100

125

Anatolia

Aydın

Tire Bölmesi

126

Anatolia

Menteşe

Milas

127

Anatolia

Menteşe

Purnaz

128

Anatolia

Menteşe

Tavaz

129

Anatolia

Menteşe

Mâzın

130

Anatolia

Menteşe

Bozöyük

131

Anatolia

Menteşe

Muğla

Table 3.7. (continued)

132

Anatolia

Menteşe

Köyceğiz

133

Anatolia

Menteşe

Balat

134

Anatolia

Menteşe

Çine

135

Anatolia

Menteşe

Megri

136

Anatolia

Menteşe

Beçin

137

Anatolia

Teke

Lâdık (?)

138

Anatolia

Teke

Kalkanlu

139

Anatolia

Teke

Kaş

140

Anatolia

Teke

Karahisar

141

Anatolia

Teke

Elmalu

142

Anatolia

Teke

Antalya

100

143

Anatolia

Hamid

Keçiborlu

144

Anatolia

Hamid

İrle

145

Anatolia

Hamid

Ağlasun

146

Anatolia

Hamid

Gönân

147

Anatolia

Hamid

Burdur

148

Anatolia

Hamid

Isparta

149

Anatolia

Hamid

Karaağaç

150

Anatolia

Hamid

Afşar

151

Anatolia

Hamid

Uluborlu

152

Anatolia

Hamid

Yalavac

153

Anatolia

Hamid

Gölhisar

154

Anatolia

Hamid

Egirdir

155

Anatolia

Karahisar

Bolvadin

156

Anatolia

Karahisar

Oynaş

157

Anatolia

Karahisar

Barçınlu

158

Anatolia

Karahisar

Sanduklu

159

Anatolia

Karahisar

Şuhud

160

Anatolia

Karahisar

Nefs-i Karahisar

161

Anatolia

Kânkırı

Karı Bazarı

162

Anatolia

Kânkırı

Meylân

163

Anatolia

Kânkırı

Koçhisar

164

Anatolia

Kânkırı

Kargu

165

Anatolia

Kânkırı

Çerkeş

166

Anatolia

Kânkırı

Tosya

167

Anatolia

Kânkırı

Kurşunlu

168

Anatolia

Kânkırı

Kal'acuk

Table 3.7. (continued)

169

Anatolia

Kânkırı

Nefs-i Kânkırı

170

Anatolia

Karaman

Çemenili

171

Anatolia

Karaman

Zengicek

172

Anatolia

Karaman

Karıtaş

173

Anatolia

Karaman

Koçhisar

174

Anatolia

Karaman

Ilgun

175

Anatolia

Karaman

Ürgüb

176

Anatolia

Karaman

Alatağ

177

Anatolia

Karaman

Eregli

178

Anatolia

Karaman

Bilviran

179

Anatolia

Karaman

Ermenek

180

Anatolia

Karaman

Ortaköy

181

Anatolia

Karaman

Karahisar

182

Anatolia

Karaman

Akşehir

183

Anatolia

Karaman

İshaklu

184

Anatolia

Karaman

Seydişehri

185

Anatolia

Karaman

Eskiil

186

Anatolia

Karaman

Kayseriyye

187

Anatolia

Karaman

Turgudili

188

Anatolia

Karaman

Negide

189

Anatolia

Karaman

Aksaray

190

Anatolia

Karaman

Mut

191

Anatolia

Karaman

Gülnar

192

Anatolia

Karaman

Begşehri

193

Anatolia

Karaman

Lârende

194

Anatolia

Karaman

Konya

195

Anatolia

Alâ'iyye

Nevâhi-i 'Alâ'iyye

196

Anatolia

Alâ'iyye

Manavgad

197

Anatolia

Alâ'iyye

Nefs-i 'Alâ'iyye

198

Anatolia

Trabzon

Kökes

199

Anatolia

Trabzon

Atene

200

Anatolia

Trabzon

201

Anatolia

Trabzon

Kürtün

202

Anatolia

Trabzon

Torul

203

Anatolia

Trabzon

Giresun

204

Anatolia

Trabzon

Table 3.7. (continued)

205

Anatolia

Trabzon

Rize

206

Anatolia

Trabzon

Nefs-i Trabzon

207

Anatolia

Amasya

Satılmış

208

Anatolia

Amasya

Ünye

209

Anatolia

Amasya

Zeytun

210

Anatolia

Amasya

Koyluhisar

211

Anatolia

Amasya

Kavak

212

Anatolia

Amasya

Katar

213

Anatolia

Amasya

Tirme

214

Anatolia

Amasya

Niksar

215

Anatolia

Amasya

Gümüş

216

Anatolia

Amasya

Turhal

217

Anatolia

Amasya

Demürlü Karahisar

218

Anatolia

Amasya

Arım

219

Anatolia

Amasya

Artukâbâd

220

Anatolia

Amasya

Gedekara

221

Anatolia

Amasya

Zile

222

Anatolia

Amasya

İskilib

223

Anatolia

Amasya

Bafra

224

Anatolia

Amasya

Sonısa

225

Anatolia

Amasya

Çorumlu

226

Anatolia

Amasya

Sivas

227

Anatolia

Amasya

Kırşehir

228

Anatolia

Amasya

Merzifon

229

Anatolia

Amasya

Osmancuk

230

Anatolia

Amasya

Samsun

231

Anatolia

Amasya

Bayramlu

232

Anatolia

Amasya

Karahisar

233

Anatolia

Amasya

Yörük

234

Anatolia

Amasya

Tokat

130

235

Anatolia

Amasya

Nefs-i Amasya

150

3.2.2 The Rumelia Vilayet of the Ottoman Empire in 1521

Since kadıasker ruznamçe registers were recorded regularly after the second half of the 16th century, very few resources about the early 16th century have been the subject of research. Besides studies on Anatolian registers, Ercan Alan’s work regarding the

kadıasker register dated 1521 and numbered TSMA 699 in the Topkapı Palace Museum

Archive is very valuable because it provides information on the early period of the 16th

century.306 According to the kadıasker register dated 1521, there are 172 kazas and 30

sanjaks in Rumelia. Similar to the kanunname of 1522, there is no sanjak information

concerning İstanbul, Galata, Havass-ı Kostantiniyye, Cezayir-i Marmara and also Limyos.

The table 3.8 shows the sanjak distribution of Rumelia in the 1521 kadıasker register.

Table 3.24 The Distribution of Sanjak of Rumelia in 1521307

Vilayet Sanjak Kaza Sanjak Kaza

Rumelia Midillü 1 Prizrin 4

Rumelia Filorina 1 Alacahisar 5

Rumelia İnebahtı 1 Bosna 5

Rumelia Uzvornik 1 Eğriboz 5

Rumelia Karlıil 2 İskenderiye 5

Rumelia Sofya 3 Gelibolu 6

Rumelia Filibe 3 Kefe 6

Rumelia Vidin 3 Niğbolu 6

Rumelia Vulçitrin 4 Semendire 7

Rumelia Yanya 4 Tırhala 7

Rumelia Çirmen 4 Avlonya 8

Rumelia Hersek 4 Vize 8

Rumelia İlbasan 4 Mora 11

Rumelia Köstendil Ilıcası 4 Silistre 13

Rumelia Ohri 4 Mîr-i Mîrân 28

Table 3.9 shows the distribution of 172 kazas according to their sanjak division in

Rumelia in the 1521 kadıasker register.

Table 3. 25 The Regions and Cities of Rumelia in 1521308

Vilayet Sanjak Kaza Akçe values

1 Rumelia - Limyos 15

2 Rumelia - Cezayir-i Marmara 20

306 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”

307 We listed sanjaks according to their kaza number from less to more.

308 We listed kazas at the same sanjak from less to more in terms of akçe value.

Table 3.9. (continued)

3 Rumelia - Havass-ı Kostantiniyye 50

4 Rumelia - Galata 80

5 Rumelia - İstanbul 400

6 Rumelia Alacahisar Ürgüb 25

7 Rumelia Alacahisar Petroş

8 Rumelia Alacahisar Zablana 30

9 Rumelia Alacahisar Alacahisar 40

10 Rumelia Alacahisar Niş (maa İsfirlig) 55 (55+15=70)

11 Rumelia Avlonya Timorinça 10

12 Rumelia Avlonya Mezkiye 15

13 Rumelia Avlonya Delvine 20

14 Rumelia Avlonya Depedelen 20

15 Rumelia Avlonya Premedi 25

16 Rumelia Avlonya Ergirikasrı 30

17 Rumelia Avlonya Belgradü’l- Arnavud 40

18 Rumelia Avlonya Avlonya 50

19 Rumelia Bosna Brod 25

20 Rumelia Bosna Nertova 25

21 Rumelia Bosna Vişegrad 40

22 Rumelia Bosna Yenibazar 60

23 Rumelia Bosna Saray 75

24 Rumelia Çirmen Zağra Yenicesi 25

25 Rumelia Çirmen Akçakızanlık 30

26 Rumelia Çirmen Hasköy 30

27 Rumelia Çirmen Çirmen 40

28 Rumelia Eğriboz Atina 30

29 Rumelia Eğriboz İstife 30

30 Rumelia Eğriboz Livadya 35

31 Rumelia Eğriboz Eğriboz 45

32 Rumelia Eğriboz İzdin 45

33 Rumelia Filibe Tatarbazarı 25

34 Rumelia Filibe Samakov 30

35 Rumelia Filibe Filibe 130

36 Rumelia Filorina Filorina 70

37 Rumelia Gelibolu İnöz 15

38 Rumelia Gelibolu Keşan 15

39 Rumelia Gelibolu İpsala 20

40 Rumelia Gelibolu Tekfurdağı 35

Table 3.9. (continued)

41 Rumelia Gelibolu Migalgara 60

42 Rumelia Gelibolu Gelibolu 130

43 Rumelia Hersek Mostar 20

44 Rumelia Hersek Prepolye 25

45 Rumelia Hersek Nova 30

46 Rumelia Hersek Foça 40

47 Rumelia İlbasan Eranidanlı 20

48 Rumelia İlbasan İşbat 25

49 Rumelia İlbasan İlbasan 30

50 Rumelia İlbasan Drac 35

51 Rumelia İnebahtı İnebahtı 40

52 Rumelia İskenderiye Dukakin 15

53 Rumelia İskenderiye Karadağ 15

54 Rumelia İskenderiye Podgoriçe 15

55 Rumelia İskenderiye İpek 30

56 Rumelia İskenderiye İskenderiye 30

57 Rumelia Karlıil Ayamavra 15

58 Rumelia Karlıil Angelkasrı 35

59 Rumelia Kefe Kerş 15

60 Rumelia Kefe Suğdak 20

61 Rumelia Kefe Azak 30

62 Rumelia Kefe Mangub 30

63 Rumelia Kefe Taman 30

64 Rumelia Kefe Kefe 100

65 Rumelia Köstendil Ilıcası İvranya 25

66 Rumelia Köstendil Ilıcası Ustrumca 40

67 Rumelia Köstendil Ilıcası Ilıca 80

68 Rumelia Köstendil Ilıcası İştib 100

69 Rumelia Midillü Midillü 45

70 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Bihlişte 25

71 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Ferecik 25

72 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Görice 25

73 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Köprülü 25

74 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Nevrekob 25

75 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Serfice 25

76 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Timurhisar 25

77 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Zihne 25

78 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Drama 30

79 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Hurpişte 30

Table 3.9. (continued)

80 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Kesriye 30

81 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Kırçova 30

82 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Kızılağaç Yenicesi 30

83 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Pirlepe 30

84 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Avrethisarı 40

85 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Kalkandelen 40

86 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Sidrekapsi 40

87 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Vardar Yenicesi 40

88 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Karasu Yenicesi 55

89 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Gümülcine 60

90 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Manastır 60

91 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Dimetoka 70

92 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Eskihisar 70

93 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Karaverye 70

94 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Siroz 100

95 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Selanik 150

96 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Üsküb maa Nevahi 160

97 Rumelia Mîr-i mîrân (Paşa) Edirne el-mahrûse 300

98 Rumelia Mora Hulumic 15

99 Rumelia Mora Arkadya 20

100 Rumelia Mora Gördös 25

101 Rumelia Mora Kalamate 30

102 Rumelia Mora Karitene 30

103 Rumelia Mora Misistre 30

104 Rumelia Mora Arhos 35

105 Rumelia Mora Moton 35

106 Rumelia Mora Balyabadra 40

107 Rumelia Mora Koron 40

108 Rumelia Mora Kalavarta 45

109 Rumelia Niğbolu İvraca 10

110 Rumelia Niğbolu Çernovi 20

111 Rumelia Niğbolu Lofça 20

112 Rumelia Niğbolu Şumnu 35

113 Rumelia Niğbolu Tırnovi 40

114 Rumelia Niğbolu Niğbolu 60

115 Rumelia Ohri Mat 20

116 Rumelia Ohri Akçahisar 25

117 Rumelia Ohri Debri 35

118 Rumelia Ohri Ohri 40

Table 3.9. (continued)

119 Rumelia Prizrin Bihor 15

120 Rumelia Prizrin Havâss-ı Arnavud 20

121 Rumelia Prizrin Prizrin 25

122 Rumelia Prizrin Pravnik 30

123 Rumelia Semendire Üziçe 20

124 Rumelia Semendire Rudnik 30

125 Rumelia Semendire Barancık 50

126 Rumelia Semendire Belgradi’l-Anzeviş? 60

127 Rumelia Semendire Semendire 120

128 Rumelia Semendire Böğürdelen -

129 Rumelia Semendire Pojaga -

130 Rumelia Silistre Külfetler 15

131 Rumelia Silistre Rusikasrı 15

132 Rumelia Silistre Hassa-i Yanbolu 20

133 Rumelia Silistre Ahyolu 25

134 Rumelia Silistre Karinovası 25

135 Rumelia Silistre Aydos 30

136 Rumelia Silistre Prevadi 30

137 Rumelia Silistre Kili 40

138 Rumelia Silistre Varna 40

139 Rumelia Silistre Hırsova 50

140 Rumelia Silistre Silistre 50

141 Rumelia Silistre Yanbolu 50

142 Rumelia Silistre Akkirman 80

143 Rumelia Sofya Berkofça 20

144 Rumelia Sofya Şehirköy 30

145 Rumelia Sofya Sofya 100

146 Rumelia Tırhala Kerbeniş 15

147 Rumelia Tırhala Badracık 20

148 Rumelia Tırhala Alasonya 30

149 Rumelia Tırhala Fenar 35

150 Rumelia Tırhala Tırhala 45

151 Rumelia Tırhala Çatalca 70

152 Rumelia Tırhala Yenişehir 70

153 Rumelia Uzvornik Sirebreniçe 45

154 Rumelia Vidin İsfirlig 15

155 Rumelia Vidin Bana 25

156 Rumelia Vidin Vidin 40

157 Rumelia Vize Babaeskisi 10

Table 3.9. (continued)

158 Rumelia Vize Burgos 10

159 Rumelia Vize Pınarhisar 15

160 Rumelia Vize Silivri 20

161 Rumelia Vize Çorlu 25

162 Rumelia Vize Kırkkilise 40

163 Rumelia Vize Vize 40

164 Rumelia Vize Hayrabolu 55

165 Rumelia Vulçitrin Blaşice 30

166 Rumelia Vulçitrin Priştine 30

167 Rumelia Vulçitrin Vulçitrin 55

168 Rumelia Vulçitrin Novaborde 70

169 Rumelia Yanya Rinyase 10

170 Rumelia Yanya Grebene 20

171 Rumelia Yanya Narda 40

172 Rumelia Yanya Yanya 40

Ercan Alan also compared the 1521 Rumelia kadıasker register309 with the 1522

kanunname and analyzed the differences in listed kazas and sanjaks. The number of

sanjaks in Rumelia was recorded as 30 in 1521 and but 29 in 1522. Alan attributes this to

the status of Midillü (Midilli). While it was shown as a detached sanjak in the record of

1521, it was recorded as a kaza connected to the sanjak of Mora in 1522. Alan also states

that there are a few differences between the two records in terms of kaza numbers. For

example, while the kaza of Limyos (Limni) was not connected to any sanjak in 1521, it

appears to be connected to the sanjak of Paşa (Mîr-i Mîrân) in 1522 kanunname. In

addition, Üsküb and Nevâhî-yi Üsküb were recorded as a unified kaza in 1521, although

they were recorded as separate in 1522. Alan, however, stated that in the following

pages of the kanunname of 1522, Nevâhî-yi Üsküb was linked to Üsküb because of an

insufficiency in covering the proceeds of akçe values of kadı. This is an important

example of the reasons affecting the change and transformation of the kaza numbers in

different periods. In addition, the Böğürdelen, Pojaga ve Belgrad which were one of the

kazas of the sanjak of Semendire, and the kaza of Blaşice affiliated to Vulçıtrın in 1521,

309 TSMA 699

were not recorded in 1522. In addition, Alan shows the distribution of akçe values of kadı

salaries in 1521 in number and percentile with graphs and tables.310

3.2.3 The Anatolia and Arab Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire in 1523

Another document showing the administrative division of empire into kazas is the

Museum published by Abdurrahman Atçıl.311 This kadıasker register covers a more

extensive geography than the record of 1513 published by Turan Gökçe. Through the

conquests of Yavuz Sultan Selim in Eastern Anatolia, Southeast Anatolia, Syria and Egypt,

new kazas were included in the Ottoman Empire's domains. The register contains

information about the education of the ulema; who worked in connection with the

Kadıaskerlik of Anatolia, the way of entering the bureaucratic system and the current

duty, and the status of those who left the post. There are separate lists of madrasas and

kazas in the register. However, by using the lists entitled Der Beyan-ı Kuzat-i Ma'zûlîn

representing those who left their duties, and Der Beyan-ı Kuzât-ı Mensûbîn representing

those who continue their duties, we will try to reveal the urban map of the empire.

The document includes 6 vilayets: Anatolia, Karaman, Şam (Arab), Diyarbekir and Egypt

and Turkmen Region (vilayet of Zülkadir/Dulkadir). In the register there are 29 sanjaks:

20 in the vilayet of Anatolia, 1 in Karaman, 8 in Şam, and 1 in Egypt. Although Sa'îd was

registered as Vilayet-i Sa’îd, as we mentioned in the kanunname of 1522, it is a sanjak

under the rule of Egypt, hence we added it to the sanjak column in the list. In the register

there is no record of the sanjak distribution of vilayet of Diyarbekir and Turkmen region.

Moreover, the total number of kazas is 328 in the register for the whole empire without

Rumelia. This count also includes kazas stated to be dangerous places: 8 in the Turkmen

region, and 5 under the rule of Arabs known as Taberiye, Şakif, Keferkine, Cebel-i Amile,

and Ata. The document also contains information indicating that there were 7 more

310 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”

311 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11,” pp.119-200.

kazas in sanjak of Sa'îd within the vilayet of Egypt under the rule of the Arabs even

though their names were not recorded in the register.312 In this case, the number of

kazas increases to 335. The distribution of sanjak by their vilayets is as follows in table

3.10.

Table 3.26 The Sanjak Distribution of Ottoman Empire in the Kadıasker Register of 1523

Vilayet Sanjak Sanjak Kaza

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar, Karesi, Biga, Saruhan, Kütahya,

Sultanönü, Ankara, Bolu, Kocaeli, Kastamonu,

Aydın, Menteşe, Teke, Hamid, Karahisar-ı Sahib,

Kangırı, Trabzon, Amasya, Alaiye 19 210

Karaman Karaman 1 26

Şam (Arab)

Gazze, Safed, Trablus, Hama ve Humus, Haleb,

Adana, Kahta ve Gerger, Bire 8 55

Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - - 19

Turkmen Region - - 8

Egypt Sa’îd 1 17

Although the vilayet of Karaman was already established in this period, Karaman was

recorded under the vilayet of Anatolia, as in the source of 1513. In the other part of the

document showing the distribution of the kaza, Karaman was written as Liva-i Vilayet-i

Karaman indicating that it has 26 kazas. Hence only 26 kazas under this title were added

to the list in the sanjak of Karaman and were mapped within the vilayet of Karaman. The

vilayet information for sanjak of Alaiye, Trabzon and Amasya was not recorded. However

they were added to the list as sanjak of Anatolia compared to the order in the other

pages of the register. In addition, the sanjak and kazas where were recorded in the

vilayet of Rum in different documents were listed in under the title of vilayet of Anatolia

in this kadıasker register.

312 Seven kazas of Sa’îd were not recorded in the register; “yedi kadılıktır. A‘râb elinde olup dergah-ı

mu‘allâdan kimseye tevcih olunmaz deyu defterde mukayyeddir.” p.181.

Abdurrahman Atçıl shares an important observation that some pages may have been lost

from the beginning of the document. However, since the number of kazas registered in

the document is very close to the number in the kanunname of 1522, we can conclude

that the parts containing the kaza list are almost not missing, although there are some

differences. According to the kadıasker register in 1523, the vilayet, sanjak and kaza

distribution of the Ottoman Empire without Rumelia is as follows in table 3.11.

Table 3.27 The Regions and Cities of Ottoman Empire in Kadıasker Register of 1523313

Vilayet Sanjak Kaza

1 Anatolia Hüdavendigar Bursa

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Kete

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar İnegöl

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Yenişehir

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Domaniç

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Ermeni Pazarı

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Söğüd

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Yarhisar

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Seferihisar

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Beypazarı

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Göynük

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Mihalıççık

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Geyve

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Taraklı Yenicesi

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Akhisar

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Göl

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Aydıncık

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Akyazı

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Adranos

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Kebsud

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Mihaliç

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Sındırgı

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Bergama

313 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

Table 3.11. (continued)

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Nevâhi-i Bergama

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Tarhala

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Gönen

Anatolia

Hüdavendigar Kızılca Tuzla

Anatolia

Karesi Balıkesir

Anatolia

Karesi Ayazmend

Anatolia

Karesi Manyas

Anatolia

Karesi Edremid

Anatolia

Karesi İvrindi

Anatolia

Karesi Fart

Anatolia

Karesi Bigadiç

Anatolia

Karesi Karacalar

Anatolia

Biga Biga

Anatolia

Biga İnepazarı

Anatolia

Biga Balya

Anatolia

Biga Çak

Anatolia

Biga Bergos

Anatolia

Biga Lapseki

Anatolia

Saruhan Manisa

Anatolia

Saruhan Tarhanyat

Anatolia

Saruhan Akhisar

Anatolia

Saruhan Gördek

Anatolia

Saruhan Marmara

Anatolia

Saruhan Gördes

Anatolia

Saruhan Kayacık

Anatolia

Saruhan Adala

Anatolia

Saruhan Güzelcehisar

Anatolia

Saruhan Demirci

Anatolia

Saruhan Nif

Anatolia

Saruhan Ilıca

Anatolia

Kütahya Kütahya

Anatolia

Kütahya Şeyhlü

Anatolia

Kütahya Homa

Anatolia

Kütahya Uşak

Table 3.11. (continued)

Anatolia

Kütahya Lazkiye

Anatolia

Kütahya Küre-i Selendi

Anatolia

Kütahya Kula

Anatolia

Kütahya Eğrigöz

Anatolia

Kütahya Simav

Anatolia

Kütahya Honaz

Anatolia

Sultanönü Sultanönü

Anatolia

Sultanönü Bilecik

Anatolia

Sultanönü İnönü

Anatolia

Ankara Ankara

Anatolia

Ankara Ayaş

Anatolia

Ankara Çubuk

Anatolia

Ankara Bacı

Anatolia

Ankara Ankara Yörüğü

Anatolia

Ankara Yabanabad

Anatolia

Ankara Murtazabad

Anatolia

Bolu Bolu

Anatolia

Bolu Kıbrus

Anatolia

Bolu Mudurnu

Anatolia

Bolu Konrapa

Anatolia

Bolu Mengen

Anatolia

Bolu Bendereğli

Anatolia

Bolu Devrek

Anatolia

Bolu Bolu Yörüğü

Anatolia

Bolu Çarşamba

Anatolia

Bolu Gerede

Anatolia

Bolu Viranşehir

Anatolia

Bolu Çağa

Anatolia

Bolu Taraklıborlu

Anatolia

Bolu Amasra

Anatolia

Bolu Yedi Divan

Anatolia

Bolu Oniki Divan

Anatolia

Bolu Yenice-i Eflegan

Anatolia

Kocaeli İznikmid ma‘a Şile

Table 3.11. (continued)

Anatolia

Kocaeli Gebze

Anatolia

Kocaeli Yalakabad

Anatolia

Kocaeli İznik

Anatolia

Kocaeli Görele

Anatolia

Kocaeli Kandıra

Anatolia

Kocaeli Yoros

Anatolia

Kastamonu Kastamonu

Anatolia

Kastamonu Sinop

100

Anatolia

Kastamonu Boyabad

101

Anatolia

Kastamonu Durağan

102

Anatolia

Kastamonu Taşköprü

103

Anatolia

Kastamonu Küre

104

Anatolia

Kastamonu Tatay

105

Anatolia

Kastamonu Araç

106

Anatolia

Kastamonu Hoşalay

107

Anatolia

Kastamonu Göl

108

Anatolia

Kastamonu Yörük

109

Anatolia

Kastamonu Ayandon

110

Anatolia

Aydın Tire

111

Anatolia

Aydın İzmir

112

Anatolia

Aydın Tire-i Bölmesi

113

Anatolia

Aydın Ayasuluğ

114

Anatolia

Aydın Güzelhisar

115

Anatolia

Aydın Sultan Hisarı

116

Anatolia

Aydın Kestel

117

Anatolia

Aydın Yenişehir

118

Anatolia

Aydın Alaşehir

119

Anatolia

Aydın Bozdoğan

120

Anatolia

Aydın Arpaz

121

Anatolia

Aydın Sart

122

Anatolia

Aydın Birgi

123

Anatolia

Aydın Çeşme

124

Anatolia

Menteşe Peçin

125

Anatolia

Menteşe Çine

100

Table 3.11. (continued)

126

Anatolia

Menteşe Balat

127

Anatolia

Menteşe Bozüyük

128

Anatolia

Menteşe Mazun

129

Anatolia

Menteşe Milas

130

Anatolia

Menteşe Muğla

131

Anatolia

Menteşe Tavas

132

Anatolia

Menteşe Purnaz

133

Anatolia

Menteşe Meğri

134

Anatolia

Menteşe Köyceğiz

135

Anatolia

Menteşe İsravalos

136

Anatolia

Teke Antalya

137

Anatolia

Teke Elmalı

138

Anatolia

Teke Kaş

139

Anatolia

Teke Kalkanlı ma‘a Ladik

140

Anatolia

Teke Teke

141

Anatolia

Hamid Eğirdir

142

Anatolia

Hamid Afşar

143

Anatolia

Hamid Ağlasun

144

Anatolia

Hamid Yalvaç

145

Anatolia

Hamid Uluborlu

146

Anatolia

Hamid Gönen

147

Anatolia

Hamid Keçiborlu

148

Anatolia

Hamid Isparta

149

Anatolia

Hamid Burdur

150

Anatolia

Hamid İrle

151

Anatolia

Hamid Gölhisar

152

Anatolia

Hamid Karaağaç

153

Anatolia

Karahisar-ı Sahib Karahisar-ı Sahib

154

Anatolia

Karahisar-ı Sahib Sandıklı

155

Anatolia

Karahisar-ı Sahib Bolvadin

156

Anatolia

Karahisar-ı Sahib Şuhud

157

Anatolia

Karahisar-ı Sahib Barçınlı

158

Anatolia Kangırı

Kangırı

159

Anatolia Kangırı

Tosya

101

Table 3.11. (continued)

160

Anatolia Kangırı

Kargı

161

Anatolia Kangırı

Meylan

162

Anatolia Kangırı

Kurşunlu

163

Anatolia Kangırı

Çerkeş

164

Anatolia Kangırı

Koçhisar

165

Anatolia Kangırı

Karı Pazar

166

Anatolia Kangırı

Kalecik

193

Anatolia

Alaiye Alaiye

194

Anatolia

Alaiye Manavgat

195

Anatolia

Alaiye Nevâhi-i Alaiye

196

Anatolia

Alaiye Parakende-i Alaiye

197

Anatolia

Trabzon Trabzon

198

Anatolia

Trabzon Rize

199

Anatolia

Trabzon Bayburd

200

Anatolia

Trabzon Atina

201

Anatolia

Trabzon Arhavi

202

Anatolia

Trabzon Kürtün

203

Anatolia

Trabzon Torul

204

Anatolia

Trabzon Giresun

205

Anatolia

Trabzon Of

206

Anatolia

Trabzon Hemşin

207

Anatolia

Amasya Amasya

208

Anatolia

Amasya Tokat

209

Anatolia

Amasya Merzifon

210

Anatolia

Amasya Osmancık

211

Anatolia

Amasya Artukabad

212

Anatolia

Amasya Samsun

213

Anatolia

Amasya Bayramlı

214

Anatolia

Amasya Tirme

215

Anatolia

Amasya Ünye

216

Anatolia

Amasya Satılmış

217

Anatolia

Amasya Sonisa

218

Anatolia

Amasya Gedegara

219

Anatolia

Amasya Niksar

102

Table 3.11. (continued)

220

Anatolia

Amasya Gümüş

221

Anatolia

Amasya Zile

222

Anatolia

Amasya Çorumlu

223

Anatolia

Amasya Turhal

224

Anatolia

Amasya Ulu Yörük

225

Anatolia

Amasya Sivas

226

Anatolia

Amasya Zeytun

227

Anatolia

Amasya Koyluhisar

228

Anatolia

Amasya Karahisar-ı Demürlü

229

Anatolia

Amasya İskilib

230

Anatolia

Amasya Bafra

231

Anatolia

Amasya Kavak

232

Anatolia

Amasya Arım

233

Anatolia

Amasya Katar

234

Anatolia

Amasya Karahisar-ı Şarki

235

Anatolia

Amasya Ladik

236

Anatolia

Amasya Kırşehir

303 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Arabkir

304 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Harput

305 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Amed

306 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Çermik

307 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Siverek

308 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Ruha

309 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Musul

310 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Eğin

311 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Ergani

312 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Çapakçur

313 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Ana ma‘a Hit

314 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Kelkit

315 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Mardin

316 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Atak

317 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Buhayra ve Cize

318 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Safhun[?]

319 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Palu

103

Table 3.11. (continued)

320 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Cizye

321 Diyarbekir tabi-i Acem - Savur

167 Karaman Karaman Konya

168 Karaman Karaman Larende

169 Karaman Karaman Niğde

170 Karaman Karaman Ereğli

171 Karaman Karaman Kayseriye

172 Karaman Karaman Karahisar-ı Develi

173 Karaman Karaman Aksaray

174 Karaman Karaman Koçhisar-ı Karaman

175 Karaman Karaman Gülnar

176 Karaman Karaman Selendi Bölme-i Gülnar

177 Karaman Karaman Akşehir ma‘a Çimenili

178 Karaman Karaman İshaklı

179 Karaman Karaman Belviran

180 Karaman Karaman Beyşehir

181 Karaman Karaman Ilgın

182 Karaman Karaman Seydişehir

183 Karaman Karaman Ermenek

184 Karaman Karaman Mut

185 Karaman Karaman Anduğu

186 Karaman Karaman Ürküb

187 Karaman Karaman Karıtaş

188 Karaman Karaman Eskiil

189

Karaman

Karaman Zengicek

190

Karaman

Karaman Aladağ

191 Karaman Karaman Ortaköy

192 Karaman Karaman Turgudili

237 Egypt Sa'îd (7 kazas)

238

Egypt

- İskenderiye

239

Egypt

- Dimyad

240

Egypt

- Reşid

241

Egypt

- Hanka

242

Egypt

- Menzele

104

Table 3.11. (continued)

243

Egypt

- Mahalle

244

Egypt

- Fuh

245

Egypt

- Nehariye

246

Egypt

- Hofya[?]

247

Egypt

- Demenhur

248 Şam (Arab) - Şam

249

Şam (Arab)

- Kara

250

Şam (Arab)

- Kuds-i Şerif

251

Şam (Arab)

Gazze Kudreş[?]

252

Şam (Arab)

Gazze Gazze

253

Şam (Arab)

Gazze Remle

254

Şam (Arab)

Safed Safed

255

Şam (Arab)

Safed Taberiye

256

Şam (Arab)

Safed Şakif

257

Şam (Arab)

Safed Keferkine

258

Şam (Arab)

Safed Cebel-i Amile

259

Şam (Arab)

Safed Ata

260

Şam (Arab)

Safed Ba‘lbek

261

Şam (Arab)

Safed Beyrud

262

Şam (Arab)

Safed Sayda

263

Şam (Arab)

Safed Kura ve ‘amâlihâ

264

Şam (Arab)

Safed Kerek-i Nuh Aleyhisselam

265

Şam (Arab)

Trablus Trablus

266

Şam (Arab)

Trablus Cebeliye

267

Şam (Arab)

Trablus Akka

268

Şam (Arab)

Trablus Hısnu’l-Ekrad

269

Şam (Arab)

Hama ve Humus Ham

270

Şam (Arab)

Hama ve Humus Humus

271

Şam (Arab)

Haleb Haleb

272

Şam (Arab)

Haleb Azaz

273

Şam (Arab)

Haleb Harim

274

Şam (Arab)

Haleb Sermin

275

Şam (Arab)

Haleb Amik Ovası

276

Şam (Arab)

Haleb Gündüzlü

105

Table 3.11. (continued)

277

Şam (Arab)

Haleb Bakraz

278

Şam (Arab)

Haleb Eriha

279

Şam (Arab)

Haleb Kefertab

280

Şam (Arab)

Haleb Haleb Yörüğü

281

Şam (Arab)

Haleb İzzeddin Kürt

282

Şam (Arab)

Haleb Ma‘arra

283

Şam (Arab)

Haleb Ayntab

284

Şam (Arab)

Haleb Antakya

285

Şam (Arab)

Adana Kınık

286

Şam (Arab)

Adana Adana

287

Şam (Arab)

Adana Üzeyr

288

Şam (Arab)

Adana Berendi

289

Şam (Arab)

Adana Ayas ma‘a Tuzla

290

Şam (Arab)

Adana Kosunlu

291

Şam (Arab)

Adana Tarsus

292

Şam (Arab)

Adana Ulaşlu

293

Şam (Arab)

Adana Sis

294

Şam (Arab)

Adana Divriği

295

Şam (Arab)

Adana Darende[?]

296

Şam (Arab)

Kahta ve Gerger Kahta ve Gerger

297

Şam (Arab)

Kahta ve Gerger Besni

298

Şam (Arab)

Kahta ve Gerger Malatya

299

Şam (Arab)

Kahta ve Gerger Kemah

300

Şam (Arab)

Kahta ve Gerger Erzincan

301

Şam (Arab)

Bire Bire

302

Şam (Arab)

Bire Rumkale

322 Turkmen Alaüddevle - Bozok

323

Turkmen Alaüddevle

- Maraş

324

Turkmen Alaüddevle

- Elbistan

325

Turkmen Alaüddevle

- Kars

326

Turkmen Alaüddevle

- Zamantı

327

Turkmen Alaüddevle

- Güvercinlik

328

Turkmen Alaüddevle

- Hısn-ı Mansur

329

Turkmen Alaüddevle

- Karaaynlı[?]

106

3.2.4 The Anatolia Vilayet of Ottoman Empire in 1528

Turan Gökçe studied the vilayet of Anatolia using a kadıasker register dated 1528.314 This

kadıasker register was registered as number 7625 in the Archive of the Topkapı Palace

Museum and was issued on 19 Cemaziyelevvel 934 (11 February 1528). It consists of two

parts: the first is about the kazas and the second concerns the madrasas in the vilayet of

Anatolia. There is no information about the sanjaks of the kazas, and Gökçe interpreted

this as a sign that the kaza plays the main role in the Ottoman provincial organization.

However, we have to underline that it is misleading to say that the kaza was at the center

of the administrative organization for the whole Ottoman Empire by looking at only the

judicial records. When we look at other sources that provide information on the

provincial system, such as tahrir registers, we see that the kaza is not exceptional, and

that vilayets, sanjaks, nahiyes, and villages are recorded regularly in detail. This

discrepancy is perhaps due to the differences in the technique of recording kadıasker

and tahrir registers as they were prepared for different purposes, which we will discuss

later. While tahrir registers were recorded for the sake of the tax system, the kadıasker

records were devoted to processes concerning kadıs such as appointments or dismissals,

which may be why the kazas occupied a more central position in their records.

According to the register, there are 211 kazas in the vilayet of Anatolia. Some kaza such

as Gümi̇ş, Yeni̇şehıṙ -ı ̇Aydın, Gördes me'a Kayacık, Ermenek, Burdur me'a İrle, Karahi̇sarı

Sahıḃ , Barçınlu, Lazıkıyye, Sivas, Tarakluborlu, Labsekı ̇me'a Bergos have no data on akçe

values. Kazas and akçe values of kadı salaries in the vilayet of Anatolia in 1528 are as

follows in table 3.12.

314 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları"

107

Table 3.28 The Regions and Cities of Vilayet of Anatolia in 1528315

Vilayet Kaza Akçe Values

1 Anatolia Zeytun 10

2 Anatolia Alatağ 10

3 Anatolia Güzelcehıṡ ar 10

4 Anatolia Honaz 10

5 Anatolia Kalkanlu 10

6 Anatolia Karıbazar 10

7 Anatolia Kavak 10

8 Anatolia Kıbrus 10

9 Anatolia Koyluhıṡ ar 10

10 Anatolia Ladık(?) 10

11 Anatolia Yenıċ e-ı ̇Taraklu 10

12 Anatolia Çan 13

13 Anatolia Bolvadıṅ 14

14 Anatolia Ağlasun 15

15 Anatolia Akhıṡ ar 15

16 Anatolia Atranos 15

17 Anatolia Bacı 15

18 Anatolia Bendereglı ̇ 15

19 Anatolia Bıl̇ecık̇ 15

20 Anatolia Bolı Yörügı ̇ 15

21 Anatolia Eserulus 15

22 Anatolia Ilgun 15

23 Anatolia Ilıca 15

24 Anatolia İvrıṅ dı ̇ 15

25 Anatolia Karahıṡ ar-ı Demürlü 15

26 Anatolia Kargu 15

27 Anatolia Karıtaş 15

28 Anatolia Katar 15

29 Anatolia Koçhıṡ ar 15

315We listed kazas at the same sanjak from less to more in terms of akçe value. For source of the list see

Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları"

108

Table 3.12. (continued)

30 Anatolia Koçhıṡ ar-i Karaman 15

31 Anatolia Kürtün 15

32 Anatolia Tomanıç̇ 15

33 Anatolia Turagan 15

34 Anatolia Ürgüb 15

35 Anatolia Yalakabad 15

36 Anatolia Yarhıṡ ar 15

37 Anatolia Yoros 15

38 Anatolia Gönan 20

39 Anatolia Yabanabad 20

40 Anatolia Afşar Me'a Barla 20

41 Anatolia Amasra 20

42 Anatolia Arpaz 20

43 Anatolia Artukabad 20

44 Anatolia Atene 20

45 Anatolia Ayandon 20

46 Anatolia Balya 20

47 Anatolia Çarşanba Me'a Yenıċ e-ı ̇Eflegan 20

48 Anatolia Çerkeş 20

49 Anatolia Devrek Me'a Yedı ̇Dıv̇ an 20

50 Anatolia Eynegöl 20

51 Anatolia Gedegara 20

52 Anatolia Gıṙ asun 20

53 Anatolia Göl 20

54 Anatolia Göl Me'a Yörük 20

55 Anatolia Hoşalay 20

56 Anatolia Isbarta 20

57 Anatolia Karaagaç 20

58 Anatolia Karacalar 20

59 Anatolia Kaş 20

60 Anatolia Kebsud 20

109

Table 3.12. (continued)

61 Anatolia Kızılcatuzla 20

62 Anatolia Küre-ı ̇Selendı ̇ 20

63 Anatolia Kurşunlu 20

64 Anatolia Mengen Me'a Çaga 20

65 Anatolia Meylan 20

66 Anatolia Mıḣ alıç̇ cık 20

67 Anatolia Mıl̇as 20

68 Anatolia Murtazabad 20

69 Anatolia Nevahı-̇ i̇ 'Alaıẏ ye 20

70 Anatolia Nevahı-̇ i Bergama 20

71 Anatolia Nık̇ sar 20

72 Anatolia Of 20

73 Anatolia Pürnaz 20

74 Anatolia Satılmış Me'a Ünye 20

75 Anatolia Seydıġ azı ̇ 20

76 Anatolia Şıl̇ ı ̇ 20

77 Anatolia Sultan Hıṡ arı 20

78 Anatolia Tarhala 20

79 Anatolia Turhal 20

80 Anatolia Yenış̇ ehıṙ 20

81 Anatolia Akyazı 25

82 Anatolia Arac 25

83 Anatolia Arhava Me'a Hemşıṅ 25

84 Anatolia Aydincik 25

85 Anatolia Bafra 25

86 Anatolia Bıġ a 25

87 Anatolia Bıl̇vıṙ an 25

88 Anatolia Çubuk 25

89 Anatolia Ereglı ̇ 25

90 Anatolia Geyve 25

91 Anatolia Gördük 25

110

Table 3.12. (continued)

92 Anatolia Homa 25

93 Anatolia İnönü 25

94 Anatolia İskıl̇ ıḃ 25

95 Anatolia Kal'acık 25

96 Anatolia Karahıṡ ar-i Develü 25

97 Anatolia Keçıḃ oru Me'a Gönan 25

98 Anatolia Konrapa 25

99 Anatolia Ortaköy 25

100 Anatolia Tavas 25

101 Anatolia Tıṙ me 25

102 Anatolia Tosya 25

103 Anatolia Uluborlu 25

104 Anatolia Bıġ adi̇ç Me'a Sındırgı 30

105 Anatolia Ankara Yörügı ̇ 30

106 Anatolia Arim 30

107 Anatolia Ayaş 30

108 Anatolia Boyabad 30

109 Anatolia Çorum 30

110 Anatolia Demürcı ̇ 30

111 Anatolia Derende 30

112 Anatolia Gekıḃ oza 30

113 Anatolia Göynük 30

114 Anatolia Gülnar 30

115 Anatolia İshaklu 30

116 Anatolia İznık̇ Me'a Gürle 30

117 Anatolia Köycegıż 30

118 Anatolia Mudurni 30

119 Anatolia Nıḟ 30

120 Anatolia Onık̇ ıḋ ıv̇ an 30

121 Anatolia Sanduklu 30

122 Anatolia Sart 30

111

Table 3.12. (continued)

123 Anatolia Sıṁ av Me'a Egrıġ öz 30

124 Anatolia Sögüd Me'a Bazarcik 30

125 Anatolia Sultanönü 30

126 Anatolia Taşköprü 30

127 Anatolia Vıṙ anşehıṙ 30

128 Anatolia Zıl̇e 30

129 Anatolia Bergama 35

130 Anatolia Eynecık̇ 35

131 Anatolia Karacakoyunlu 35

132 Anatolia Kula 35

133 Anatolia Manyas Me'a Fart 35

134 Anatolia Marmara 35

135 Anatolia Mazon 35

136 Anatolia Selendı ̇ 35

137 Anatolia Seydış̇ ehrı ̇ 35

138 Anatolia Şuhud 35

139 Anatolia Uşak 35

140 Anatolia Yalvac 35

141 Anatolia Yavıċ e 35

142 Anatolia Karahıṡ ar-1 Şarkı ̇ 40

143 Anatolia Ayazmend 40

144 Anatolia Balat 40

145 Anatolia Balıkesrı ̇ 40

146 Anatolia Bozöyük 40

147 Anatolia Eskıı̇ l̇ 40

148 Anatolia Gölhıṡ ar 40

149 Anatolia Karahıṡ ar-ı Teke 40

150 Anatolia Manavgad 40

151 Anatolia Osmancık 40

152 Anatolia Samsun 40

153 Anatolia Şeyhlü 40

112

Table 3.12. (continued)

154 Anatolia Sonisa 40

155 Anatolia Kıṫ e 45

156 Anatolia Egıṙ dıṙ 50

157 Anatolia İznık̇ mıḋ Me'a Kandiri 50

158 Anatolia Tatay 50

159 Anatolia Aksaray 50

160 Anatolia Akşehıṙ 50

161 Anatolia Atala 50

162 Anatolia Begbazarı 50

163 Anatolia Muğla 50

164 Anatolia Sıṅ ob 50

165 Anatolia Uluyörük 50

166 Anatolia Akşehıṙ (?) 55

167 Anatolia Elmalu 55

168 Anatolia Kestel 55

169 Anatolia Alaıẏ ye Me'a Perakende 60

170 Anatolia Bayramlu 60

171 Anatolia Bolu 60

172 Anatolia Kastamonı ̇ 60

173 Anatolia Kenkırı 60

175 Anatolia Megrı ̇ 60

176 Anatolia Mud 60

177 Anatolia Nıġ de 60

178 Anatolia Sıḟ rıḣ ıṡ ar 60

179 Anatolia Tarhanyat 60

180 Anatolia Çeşme 70

181 Anatolia Çıṅ e 70

182 Anatolia Edremıḋ 70

183 Anatolia Bıṙ gı ̇ 80

184 Anatolia Mıḣ alıç 80

185 Anatolia Antalya 100

113

Table 3.12. (continued)

186 Anatolia Begşehrı ̇ 100

187 Anatolia Beçıṅ 100

188 Anatolia Kayserıẏ ye 100

189 Anatolia Larende 100

190 Anatolia Trabzon 100

191 Anatolia Mağnıṡ a 120

192 Anatolia Ayasulug 130

193 Anatolia Konya 130

194 Anatolia İzmıṙ 150

195 Anatolia Ankara 150

196 Anatolia Kütahya 150

197 Anatolia Tokat 150

198 Anatolia Amasya Me'a Ladık̇ ve Merzifon 200

199 Anatolia Tıṙ e Me'a Güzelhıṡ ar 200

200 Anatolia Bırusa 300

201 Anatolia Barçınlu -

202 Anatolia Burdur Me'a İrle -

203 Anatolia Ermenek -

204 Anatolia Gördes Me'a Kayacık -

205 Anatolia Gümış̇ -

206 Anatolia Karahıṡ ar-i Sahıḃ -

207 Anatolia Küre Me'a Ayandon

208 Anatolia Labsekı ̇Me'a Bergos -

209 Anatolia Lazıkıyye -

210 Anatolia Sıv̇ as -

211 Anatolia Tarakluborlu -

212 Anatolia Yenış̇ ehi̇r-ı ̇Aydın -

114

3.3 The Lands of Ottoman Empire in Tahrir Registers

3.3.1 Rumelia Vilayet of the Ottoman Empire in 1526-1528

Concerning Rumelia, Tayyib Gökbilgin provides information about its administrative

organization from a document dated between 1526 and 1528.316 We thought it was

appropriate to analyze this document in the section where we examined the tahrir

registers since this document is similar in terms of vilayet, sanjak and kaza distribution.

Additionally, instead of daily revenues of the kadıs in the aforementioned kadıasker

registers, the document comprises the total revenue of the cities. Gökbilgin suggests that

this record may have been prepared with a practical aim for the Sultans, as it contains

less information than other detailed tahrir registers. In the Topkapı Palace Museum

Archive, this register is numbered D.9578 and comprises sanjak and kaza distribution,

information on the administrative ruler of each kaza, and the total revenue amount of

the cities (nefs-i kaza) known as hâsıl. Gökbilgin also compared the information written

in this register with the tahrir of 1530 (No: 167) in the footnote section. According to this

Table 3.29 The Distribution of Sanjak in Rumelia in 1526-1528317

Vilayet Sanjak Kaza Sanjak Kaza

Rumelia Florina 1 Hersek 6

Rumelia Gelibolu 2 Çirmen 7

Rumelia Midilli 2 Niğbolu 7

Rumelia İlbasan 2 Sofya 7

Rumelia Ohri 2 Avlonya 8

Rumelia Vidin 3 Ağrıboz 8

Rumelia Karlı-ili 3 Kustendil 9

Rumelia İskenderiye 3 Tırhala 9

Rumelia Prezrin 3 Vize 10

Rumelia İzvornik 3 Semendre 10

316 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve

Kasabaları”

317 We listed sanjaks according to their kaza number from less to more.

115

Table 3.13. (continued)

Rumelia Vülçterin 4 Silistre 11

Rumelia Bosna 5 Mora 11

Rumelia Yanina 6 Paşa 34

Rumelia Alaca-Hisar 6

The distribution of sanjaks and 182 kazas of Rumelia in 1526-1528 is as follows by the

table 3.14.

Table 3.30 The Regions and Cities of Rumelia in 1526-1528318

Vilayet Sanjak Kaza Hâsıl

1 Rumelia Paşa Görice 9,111

2 Rumelia Paşa Kızıl-ağaç 11,741

3 Rumelia Paşa Avret-hisarı 12,297

4 Rumelia Paşa Bihlişte 13,630

5 Rumelia Paşa Yenice-i Karasu 15,000

6 Rumelia Paşa Vodine 15,213

7 Rumelia Paşa Kırçova 17,836

8 Rumelia Paşa Tatar-Pazarı 18,250

9 Rumelia Paşa Hurpişte 18,569

10 Rumelia Paşa Yenice-i Vardar 20,000

11 Rumelia Paşa Kalkandelen 24,158

12 Rumelia Paşa Ferecik 28,000

13 Rumelia Paşa Köprülü 31,500

14 Rumelia Paşa Temür-hisar 40,360

15 Rumelia Paşa Ipsala 45,579

16 Rumelia Paşa Eskihisar - Zağra 49,098

17 Rumelia Paşa Zihne 49,950

18 Rumelia Paşa Drama 51,374

19 Rumelia Paşa Serfiçe 52,251

318 We listed kazas at the same sanjak from less to more in terms of city income.

116

Table 3.14. (continued)

20 Rumelia Paşa Nevrekop 54,708

21 Rumelia Paşa Karaferye 55,219

22 Rumelia Paşa Ergene 64,371

23 Rumelia Paşa Gümülcine 69,365

24 Rumelia Paşa Pirlepe 76,977

25 Rumelia Paşa Inos 90,667

26 Rumelia Paşa Manastır 106,226

27 Rumelia Paşa Kastoria (Kesriye) 125,604

28 Rumelia Paşa Sidre-Kapsı 155,817

29 Rumelia Paşa Siroz 188,301

30 Rumelia Paşa Üsküp 372,258

31 Rumelia Paşa Edirne 1,807,892

32 Rumelia Paşa Şehr-i Selânik 3,149,659

33 Rumelia Paşa Dimetoka -

34 Rumelia Paşa Filibe -

35 Rumelia Gelibolu Malkara 55,000

36 Rumelia Gelibolu Gelibolu -

37 Rumelia Silistre Rus-Kasrı 4,707

38 Rumelia Silistre Karin-ovası (Karin-Âbad) 13,128

39 Rumelia Silistre Aydos 13,750

40 Rumelia Silistre Hırsova 15,429

41 Rumelia Silistre Pravadi 25,390

42 Rumelia Silistre Misivri 44,760

43 Rumelia Silistre Ahyolu 59,134

44 Rumelia Silistre Kale-i Kili 60,025

45 Rumelia Silistre Varna 61,134

46 Rumelia Silistre Akkerman 68,861

47 Rumelia Silistre Silistre 117,831

48 Rumelia Niğbolu Şumnu 20,690

49 Rumelia Niğbolu Lofca 30,972

50 Rumelia Niğbolu Ivraca 42,553

117

Table 3.14. (continued)

51 Rumelia Niğbolu Tırnova 62,359

52 Rumelia Niğbolu Ziştova 64,448

53 Rumelia Niğbolu Rus-Yörüğü 81,893

54 Rumelia Niğbolu Niğbolu 230,686

55 Rumelia Vize İncüğez 10,060

56 Rumelia Vize Birgoz (Lüleburgaz) 18,350

57 Rumelia Vize Çorlu 20,000

58 Rumelia Vize Kırk-Kilise 23,785

59 Rumelia Vize Dânişmend - Eski (Baba-Eski) 24,360

60 Rumelia Vize Vize 25,000

61 Rumelia Vize Terkos 53,276

62 Rumelia Vize Hayrebolu 65,000

63 Rumelia Vize Silivri 85,070

64 Rumelia Vize Ereğli 116,668

65 Rumelia Çirmen Çirmen 11,134

66 Rumelia Çirmen Çirpan 12,509

67 Rumelia Çirmen Akçe-Kızanlık 15,485

68 Rumelia Çirmen Hasköy 17,085

69 Rumelia Çirmen Eyne-pazarı 18,076

70 Rumelia Çirmen Yenice-i Zağra 32,185

71 Rumelia Çirmen Rodoscuk 67,720

72 Rumelia Sofya Berkofca 4,882

73 Rumelia Sofya Ihtimam 5,231

74 Rumelia Sofya Şehirköy 8,524

75 Rumelia Sofya Çirpofça (Çiprovci) 47,553

76 Rumelia Sofya Pireznik 96,417

77 Rumelia Sofya Samakov 98,201

78 Rumelia Sofya Sofya 175,523

79 Rumelia Kustendil Nogeriç 20,391

80 Rumelia Kustendil Ivrânye 21,372

81 Rumelia Kustendil Ilıca 21,373

118

Table 3.14. (continued)

82 Rumelia Kustendil Dubnica 23,430

83 Rumelia Kustendil Radomir 30,060

84 Rumelia Kustendil Ustrumca 35,731

85 Rumelia Kustendil Menlik 54,096

86 Rumelia Kustendil İştip 56,630

87 Rumelia Kustendil Maden-i Kratovo 100,428

88 Rumelia Midilli Kale-i Molova (Moliva) 47,160

89 Rumelia Midilli Midilli 51,832

90 Rumelia Semendre Kale-i Resava 500

91 Rumelia Semendre Kale-i Göğercinlik 4,500

92 Rumelia Semendre Kale-i Hram 5,000

93 Rumelia Semendre Kale-i Koyluca 10,000

94 Rumelia Semendre Ujiçe 15,806

95 Rumelia Semendre Kale-i Belgrad 40,000

96 Rumelia Semendre Niş 71,058

97 Rumelia Semendre Jejne (Zsezsne, Kopaonik) 80,000

98 Rumelia Semendre Kale-i Semendre 120,115

99 Rumelia Semendre Rudnik 213,769

100 Rumelia İskenderiye Podgoriçe 17,112

101 Rumelia İskenderiye İskenderiye 31,328

102 Rumelia İskenderiye İpek 31,368

103 Rumelia Avlonya Depedelen 3,633

104 Rumelia Avlonya Premedi 13,232

105 Rumelia Avlonya Iskrapar 13,407

106 Rumelia Avlonya Ergiro-Kasrı 17,850

107 Rumelia Avlonya Delvine 19,887

108 Rumelia Avlonya Belgrad (Berat) 51,280

109 Rumelia Avlonya Kanina 51,796

110 Rumelia Avlonya Avlonya 1,554,888

111 Rumelia İlbasan İlbasan 44,208

112 Rumelia İlbasan Kale-i Drac 255,932

119

Table 3.14. (continued)

113 Rumelia Ohri Akçehisar 8,279

114 Rumelia Ohri Ohri 54,954

115 Rumelia Ağrıboz Modoniçe 35,000

116 Rumelia Ağrıboz Kızılhisar 37,100

117 Rumelia Ağrıboz Livadiya 45,892

118 Rumelia Ağrıboz Ağrıboz 65,038

119 Rumelia Ağrıboz Salone 69,774

120 Rumelia Ağrıboz İzdin 129,275

121 Rumelia Ağrıboz Atina 157,931

122 Rumelia Ağrıboz İstefa 167,595

123 Rumelia Tırhala Alasonya 38,021

124 Rumelia Tırhala Çatalca 39,912

125 Rumelia Tırhala Ağrafa 42,994

126 Rumelia Tırhala Dömeke 60,393

127 Rumelia Tırhala Fener 60,495

128 Rumelia Tırhala Badracık 107,293

129 Rumelia Tırhala Yenişehir 113,079

130 Rumelia Tırhala Tırhala 131,019

131 Rumelia Tırhala İnebahtı 212,837

132 Rumelia Prezrin Tırgovişte 24,733

133 Rumelia Prezrin Foça 25,868

134 Rumelia Prezrin Prizrin 74,068

135 Rumelia Alaca-Hisar İplana 9,491

136 Rumelia Alaca-Hisar Bolvan 17,081

137 Rumelia Alaca-Hisar Ürgüb 26,445

138 Rumelia Alaca-Hisar Leskofça 34,310

139 Rumelia Alaca-Hisar Alaca-hisar 65,784

140 Rumelia Alaca-Hisar Zaplana 203,969

141 Rumelia Vidin İsfirlig 1,833

142 Rumelia Vidin Bana 5,611

143 Rumelia Vidin Vidin 224,011

120

Table 3.14. (continued)

144 Rumelia Florina Florina 36,494

145 Rumelia Mora Vanika 4,400

146 Rumelia Mora Kalavorta 24,717

147 Rumelia Mora Anavarin 28,964

148 Rumelia Mora Holomiç 33,011

149 Rumelia Mora Arhos 36,831

150 Rumelia Mora Kartına 40,968

151 Rumelia Mora Koritus (Korintus) 62,470

152 Rumelia Mora Mezestre 105,539

153 Rumelia Mora Balya-Badra 133,032

154 Rumelia Mora Moton 136,907

155 Rumelia Mora Koron 162,081

156 Rumelia Vülçterin Trepçe 10,024

157 Rumelia Vülçterin Novabdra (novobrdo) 10,262

158 Rumelia Vülçterin Vılçıtırn 18,918

159 Rumelia Vülçterin Priştina 59,551

160 Rumelia Yanina Rinase 20,110

161 Rumelia Yanina Koniçe 21,012

162 Rumelia Yanina Zogoz 31,825

163 Rumelia Yanina Aydonat 40,206

164 Rumelia Yanina Yanina 139,550

165 Rumelia Yanina Narda 235,777

166 Rumelia Karlı-ili Engeli-Kasrı (Angelo Kastron) 21.002

167 Rumelia Karlı-ili Voniçe (Vonitza) 18,484

168 Rumelia Karlı-ili Aya-Mavra 26,221

169 Rumelia İzvornik Brvenik 6,629

170 Rumelia İzvornik İzvornik 64,440

171 Rumelia İzvornik Sirebereniçe 477,032

172 Rumelia Hersek Nova 8,421

173 Rumelia Hersek Bâzâr-ı Mostar 8,521

174 Rumelia Hersek Bâzâr-ı Balac (Balagay) 9,658

121

Table 3.14. (continued)

175 Rumelia Hersek Bâzâr-ı Prepolye 17,773

176 Rumelia Hersek Goradja 27,891

177 Rumelia Hersek Foça 41,560

178 Rumelia Bosna Vâroş-ı Vişegrad 39,591

179 Rumelia Bosna Koninç (Konjic) 50,507

180 Rumelia Bosna bâzâr-ı Olofça (Olovo) 77,711

181 Rumelia Bosna Bâzâr-ı Saray 80,688

182 Rumelia Bosna Yeni-pazar 88,666

3.3.2 The Lands of Ottoman Empire in the Tahrirs between 1520 and 1540

In 1530, Suleiman the Magnificent commissioned the drawing up of tahrir registers for

the entire empire. These have been published by the Turkish Presidency’s State Archives

of the Republic of Turkey (BOA). The undergoing "Mapping Ottoman Cities" TÜBİTAK

project that we mentioned in Introduction adds more tahrir registers to these published

ones to reveal the distribution of the vilayets, sanjaks, kazas, nahiyes and villages of the

whole empire between 1520 and 1540, for the first time.319 Although the project is

focused on 1530, a broader database was prepared for between 1520 and 1540. The

project created a digital database on administrative, demographic, topography,

architectural structures, and economy of the empire. The tahrir registers numbered 166,

167, 367, 370, 387, 438, 998 in the archive belong to 1530 were examined in the project,

while missing information was filled in from registers numbered 390 (1514), 75 (1519),

91 (1520), 94 (1520), 101 (1521), 164 (1530), 173 (1533), 200 (1541), 397 (1536), 506

(1530), 540 (1530) and 1078 (1530). In this thesis, we will use the vilayet, sanjak and kaza

division to analyze administrative and urban division of the Ottoman Empire between

1520 and 1540.

319 As a part of this undergoing project supported by TÜBITAK, I would like express my special thanks to

Yunus Uğur -the project owner- for allowing me to use the data derived from the project.

122

According to tahrir registers in this project, the empire consists of 7 vilayets -Anatolia,

Rumelia, Arab, Diyarbekir, Karaman, Rum, and Zülkadriye- 94 sanjaks, and 593320 kazas.

There are 17 sanjaks in the vilayet of Anatolia, 26 in Rumelia, 13 in Arab, 14 in Diyarbekir,

8 in Karaman, 14 in Rum, and 1 in Zülkadriye. A few things are worth mentioning

concerning the vilayet of Rumelia. In the tahrir register (No. 167), the sanjak of Paşa was

was constituted by 3 regions: Sağ kol, Sol kol and Sofya.321 In addition, Dukakin, which

belongs to a dynasty, is mentioned as Vilayet-i Dukakin in Rumelia and without any kaza

division in the tahrir records.322 Three military regions, Müselleman-ı Çingane,

Müselleman-ı Vize and Müselleman-ı Kızılca are also not included in the total number of

sanjaks.323 Regarding the content of tahrir records, we have to say that in some vilayets

such as Egypt, Yemen, Bağdat, Lahsâ which were conquered in the 16th century, the tımar

system was not applied hence these regions do not have tahrir registers.324 Therefore,

unlike other sources, Egypt is not included in the list of tahrirs as a vilayet. The

distribution of sanjak by vilayets is as follows in table 3.15.

Table 3.31 The Distribution of Sanjak by Vilayets between 1520 and 1540325

Vilayet Sanjak Sanjak Kaza

Anatolia

Ala'i̇ye, Ankara, Aydın, Bi̇ga, Bolu, Hamıḋ , Hüdavendıġ ar,

Karahıṡ ar-i Sahıḃ , Karesı,̇ Kastamonu, Kengırı, Kocaıl̇ ı,̇ Kütahya,

Menteşe, Saruhan, Sultanönü, Teke

17 165

Rumelia

Ağrıboz, Alacahi̇sar, Bosna, Çi̇rmen, Geli̇bolu, Hersek,

İskenderi̇ye, İzvornık̇ , Karlııl̇ i̇, Kefe, Köstendıl̇ , Mora, Nığ̇ bolu,

Paşa Lıv̇ ası, Prıż rıṅ , Rodos, Semendıṙ e, Sıl̇ ıṡ tre, Tırhala, Vılçıtrın,

Vıḋ ıṅ , Vıż e, Yanya, Ohri, İlbasan, Avlonya

26 225

320 This number does not includes cities that were repeated in different sanjaks or were recorded as

different name.

321 İbrahim Sezgin, “Paşa Livası,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2007, pp.183-184; M. Tayyib

Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve Kasabaları”

322 T.C. Başbkanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı, Osmanlı Yer Adları I

Rumeli Eyaleti (1514-1550), Ankara, 2013, p.11, footnote 31.

323 Feridun Emecen, “Yaya ve Müsellem”; M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında

Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve Kasabaları”; Emine Dingeç,”Osmanlı Ordusunda Bir Geri Hizmet Kurumu

Olarak “Vize Müsellemleri,” Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17 (2007), s. 241-256.

324 Mehmet Öz, “Tahrir”; Halil Sahillioğlu, “Osmanlı Döneminde Irak'ın İdari Taksimatı,” Belleten LIV/211

(1990), Ankara 1991, p. 1235

325 Yunus Uğur, “Mapping the Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Conjunctions and Distinctiveness (1520-1540)”

123

Table 3.15. (continued)

Arab

Adana, Ayntab, Bi̇reci̇k, Gazze, Haleb, Hama ve Humus, Safed,

Salt ve Aclun, Sıṡ , Şam, Tarsus, Trablus, Üzeyr

13 112

Diyarbekir

Amıḋ , Ana, Arabkıṙ , Çemi̇şgezek, Çi̇rmük, Deyr ve Rahbe,

Erganı,̇ Harpurt, Kığ̇ ı, Mardıṅ , Musul, Ruha, Sıṅ car, Si̇verek

14 21

Karaman

Aksaray, Akşehıṙ , Beyşehrı,̇ İçıl̇ , Kayseri̇yye, Konya, Larende,

Nığ̇ de

8 26

Rum

Amasya, Bayburd, Cani̇k, Çorumlu, Di̇vri̇ği̇ ve Darende, Gerger-

Kahta-Behi̇snı,̇ Karahıṡ ar-i Şarki̇, Kemah, Malatya, Nık̇ sar, Sıv̇ as,

Sonıṡ a, Tokat, Trabzon 14 52

Zülkadriye Maraş 1 6

According to tahrir registers between 1520 and 1540, the city distribution of the empire

is as follows; 165 kazas in vilayet of Anatolia, 225 in Rumelia, 112 in Arab, 21 in

Diyarbekir, 26 in Karaman, 52 in Rum, and 6 in Zülkadriye. 9 kazas in the vilayet of

Rumelia have repeated in two different sanjaks in tahrir registers: Vılçıtrın appears both

in the sanjak of Vılçıtrın and İskenderiye; Bihor in the sanjaks of Prizrin and of

İskenderiye; Timur Hisarı in the sanjaks of Paşa and of Köstendıl̇ ; Prizrin in the sanjaks of

Prıż rıṅ and of İskenderıẏ e; Priştine in the sanjaks of Vılçıtrın and of İskenderıẏ e; Nova

Bırda in the sanjaks of Vılçıtrın and of İskenderıẏ e; Niş in the sanjaks of Alacahıṡ ar and of

Semendıṙ e; Keşan in the sanjaks of Paşa and of Gelıḃ olu. Also, although the Samakov and

Samakov-ı İvlayçov kazas in the sanjak of Paşa were recorded in two different ways, it is

thought to be one place. The fact that the names of the villages included in their borders

reinforces this argument, although the number of households differs. For this reason,

even though they are written in the list separately, they were counted once in the total

number of kaza.326 In addition, we see that 3 kazas were recorded differently in the

registers no 998/2 (1530) and 397 (1536) belonging to the sanjak of Haleb. In register no

998/2 (1530), for example, Şizar ve Kamine (N.), Süveyde tabii Antakiyye and Cebel-i

Sümmak tabii Sermin(N.) were recorded respectively as Şeyzer (N.), Süveydiyye (N.) and

Cebel-i Sümmak in register no 397 (1536). In the case of Rumelia, Badracık from register

326 T.C. Başbkanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı, Osmanlı Yer Adları I

Rumeli Eyaleti (1514-1550), Ankara, 2013, p.14

124

367 (1530) was recorded as Badra in register no 101 (1521). Although they are not

included in the total number of kazas, they are added to the kaza list. When we exclude

these repeated kazas from the total number of kaza, the number decreases from 607 to

593. The distribution of vilayet, sanjak and kaza of the whole empire are as follows in

table 3.16. 327

Table 3.32 The Regions and Cities of Ottoman Empire in the Tahrir Registers between

1520 and 1540

Vilayet Sanjak Kaza (BOA) Register No Date

1 Anatolia Kocaili Görele 438/2 1530

2 Anatolia Kocaili Kala-i Giresun 387/2 1530

3 Anatolia Saruhan Tarhanyad 166 1530

4 Anatolia Ala'ıẏ e Alaiye 166 1530

5 Anatolia Ala'ıẏ e Manavgad 166 1530

6 Anatolia Ankara Ankara 438/1 1530

7 Anatolia Ankara Ayaş 438/1 1530

8 Anatolia Ankara Bacı 438/1 1530

9 Anatolia Ankara Çubuk 438/1 1530

10 Anatolia Ankara Murtaza-Abad 438/1 1530

11 Anatolia Ankara Yaban-Abad 438/1 1530

12 Anatolia Aydın Alaşehir 166 1530

13 Anatolia Aydın Arpaz 166 1530

14 Anatolia Aydın Ayasluğ 166 1530

15 Anatolia Aydın Birgi 166 1530

16 Anatolia Aydın Bozdoğan 166 1530

17 Anatolia Aydın Çeşme 166 1530

18 Anatolia Aydın Güzel Hisar 166 1530

19 Anatolia Aydın İzmir 166 1530

20 Anatolia Aydın Kestel 166 1530

21 Anatolia Aydın Sart 166 1530

327 Nahiye is added to the list as abbreviated (N.) and cezire (island) in sanjak of Gelibolu are added to list

as abbreviated (C.)

125

Table 3.16. (continued)

22 Anatolia Aydın Sultan Hisarı 166 1530

23 Anatolia Aydın Tire 166 1530

24 Anatolia Aydın Yenişehir 166 1530

25 Anatolia Aydın Kızılhisar 367 1530

26 Anatolia Bıġ a Balya 166 1530

27 Anatolia Bıġ a Biga 166 1530

28 Anatolia Bıġ a Çan 166 1530

29 Anatolia Bıġ a Çatal Bergos 166 1530

30 Anatolia Bıġ a Ezine Bazarı 166 1530

31 Anatolia Bıġ a Lapseki 166 1530

32 Anatolia Bolu Bolu 438/2 1530

33 Anatolia Bolu Çağa 438/2 1530

34 Anatolia Bolu Ereğlü 438/2 1530

35 Anatolia Bolu Gerede 438/2 1530

36 Anatolia Bolu Hızırbeyili 438/2 1530

37 Anatolia Bolu Kıbrus 438/2 1530

38 Anatolia Bolu Konrapa 438/2 1530

39 Anatolia Bolu Mengen 438/2 1530

40 Anatolia Bolu Mudurnu 438/2 1530

41 Anatolia Bolu Oniki Divan 438/2 1530

42 Anatolia Bolu Taraklu-Borlu 438/2 1530

43 Anatolia Bolu Todurga 438/2 1530

44 Anatolia Bolu Ulus 438/2 1530

45 Anatolia Bolu Viranşehir 438/2 1530

46 Anatolia Bolu Yedi Divan 438/2 1530

47 Anatolia Bolu Yenice 438/2 1530

48 Anatolia Hamıḋ Afşar 438/1 1530

49 Anatolia Hamıḋ Ağlasun 438/1 1530

50 Anatolia Hamıḋ Burdur 438/1 1530

51 Anatolia Hamıḋ Eğirdür 438/1 1530

52 Anatolia Hamıḋ Gölhisarı 438/1 1530

126

Table 3.16. (continued)

53 Anatolia Hamıḋ Gönen 438/1 1530

54 Anatolia Hamıḋ İrle 438/1 1530

55 Anatolia Hamıḋ Isparta 438/1 1530

56 Anatolia Hamıḋ Karaağaç-ı Gölhisar 438/1 1530

57 Anatolia Hamıḋ Kiçiborlu 438/1 1530

58 Anatolia Hamıḋ Uluborlu 438/1 1530

59 Anatolia Hamıḋ Yalvaç 438/1 1530

60 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Adranos 166 1530

61 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Akhisar 166 1530

62 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Akyazı 166 1530

63 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Aydıncık 166 1530

64 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Bergama 166 1530

65 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Beybazarı 166 1530

66 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Bursa 166 1530

67 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Domaniç 166 1530

68 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Ermeni Bazarı 166 1530

69 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Geyve 166 1530

70 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Göl 166 1530

71 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Gönen 166 1530

72 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Göynük 166 1530

73 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar İnegöl 166 1530

74 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Kebsud 166 1530

75 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Kite 166 1530

76 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Mihaliç 166 1530

77 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Mihaliçlık 166 1530

78 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Sifrihisar 166 1530

79 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Söğüd 166 1530

80 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Tarhala 166 1530

81 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Tuzla 166 1530

82 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Yarhisar 166 1530

83 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Yenice-i Taraklu 166 1530

127

Table 3.16. (continued)

84 Anatolia Hüdavendıġ ar Yenişehir 166 1530

85 Anatolia Karahıṡ ar-i Sahıḃ Barçınlu 438/1 1530

86 Anatolia Karahıṡ ar-i Sahıḃ Bolvadin 438/1 1530

87 Anatolia Karahıṡ ar-i Sahıḃ Karahisar 438/1 1530

88 Anatolia Karahıṡ ar-i Sahıḃ Sanduklu 438/1 1530

89 Anatolia Karahıṡ ar-i Sahıḃ Şuhud 438/1 1530

90 Anatolia Karesı ̇ Ayazmend 166 1530

91 Anatolia Karesı ̇ Balıkesri 166 1530

92 Anatolia Karesı ̇ Bigadiç 166 1530

93 Anatolia Karesı ̇ Edremid 166 1530

94 Anatolia Karesı ̇ İvrindi 166 1530

95 Anatolia Karesı ̇ Manyas 166 1530

96 Anatolia Kastamonu Araç 438/2 1530

97 Anatolia Kastamonu Ayandon 438/2 1530

98 Anatolia Kastamonu Boyovası 438/2 1530

99 Anatolia Kastamonu Daday 438/2 1530

100 Anatolia Kastamonu Durağan 438/2 1530

101 Anatolia Kastamonu Göl 438/2 1530

102 Anatolia Kastamonu Hoşalay 438/2 1530

103 Anatolia Kastamonu Kastamonu 438/2 1530

104 Anatolia Kastamonu Küre 438/2 1530

105 Anatolia Kastamonu Sinob 438/2 1530

106 Anatolia Kastamonu Taşköprü 438/2 1530

107 Anatolia Kengırı Çerkeş 438/2 1530

108 Anatolia Kengırı Kalacık 438/2 1530

109 Anatolia Kengırı Kargu 438/2 1530

110 Anatolia Kengırı Karı Bazarı 438/2 1530

111 Anatolia Kengırı Kengırı 438/2 1530

112 Anatolia Kengırı Koçhisar 438/2 1530

113 Anatolia Kengırı Kurşunlu 438/2 1530

114 Anatolia Kengırı Milan 438/2 1530

128

Table 3.16. (continued)

115 Anatolia Kengırı Tosya 438/2 1530

116 Anatolia Kocaıl̇ ı ̇ Ada 438/2 1530

117 Anatolia Kocaıl̇ ı ̇ Gegivize 438/2 1530

118 Anatolia Kocaıl̇ ı ̇ İznik 438/2 1530

119 Anatolia Kocaıl̇ ı ̇ İznikmid 438/2 1530

120 Anatolia Kocaıl̇ ı ̇ Kandıra 438/2 1530

121 Anatolia Kocaıl̇ ı ̇ Şile 438/2 1530

122 Anatolia Kocaıl̇ ı ̇ Yalakabad 438/2 1530

123 Anatolia Kocaıl̇ ı ̇ Yoros 438/2 1530

124 Anatolia Kütahya Eğrigöz ve Simav 438/1 1530

125 Anatolia Kütahya Güre ve Selendi 438/1 1530

126 Anatolia Kütahya Homa 438/1 1530

127 Anatolia Kütahya Honaz 438/1 1530

128 Anatolia Kütahya Kula 438/1 1530

129 Anatolia Kütahya Kütahya 438/1 1530

130 Anatolia Kütahya Lazkiye 438/1 1530

131 Anatolia Kütahya Şeyhlü 438/1 1530

132 Anatolia Kütahya Uşak 438/1 1530

133 Anatolia Menteşe Balat 166 1530

134 Anatolia Menteşe Bozoyük 166 1530

135 Anatolia Menteşe Çine 166 1530

136 Anatolia Menteşe Isravalos 166 1530

137 Anatolia Menteşe Köyceğiz 166 1530

138 Anatolia Menteşe Mazun 166 1530

139 Anatolia Menteşe Mekri 166 1530

140 Anatolia Menteşe Milas 166 1530

141 Anatolia Menteşe Muğla 166 1530

142 Anatolia Menteşe Peçin 166 1530

143 Anatolia Menteşe Pırnaz 166 1530

144 Anatolia Menteşe Tavas 166 1530

145 Anatolia Saruhan Adala 166 1530

129

Table 3.16. (continued)

146 Anatolia Saruhan Akhisar 166 1530

147 Anatolia Saruhan Demürci 166 1530

148 Anatolia Saruhan Gördek 166 1530

149 Anatolia Saruhan Gördos 166 1530

150 Anatolia Saruhan Güzel Hisar 166 1530

151 Anatolia Saruhan Ilıca 166 1530

152 Anatolia Saruhan Kayacık 166 1530

153 Anatolia Saruhan Magnisa 166 1530

154 Anatolia Saruhan Marmara 166 1530

155 Anatolia Saruhan Menemen 166 1530

156 Anatolia Saruhan Nif 166 1530

157 Anatolia Sultanönü Bilecik 438/1 1530

158 Anatolia Sultanönü Eskişehir 438/1 1530

159 Anatolia Sultanönü İnönü 438/1 1530

160 Anatolia Sultanönü Seydigazi 438/1 1530

161 Anatolia Teke Antalya 166 1530

162 Anatolia Teke Elmalu 166 1530

163 Anatolia Teke Kalkanlu 166 1530

164 Anatolia Teke Karahisar 166 1530

165 Anatolia Teke Kaş 166 1530

166 Arab Adana Adana 998/2 1530

167 Arab Adana Ayas 998/2 1530

168 Arab Adana Berendi 998/2 1530

169 Arab Adana Kara-İsalu 998/2 1530

170 Arab Adana Kınık 998/2 1530

171 Arab Ayntab Dirbesak/ Gündüzlü( N.) 998/2 1530

172 Arab Ayntab Nehrü'l Cevz( N.) 998/2 1530

173 Arab Ayntab Tel-Başir( N.) 998/2 1530

174 Arab Ayntab Ayntab 998/2 1530

175 Arab Birecik Birecik 998/2 1530

176 Arab Bıṙ ecık̇ Araban( N.) 998/2 1530

130

Table 3.16. (continued)

177 Arab Bıṙ ecık̇ Merzuban ( N.) 998/2 1530

178 Arab Bıṙ ecık̇ Sıvac/Suruç( N.) 998/2 1530

179 Arab Bıṙ ecık̇ Vilayet-i Rum Kal'a 998/2 1530

180 Arab Bıṙ ecık̇ Bıṙ ecık̇ 998/2 1530

181 Arab Gazze

Kudus-i Şerif Ma' Halilü'r-Rahman

(N.) 998/2 1530

182 Arab Gazze Remle (N.) 998/2 1530

183 Arab Haleb A'zaz(N.) 998/2 1530

184 Arab Haleb Altun-Özü(N.) 998/2 1530

185 Arab Haleb Amik(N.) 998/2 1530

186 Arab Haleb Antakiyye (N.) 397 1536

187 Arab Haleb Arsuz-ili(N.) 998/2 1530

188 Arab Haleb Bab(N.) 397 1536

189 Arab Haleb Bakras(N.) 397 1536

190 Arab Haleb Cebbul (N.) 397 1536

191 Arab Haleb Cebel-i Akra(N.) 998/2 1530

192 Arab Haleb Cebel-i Ala(N.) 998/2 1530

193 Arab Haleb Cebel-i Ben'i Alim tabii Sermin(N.) 998/2 1530

194 Arab Haleb Cebel-i Berişa(N.) 998/2 1530

195 Arab Haleb Cebel-i Siman(N.) 998/2 1530

196 Arab Haleb Cebel-i Sümmak tabii Sermin(N.) 998/2 1530

197 Arab Haleb Cebel-i Sümmak 397 1536

198 Arab Haleb Cum(N.) 998/2 1530

199 Arab Haleb Halkalar(N.) 998/2 1530

200 Arab Haleb Harim(N.) 998/2 1530

201 Arab Haleb İskenderun(N.) 998/2 1530

202 Arab Haleb Kefertab(N.) 998/2 1530

203 Arab Haleb Kusayr(N.) 998/2 1530

204 Arab Haleb Menbic(N.) 397 1536

205 Arab Haleb Mutih(N.) 998/2 1530

206 Arab Haleb Nukra/Cebbül(N.) 998/2 1530

207 Arab Haleb Ravendan(N.) 397 1536

131

Table 3.16. (continued)

208 Arab Haleb Ruc tabii Antakiyye (N.) 998/2 1530

209 Arab Haleb Masyaf (N.) 397 1536

210 Arab Haleb Sermin(N.) 998/2 1530

211 Arab Haleb Şizar ve Kamine(N.) 998/2 1530

212 Arab Haleb Şeyzer (N.) 397 1536

213 Arab Haleb Şugur(N.) 998/2 1530

214 Arab Haleb Süveyde tabii Antakiyye 397 1536

215 Arab Haleb Süveydiyye(N.) 998/2 1530

216 Arab Haleb Zaviye(N.) 998/2 1530

217 Arab Haleb Haleb 397 1536

218 Arab Hama ve Humus Hama 998/2 1530

219 Arab Hama ve Humus Hums 998/2 1530

220 Arab Safed Safed 998/2 1530

221 Arab Salt ve Aclun Salt 998/2 1530

222 Arab Salt ve Aclun Aclun 998/2 1530

223 Arab Şam Ba'lebek (N.) 998/2 1530

224 Arab Şam Beyrut (N.) 998/2 1530

225 Arab Şam Cerd-i Beyrut (N.) 998/2 1530

226 Arab Şam Cübbetü'l Gassal ve'l Kara(N.) 998/2 1530

227 Arab Şam Daranive'l Billan (N.) 998/2 1530

228 Arab Şam El-Miten (N.) 998/2 1530

229 Arab Şam Garb-i Beyrut (N.) 998/2 1530

230 Arab Şam Guta ve'l Merc(N.) 998/2 1530

231 Arab Şam Hammare ve Şüfü'l Beya (N.) 998/2 1530

232 Arab Şam Havran(N.) 998/2 1530

233 Arab Şam

Karaveşüfü'l Harradinmine'l Bia'

(N.) 998/2 1530

234 Arab Şam Kerek-i Nuh-i Nebi (N.) 998/2 1530

235 Arab Şam Kisrevan (N.) 998/2 1530

236 Arab Şam Sayda(N.) 998/2 1530

237 Arab Şam Şe'raveiklimu'z-Zebib (N.) 998/2 1530

238 Arab Şam Şuf-i İbnima'an (N.) 998/2 1530

132

Table 3.16. (continued)

239 Arab Şam Vadi'l Yetmve'l Hüla(N.) 998/2 1530

240 Arab Şam Vadi'l-Acem (N.) 998/2 1530

241 Arab Şam Zebdani ve vadi'l Berade(N.) 998/2 1530

242 Arab Şam (nefs) 998/2 1530

243 Arab Şam Şam 998/2 1530

244 Arab Sıṡ Sis 998/2 1530

245 Arab Tarsus Kosun 998/2 1530

246 Arab Tarsus Tarsus 998/2 1530

247 Arab Tarsus Ulaş 998/2 1530

248 Arab Trablus Akkar(N.) 998/2 1530

249 Arab Trablus Anapa(N.) 998/2 1530

250 Arab Trablus Antartus(N.) 998/2 1530

251 Arab Trablus Arka(N.) 998/2 1530

252 Arab Trablus Belatnis(N.) 998/2 1530

253 Arab Trablus Beşera(N.) 998/2 1530

254 Arab Trablus Bırziyye(N.) 998/2 1530

255 Arab Trablus Cebele(N.) 998/2 1530

256 Arab Trablus Cübeyl(N.) 998/2 1530

257 Arab Trablus Fütuhu-yi Beni Rical(N.) 998/2 1530

258 Arab Trablus Havabi(N.) 998/2 1530

259 Arab Trablus Hısnü'l- Ekrad(N.) 998/2 1530

260 Arab Trablus Kadmus(N.) 998/2 1530

261 Arab Trablus Kali'a(N.) 998/2 1530

262 Arab Trablus Kehf(N.) 998/2 1530

263 Arab Trablus Kura(N.) 998/2 1530

264 Arab Trablus Lazikkiyye (N.) 998/2 1530

265 Arab Trablus Menasıf(N.) 998/2 1530

266 Arab Trablus Merkab(N.) 998/2 1530

267 Arab Trablus Mey'ar(N.) 998/2 1530

268 Arab Trablus Müneyka(N.) 998/2 1530

269 Arab Trablus Müneytara(N.) 998/2 1530

133

Table 3.16. (continued)

270 Arab Trablus Safita(N.) 998/2 1530

271 Arab Trablus Şahyun(N.) 998/2 1530

272 Arab Trablus Tetrun(N.) 998/2 1530

273 Arab Trablus Uleyka(N.) 998/2 1530

274 Arab Trablus Vadi-i Kandil (N.) 998/2 1530

275 Arab Trablus Zaviye(N.) 998/2 1530

276 Arab Trablus Zinniyye(N.) 998/2 1530

277 Arab Üzeyr Üzeyr 998/2 1530

278 Diyarbekir Amid Âmid 200 1541

279 Diyarbekir Ana Ana 998 1530

280 Diyarbekir Ana Hît (N.) 998 1530

281 Diyarbekir Deyr ve Rahbe Deyr 998 1530

282 Diyarbekir Deyr ve Rahbe Rahbe (kale) 998 1530

283 Diyarbekir Deyr ve Rahbe Aşşara 998 1530

284 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Arabkıṙ Arabkir 998 1530

285 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Çemış̇ gezek Çemişgezek 998 1530

286 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Çıṙ mük Çirmük 998 1530

287 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Deyr Ve Rahbe Hısn-ı Keyf 998 1530

288 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Deyr Ve Rahbe Siird 998 1530

289 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Erganı ̇ Ergani 998 1530

290 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Harpurt Harpurt 998 1530

291 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Kığ̇ ı Kiğı 998 1530

292 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Mardıṅ Berriyecik 998 1530

293 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Mardıṅ Mardin 998 1530

294 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Mardıṅ Savur 998 1530

295 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Musul Musul 998 1530

296 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Ruha Ruha 998 1530

297 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Sıṅ car Sincar 998 1530

298 Dıẏ arbekıṙ Sıv̇ erek Siverek 998 1530

299 Karaman Aksaray Aksaray 387 1530

300 Karaman Aksaray Ereğli 387 1530

134

Table 3.16. (continued)

301 Karaman Aksaray Koşhisar 387 1530

302 Karaman Akşehıṙ Akşehir 387 1530

303 Karaman Akşehıṙ Çimenili 387 1530

304 Karaman Akşehıṙ Ilgun 387 1530

305 Karaman Akşehıṙ İshaklu 387 1530

306 Karaman Beyşehrı ̇ Beyşehir 387 1530

307 Karaman Beyşehrı ̇ Seydişehir 387 1530

308 Karaman İçıl̇ Ermenek 387 1530

309 Karaman İçıl̇ Gülnar 387 1530

310 Karaman İçıl̇ Karataş 387 1530

311 Karaman İçıl̇ Mud 387 1530

312 Karaman İçıl̇ Selendi 387 1530

313 Karaman Kayserıẏ ye Kayseriyye 387 1530

314 Karaman Konya Bayburd 387 1530

315 Karaman Konya Eskiil 387 1530

316 Karaman Konya Konya 387 1530

317 Karaman Konya Turgud 387 1530

318 Karaman Larende Aladağ 387 1530

319 Karaman Larende Belviran 387 1530

320 Karaman Larende Larende 387 1530

321 Karaman Niğde Anduğu 387 1530

322 Karaman Niğde Karahisar-i Develü 387 1530

323 Karaman Niğde Niğde 387 1530

324 Karaman Niğde Ürgüp 387 1530

325 Rum Amasya Amasya 387/2 1530

326 Rum Amasya Ladik 387/2 1530

327 Rum Amasya Merzifon 387/2 1530

328 Rum Amasya Gümüş 387 1530

329 Rum Bayburd Bayburd 387/2 1530

330 Rum Bayburd İspir 387/2 1530

331 Rum Bayburd Kelgid 387/2 1530

135

Table 3.16. (continued)

332 Rum Bayburd Kogans 387/2 1530

333 Rum Bayburd Şogayn 387/2 1530

334 Rum Bayburd Tercan 387/2 1530

335 Rum Canık̇ Bafra 387/2 1530

336 Rum Canık̇ Canik 387/2 1530

337 Rum Canık̇ Erim 387/2 1530

338 Rum Canık̇ Kavak 387/2 1530

339 Rum Canık̇ Kedegara 387/2 1530

340 Rum Canık̇ Kocakayası 387/2 1530

341 Rum Canık̇ Samsun 387/2 1530

342 Rum Canık̇ Satılmış 387/2 1530

343 Rum Canık̇ Tirme 387/2 1530

344 Rum Canık̇ Ünye 387/2 1530

345 Rum Çorumlu Çorumlu 387/2 1530

346 Rum Çorumlu İskilib 387/2 1530

347 Rum Çorumlu Karahisar-i Demirlü 387/2 1530

348 Rum Çorumlu Katar 387/2 1530

349 Rum Çorumlu Osmancık 387/2 1530

350 Rum Dıv̇ rığ̇ ı ̇Ve Darende Darende 387/2 1530

351 Rum Dıv̇ rığ̇ ı ̇Ve Darende Divriği 387/2 1530

352 Rum Dıv̇ rığ̇ ı ̇Ve Darende Hısn-ı Mansur 387/2 1530

353 Rum

Gerger-Kahta-

Behıṡ nı ̇ Behisni 387/2 1530

354 Rum

Gerger-Kahta-

Behıṡ nı ̇ Gerger 387/2 1530

355 Rum

Gerger-Kahta-

Behıṡ nı ̇ Kahta 387/2 1530

356 Rum Karahıṡ ar-i Şarkı ̇ Karahisar-i Şarki 387/2 1530

357 Rum Karahıṡ ar-i Şarkı ̇ Koyluhisar 387/2 1530

358 Rum Kemah Erzincan 387/2 1530

359 Rum Kemah Kemah 387/2 1530

360 Rum Malatya Malatya 387/2 1530

361 Rum Nık̇ sar Niksar 387/2 1530

136

Table 3.16. (continued)

362 Rum Sıv̇ as Sivas 387/2 1530

363 Rum Sonıṡ a Sonisa 387/2 1530

364 Rum Tokat Artukabad 387/2 1530

365 Rum Tokat Etrakiyye-i Büzürk 387/2 1530

366 Rum Tokat Tokat 387/2 1530

367 Rum Tokat Turhal 387/2 1530

368 Rum Tokat Zile 387/2 1530

369 Rum Trabzon Arhova 387/2 1530

370 Rum Trabzon Atina 387/2 1530

371 Rum Trabzon Hemşin 387/2 1530

372 Rum Trabzon Kürtün 387/2 1530

373 Rum Trabzon Of 387/2 1530

374 Rum Trabzon Rize 387/2 1530

375 Rum Trabzon Torul 387/2 1530

376 Rum Trabzon Trabzon 387/2 1530

377 Rumelia Ağrıboz Ağrıboz 367 1530

378 Rumelia Ağrıboz Atina 367 1530

379 Rumelia Ağrıboz İstifa 367 1530

380 Rumelia Ağrıboz İzdin 367 1530

381 Rumelia Ağrıboz Livadiye 367 1530

382 Rumelia Ağrıboz Salina 367 1530

383 Rumelia Ağrıboz Mondoniçe 367 1530

384 Rumelia Alacahisar Bolvan 167/2 1530

385 Rumelia Alacahisar Zaplana 167/3 1530

386 Rumelia Alacahisar Leskovce 167/2 1530

387 Rumelia Alacahıṡ ar Alaca Hisar 167/2 1530

388 Rumelia Alacahıṡ ar İplana 167/2 1530

389 Rumelia Alacahıṡ ar Niş 167/2 1530

390 Rumelia Alacahıṡ ar Petros 167/2 1530

391 Rumelia Alacahıṡ ar Ürgüp 167/2 1530

392 Rumelia Avlonya Argiri Kasrı 1078 1530

137

Table 3.16. (continued)

393 Rumelia Avlonya Avlonya 1078 1530

394 Rumelia Avlonya Belgrad 1078 1530

395 Rumelia Avlonya Delvine 1078 1530

396 Rumelia Avlonya Depedelen 94 1520

397 Rumelia Avlonya Mujake 94 1520

398 Rumelia Avlonya Peremedi 94 1520

399 Rumelia Avlonya Timurinçe 94 1520

400 Rumelia Avlonya Iskırapar 1078 1530

401 Rumelia Avlonya Kanine 94 1520

402 Rumelia Bosna Brod 164 1530

403 Rumelia Bosna Iskradin 540 1530

404 Rumelia Bosna Neretva 164 1530

405 Rumelia Bosna Saray 164 1530

406 Rumelia Bosna Vişegrad 164 1530

407 Rumelia Bosna Yeni Bazar 164 1530

408 Rumelia Bosna Bazar-ı Koniçe 164 1530

409 Rumelia Bosna Bazar-ı Olofça 164 1530

410 Rumelia Bosna Bazar-ı Koniçe 164 1530

411 Rumelia Çirmen Rodosçuk 370/2 1530

412 Rumelia Çirmen İnebazarı 370/2 1530

413 Rumelia Çıṙ men Akça Kızanlık 370/2 1530

414 Rumelia Çıṙ men Çirmen 370/2 1530

415 Rumelia Çıṙ men Hasköy 370/2 1530

416 Rumelia Çıṙ men Tekür Dağı 370/2 1530

417 Rumelia Çıṙ men Yenice-i Çırpan 370/2 1530

418 Rumelia Çıṙ men Yenice-i Zağra 370/2 1530

419 Rumelia Gelıḃ olu Gelibolu 75 1519

420 Rumelia Gelıḃ olu İmroz C. 75 1519

421 Rumelia Gelıḃ olu Keşan 75 1519

422 Rumelia Gelıḃ olu Limnos C. 75 1519

423 Rumelia Gelıḃ olu Mıgalkara 75 1519

138

Table 3.16. (continued)

424 Rumelia Gelıḃ olu Semadirek C. 75 1519

425 Rumelia Gelıḃ olu Taşyoz C. 75 1519

426 Rumelia Hersek Foça 167/2 1530

427 Rumelia Hersek Mostar 91 1520

428 Rumelia Hersek Nova 91 1520

429 Rumelia Hersek Prepolye 167/2 1530

430 Rumelia Hersek Bazar-ı Gorajde 167/2 1530

431 Rumelia Hersek Bazar-ı Yeleç 91 1520

432 Rumelia İlbasan Draç 367/3 1530

433 Rumelia İlbasan İlbasan 367/3 1530

434 Rumelia İlbasan İşpat 367/3 1530

435 Rumelia İskenderıẏ e Bihor 367/3 1530

436 Rumelia İskenderıẏ e İpek 367/3 1530

437 Rumelia İskenderıẏ e İskenderiye 367/3 1530

438 Rumelia İskenderıẏ e Karadağ 367/3 1530

439 Rumelia İskenderıẏ e Nova Bırda 367/3 1530

440 Rumelia İskenderıẏ e Podgoriçe 367/3 1530

441 Rumelia İskenderıẏ e Priştine 367/3 1530

442 Rumelia İskenderıẏ e Prizrin 367/3 1530

443 Rumelia İskenderıẏ e Vılçıtrın 367/3 1530

444 Rumelia İzvornik İzvornik 173 1533

445 Rumelia İzvornık̇ Bırvenik 173 1533

446 Rumelia İzvornık̇ Srebreniçe 173 1533

447 Rumelia Karliıl̇ ı ̇ Angeli Kasrı 367 1530

448 Rumelia Karliıl̇ ı ̇ Aya Mavra 367 1530

449 Rumelia Karlıili Voniçe 367 1530

450 Rumelia Kefe Azak 370/2 1530

451 Rumelia Kefe Kefe 370/2 1530

452 Rumelia Kefe Kerş 370/2 1530

453 Rumelia Kefe Mangub 370/2 1530

454 Rumelia Kefe Soğudak 370/2 1530

139

Table 3.16. (continued)

455 Rumelia Kefe Taman 370/2 1530

456 Rumelia Köstendil Radomir 167 1530

457 Rumelia Köstendil Dubniçe 167 1530

458 Rumelia Köstendil Nogoriçe 167 1530

459 Rumelia Köstendil Menlik 167 1530

460 Rumelia Köstendıl̇ Ilıca 167 1530

461 Rumelia Köstendıl̇ İştib 167 1530

462 Rumelia Köstendıl̇ İvranya 167 1530

463 Rumelia Köstendıl̇ Kratova 167 1530

464 Rumelia Köstendıl̇ Timur Hisarı 167 1530

465 Rumelia Köstendıl̇ Usturumca 167 1530

466 Rumelia Mora Arhoz 390 1514

467 Rumelia Mora Arkadya 367 1530

468 Rumelia Mora Balya Badra 367 1530

469 Rumelia Mora Hulumiç 367 1530

470 Rumelia Mora Kalamata 367 1530

471 Rumelia Mora Kalavitra 367 1530

472 Rumelia Mora Karitena 367 1530

473 Rumelia Mora Koron 367 1530

474 Rumelia Mora Kotros 367 1530

475 Rumelia Mora Mizistre 367 1530

476 Rumelia Mora Moton 367 1530

477 Rumelia Mora Vatika 367 1530

478 Rumelia Mora Anavarin 367 1530

479 Rumelia Niğbolu Ziştovi 370/2 1530

480 Rumelia Nığ̇ bolu Çernovi 370/2 1530

481 Rumelia Nığ̇ bolu İvraca 370/2 1530

482 Rumelia Nığ̇ bolu Lofça 370/2 1530

483 Rumelia Nığ̇ bolu Niğbolu 370/2 1530

484 Rumelia Nığ̇ bolu Şumnu 370/2 1530

485 Rumelia Nığ̇ bolu Tırnova 370/2 1530

140

Table 3.16. (continued)

486 Rumelia Ohrı ̇ Akçahisar 367/3 1530

487 Rumelia Ohrı ̇ Debri 367/3 1530

488 Rumelia Ohrı ̇ Mat 367/3 1530

489 Rumelia Ohrı ̇ Ohri 367/3 1530

490 Rumelia Paşa Dimetoka 370 1530

491 Rumelia Paşa Edirne 370 1530

492 Rumelia Paşa Ferecik 370 1530

493 Rumelia Paşa Filibe 370 1530

494 Rumelia Paşa İpsala 370 1530

495 Rumelia Paşa Kalkandelen 370 1530

496 Rumelia Paşa Keşan 370 1530

497 Rumelia Paşa Kırçova 370 1530

498 Rumelia Paşa Kızılağaç 370 1530

499 Rumelia Paşa Köprülü 370 1530

500 Rumelia Paşa Manastır 370 1530

501 Rumelia Paşa Pirlepe 370 1530

502 Rumelia Paşa Samakov-ı Ivlayçov 370 1530

503 Rumelia Paşa Tatar Bazarı 370 1530

504 Rumelia Paşa Üsküb 370 1530

505 Rumelia Paşa Zağra-i Eski Hisar 370 1530

506 Rumelia Paşa Avrat Hisarı 167 1530

507 Rumelia Paşa Bihlişte 167 1530

508 Rumelia Paşa Drama 167 1530

509 Rumelia Paşa Florina 167 1530

510 Rumelia Paşa Görice 167 1530

511 Rumelia Paşa Gümülcine 167 1530

512 Rumelia Paşa İştin 167 1530

513 Rumelia Paşa Kara Verye 167 1530

514 Rumelia Paşa Kestorya 167 1530

515 Rumelia Paşa Nevrekop 167 1530

516 Rumelia Paşa Selanik 167 1530

141

Table 3.16. (continued)

517 Rumelia Paşa Serfiçe 167 1530

518 Rumelia Paşa Sidre Kapısı 167 1530

519 Rumelia Paşa Siroz 167 1530

520 Rumelia Paşa Timur Hisarı 167 1530

521 Rumelia Paşa Yenice-i Karasu 167 1530

522 Rumelia Paşa Yenice-i Vardar 167 1530

523 Rumelia Paşa Zihne 167 1530

524 Rumelia Paşa Berkofça 370 1530

525 Rumelia Paşa Samakov 370 1530

526 Rumelia Paşa Şehir Köy 370 1530

527 Rumelia Paşa Sofya 370 1530

528 Rumelia Paşa İnöz 167 1530

529 Rumelia Paşa Ergene 370 1530

530 Rumelia Paşa Hurpeşte 167 1530

531 Rumelia Paşa Çiprofça 370 1530

532 Rumelia Paşa Breznik 370 1530

533 Rumelia Paşa İhtiman 370 1530

534 Rumelia Prizrin Foça 167/2 1530

535 Rumelia Prizrin Tırgovişte 167/2 1530

536 Rumelia Prıż rıṅ Bihor 167/2 1530

537 Rumelia Prıż rıṅ Hassha-i Arnavud 167/2 1530

538 Rumelia Prıż rıṅ Prizrin 167/2 1530

539 Rumelia Rodos İstanköy 367 1530

540 Rumelia Rodos Midillü 367 1530

541 Rumelia Rodos Rodos 367 1530

542 Rumelia Rodos Molova (kale) 367 1530

543 Rumelia Semendire Uziçe 506 1530

544 Rumelia Semendire Güvercinlik Kalesi 506 1530

545 Rumelia Semendıṙ e Belgrad Kalesi 506 1530

546 Rumelia Semendıṙ e Breniçeva 506 1530

547 Rumelia Semendıṙ e Niş 506 1530

142

Table 3.16. (continued)

548 Rumelia Semendıṙ e Pojega 506 1530

549 Rumelia Semendıṙ e Rudnik 506 1530

550 Rumelia Semendıṙ e Semendire 506 1530

551 Rumelia Silistre Misivri 370/2 1530

552 Rumelia Sıl̇ ıṡ tre Ahyolu 370/2 1530

553 Rumelia Sıl̇ ıṡ tre Akkirman 370/2 1530

554 Rumelia Sıl̇ ıṡ tre Aydos 370/2 1530

555 Rumelia Sıl̇ ıṡ tre Hırsova 370/2 1530

556 Rumelia Sıl̇ ıṡ tre Karin Ovası 370/2 1530

557 Rumelia Sıl̇ ıṡ tre Kili 370/2 1530

558 Rumelia Sıl̇ ıṡ tre Prevadi 370/2 1530

559 Rumelia Sıl̇ ıṡ tre Rusi Kasr 370/2 1530

560 Rumelia Sıl̇ ıṡ tre Silistre 370/2 1530

561 Rumelia Sıl̇ ıṡ tre Varna 370/2 1530

562 Rumelia Sıl̇ ıṡ tre Yanbolu 370/2 1530

563 Rumelia Tırhala Alasonya 367 1530

564 Rumelia Tırhala Badra 367 1530

565 Rumelia Tırhala Badracık(badra) 101 1521

566 Rumelia Tırhala Çatalca 101 1521

567 Rumelia Tırhala Fenar 101 1521

568 Rumelia Tırhala İnebahtı 101 1521

569 Rumelia Tırhala Kerpiniş 367 1530

570 Rumelia Tırhala Tırhala 367 1530

571 Rumelia Tırhala Yenişehir 101 1521

572 Rumelia Tırhala Dömeke 101 1521

573 Rumelia Tırhala Agrafa 101 1521

574 Rumelia Vıḋ ıṅ Bana 370/2 1530

575 Rumelia Vıḋ ıṅ Feth-i İslam 370/2 1530

576 Rumelia Vıḋ ıṅ İsferlik 370/2 1530

577 Rumelia Vıḋ ıṅ Vidin 370/2 1530

578 Rumelia Vize Ereğli 370 1530

143

Table 3.16. (continued)

579 Rumelia Vize Terkoz 370 1530

580 Rumelia Vize İncüğez 370 1530

581 Rumelia Vıż e Babaeskisi 370 1530

582 Rumelia Vıż e Bergoz 370 1530

583 Rumelia Vıż e Çorlu 370 1530

584 Rumelia Vıż e Hayra Bolu 370 1530

585 Rumelia Vıż e İstanbul 370 1530

586 Rumelia Vıż e Kırk Kilise 370 1530

587 Rumelia Vıż e Pınar Hisar 370 1530

588 Rumelia Vıż e Silivri 370 1530

589 Rumelia Vıż e Vize 370 1530

590 Rumelia Vılçıtrın Nova Bırda 167/2 1530

591 Rumelia Vılçıtrın Priştine 167/2 1530

592 Rumelia Vılçıtrın Vılçıtrın 167/2 1530

593 Rumelia Vılçıtrın Yelastiçe 167/2 1530

594 Rumelia Vılçıtrın Maden-i Trebçe 167/2 1530

595 Rumelia Yanya Grebene 367/3 1530

596 Rumelia Yanya Narda 367/3 1530

597 Rumelia Yanya Peremedi 367/3 1530

598 Rumelia Yanya Rinasa 367/3 1530

599 Rumelia Yanya Yanya 367/3 1530

600 Rumelia Yanya Rogoz (kale) 367/3 1530

601 Rumelia Yanya Aydonat 367/3 1530

602 Zülkadrıẏ e Maraş Bozok 998/2 1530

603 Zülkadrıẏ e Maraş Elbistan 998/2 1530

604 Zülkadrıẏ e Maraş Kars 998/2 1530

605 Zülkadrıẏ e Maraş Kırşehri 998/2 1530

606 Zülkadrıẏ e Maraş Maraş 998/2 1530

607 Zülkadrıẏ e Maraş Zamantu 998/2 1530

144

In the project database, which focused on 1530 in the Ottoman Empire, the information

of 33 cities was completed by obtaining from the tahrir register dated 1519, 1520, 1521,

1533, 1536, and 1541. For this reason, we can say that our analysis represents the whole

urban distribution of the Ottoman Empire in 1530 except Egypt and Hejaz region where

the tahrir system was not implemented and we will discuss in the following section. The

table 3. 17 of cities belonging to different dates and their information of tahrir registers

is as follows by the table 3.17.

Table 3.33 The Regions and Cities of Different Dates from 1530 in Tahrir Registers

Vilayet Sanjak Kaza (BOA) Register No Register Date

Rumelia Mora Arhoz 390 1514

Rumelia Gelıḃ olu Gelibolu 75 1519

Rumelia Gelıḃ olu İmroz (C.) 75 1519

Rumelia Gelıḃ olu Keşan 75 1519

Rumelia Gelıḃ olu Limnos (C.) 75 1519

Rumelia Gelıḃ olu Mıgalkara 75 1519

Rumelia Gelıḃ olu Semadirek (C.) 75 1519

Rumelia Gelıḃ olu Taşyoz (C.) 75 1519

Rumelia Avlonya Avlonya 94 1520

Rumelia Avlonya Depedelen 94 1520

Rumelia Avlonya Mujake 94 1520

Rumelia Avlonya Peremedi 94 1520

Rumelia Avlonya Timurinçe 94 1520

Rumelia Hersek Foça 91 1520

Rumelia Hersek Mostar 91 1520

Rumelia Hersek Nova 91 1520

Rumelia Hersek Prepolye 91 1520

Rumelia Tırhala Badracık(badra) 101 1521

Rumelia Tırhala Çatalca 101 1521

Rumelia Tırhala Fenar 101 1521

145

Table 3.17. (continued)

Rumelia Tırhala İnebahtı 101 1521

Rumelia Tırhala Kerpiniş 101 1521

Rumelia Ağrıboz Livadiye 101 1521

Rumelia Tırhala Tırhala 101 1521

Rumelia Tırhala Yenişehir 101 1521

Rumelia İzvornık̇ Bırvenik 173 1533

Rumelia İzvornık̇ Srebreniçe 173 1533

Arab Haleb Bab (N.) 397 1536

Arab Haleb Cebbul (N.) 397 1536

Arab Haleb Menbic (N.) 397 1536

Arab Haleb Ravendan (N.) 397 1536

Arab Haleb Haleb (nefs) 397 1536

Arab Haleb

Süveyde tabii

Antakiyye 397 1536

Arab Haleb Şeyzer (N.) 397 1536

Arab Haleb Masyaf (N.) 397 1536

Arab Haleb Cebel-i Sümmak 397 1536

Dıẏ arbeki̇r Amıḋ Amid 200 1541

3.4. The Aggregate Data of the Ottoman Empire: The Regions and Cities in the Early

16th Century

According to all the sources we examined in the period of the early 16th century, there

are 8 vilayets in total. The six of them, Anatolia, Rumelia, Arab, Diyarbekir, Karaman, and

Rum were recorded in the 1522 kanunname and 1530 tahrir registers that show the

whole administrative division of the Ottoman Empire. In addition, the Zülkadriye region,

which is registered as a vilayet in 1530 tahrir registers, appears as the Turkmen region in

other sources. The vilayet of Egypt was not recorded in the 1530 tahrir registers. Since

Egypt and Hejaz regions that were called as salyâneli in the Ottoman administrative

system, had a special status and they were excluded tahrir system. Since taxes were

146

collected directly at the center, tahrir was not conducted and recorded in these

regions.328

There are 114 sanjaks uniquely in the early 16th century Ottoman empire as we see in

the table 3.18.329 The 9 sanjaks that were recorded in his tahrir registers in 1530 were

not registered in other records. In addition, 19 sanjaks, which appeared at least in one

period of earlier records, were not recorded as sanjak in 1530.

Table 3.34 The Unique Sanjaks of Ottoman Empire in the 16th Century

Total

Sanjak

1513

Anatolia

1521

Rumelia

1522

Empire

1523

Anatolia and

Arab

1526-1528

Rumelia

1530

Empire

1 ‘Alâiyye Alâ'iyye - ‘Alâiyye Alaiye - Ala'ıẏ e

2 ‘Ayntâb - - ‘Ayntâb - - Ayntab

3 A’lâ - - A’lâ - - -

4 Adana - -

Adana ve

Çukur-âbâd Adana - Adana

5 Ağrıboz - Eğriboz Ağrıboz - Ağrıboz Ağrıboz

6 Ak-Şehir - - Ak-Şehir - - Akşehıṙ

7 Aksaray - - Aksaray - - Aksaray

Alaca-

Hisar - Alacahisar Alaca-Hisar - Alaca-Hisar Alacahisar

9 Amasiyye Amasya - Amasiyye Amasya - Amasya

10 Amid - - Amid - - Amid

11 Ana - Anâ ve Hît - - Ana

12 Ankara Ankariyye - Ankara Ankara - Ankara

13 Antakiyye - - Antakiyye - - -

14 Arabgir - - Arabgir - - Arabkıṙ

15 Avlonya - Avlonya Avlonya - Avlonya Avlonya

16 Aydın Aydın - Aydın Aydın - Aydın

17 Bayburd - - Bayburd - - Bayburd

328 İdris Bostan, “Salyâne,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Ansiklopedisi, 2009, pp. 59-60.

329 The register of 1528 that was published by Turan Gökçe is not added to the list, since the lack of sanjak

information.

147

Table 3.18. (continued)

18 Beğ-Şehri - - Beğ-Şehri - - Beyşehrı ̇

Beyre

(Birecik) - -

Beyre

(Birecik) - - -

20 Biga Biga - Biga Biga - Bıġ a

21 Birecik - -

Birecik ve

Rum-kal‘a Bire - Bıṙ eci̇k

22 Bolu Bolu - Bolu Bolu - Bolu

23 Bosna - Bosna Bosna - Bosna Bosna

24 Canik - - Canik - - Canık̇

Çemişgez

ek - - Çemişgezek - - Çemış̇ gezek

26 Cidde - - Cidde - - -

27 Çirmen - Çirmen Çirmen - Çirmen Çıṙ men

28 Çıṙ mük - - - Çıṙ mük

29 Çorum - - Çorum - - Çorumlu

Deyr ve

Rahba - -

Deyr ve

Rahba - -

Deyr ve

Rahbe

Divriği ve

Darende - -

Divriği ve

Darende - -

Dıv̇ rığ̇ ı ̇Ve

Darende

32 Elbistan - - Elbistan - - -

33 Ergani - - Ergani - - Erganı ̇

34 Filibe - Filibe Filibe - - -

35 Florina - Filorina Florina - Florina -

Gazze

ma‘a

Remle - -

Gazze ma‘a

Remle Gazze - Gazze

37 Gelibolu - Gelibolu Gelibolu - Gelibolu Gelıḃ olu

38 Haleb - - Haleb Haleb - Haleb

Hama ve

Hums - -

Hama ve

Hums

Hama ve

Humus -

Hama ve

Humus

40 Hamid Hamid - Hamid Hamid - Hamıḋ

41 Harman - - Harman - - -

42 Harput - - Harput - - Harpurt

43 Hersek - Hersek Hersek - Hersek Hersek

Hüdâven

digâr

Hüdâvendigâ

r -

Hüdâvendigâ

Hüdavendiga

r -

Hüdavendıġ a

148

Table 3.18. (continued)

45 İç-il - - İç-il - - İçıl̇

46 İlbasan - İlbasan İlbasan - İlbasan İlbasan

47 İnebahtı - İnebahtı İnebahtı - - -

İskenderi

yye -

İskenderiy

e İskenderiyye -

İskenderiy

e İskenderi̇ye

49 İspir - - İspir - - -

50 İzvornik - Uzvornik İzvornik - İzvornik İzvornık̇

Kâhta ve

Gerger - -

Kâhta ve

Gerger

Kahta ve

Gerger -

Gerger-

Kahta-Behıṡ ni̇

52 Kangırı Kânkırı - Kangırı Kangırı - Kengırı

53 Kara-Dağ - - Kara-Dağ - - -

Kara-

Hisâr-ı

Sâhib Karahisar -

Kara-Hisâr-ı

Sâhib

Karahisar-ı

Sahib -

Karahıṡ ar-i

Sahıḃ

Kara-

Hisâr-ı

Şerefî - -

Kara-Hisâr-ı

Şerefî - -

Karahıṡ ar-i

Şarkı ̇

56 Karaman Karaman - - Karaman - -

57 Karesi Karesi - Karesi Karesi - Karesı ̇

58 Karlı - Karlıil Karlı - Karlı-ili Karlıili

Kastamon

u Kastamoni - Kastamonu Kastamonu - Kastamonu

Katiyye

(Katya) - -

Katiyye

(Katya) - - -

61 Kayseri - - Kayseri - - Kayserıẏ ye

62 Kefe - Kefe Kefe - - Kefe

63 Kemâh - - Kemâh - - Kemah

Kırşehir

ma‘a

Bozok - -

Kırşehir ma‘a

Bozok - - -

65 Kığ̇ ı - - Biğı (Kiğı) - - Kığ̇ ı

66 Koca-ili Kocaili - Koca-ili Kocaeli - Kocaili

67 Konya - - Konya - - Konya

68 Köstendil -

Köstendil

Ilıcası Köstendil - Kustendil Köstendıl̇

Kuds-i

Şerîf - - Kuds-i Şerîf - - -

149

Table 3.18. (continued)

70 Kütahiyye Kütahya - Kütahiyye Kütahya - Kütahya

71 Larende - - - Larende

72 Malatiyye - - Malatiyye - - Malatya

73 Mar‘aş - - Mar‘aş - - Maraş

74 Mardıṅ - - - - - Mardıṅ

75 Menteşa Menteşe - Menteşa Menteşe - Menteşe

76 Midilli - Midillü Midilli - Midilli -

77 Mora - Mora Mora - Mora Mora

78 Musul - - Musul - - Musul

79 Niğbolu - Niğbolu Niğbolu - Niğbolu Nığ̇ bolu

80 Niğde - - Niğde - - Niğde

81 Nık̇ sar - - - - Nık̇ sar

82 Ohri - Ohri Ohri - Ohri Ohrı ̇

83 Paşa -

Mîr-i mîrân

(Paşa)

Paşa

(Mîrimiran) - Paşa Paşa

84 Prezrîn - Prizrin Prezrîn - Prezrin Prıż ri̇n

85 Rodos - - Rodos - - Rodos

86 Ruha - - Ruha - - Ruha

87 Safed - - Safed Safed - Safed

88 Sa‘îd - - Sa‘îd Said - -

Salt ve

Aclun - - - - Salt ve Aclun

90 Şam - -

Dârü’s-

Selâm-ı Şam - - Şam

91 Saruhan Saruhan - Saruhan Saruhan - Saruhan

Semendir

e - Semendire Semendire - Semendre Semendıṙ e

93 Silistre - Silistre Silistre - Silistre Sıl̇ i̇stre

94 Sıṅ car - - - - Sıṅ car

95 Sis - - Sis - - Sıṡ

96 Sivas - - Sivas - - Sivas

97 Sıv̇ erek - - - Sıv̇ erek

98 Sofya - Sofya Sofya - Sofya -

150

Table 3.18. (continued)

99 Sonıṡ a - - - -

100

SultanÖni

Sultanönü - Sultan-Öni Sultanönü - Sultanönü

101 Tarsus - - Tarsus - Tarsus

102 Teke Teke - Teke Teke - Teke

103 Tırhala - Tırhala Tırhala Tırhala Tırhala

104 Tokat - - Tokat

105 Trablus - - Trablus Trablus - Trablus

106 Trabzon Trabzon - Trabzon Trabzon - Trabzon

107

Ulu-

Burun - - Ulu-Burun - - -

108

Ulus

(Aşâir-i

Ulus) - -

Ulus (Aşâir-i

Ulus) - - -

109 Üzeyr - - - Üzeyr

110 Vidin - Vidin Vidin - Vidin Vıḋ ıṅ

111 Vize - Vize Vize - Vize Vıż e

112 Vılçıtrın - Vulçitrin Vılçıtrın - Vülçterin Vılçıtrın

113

Yanina

(Yanya) - Yanya

Yanina

(Yanya) - Yanina Yanya

114 Yenbû’ - - Yenbû’ - - -

The total number of unique kazas that we determined in the Ottoman Empire including

Anatolia, Rumelia, Arab and Egypt regions is 703 as shown in table 3.19.330 We find 93

new kazas that were recorded in 1530.331 There are also 99 kazas that were recorded at

least in one period between 1513 and 1528, but not in 1530. An important factor

affecting this number is that Egypt and Hejaz region are not included in the tahrir

registers, as we mentioned before.

330 In column of 1522, kazas of vilayet of Şam are added shortened.

331 Some kazas included in this number were recorded as unified with other regions in the early dated

records.

151

Table 3.35 The Unique Kazas of Ottoman Empire in the 16th Century

Total Kaza

1513

Anatolia

1521

Rumelia

1522

Empire

1523

Anatolia

and Arab

1528

Anatolia

1526-

1528

Rumelia

1530

Empire

1 Alaiye

Nefs-i

'Alâ'iyye - ‘Alâiyye Alaiye - - Alaiye

Nevâhi-i

'Alâ'iyye

Nevâhi-i

'Alâ'iyye -

Nevâhi-i

‘Alâiyye

Nevâhi-i

Alaiye

Nevahı-̇ ı ̇

'Alaıẏ ye - -

Perâkende-i

‘Alâiyye - -

Perâkend

e-i

‘Alâiyye

Parakend

e-i Alaiye

Alai̇yye

Me'a

Perakende - -

4 Manavgad Manavgad - Manavgat Manavgat Manavgad - Manavgad

5 Ankara

Nefs-i

Ankara - Ankara Ankara Ankara - Ankara

6 Ayaş Ayaş - Ayaş Ayaş - - Ayaş

7 Bacı Bacı - Bacı Bacı Bacı - Bacı

8 Çubuk Çubuk - Çubuk Çubuk Çubuk - Çubuk

Murtaza-

Abad

Murtazâb

âd -

MurtâzaÂbâd

Murtazab

Murtazaba

d -

Murtaza-

Abad

10 Yaban-Abad

Yabanâbâ

d -

YabanÂbâd

Yabanaba

d Yabanabad - Yaban-Abad

11 Yörük Yörük - Yörük

Ankara

Yörüğü

Ankara

Yörügı ̇ - -

12 Alaşehir Alaşehir - Ala-Şehir Alaşehir - - Alaşehir

13 Arpaz Arpaz -

Yurd ve

‘Âlâ ve

Arpaz Arpaz Arpaz - Arpaz

14 Beş-Tekke - - Beş-Tekke - - - -

15 Ayasluğ Ayasuluğ - Ayasluk Ayasuluğ Ayasulug - Ayasluğ

16 Birgi Birgi - - Birgi Bıṙ gı ̇ - Birgi

17 İstanbul İstanbul İstanbul -

Hâsshâ-i

İstanbul -

Havass-ı

Kostanti

niyye

Hâsshâ-i

İstanbul - - -

Hasha-i

İstanbul

19 Galata - Galata Galata - - - -

Hâsshâ-i

Marmara -

Cezayir-i

Marmara

Hâsshâ-i

Marmara - - - -

21 Bozdoğan Bozdoğan - - Bozdoğan - - Bozdoğan

22 Çeşme Çeşme - Çeşme Çeşme Çeşme - Çeşme

23 Güzel Hisar

Güzelcehis

ar -

Güzel-

Hisâr

Güzelhisa

r - - Güzel Hisar

152

Table 3.19. (continued)

24 İzmir İzmir - İzmir İzmir İzmıṙ - İzmir

25 Kestel Kestel - Kestel Kestel Kestel - Kestel

26 Sart Sart - Sârt Sart Sart - Sart

27 Sultan Hisarı

Sultan-

Hisarı -

Sultan-

Hisârı

Sultan

Hisarı

Sultan

Hıṡ arı - Sultan Hisarı

28 Tire Tire - Tire Tire

Tıṙ e Me'a

Güzelhıṡ ar - Tire

29 Tire Bölmesi

Tire

Bölmesi -

Tire-

Bölmesi

Tire-i

Bölmesi - - -

30 Yenişehir Yenişehir - Yeni-Şehir Yenişehir

Yenış̇ ehıṙ -ı ̇

Aydın - Yenişehir

31 Balya Balya - Balya Balya Balya - Balya

32 Biga Nefs-i Biga - Biga Biga Bıġ a - Biga

33 Çan Çan - Çan Çak Çan - Çan

34 Çatal Bergos

Çatal

Bergoz -

Çatal-

Burgûz ve

Labseki Bergos

Labsekı ̇

Me'a

Bergos - Çatal Bergos

35 Ezine Bazarı Eynecik -

Ezine-

Bazarı İnepazarı Eynecık̇ - Ezine Bazarı

36 Lapseki Lapseki - - Lapseki - - Lapseki

Çarşanba/Hı

zırbeyili Çarşanba -

Yörük-i

Bolu ma‘a

Çeharşen

bih Çarşamba

Çarşanba

Me'a

Yenıċ e-i̇

Eflegan - Hızırbeyili

38 Bolu Yörüğü - - -

Bolu

Yörüğü Bolı Yörügı ̇ - -

39 Bolu Nefs-i Bolı - Bolu Bolu Bolu - Bolu

40 Çağa Çaga - Cağa Çağa - - Çağa

41 Yenice

Eflegân

Yenicesi -

Aklağan-

Yenicesi

Yenice-i

Eflegan - - Yenice

42 Devrek Devrek - - Devrek

Devrek

Me'a Yedı ̇

Dıv̇ an - -

43 Gerede Gerede - Gerede Gerede - - Gerede

44 Kıbrus - - Kıbrûz Kıbrus Kıbrus - Kıbrus

45 Konrapa Konrapa - Konrapa Konrapa Konrapa - Konrapa

46 Benderegli Benderegli -

Mendirekl

i ma‘a

Yörük

Bendereğ

li Bendereglı ̇ - Ereğlü

153

Table 3.19. (continued)

47 Amasra/Ulus Amasra - Amasra Amasra Amasra - Ulus

48 Mengen Mengen - Mengen Mengen

Mengen

Me'a Çaga - Mengen

49 Mudurnu Mudurnı - Mudurnu Mudurnu Mudurni - Mudurnu

50 Oniki Divan

Oniki

Divan - -

Oniki

Divan Onık̇ ıḋ ıv̇ an - Oniki Divan

Taraklu-

Borlu

Taraklubor

lı -

Taraklu-

Borlu

Taraklıbo

rlu

Tarakluborl

u -

Taraklu-

Borlu

52 Todurga - - - - - - Todurga

53 Eserulus - - - - Eserulus - -

54 Viranşehir Viranşehir -

ViranŞehir

Viranşehi

r Vıṙ anşehıṙ - Viranşehir

55 Yedi Divan Yedi Divan - -

Yedi

Divan - - Yedi Divan

56 Afşar Afşar -

Afşar

ma‘a

Bârla Afşar

Afşar Me'a

Barla - Afşar

57 Ağlasun Ağlasun - Ağlasun Ağlasun Ağlasun - Ağlasun

58 Burdur Burdur - Burdur Burdur

Burdur

Me'a İrle - Burdur

59 Eğirdür Egirdir - Eğirdir Eğirdir Egıṙ di̇r - Eğirdür

60 Gölhisarı Gölhisar - Göl-Hisâr Gölhisar Gölhıṡ ar - Gölhisarı

61 Gönen Gönân - Gönan Gönen Gönan - Gönen

62 İrle İrle - İrle İrle - - İrle

63 Isparta Isparta - İsparta Isparta Isbarta - Isparta

Karaağaç-ı

Gölhisar Karaağaç - Kara-Ağaç Karaağaç Karaagaç -

Karaağaç-ı

Gölhisar

65 Kiçiborlu Keçiborlu - Keçi-Borlu Keçiborlu

Keçıḃ oru

Me'a

Gönan - Kiçiborlu

66 Uluborlu Uluborlu - Ulu-Borlu Uluborlu Uluborlu - Uluborlu

67 Yalvaç Yalavac - Yalvac Yalvaç Yalvac - Yalvaç

68 Adranos Edrenaz - Edrenos Adranos Atranos - Adranos

69 Akhisar Akhisar - Ak-Hisâr Akhisar Akhıṡ ar - Akhisar

70 Akyazı Akyazı - Ak-Yazı Akyazı Akyazı - Akyazı

71 Aydıncık Ayduncuk - Aydıncık Aydıncık Aydincik - Aydıncık

72 Sındırgı Sındırgı - Sındırgı Sındırgı - - -

154

Table 3.19. (continued)

73 Bergama Bergama - Bergama Bergama Bergama - Bergama

Nevâhi-i

Bergama

Nevâhi-i

Bergama -

Nevâhi-i

Bergama

Nevâhi-i

Bergama

Nevahı-̇ i

Bergama - -

75 Beybazarı Begpazarı -

Beğ-

Pazarı Beypazarı Begbazarı - Beybazarı

76 Bursa Bursa - Burusa Bursa Bırusa - Bursa

77 Domaniç Tomaniç - Domaliç Domaniç Tomanıç̇ - Domaniç

Ermeni

Bazarı Ermeni - Ermeni

Ermeni

Pazarı - -

Ermeni

Bazarı

79 Gevye Gevye - Geyve Geyve Geyve - Geyve

80 Göl Göl - - Göl Göl - Göl

81 Gönen Gönan - Gönan Gönen - - Gönen

82 Göynük Göynük - Göynük Göynük Göynük - Göynük

83 İnegöl Eynegöl - İne-Göl İnegöl Eynegöl - İnegöl

84 Kebsud Kebsud - Kepsud Kebsud Kebsud - Kebsud

85 Kite Kite - Kite Kete Kıṫ e - Kite

86 Mihaliç Mihaliç - Mihalic Mihaliç Mıḣ alıç - Mihaliç

87 Mihaliçcık Mihaliçcık - Mihaliccik Mihalıççık Mıḣ alıç̇ cık - Mihaliçlık

88 Sifrihisar Sifrihisar - Sivri-Hisâr

Seferihisa

r Sıḟ rıḣ i̇sar - Sifrihisar

89 Söğüd Söğüt - Söğüd Söğüd

Sögüd

Me'a

Bazarcik - Söğüd

90 Tarhala Tarhala - Turhala Tarhala Tarhala - Tarhala

91 Tuzla Tuzla - Tuzla

Kızılca

Tuzla Kızılcatuzla - Tuzla

92 Yarhisar Yarhisar - Yar-Hisâr Yarhisar Yarhıṡ ar - Yarhisar

93 Yavice - - - - Yavıċ e - -

Yenice-i

Taraklu

Yenicesi -

Taraklu-

Yenicesi

Taraklı

Yenicesi

Yenıċ e-i̇

Taraklu -

Yenice-i

Taraklu

95 Yenişehir Yenişehir - Yeni-Şehir Yenişehir Yenış̇ ehıṙ - Yenişehir

96 Barçınlu Barçınlu - Yarçınlu Barçınlı Barçınlu - Barçınlu

97 Bolvadin Bolvadin - Bolvadin Bolvadin Bolvadıṅ - Bolvadin

98 Karahisar

Nefs-i

Karahisar - Kara-Hisâr

Karahisar

-ı Sahib

Karahıṡ ar-i

Sahıḃ - Karahisar

99 Sanduklu Sanduklu - Sandıklu Sandıklı Sanduklu - Sanduklu

155

Table 3.19. (continued)

100 Şuhud Şuhud - Şühûd Şuhud Şuhud - Şuhud

101 Oynaş Oynaş - Oynaş - - - -

102 Ayazmend Ayazmend -

Ayâzmen

Ayazmen

d Ayazmend - Ayazmend

103 Balıkesri Balıkesri - Balıkesri Balıkesir Balıkesrı ̇ - Balıkesri

104 Bigadiç Bigadiç - Bigadic Bigadiç

Bi̇gadıç̇

Me'a

Sındırgı - Bigadiç

105 Fart Fart - Fart Fart - - -

106 Edremid Edremid - Edremid Edremid Edremıḋ - Edremid

107 İvrindi İvrindi - İvrindi İvrindi İvrıṅ dı ̇ - İvrindi

108 Karacalar

Karacalar

Hâneleri - Karacalar Karacalar Karacalar - -

109

Karacakoyun

lu - - - -

Karacakoy

unlu - -

110 Manyas Manyas - Manyâs Manyas

Manyas

Me'a Fart - Manyas

111 Araç Arac - Arâc Araç Arac - Araç

112 Ayandon Ayandon - Ayandon Ayandon Ayandon - Ayandon

113 Boyovası Boyâbâd - Boy-Âbâd Boyabad Boyabad - Boyovası

114 Daday Tatay - Tatay Tatay Tatay - Daday

115 Durağan Turagan - Turhân Durağan Turagan - Durağan

116 Göl Göl - Göl Göl

Göl Me'a

Yörük - Göl

117 Hoşalay Hoşalay - Hoş-Alây Hoşalay Hoşalay - Hoşalay

118 Yörük Yörük - Yörük Yörük - - -

119 Kastamonu

Nefs-i

Kastamoni -

Kastamon

u Kastamonı ̇ - Kastamonu

120 Küre

Küre me'a

Ayandon - Küre Küre

Küre Me'a

Ayandon - Küre

121 Sinob Sinob - Sinob Sinop Sıṅ ob - Sinob

122 Taşköprü Taşköprü - Taş-Köprü Taşköprü Taşköprü - Taşköprü

123 Çerkeş Çerkeş - Çerkeş Çerkeş Çerkeş - Çerkeş

124 Kalacık Kal'acuk - Kal‘acık Kalecik Kal'acık - Kalacık

125 Kargu Kargu - Kargu Kargı Kargu - Kargu

126 Karı Bazarı Karı Bazarı -

Karı-

Bazarı Karı Pazar Karıbazar - Karı Bazarı

156

Table 3.19. (continued)

127 Kengırı

Nefs-i

Kânkırı - Kangırı Kangırı Kenkırı - Kengırı

128 Koçhisar Koçhisar -

Koç-

Hisâr? Koçhisar Koçhıṡ ar - Koçhisar

129 Kurşunlu Kurşunlu - Kurşunlu Kurşunlu Kurşunlu - Kurşunlu

130 Milan Meylân - Mîlân Meylan Meylan - Milan

131 Tosya Tosya - Tosya Tosya Tosya - Tosya

132 Ada - - - - - - Ada

133 Gürle Gürle - Görele Görele - - Görele

134 Gegivize Gekböze - Gegibze Gebze Gekıḃ oza - Gegivize

135 İznik İznik - İznik İznik

İzni̇k Me'a

Gürle - İznik

136 İznikmid İznikmid - İznikmid

İznikmid

ma‘a Şile

İznık̇ mıḋ

Me'a

Kandiri - İznikmid

137 Kandıra Kandırı - Kandırı Kandıra - - Kandıra

138 Şile Şile - Şile - Şıl̇ ı ̇ - Şile

139 Yalakabad Yalakâbâd -

YalakÂbâd

Yalakaba

d Yalakabad - Yalakabad

140 Yoros Yoros - Yorâs Yoros Yoros - Yoros

141 Eğrigöz Egrigöz -

Eğrigöz

ma‘a

Sîmâv Eğrigöz

Sıṁ av

Me'a

Egrıġ öz -

Eğrigöz ve

Simav

142 Simav Simav - - Simav - - -

143

Güre ve

Selendi

Küre-i

Selendi -

Selendi

ma‘a Küre

Küre-i

Selendi

Küre-i̇

Selendı ̇ -

Güre ve

Selendi

144 Homa Homa - Homâ Homa Homa - Homa

145 Honaz Honaz - Honaz Honaz Honaz - Honaz

146 Kula Kula - Kula Kula Kula - Kula

147 Kütahya

Nefs-i

Kütahya - Kütahiyye Kütahya Kütahya - Kütahya

148 Lazkiye Lâzıkıyye - Lâzikiye Lazkiye Lazıkıyye - Lazkiye

149 Şeyhlü Şeyhlü - Şeyhlü Şeyhlü Şeyhlü - Şeyhlü

150 Uşak Uşak - ‘Uşşâk Uşak Uşak - Uşak

151 Balat Balat - Balât Balat Balat - Balat

152 Bozöyük Bozöyük - Boz-Öyük Bozüyük Bozöyük - Bozoyük

157

Table 3.19. (continued)

153 Çine Çine - Çine Çine Çıṅ e - Çine

154 Isravalos - - İsravlos İsravalos - - Isravalos

155 Köyceğiz Köyceğiz - Boycuğaz Köyceğiz Köycegıż - Köyceğiz

156 Mazun Mâzın - Mazûn Mazun Mazon - Mazun

157 Mekri Megri - Mekri Meğri Megrı ̇ - Mekri

158 Milas Milas - Milâş Milas Mıl̇as - Milas

159 Muğla Muğla - Muğla Muğla Muğla - Muğla

160 Peçin Beçin - Peçin Peçin Beçıṅ - Peçin

161 Pırnaz Purnaz - Pürnâz Purnaz Pürnaz - Pırnaz

162 Tavas Tavaz - Tavâs Tavas Tavas - Tavas

163 Adala Atala - Adala Adala Atala - Adala

164 Akhisar Akhisar - Ak-Hisâr Akhisar - - Akhisar

165 Demürci Demürci - Demürci Demirci Demürcı ̇ - Demürci

166 Tarhanyat Tarhanyat - Tarhanyat

Tarhanya

t Tarhanyat - Tarhanyad

167 Gördek Gördük - Gördük Gördek Gördük - Gördek

168 Gördos Gördes - Gördos Gördes

Gördes

Me'a

Kayacık - Gördos

169 Güzel Hisar

Güzelce

Hisar -

Güzelce-

Hisâr

Güzelcehi

sar

Güzelcehis

ar - Güzel Hisar

170 Ilıca Ilıca - Ilıca Ilıca Ilıca - Ilıca

171 Kayacık Kayacuk - Kabacık Kayacık - - Kayacık

172 Magnisa Mağnisa - Mağnisa Manisa Mağnıṡ a - Magnisa

173 Marmara Marmara - Marmara Marmara Marmara - Marmara

174 Menemen - - - - - - Menemen

175 Nif Nif - Nif Nif Nıḟ - Nif

176 Bilecik Bilecik - Bilecük Bilecik Bıl̇eci̇k - Bilecik

177 İnönü İnönü - İn-Önü İnönü İnönü - İnönü

178 Seydigazi Seydi Gâzi - Seydi-Gazi - Seydıġ azı ̇ - Seydigazi

179

Seydi Gâzi

Bölmesi

Seydi Gâzi

Bölmesi -

Bölme-i

Seydi-Gazi - - - -

180 Sultanönü

Nefs-i

Sultanönü -

SultanÖnü

Sultanön

ü Sultanönü - Eskişehir

158

Table 3.19. (continued)

181 Antalya Antalya - Antalya Antalya Antalya - Antalya

182 Lâdık (?) Lâdık (?) - - - Ladık(?) - -

183 Laz - - Laz - - - -

184 Elmalu Elmalu - Elmalu Elmalı Elmalu - Elmalu

185 Teke - - - Teke - - -

186 Kalkanlu Kalkanlu - Kalkanlu

Kalkanlı

ma‘a

Ladik Kalkanlu - Kalkanlu

187 Karahisar Karahisar -

Kara-

Hisâr-Beği -

Karahıṡ ar-ı

Teke - Karahisar

188 Kaş Kaş - Kaş Kaş Kaş - Kaş

189 Adana - - Adana Adana - - Adana

190 Ayas - - Ayâs

Ayas

ma‘a

Tuzla Ayaş - Ayas

191 Berendi - - Berendi Berendi - - Berendi

192 Kara-İsalu - - Kara ‘İsalu - - - Kara-İsalu

193 Kınık - - Kınık Kınık - - Kınık

194

Dirbesak/

Gündüzlü(

N.) - - - Gündüzlü - -

Dirbesak/

Gündüzlü(

N.)

195

Nehrü'l

Cevz( N.) - - - - - -

Nehrü'l

Cevz( N.)

196 Tel-Başir( N.) - - - - - - Tel-Başir( N.)

197 Ayntâb - - Ayntâb Ayntab - - Ayntab

198 Araban( N.) - - - - - - Araban( N.)

199

Merzuban (

N.) - - - - - -

Merzuban (

N.)

200

Sıvac/Suruç(

N.) - - - - - -

Sıvac/Suruç(

N.)

201

Vilayet-i

Rum Kal'a - -

Kal‘atü’r-

Rûm Rumkale - -

Vilayet-i

Rum Kal'a

202

Beyre

(Birecik) - -

Beyre

(Birecik) Bire - - Birecik

203

Kudus-i Şerif

Ma' Halilü'r-

Rahman (N.) - -

Kuds-i

Şerîf

Kuds-i

Şerif - -

Kudus-i Şerif

Ma' Halilü'r-

Rahman (N.)

204 Kudreş[?] - - - Kudreş[?] - - -

159

Table 3.19. (continued)

205 Remle (N.) - - - Remle - - Remle (N.)

206 Gazze - - - Gazze - - -

207 A'zaz(N.) - - A‘zâz Azaz - - A'zaz(N.)

208

AltunÖzü(

N.) - - - - - -

AltunÖzü(

N.)

209 Amik(N.) - - ‘Amik

Amik

Ovası - - Amik(N.)

210

Antakiyye

(N.) - - Antakiyye Antakya - -

Antakiyye

(N.)

211 Arsuz-ili(N.) - - - - - - Arsuz-ili(N.)

212 Bab(N.) - - - - - - Bab(N.)

213 Bakras(N.) - - Bakrâs Bakraz - - Bakras(N.)

214 Erîhâ - - Erîhâ Eriha - - -

215 Cebbul (N.) - - - - - - Cebbul (N.)

216

Cebel-i

Akra(N.) - - - - - -

Cebel-i

Akra(N.)

217

Cebel-i

Ala(N.) - - - - - -

Cebel-i

Ala(N.)

218

Cebel-i Ben'i

Alim tabii

Sermin(N.) - - - - - -

Cebel-i Ben'i

Alim tabii

Sermin(N.)

219

Cebel-i

Berişa(N.) - - - - - -

Cebel-i

Berişa(N.)

220

Cebel-i

Siman(N.) - - - - - -

Cebel-i

Siman(N.)

221

Cebel-i

Sümmak

tabii

Sermin(N.) - - - - - -

Cebel-i

Sümmak

tabii

Sermin(N.)

222

Cebel-i

Sümmak - - - - - -

Cebel-i

Sümmak

223 Cum(N.) - - - - - - Cum(N.)

224 Halkalar(N.) - - - - - - Halkalar(N.)

225 Harim(N.) - - Hârim Harim - - Harim(N.)

226

İskenderun(

N.) - - - - - -

İskenderun(

N.)

227 Kefertab(N.) - - Kefr Tâb Kefertab - - Kefertab(N.)

228 Ma‘arra - - Ma‘arra Ma‘arra - - -

160

Table 3.19. (continued)

229 Kusayr(N.) - - - - - - Kusayr(N.)

230 Menbic(N.) - - - - - - Menbic(N.)

231 Mutih(N.) - - - - - - Mutih(N.)

232

Nukra/Cebb

ül(N.) - - - - - -

Nukra/Cebb

ül(N.)

233

Ravendan(N.

) - - - - - -

Ravendan(N.

)

234

Ruc tabii

Antakiyye

(N.) - - - - - -

Ruc tabii

Antakiyye

(N.)

235 Masyaf (N.) - - - - - - Masyaf (N.)

236 Sermin(N.) - - Sermîn Sermin - - Sermin(N.)

237 Yörük - - Yörük

Haleb

Yörüğü - - -

238 İzzeddin Kürt - - -

İzzeddin

Kürt - - -

239

Şizar ve

Kamine(N.) - - - - - -

Şizar ve

Kamine(N.)

240 Şeyzer (N.) - - - - - - Şeyzer (N.)

241 Şugur(N.) - - - - - - Şugur(N.)

242

Süveyde

tabii

Antakiyye - - - - - -

Süveyde

tabii

Antakiyye

243

Süveydiyye(

N.) - - - - - -

Süveydiyye(

N.)

244 Zaviye(N.) - - - - - - Zaviye(N.)

245 Haleb - -

Mahrûse-i

Haleb Haleb - - Haleb

246 Hama - - Hama Hama - - Hama

247 Hums - - Hums Humus - - Humus

248 Safed - - - Safed - - Safed

249 Taberiye - - - Taberiye - - -

250 Şakif - - - Şakif - - -

251 Keferkine - - - Keferkine - - -

252

Cebel-i

Amile - - -

Cebel-i

Amile - - -

253 Ata - - - Ata - - -

161

Table 3.19. (continued)

254 Salt - - - - - - Salt

255 Aclun - - - - - - Aclun

256 Ba'lebek (N.) - - Ba‘albek Ba‘lbek - - Ba'lebek (N.)

257 Beyrut (N.) - -

Beyrût

ma‘a

Bilâd-ı

Seyfüddin

el-Velî Beyrud - - Beyrut (N.)

258

Fârâ ve

'amâlihâ - -

Fârâ ve

'amâlihâ

Kura ve

‘amâlihâ - - -

259

Cerd-i

Beyrut (N.) - - - - - -

Cerd-i

Beyrut (N.)

260

Cübbetü'l

Gassal ve'l

Kara(N.) - - - Kara - -

Cübbetü'l

Gassal ve'l

Kara(N.)

261

Daranive'l

Billan (N.) - - - - - -

Daranive'l

Billan (N.)

262 El-Miten (N.) - - - - - - El-Miten (N.)

263

Garb-i

Beyrut (N.) - - - - - -

Garb-i

Beyrut (N.)

264

Guta ve'l

Merc(N.) - - - - - -

Guta ve'l

Merc(N.)

265

Hammare ve

Şüfü'l Beya

(N.) - - - - - -

Hammare ve

Şüfü'l Beya

(N.)

266 Havran(N.) - - - - - - Havran(N.)

267

Karaveşüfü'l

Harradinmin

e'l Bia' (N.) - - - - - -

Karaveşüfü'l

Harradinmin

e'l Bia' (N.)

268

Kerek-i Nuh-i

Nebi (N.) - -

Kerek-

Nûh

Kerek-i

Nuh

Aleyhissel

am - -

Kerek-i Nuhi

Nebi (N.)

269 Kisrevan (N.) - - - - - - Kisrevan (N.)

270 Sayda(N.) - -

Sayd(a)

ma‘a

İklîm-i

Harnûb Sayda - - Sayda(N.)

271

Şe'raveiklim

u'z-Zebib

(N.) - - - - - -

Şe'raveiklim

u'z-Zebib

(N.)

162

Table 3.19. (continued)

272

Şuf-i

İbnima'an

(N.) - - - - - -

Şuf-i

İbnima'an

(N.)

273

Vadi'l

Yetmve'l

Hüla(N.) - - - - - -

Vadi'l

Yetmve'l

Hüla(N.)

274

Vadi'l-Acem

(N.) - - - - - -

Vadi'l-Acem

(N.)

275

Zebdani ve

vadi'l

Berade(N.) - - - - - -

Zebdani ve

vadi'l

Berade(N.)

276 Şam - -

Mahrûse-i

Şam Şam - - Şam

277 Sis - - Sis Sis - - Sis

278 Kosun - - Kosunlu Kosunlu - - Kosun

279 Tarsus - - Tarsus Tarsus - - Tarsus

280 Ulaş - - - Ulaşlu - - Ulaş

281 Akkar(N.) - - - Akka - - Akkar(N.)

282 Anapa(N.) - - - - - - Anapa(N.)

283 Antartus(N.) - - - - - - Antartus(N.)

284 Arka(N.) - - - - - - Arka(N.)

285 Belatnis(N.) - - - - - - Belatnis(N.)

286 Beşera(N.) - - - - - - Beşera(N.)

287 Bırziyye(N.) - - - - - - Bırziyye(N.)

288 Cebele(N.) - - Cebeliye Cebeliye - - Cebele(N.)

289 Cübeyl(N.) - - - - - - Cübeyl(N.)

290

Fütuhu-yi

Beni

Rical(N.) - - - - - -

Fütuhu-yi

Beni

Rical(N.)

291 Havabi(N.) - - - - - - Havabi(N.)

292

Hısnü'l-

Ekrad(N.) - -

Hısnü’l-

Ekrâd

Hısnu’l-

Ekrad - -

Hısnü'l-

Ekrad(N.)

293 Trablus - - Trablus Trablus - - -

294 Kadmus(N.) - - - - - - Kadmus(N.)

295 Kali'a(N.) - - - - - - Kali'a(N.)

296 Kehf(N.) - - - - - - Kehf(N.)

297 Kura(N.) - - - - - - Kura(N.)

163

Table 3.19. (continued)

298

Lazikkiyye

(N.) - - - - - -

Lazikkiyye

(N.)

299 Menasıf(N.) - - - - - - Menasıf(N.)

300 Merkab(N.) - - - - - - Merkab(N.)

301 Mey'ar(N.) - - - - - - Mey'ar(N.)

302 Müneyka(N.) - - - - - -

Müneyka(N.

)

303

Müneytara(

N.) - - - - - -

Müneytara(

N.)

304 Safita(N.) - - - - - - Safita(N.)

305 Şahyun(N.) - - - - - - Şahyun(N.)

306 Tetrun(N.) - - - - - - Tetrun(N.)

307 Uleyka(N.) - - - - - - Uleyka(N.)

308

Vadi-i Kandil

(N.) - - - - - -

Vadi-i Kandil

(N.)

309 Zaviye(N.) - - - - - - Zaviye(N.)

310 Zinniyye(N.) - - - - - - Zinniyye(N.)

311 Üzeyr - - ‘Üzeyr Üzeyr - - Üzeyr

312 Âmid - - Âmid Amed - - Âmid

313 Ana - - ‘Anâ

Ana ma‘a

Hit - - Ana

314 Arabkir - - Arabgir Arabkir - - Arabkir

315 Çemişgezek - -

Çemişgez

ek - - - Çemişgezek

316 Çirmük - - Çermük Çermik - - Çirmük

317 Eğil - - Eğil - - - -

318 Safhun[?] - - - Safhun[?] - - -

319 Hısn-ı Keyf - -

Hısn-ı

Keyf - - - Hısn-ı Keyf

320 Siird - - Si‘ird - - - Siird

321 Deyr - - - - - - Deyr

322 Rahbe(Kale) - - - - - - Rahbe(Kale)

323 Aşşara - - - - - - Aşşara

324 Atak - - Atak Atak - - -

325 Ergani - - Ergani Ergani - - Ergani

164

Table 3.19. (continued)

326 Harpurt - - Harput Harput - - Harpurt

327 Hît - - Hît - - - Hît

328 Kiğı - - Kiğı - - - Kiğı

329 Berriyecik - -

Bîrecik

(Berriyeci

k) - - - Berriyecik

330 Çabakçur - - Çabakçur Çapakçur - - -

331

Buhayra ve

Cize - - -

Buhayra

ve Cize - - -

332 Mardin - - Mardin Mardin - - Mardin

333 Savur - - Sâvur Savur - - Savur

334 Musul - - Musul Musul - - Musul

335 Palu - - Palu Palu - - -

336 Cizye - - - Cizye - - -

337 Eğin - - - Eğin - - -

338 Ruha - - Rûhâ Ruha - - Ruha

339 Sincar - - - - - - Sincar

340 Siverek - - Siverek Siverek - - Siverek

341 Argiri Kasrı -

Ergirikasr

ı Ergir-Kasrı - -

Ergiro-

Kasrı Argiri Kasrı

342 Avlonya - Avlonya Avlonya - - Avlonya Avlonya

343 Iskrapar - - - - - Iskrapar Iskrapar

344 Belgrad -

Belgradü

’l-

Arnavud Belgrad - -

Belgrad

(Berat) Belgrad

345 Delvine - Delvine Delvine - - Delvine Delvine

346 Depedelen -

Depedel

Depedele

n - -

Depedele

n Depedelen

347 Kanina - - - - - Kanina Kanine

348 Mujake - Mezkiye Kavâgina - - - Mujake

349 Peremedi - Premedi Premedi - - Premedi Peremedi

350 Koniçe - - - - - Koniçe

Bazar-ı

Koniçe

351 Timurinçe -

Timorinç

Temür-

Yenice - - - Timurinçe

352 Draç - Drac Drac - - Kale-i Drac Draç

165

Table 3.19. (continued)

353 Erandanlı -

Eranidan

lı Erandanlı - - - -

354 İlbasan - İlbasan İlbasan - - İlbasan İlbasan

355 İşpat - İşbat Eşbat - - - İşpat

356 Dukakin - Dukakin Dukakin - - - -

357 Akçahisar -

Akçahisa

Akça-

Hisar - - Akçehisar Akçahisar

358 Debri - Debri Debrî - - - Debri

359 Mat - Mat Mat - - - Mat

360 Ohri - Ohri Ohri - - Ohri Ohri

361 Aksaray Aksaray - Ak-Saray Aksaray Aksaray - Aksaray

362 Ereğli Eregli - Ereğli Ereğli Ereglı ̇ - Ereğli

363 Koşhisar Koçhisar - Kuş-Hisâr

Koçhisar-ı

Karaman

Koçhıṡ ar-i

Karaman - Koşhisar

364 Akşehir Akşehir - Ak-Şehir

Akşehir

ma‘a

Çimenili Akşehıṙ - Akşehir

365 Akşehıṙ (?) - - - - Akşehıṙ (?) - -

366 Çimenili Çemenili - Çimen-ili - - - Çimenili

367 Zengicek Zengicek - - Zengicek - - -

368 Ilgun Ilgun - Ilgun Ilgın Ilgun - Ilgun

369 İshaklu İshaklu - İshaklu İshaklı İshaklu - İshaklu

370 Beyşehir Begşehri - Beğ-Şehri Beyşehir Begşehrı ̇ - Beyşehir

371 Seydişehir Seydişehri -

SeydiŞehri

Seydişehi

r Seydış̇ ehrı ̇ - Seydişehir

372 Ermenek Ermenek - Ermenâk Ermenek Ermenek - Ermenek

373 Ortaköy Ortaköy - Orta-Köy Ortaköy Ortaköy - -

374 Gülnar Gülnar - Gülnâr Gülnar Gülnar - Gülnar

375 Karataş Karıtaş - Karı-Taş Karıtaş Karıtaş - Karataş

376 Mud Mut - Mût Mut Mud - Mud

377 Selendi - - -

Selendi

Bölme-i

Gülnar Selendı ̇ - Selendi

378 Kayseriyye Kayseriyye -

Kayseriyy

e Kayseriye Kayserıẏ ye - Kayseriyye

379 Bayburd - - - - - - Bayburd

166

Table 3.19. (continued)

380 Eskiil Eskiil - Eski-il Eskiil Eskıı̇ l̇ - Eskiil

381 Konya Konya - Konya Konya Konya - Konya

382 Turgudili Turgudili -

Turgud-ili

Zengicek Turgudili - - Turgud

383 Aladağ Alatağ - Ala-Dağ Aladağ Alatağ - Aladağ

384 Belviran Bilviran - Bil-Virân Belviran Bıl̇vi̇ran - Belviran

385 Larende Lârende - Larende Larende Larende - Larende

386 Anduğu - - Anduğu Anduğu - - Anduğu

387

Karahisar-i

Develü Karahisar -

Kara-

Hisârcıklu

Karahisar

-ı Develi

Karahıṡ ar-i

Develü -

Karahisar-i

Develü

388 Niğde Negide - Niğde Niğde Nıġ de - Niğde

389 Ürgüp Ürgüb - Ürgüb Ürküb Ürgüb - Ürgüp

390 Amasya

Nefs-i

Amasya - Amasiyye Amasya

Amasya

Me'a Ladi̇k

Merzifon - Amasya

391 Ladik - - - Ladik - - Ladik

392 Merzifon Merzifon - Merzifon Merzifon - - Merzifon

393 Bayburd - - Bayburd Bayburd - - Bayburd

394 İspir - - İspir - - - İspir

395 Kelgid - - Kelkit Kelkit - - Kelgid

396 Kogans - - Koğans - - - Kogans

397 Şogayn - - - - - - Şogayn

398 Tercan - - - - - - Tercan

399 Bafra Bafra - Bafra Bafra Bafra - Bafra

400 Erim Arım - Erîm Arım Arim - Erim

401 Kavak Kavak - Kavak Kavak Kavak - Kavak

402 Kedegara Gedekara - Kedagra Gedegara Gedegara - Kedegara

403 Kocakayası Zeytun -

Zeytûn

nâm-ı

diğer

Koca-

Kayası Zeytun Zeytun - Kocakayası

404 Samsun Samsun - Samsun Samsun Samsun - Samsun

167

Table 3.19. (continued)

405 Satılmış Satılmış - Satılmış Satılmış

Satılmış

Me'a Ünye - Satılmış

406 Tirme Tirme - Terme Tirme Tıṙ me - Tirme

407 Ünye Ünye - Ünye Ünye - - Ünye

408 Çorumlu Çorumlu - Çorumlu Çorumlu Çorum - Çorumlu

409 İskilib İskilib - - İskilib İskıl̇ ıḃ - İskilib

410

Karahisar-i

Demirlü

Demürlü

Karahisar -

Demürlü-

Kara-Hisâr

Karahisar

-ı

Demürlü

Karahıṡ ar-ı

Demürlü -

Karahisar-i

Demirlü

411 Engelîn - - Engelîn - - - -

412 Katar Katar - Kattâr Katar Katar - Katar

413 Osmancık Osmancuk - Osmancık Osmancık Osmancık - Osmancık

414

Bayramlu/Ca

nik Bayramlu -

Bayramlu-

Caniği Bayramlı Bayramlu - Canik

415 Darende - - Darende

Darende[

?] Derende - Darende

416 Divriği - - Divriği Divriği - - Divriği

417

Hısn-ı

Mansur - - -

Hısn-ı

Mansur - -

Hısn-ı

Mansur

418 Behisni - - Behisni Besni - - Behisni

419 Gerger - - - - - - Gerger

420 Kahta - -

Kâhta ve

Gerger

Kahta ve

Gerger - - Kahta

421

Karahisar-i

Şarki Karahisar -

Kara-

Hisâr-ı

Şerefî

Karahisar

-ı Şarki

Karahıṡ ar-1

Şarkı ̇ -

Karahisar-i

Şarki

422 Yörük Yörük - Yörük - - - -

423 Koyluhisar Koyluhisar -

Koylu-

Hisâr

Koyluhisa

r Koyluhıṡ ar - Koyluhisar

424 Erzincan - - Erzincan Erzincan - - Erzincan

425 Kemah - - Kemâh Kemah - - Kemah

426

Hâlilü’r-

Rahmân - -

Hâlilü’r-

Rahmân - - - -

427

Kerek-i

Derrîd ma‘a

Şevbek - -

Kerek-i

Derrîd

ma‘a

Şevbek - - - -

428 Malatya - - Malatiyye Malatya - - Malatya

168

Table 3.19. (continued)

429 Nık̇ sar Nık̇ sar - Nîksâr Niksar Nık̇ sar - Niksar

430 Gümüş Gümüş - Gümüş Gümüş Gümış̇ - Gümüş

431 Sivas Sivas - Sivâs Sivas Sıv̇ as - Sivas

432 Sonisa Sonısa - Sona Sonisa Sonisa - Sonisa

433 Artukabad Artukâbâd -

ArtukÂbad

Artukaba

d Artukabad - Artukabad

434

Etrakiyye-i

Büzürk - - - - - -

Etrakiyye-i

Büzürk

435 Tokat Tokat - Tokat Tokat Tokat - Tokat

436 Turhal Turhal - Turhal Turhal Turhal - Turhal

437 Ulu Yörük - - - Ulu Yörük Uluyörük - -

438 Zile Zile - Zîle Zile Zıl̇e - Zile

439 Petros Petros - - - - - -

440 Bolvan - - - - - Bolvan Bolvan

441 Arhova - - Râdva Arhavi

Arhava

Me'a

Hemşıṅ - Arhova

442 Kökes Kökes - - - - - -

443 Atina Atene - Atina - Atene - Atina

444 Hemşin - - - Hemşin - - Hemşin

445 Kürtün Kürtün - Körtün Kürtün Kürtün - Kürtün

446 Of Of - Of Of Of - Of

447 Rize Rize - Rize Rize - - Rize

448 Torul Torul - Torul Torul - - Torul

449 Giresun Giresun - Girasun Giresun Gıṙ asun - Giresun

450

Bayburd?

(Batum) - -

Bayburd?

(Batum) - - - -

451 Trabzon

Nefs-i

Trabzon - Trabzon Trabzon Trabzon - Trabzon

452 Ağrıboz - Eğriboz Ağrıboz - - Ağrıboz Ağrıboz

453 Atina - Atina Atina Atina - Atina Atina

454 İstifa - İstife İstefa - - İstefa İstifa

455 İzdin - İzdin İzdin - - İzdin İzdin

456 Livadiye - Livadya Livadya - - Livadiya Livadiye

169

Table 3.19. (continued)

457 Salone - - - - - Salone Salina

458 Kızılhisar - - - - - Kızılhisar Kızılhisar

459 Modoniçe - - - - - Modoniçe Mondoniçe

460 Alaca Hisar -

Alacahis

Alaca-

Hisar - -

Alacahisar

Alaca Hisar

461 İplana - - - - - İplana İplana

462 Zaplana - Zablana Zaplana - - Zaplana Zaplana

463 Niş -

Niş (maa

İsfirlig) Niş - - - Niş

464 Petros - Petroş

Bebroş

(Petros) - - - Petros

465 Ürgüp - Ürgüb Ürgüb - - Ürgüb Ürgüp

466 Brod - Brod Brûd - - - Brod

467 Iskradin - - - - - - Iskradin

468 Neretva - Nertova Zitve - - - Neretva

469 Saray - Saray Saray - -

Bâzâr-ı

Saray Saray

470 Vişegrad - Vişegrad Vişegrad - -

Vâroş-ı

Vişegrad Vişegrad

471

Bâzâr-ı

Olofça

(Olovo) - - - - -

Bâzâr-ı

Olofça

(Olovo)

Bazar-ı

Olofça

472

Koninç

(Konjic) - - - - -

Koninç

(Konjic)

Bazar-ı

Koniçe

473 Yeni Bazar -

Yenibaza

Yeni-

Bazar - - Yeni-pazar Yeni Bazar

474 Akça Kızanlık -

Akçakıza

nlık

Akça-

Kızanlık - -

Akçe-

Kızanlık Akça Kızanlık

475 Çirmen - Çirmen Çirmen - - Çirmen Çirmen

476 Hasköy - Hasköy Hâs-Köy - - Hasköy Hasköy

477 Tekür Dağı -

Tekfurda

ğı Tekür-Dağ - - Rodoscuk Tekür Dağı

478 Eyne-pazarı - - - - -

Eynepazarı

İnebazarı

479

Yenice-i

Çırpan - - - - - Çirpan

Yenice-i

Çırpan

480

Yenice-i

Zağra -

Zağra

Yenicesi

Zağra-

Yenicesi - -

Yenice-i

Zağra

Yenice-i

Zağra

481 Gelibolu - Gelibolu Gelibolu - - Gelibolu Gelibolu

170

Table 3.19. (continued)

482 İnoz - İnöz İnoz - - Inos İnöz

483 İmroz C. - - - - - - İmroz C.

484 Keşan - - - - - - Keşan

485 Limnos C. - Limyos Limni - - - Limnos C.

486 Mıgalkara -

Migalgar

a Miğalğara - - Malkara Mıgalkara

487 Semadirek C. - - - - - -

Semadirek

488 Taşyoz C. - - - - - - Taşyoz C.

489 Foça - Foça Foça - - Foça Foça

490 Goradja - - - - - Goradja

Bazar-ı

Gorajde

491

Bâzâr-ı Balac

(Balagay) - - - - -

Bâzâr-ı

Balac

(Balagay) Bazar-ı Yeleç

492 Mostar - Mostar Mostar - -

Bâzâr-ı

Mostar Mostar

493 Nova - Nova Nova - - Nova Nova

494 Prepolye - Prepolye Prepolye - -

Bâzâr-ı

Prepolye Prepolye

495 Bihor332 - - - - - - Bihor

496 İpek - İpek İpek - - İpek İpek

497 İskenderiye -

İskenderi

İskenderiy

ye - -

İskenderiy

e İskenderiye

498 Karadağ - Karadağ

Kara-Dağ

ma‘a

Tîmâr - - - Karadağ

499

Nova

Bırda333 - - - - - - Nova Bırda

500 Podgoriçe -

Podgoriç

e Podgoriçe - - Podgoriçe Podgoriçe

501 Priştine334 - - - - - - Priştine

502 Prizrin335 - - - - - - Prizrin

503 Barançak - Barancık Barançak - - - -

332 In the sanjak of İskenderiye.

333 In the sanjak of İskenderiye.

334 In the sanjak of İskenderiye.

335 In the sanjak of İskenderıẏ e.

171

Table 3.19. (continued)

504 Vılçıtrın336 - - - - - - Vılçıtrın

505 Bırvenik - Pravnik Pervenik - - Brvenik Bırvenik

506 Srebreniçe -

Sirebreni

çe

Serâbriniç

e - -

Sirebereni

çe Srebreniçe

507 İzvornik - - - - - İzvornik İzvornik

508 Angeli Kasrı -

Angelkas

rı

Ereğli-

Kasrı - -

Engeli-

Kasrı

(Angelo

Kastron) Angeli Kasrı

509

Voniçe

(Vonitza) - - - - -

Voniçe

(Vonitza) Voniçe

510 Aya Mavra -

Ayamavr

a Ayamavra - -

Aya-

Mavra Aya Mavra

511 Azak - Azak Azak - - - Azak

512 Kefe - Kefe Kefe - - - Kefe

513 Kerş - Kerş Kerş - - - Kerş

514 Mangub - Mangub

Maykûb

(Mankub) - - - Mangub

515 Soğudak - Suğdak Soğdak - - - Soğudak

516 Taman - Taman Taman - - - Taman

517 Ilıca - Ilıca Ilıca - - Ilıca Ilıca

518 Radomir - - - - - Radomir Radomir

519 Dubnica - - - - - Dubnica Dubniçe

520 İştib - İştib İştib - - İştip İştib

521 Nogeriç - - - - - Nogeriç Nogoriçe

522 İvranya - İvranya İvrâniye - - Ivrânye İvranya

523 Kratova - - - - -

Maden-i

Kratovo Kratova

524

Timur

Hisarı337 - - - - - - Timur Hisarı

525 Menlik - - - - - Menlik Menlik

526 Usturumca -

Ustrumc

a Ustrumça - - Ustrumca Usturumca

527 Arhoz - Arhos Arhoz - - Arhos Arhos

336 In the sanjak of İskenderiye.

337 In the sanjak of Köstendil.

172

Table 3.19. (continued)

528 Arkadya - Arkadya Arkadya - - - Arkadya

529 Balya Badra -

Balyabad

Yalyabadr

a - -

Balya-

Badra Balya Badra

530 Hulumiç - Hulumic Holomça - - Holomiç Hulumiç

531 Kalamata -

Kalamat

e Kalamete - - - Kalamata

532 Kalavitra - Kalavarta Kalavorta - - Kalavorta Kalavitra

533 Karitena - Karitene Kartına - - Kartına Karitena

534 Koron - Koron Koron - - Koron Koron

535 Kotros - Gördös Koridos - -

Koritus

(Korintus) Kotros

536 Mizistre - Misistre Mezestre - - Mezestre Mizistre

537 Moton - Moton Meson - - Moton Moton

538 Vanika - - - - - Vanika Vatika

539 Anavarin - - - - - Anavarin Anavarin

540 Çernovi - Çernovi Denvi - - - Çernovi

541 İvraca - İvraca İvraca - - Ivraca İvraca

542 Rus-Yörüğü - - - - -

Rus-

Yörüğü -

543 Lofça - Lofça Lofça - - Lofca Lofça

544 Niğbolu - Niğbolu Niğbolu - - Niğbolu Niğbolu

545 Ziştova - - - - - Ziştova Ziştovi

546 Şumnu - Şumnu Şumnu - - Şumnu Şumnu

547 Tırnova - Tırnovi Tırnova - - Tırnova Tırnova

548 Dimetoka -

Dimetok

a Dimetoka - - Dimetoka Dimetoka

549 Ergene - - - - - Ergene Ergene

550 Edirne -

Edirne

elmahrûse

Edirne - - Edirne Edirne

551 Ferecik - Ferecik

Karacik

(Ferecik) - - Ferecik Ferecik

552 Filibe - Filibe Filibe - - Filibe Filibe

553 İpsala - İpsala İpsala - - Ipsala İpsala

554 Kalkandelen -

Kalkande

len

Kalkan-

Delen - -

Kalkandel

en Kalkandelen

173

Table 3.19. (continued)

555 Keşan - Keşan Keşan - - - Keşan

556 Kırçova - Kırçova Kırçova - - Kırçova Kırçova

557 Kızılağaç -

Kızılağaç

Yenicesi

Yenice-

Kızıl-Ağaç - - Kızıl-ağaç Kızılağaç

558 Köprülü - Köprülü Köprülü - - Köprülü Köprülü

559 Manastır - Manastır Manastır - - Manastır Manastır

560 Pirlepe - Pirlepe Pirlepe - - Pirlepe Pirlepe

561

Samakov-ı

Ivlayçov - - - - - -

Samakov-ı

Ivlayçov

562 Tatar Bazarı -

Tatarbaz

arı

Tatar-

Bazarı - -

Tatar-

Pazarı Tatar Bazarı

563 Üsküb -

Üsküb

maa

Nevahi Üsküb - - Üsküp Üsküb

564

Nâhiye-i

Üsküb - -

Nâhiye-i

Üsküb - - - -

565

Zağra-i Eski

Hisar - Eskihisar Eski-Hisâr - -

Eskihisar -

Zağra

Zağra-i Eski

Hisar

566 Avrat Hisarı -

Avrethis

arı

Avrat

Hisarı - -

Avrethisarı

Avrat Hisarı

567 Bihlişte - Bihlişte Bihlişte - - Bihlişte Bihlişte

568 Drama - Drama Drama - - Drama Drama

569 Florina - Filorina Florina - - Florina Florina

570 Görice - Görice Görice - - Görice Görice

571 Gümülcine -

Gümülci

Gümülcin

e - -

Gümülcin

e Gümülcine

572 İştin - - - - - - İştin

573 Hurpişte - Hurpişte Hurpişte - - Hurpişte Hurpeşte

574 Kara Verye -

Karavery

Kara-

Ferye - - Karaferye Kara Verye

575 Kestorya - Kesriye Kesriye - -

Kastoria

(Kesriye) Kestorya

576 Nevrekop -

Nevreko

b Nevrekob - - Nevrekop Nevrekop

577 Selanik - Selanik Selânik - -

Şehr-i

Selânik Selanik

578 Serfiçe - Serfice Serfice - - Serfiçe Serfiçe

174

Table 3.19. (continued)

579 Sidre Kapısı -

Sidrekap

Beder-

Kapısı

(Sidre-

Kapısı) - -

Sidre-

Kapsı Sidre Kapısı

580 Siroz - Siroz Siroz - - Siroz Siroz

581

Timur

Hisarı338 -

Timurhis

Temür-

Hisâr - -

Temürhisar

Timur Hisarı

582

Yenice-i

Karasu -

Karasu

Yenicesi

Yenice-

Karasu - -

Yenice-i

Karasu

Yenice-i

Karasu

583

Yenice-i

Vardar -

Vardar

Yenicesi

Yenice-

Vardar - -

Yenice-i

Vardar

Yenice-i

Vardar

584 Vodine - - - - - Vodine -

585 Zihne - Zihne Zîhne - - Zihne Zihne

586 Berkofça - Berkofça Perkofça - - Berkofca Berkofça

587

Çirpofça

(Çiprovci) - - - - -

Çirpofça

(Çiprovci) Çiprofça

588 Samakov - Samakov Samakov - - Samakov Samakov

589 Şehir Köy - Şehirköy Şehir-Köy - - Şehirköy Şehir Köy

590 Pireznik - - - - - Pireznik Breznik

591 Sofya - Sofya Sofya - - Sofya Sofya

592 Ihtimam - - - - - Ihtimam İhtiman

593 Bihor339 - Bihor Buhur - - - Bihor

594

Hassha-i

Arnavud -

Havâss-ı

Arnavud Hâslar - - -

Hassha-i

Arnavud

595 Prizrin340 - Prizrin Prezrîn - - Prizrin Prizrin

596 Foça - - - - - Foça Foça

597 Tırgovişte - - - - - Tırgovişte Tırgovişte

598 İstanköy - - - - - - İstanköy

599 Midillü - Midillü Midillü - - Midilli Midillü

600

Kale-i

Molova

(Moliva) - - - - -

Kale-i

Molova

(Moliva)

Molova

(kale)

601 Rodos - - - - - - Rodos

338 In the sanjak of Paşa.

339 In the sanjak of Prizrin.

340 In the sanjak of Prezrin.

175

Table 3.19. (continued)

602

Belgrad

Kalesi - - - - -

Kale-i

Belgrad

Kalesi

603

Belgradi’l-

Anzeviş? -

Belgradi’l

Anzeviş? - - - - -

604 Böğürdelen -

Böğürdel

en - - - - -

605 Breniçeva - - - - - - Breniçeva

606 Niş - - - - - Niş Niş

607 Leskofça - - - - - Leskofça Leskovce

608 Pojega - Pojaga - - - - Pojega

609 Uzîçe - Üziçe Uzîçe - - Ujiçe Uziçe

610 Külfetler - Külfetler Külfetler - - - -

611 Rudnik - Rudnik Rudnik - - Rudnik Rudnik

612

Kale-i

Resava - - - - -

Kale-i

Resava -

613 Kale-i Hram - - - - -

Kale-i

Hram -

614

Kale-i

Koyluca - - - - -

Kale-i

Koyluca -

615

Kale-i

Göğercinlik - - - - -

Kale-i

Göğercinli

Güvercinlik

Kalesi

616

Jejne

(Zsezsne,

Kopaonik) - - - - -

Jejne

(Zsezsne,

Kopaonik) -

617 Semendire -

Semendi

Semendir

e - -

Kale-i

Semendre Semendire

618 Ahyolu - Ahyolu Ahyolu - - Ahyolu Ahyolu

619 Misivri - - - - - Misivri Misivri

620 Akkirman -

Akkirma

Ak-

Kermen - - Akkerman Akkirman

621 Aydos - Aydos Aydos - - Aydos Aydos

622 Hırsova - Hırsova Harbak - - Hırsova Hırsova

623 Karin Ovası -

Karinova

sı

Karin-

Ovası - -

Karinovası

(KarinÂbad)

Karin Ovası

624 Kili - Kili Kili - - Kale-i Kili Kili

176

Table 3.19. (continued)

625

Nâhiye-i

Yanbolu -

Hassa-i

Yanbolu

Nâhiye-i

Yanbolu - - - -

626 Prevadi - Prevadi Prâvadi - - Pravadi Prevadi

627 Rusi Kasr - Rusikasrı Rus-Kasrı - - Rus-Kasrı Rusi Kasr

628 Silistre - Silistre Silistre - - Silistre Silistre

629 Varna - Varna Varna - - Varna Varna

630 Yanbolu - Yanbolu Yanbolu - - - Yanbolu

631 Alasonya - Alasonya Alasonya - - Alasonya Alasonya

632 Badra - - - - - - Badra

633

Badracık(bad

ra) - Badracık Badracık - - Badracık

Badracık(ba

dra)

634 Çatalca - Çatalca Çatalca - - Çatalca Çatalca

635 Dömeke - - - - - Dömeke Dömeke

636 Fenar - Fenar Fenâr - - Fener Fenar

637 İnebahtı - İnebahtı İnebahtı - - İnebahtı İnebahtı

638 Ağrafa - - - - - Ağrafa Agrafa

639 Kerpiniş - Kerbeniş Kernîş - - - Kerpiniş

640 Tırhala - Tırhala Tırhala - - Tırhala Tırhala

641 Yenişehir - Yenişehir Yeni-Şehir - - Yenişehir Yenişehir

642 Bana - Bana Bâte - - Bana Bana

643 Feth-i İslam - - - - - - Feth-i İslam

644 İsferlik - İsfirlig İsferlik - - İsfirlig İsferlik

645 Vidin - Vidin Vidin - - Vidin Vidin

646

Nova

Bırda341 -

Novabor

Novaberd

e - -

Novabdra

(novobrdo

) Nova Bırda

647 Trepçe - - - - - Trepçe

Maden-i

Trebçe

648 Priştine342 - Priştine Priştina - - Priştina Priştine

649 Vılçıtrın343 - Vulçitrin Vılçıtrın - - Vılçıtırn Vılçıtrın

650 Yelastiçe - Blaşice - - - - Yelastiçe

341 In the sanjak of Vılçıtrın.

342 In the sanjak of Vılçıtrın.

343 In the sanjak of Vılçıtrın.

177

Table 3.19. (continued)

651 Babaeskisi -

Babaeski

Baba-

Eskisi - -

Dânişmen

d - Eski

(Baba-

Eski) Babaeskisi

652 Bergoz - Burgos

Burgûz

(Lüleburg

az) - -

Birgoz

(Lüleburga

z) Bergoz

653 Çorlu - Çorlu Çorlu - - Çorlu Çorlu

654 Ereğli - - - - - Ereğli Ereğli

655 Hayra Bolu -

Hayrabol

u Hayrebolu - - Hayrebolu Hayra Bolu

656 Kırk Kilise - Kırkkilise Kırk-Kilise - - Kırk-Kilise Kırk Kilise

657 Pınar Hisar -

Pınarhisa

Pınar-

Hisâr - - - Pınar Hisar

658 Silivri - Silivri Silivri - - Silivri Silivri

659 Terkos - - - - - Terkos Terkoz

660 İncüğez - - - - - İncüğez İncüğez

661 Vize - Vize Vize - - Vize Vize

662 Grebene - Grebene Kerbene? - - - Grebene

663 Narda - Narda Narda - - Narda Narda

664 Zogoz - - - - - Zogoz Rogoz (kale)

665 Peremedi - - - - - - Peremedi

666 Rinasa - Rinyase İnasa - - Rinase Rinasa

667 Yanya - Yanya Yanina - - Yanina Yanya

668 Aydonat - - - - - Aydonat Aydonat

669 Bozok - - Boz-Ok Bozok - - Bozok

670 Elbistan - - Elbistan Elbistan - - Elbistan

671 Kars - - Kars Kars - - Kars

672 Göğercinlik - -

Göğercinli

Güvercinl

ik - - -

673 Karaaynlı[?] - - -

Karaaynlı[

?] - - -

674 Kırşehri Kırşehir - Kır-Şehir Kırşehir - - Kırşehri

675 Maraş - - Mar‘aş Maraş - - Maraş

676 Zamantu - - Samântu Zamantı - - Zamantu

677 Berdîs - - Berdîs - - - -

178

Table 3.19. (continued)

678

Ahmîm ve

Menşâthâ? - -

Ahmîm ve

Menşâthâ

? - - - -

679 Behcûre - - Behcûre - - - -

680 Kûs - - Kûs - - - -

681

Menû? ve

Circe ve

Fercût ve

Melesnâ? - -

Menû? ve

Circe ve

Fercût ve

Melesnâ? - - - -

682 Semhûd - - Semhûd - - - -

683 ‘Alâ - - ‘Alâ - - - -

684

Cânke

(Hânke)

ma‘a Bivâlbîs - -

Cânke

(Hânke)

ma‘a

Bivâlbîs Hanka - - -

685

Demenhûr

ve Buheyre - -

Demenhû

r ve

Buheyre

Demenhu

r - - -

686 Dimyât - - Dimyât Dimyad - - -

687

Fevr? ma‘a

Menâsmînü’

t-Tertîb? - -

Fevr?

ma‘a

Menâsmî

nü’t-

Tertîb? - - - -

688 İskenderiyye - -

İskenderiy

İskenderi

ye - - -

689 Nehâriyye - - Nehâriyye Nehariye - - -

690 Borullus - - Borullus - - - -

691

Cidde-i

Ma‘mûre - -

Cidde-i

Ma‘mûre - - - -

692 Medine - -

Hanbeliyy

e, der

Medine - - - -

693 Mekke - -

Hanbeliyy

e, der

Mekke - - - -

694 Mahalle - - Mahalle Mahalle - - -

695

Mahrûse-i

Mısır - -

Mahrûse-i

Mısır - - - -

696

Miklût ve

(A)syût - -

Miklût ve

(A)syût - - - -

179

Table 3.19. (continued)

697 Mînâ - - Mînâ - - - -

698 Minûfiye - - Minûfiye - - - -

699 Münzele - - Münzele Menzele - - -

700 Reşîd - - Reşîd Reşid - - -

701 Yenbû‘ - - Yenbû‘ - - - -

702 Fuh - - - Fuh - - -

703 Hofya[?] - - - Hofya[?] - - -

We determined the distribution of the cities by regions in the light of the archival

documents that provided the panorama of the entire empire in the early 16th century. In

this thesis, we believe that this database -which reveals the administrative organization

of almost the whole empire based on the 1530 tahrir registers- will be a valuable

contribution in terms of being the first such study in the literature. By spatializing this

database in the next section, we will examine the changes and transformations in the

administrative organization based on the maps of vilayet, sanjak and kaza. These

detailed maps of the administrative organization of the early 16th century Ottoman

Empire will considerably increase the readability and comprehensibility of archival

resources.

180

CHAPTER 4

MAPPING THE DYNAMIC REGIONAL AND URBAN DIVISIONS OF THE OTTOMAN

EMPIRE IN THE EARLY 16TH CENTURY

When we look at the administrative organization of the empire in the early 16th century,

we are talking about a geography that covers the Balkan, East/West Anatolian and Arab-

African (MENA). The distribution of the aforementioned 703 cities, which we can identify

from different primary sources, is within the borders of tens of countries today and is a

part of their urban history. The Map 4.1 shows the distribution of 8 vilayets and kazas of

the early 16th century Ottoman Empire.344

Map 4.1. The Vilayet Division of Ottoman Empire in the Early 16th Century

344 Since the current locations of 56 kazas could not be determined, they were not added to the map. In

the following sections, information about these kazas will be given according to their sanjak or vilayet

division.

181

In this section, we will focus on debates in the literature about the reasons that cause

changes in the vilayet, sanjak, and the kaza system, namely the administrative

organization and boundaries of the empire. Then, within the scope of this thesis, we will

determine the location of the regions and cities and also analyze the differences in the

administrative organization of the early 16th century Ottoman Empire through the

database that was created in Chapter 3. The kanunname of 1522 published by Enver

Çakar provides us a panorama of the entire empire, although there it lacks some regions’

sanjak information. Another important resource that covers the cities of the whole

empire is the previously mentioned database of the “Mapping Ottoman Cities”

undergoing TÜBİTAK project, which mainly focuses on 1530 tahrir registers. The

kadıasker registers of Anatolia dated 1513, and 1528 that were published by Turan Gökçe

provide us observations on the cities in Anatolian province. For the Rumelian side we will

discuss the division of cities through Ercan Alan’s similar publication which uses a

kadıasker register dated 1521. In addition, the 1523 kadıasker register comprising the

regions of Anatolia, Arab and Egypt published by Abdurrahman Atçıl will allow us to

compare cities with other periods.

With the digital database, we will observe changes and transformations in the

administrative organization and boundaries of the empire at the city level more clearly

and analyze the possible reasons for these. This study will thus enable a form of testing

of the discussions in the literature about the changes in administrative division.

4.1 Debates on the effects of Transformation in Ottoman Provincial Administrative

Organization

Among the aims of this study is determining the number of administrative units, the

organization with which they are affiliated, the factors affecting the changes in the

process and making a comparative analysis with digital methods to test the arguments

in the current literature. In the studies conducted on Ottoman administrative

organization, changes and transformations in the Ottoman provincial organization are

182

generally evaluated within the framework of three headings; 1) administrative

necessities related to conquests and distance, 2) military, and 3) economic. The

expansion of the state with new conquests could lead to new administrative

arrangements, resulting in the formation of new vilayets, sanjaks and kazas, and changes

in the administrative unit or status. The Ottomans decided to include the newly

conquered territories into their systems without changing the geographical

boundaries345 to facilitate the integration of the new provinces and their peoples. Halil

İnalcık describes this method of conquest as follows:

The Ottomans first sought to establish some sort of suzerainty over the

neighbouring states. They then sought direct control over these countries by the

elimination of the native dynasties. Direct control by the Ottomans meant

basically the application of the timar system which was based upon a methodical

recording of the population and resources of the countries in the defters (official

registers). The establishment of the timar system did not necessarily mean a

revolutionary change in the former social and economic order. It was in fact a

conservative reconciliation of local conditions and classes with Ottoman

institutions which aimed at gradual assimilation.346

As an example, after the conquest of Saruhan, Karesi, Menteşe, Aydın, and

Germiyanoğulları, these regions all became sanjaks in the Beylerbeylik of Anatolia.347

When a country was conquered, the practices of the empire's provincial rule were

applied to the new conquest. Thus, according to the need, new kazas would be formed

or old ones disbanded, and the region could be divided into several sanjaks and vilayets.

As the borders of the state grew gradually in the 15th century, the administrative units

and the kazas increased due to the insufficient number of the kadıs to carry out the

administrative work of the whole sanjak.348 The number of kadı belonging to Kadıasker

of Anatolia and Rumelia was not constant. Through the expansion of the borders of the

empire, a continuous increase was observed in the number of kadıs. However, the total

345 Halil İnalcık, “Ottoman Methods of Conquest,” Studia Islamica, No. 2, 1954, p. 108

346 Halil İnalcık, “Ottoman Methods of Conquest,” p. 103; Feridun Emecen “Beylikten Sancağa Batı

Anadolu'da İlk Osmanlı Sancaklarının Kuruluşuna Dair Bazı Mülâhazalar,” Belleten, Cilt: LX – No: 227, 1996,

p. 91

347 İlhan Şahin, “XV. ve XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilatının Özellikleri” pp. 124-125

348 İsmail Özçelik, Devlet-i ‘Aliye’nin Taşra Yönetimi, Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara, 2016, p. 38

183

number of kazas in Anatolia decreased from 232 in 1513 to 211 in 1528. However, in

1698-99, the number of Anatolian kazas in 45 sanjaks reached 546. Gökçe claims that

rapid population growth in the 16th century, particularly noticeable towards the end,

long wars (1593-1606), the financial crisis, transformation in the military system,

rebellions of the Celali groups, inform the change in the provincial administration as a

natural result.349 During Suleiman the Magnificent’s war with Iran, the Beylerbeylik of

Haleb was established in 1549 in northern Syria to prevent the unrest caused by the

nomadic Arabs and to preserve stability in the region.350 Ayntab, for example, was

included in the Ottoman lands in 1516, and was first connected to the Beylerbeylik of

Arab and then to Dulkadir. The reasons for the administrative change in the sanjak, which

was connected to the governorship of Haleb in 1598, were the difficulties in collecting

taxes, immigration due to persecution by the administration, and the Celali rebellions.351

The state also changed the status of some sanjaks in order to support the ümera

households. The sanjaks in some border vilayets were removed and given to the

beylerbeyliks as hâss (administrative-military classification of land as a type of estate with

revenue) such as Bihke of Bosnia, Semendire of Budin, Szigetvár of Kanije, Filek of Eğri,

and Bayburd of Erzurum.352 Changes to the administrative organization could be made

to allow kazas to be attached to a strong sanjak, thus preventing the lack of public order,

or to attach to a nearby sanjak to ensure that orders could be implemented more quickly.

Yasemin Beyazıt claims that reaching the administrative and judicial authorities is an

important factor in the changes in kaza boundaries. According to kadıasker ruznamçe

registers from the second half of the 16th century, in the formation of new kaza or

changes in borders, the size was calculated such that a kadı could be reached in the same

day in daylight. Geographical barriers also sometimes required such changes to emerge

349 Turan Gökçe “XVI. Yüzyıl Sonları ve XVII. Yüzyıl Başlarında Osmanlı İdârî Taksimâtında Görülen Kazâ

Sayısındaki Artışa Dâir Bazı Tespitler”, in (ed. M. Akif Erdoğru) Doğumunun 65. Yılında Prof. Dr. Tuncer

Baykara’ya Armağan Tarih Yazıları, İstanbul 2006, pp. 244-245

350 Enver Çakar, “XVI. Yüzyılda Şam Beylerbeyiliğinin İdari Taksimatı”, Fırat University Journal of Social

Science Vol: 13, No: 1, p. 360

351 Hüseyin Çınar, "18. Yüzyılda Ayıntab (Antep) Sancağı'nın İdarî ve Malî Yapısı", Selçukludan Cumhuriyete

Şehir Yönetimi, ed. Erol Özvar - Arif Bilgin, Türk Dünyası Belediyeler Birliği Yayınları, İstanbul 2008, p. 268

352 İ.Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi, p. 105

184

in the kaza or sanjak. For example, the inhabitants of Imtanlu village of Çorlu demanded

to be connected to Burgos due to the river barrier in transportation.353 In the 18th century

with the case of the Seferihisar and Günyüzü kazas, the people wanted to solve a bandit

problem. It took a long time until these two kazas’ people met with the authorities in the

sanjak of Hüdavendigar to which they were connected but distant from. Therefore, at

the request of the people, in 1721, Günyüzü and Seferihisar were connected to the

sanjak of Ankara, which was closer.354 In addition, because of the distance from the

center or due to geographical conditions, a new type of sanjaks called ocaklık emerged

in regions where classical Ottoman administrative order was not implemented. This

emergence of a different type of sanjak given to certain people with regional power

under special conditions was a factor in the changes in provincial governance.355 We see

these kinds of different sanjaks in the Ottoman provincial organization, especially in

Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia. After the conquest of the Ottoman Empire, the

administrative organization took into consideration the geographical characteristics of

this region and its political and social structure. In these places, which are mountainous

regions and there is close solidarity among the tribes, the Ottoman administration

created yet another kind of administrative organization. Consequently, three kinds of

sanjaks have emerged: classical Ottoman sanjaks, hükümet sanjaks, and yurtluk-ocaklık

sanjaks.356

There was also the need of the state to strengthen military organization through the

formation of new administrative units or changes in existing systems. The creation of

new vilayets, sanjaks and kazas in the 15th and 16th centuries was part of a deliberate

process with military purpose. In 1533, the eyalet of Cezâyir-i Bahr-i Sefîd was

established to provide Ottoman rule in the Mediterranean and North Africa against

353 Yasemin Beyazıt, “Osmanlı’da Kaza Sınırlarını Belirleyen Temel Etkenler”, Doğu Batı Dergisi, Osmanlılar

III, 53 (Ankara 2010), pp. 82-83

354 Yücel Özkaya, XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Kurumları ve Osmanlı Toplum Yaşantısı. Kültür Ve Turizm Bakanlığı

Yayınları: Ankara, 1985, pp. 22-23

355 İ.Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi, p.35

356 Mehmet Ali Ünal, “Osmanlı Devleti'nde Merkezi Otorite ve Taşra Teşkilatı”

185

Spain, Portugal, and France. The eyalet of Egypt also was established as an important

military base in the south with which the state conducted military naval battles against

Portugal.357 Bosnia, which was formerly affiliated to Beylerbeylik of Rumeli, was

organized in a separate beylerbeylik form as a military measure against Austria. The

Beylerbeylik of Özü was formed from the sanjaks of the Western Black Sea region as a

precaution against the Cossacks. These changes affected a number of administrative

units. While the number of beylerbeyliks in the empire was six in 1533, it reached sixteen

by the end of Suleiman’s reign.358 Conquered by Gedik Ahmet Pasha, Kefe was also

organized as a state-bound sanjak. At this stage, a boundary was drawn to determine

the domains of the Crimean Khanate and the territories belonging to the Ottomans. In

the domains of the Ottomans, Mankub, İnkirman, Soğdak (Sudak), Balıklağo, Kerş (Kerç),

Taman and Azak were the kazas with Kefe as the center.359 In 1568, Kefe‘s designation

was changed from a sanjak of the Beylerbeylik of Rumelia to a beylerbeylik itself, because

of the Astarhan (Hacıtarhan) campaign. As another example, after the conquest of

Cyprus in 1571, Nicosia became the center of the governorship of Cyprus, and the sanjaks

of Alaiye, Tarsus, İçel, Sis, and Tripoli were connected here360

Another factor affecting the changes and transformations in the provincial organization

of the Ottoman Empire is the economic considerations of the state. Halil İnalcık states

the following about the economic reasons for the decrease and increase in the number

of kazas:

In fact, towards the year 1057/1641, an order of the Sultan restored all the kada's

[kaza] which had previously been abolished and annexed to others. This meant

an increase in the number of posts available to candidates, a measure which

evidently made the incumbent kadıasker who initiated the change popular with

the entire 'ilmiyye group because the move (hareket) involved promotions at

357 İlhan Şahin “XV. ve XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilatının Özellikleri,” p.125

358 Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klasik Çağ (1300-1600), translated by Ruşen Sezer, Istanbul, 2003; İlber Ortaylı,

Türkiye İdare Tarihi. Türkiye ve Orta Doğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü Yayınları, No:180, Ankara, 1979, p.185

359 Yücel Özturk, “Yerel İdare Tarihi Açısından Kefe Örneği (16. Yüzyıl),” Selçukludan Cumhuriyete Şehir

Yönetimi, eds. Erol Özvar - Arif Bilgin, Türk Dünyası Belediyeler Birliği Yayınları, İstanbul 2008, pp. 166-167

360 Halil İnalcık, “Eyalet”

186

every level down to the danishmends. On the other hand, partitioning signified

smaller jurisdictions with reduced revenues. Sometimes a kada [kaza] was united

with the arpalık (pension) of a molla, which caused the incumbent kadı to lose

his source of income. This was another reason why lower level ulema were

resentful of the mollas' privileged status.361

The absence of a kaza that was appropriate to the rank of the kadı caused the change in

boundaries. In such cases, the area of the kaza provision was amended and the borders

of the kaza could be extended to create a jurisdiction area appropriate to the rank.362 It

was also very important for the central government to collect the taxes on time and in

the required amount, due to which changes were made in the borders to facilitate access

to the rural areas as well.363 According to the size of the kaza, the akçe revenue (yevmiye)

of the kadı varied. Kadıs with low incomes could ask the state to include other villages

under their jurisdiction.364 Also the increase in the number of kaza is in parallel with the

increase in the number of kadı waiting to be appointed. Ercan Alan claims that a new

kaza had emerged in order to find duties for numerous unemployed kadı.365 Hence we

can gain insight on how a city was formed in this period.

Changes in administrative organization due to economic considerations took place at the

sanjak level as well. As part of the administrative system, each sanjak had to train a

certain number of tımarlı sipahis (cavalry). According to Metin Kunt, the sanjaks emerged

as regions that would feed a certain number of tımarlı sipahi, neither having the power

to rival the central administration nor completely insignificant.366 From this point of view,

for instance, the establishment of the vilayet of Diyarbakır and its transformation in the

361 Halil İnalcık “The Ruznâmçe Registers of The Kadıasker of Rumeli as Preserved in the Istanbul Müftülük

Archives,” p. 262; Turan Gökçe “XVI. Yüzyıl Sonları ve XVII. Yüzyıl Başlarında Osmanlı İdârî Taksimâtında

Görülen Kazâ Sayısındaki Artışa Dâir Bazı Tespitler,” p.244

362 Yasemin Beyazıt, “Osmanlı’da Kaza Sınırlarını Belirleyen Temel Etkenler”, Doğu Batı Dergisi, Osmanlılar

III, 53 (Ankara 2010), pp. 91-92

363 Yasemin Beyazıt, Ibid., pp.87-88

364 Ercan Alan, "Kadıasker Ruznamçe Defterlerine Göre XVII. Yüzyılda Rumeli'de Kaza Teşkilatı Ve Kadılar,”

p. 62

365 Ercan Alan, "Kadıasker Ruznamçe Defterlerine Göre XVII. Yüzyılda Rumeli'de Kaza Teşkilatı Ve Kadılar,”

p.62

366 İ. Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi, p. 20

187

process is related to the expected economic self-management concerns of each vilayet.

Since 1515, the vilayet of Diyarbakır began to shorten its borders with the emergence of

new vilayets. In the late 17th century, some sanjaks separated from the vilayet of

Diyarbakır to come under vilayet such as Van in the East, Erzurum in the North, and

Raqqa and Baghdad in the South.367 In 1526, A‘zâz and Kilis, a nahiye of the sanjak of

Haleb as kaza center, emerged as a separate sanjak belonging to the Beylerbeyi of Şam.

The reason for this was to strengthen central authority in the taife-i Ekrâd (Kurdish

communities) in the region, which were also an important source of income for the

empire.368 Each kaza center needed to meet its needs from the countryside. When the

problem arose, the borders of the kaza changed by the state. In addition, the boundaries

of kaza, which had an important place in the subsistence of large cities, were being

extended for economic reasons such as the change of the borders of Rodoscuk as an

important port city to meet the needs of Istanbul.369 İlber Ortaylı states that the changes

in the transportation network caused significant changes in the spatial organization of

the vilayets due to the significant development of some port cities in the 19th century.

During this period, the vilayet of Selanik and the Danube were re-organized and the

center of the vilayet of Aydın shifted to İzmir. According to Ortaylı, rather than

conquests, economic reasons were more important for changes in spatial

organizations.370

Since the administrative organization in the Ottoman Empire was constantly changing

and developing, it is impossible to introduce Ottoman administrative history based on a

certain year.371 Therefore, in this study, the general trend in changes and

367 İbrahim Yılmazçelik, “Diyarbakır Eyaletinin Yeniden Teşkilâtlandırılması (1848-1864),” Osmanlı, Vol. 6,

Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, Ankara 1999, p. 223

368 Enver Çakar, “XVI. Yüzyılda Şam Beylerbeyiliğinin İdari Taksimatı,” pp.359-360; Orhan Kılıç, 18. Yüzyılın

İlk Yarısında Osmanlı Devleti'nin İdarî Taksimatı, Eyalet ve Sancak Tevcihatı. Elazığ:Ceren Matbaacılık, 1997,

p. 12.

369 Yasemin Beyazıt, “Osmanlı’da Kaza Sınırlarını Belirleyen Temel Etkenler,” p. 85

370 İlber Ortaylı, Türkiye İdare Tarihi, p. 186

371 Tuncer Baykara, Anadolu'nun Tarihi Coğrafyasına Giriş. I. Anadolu'nun İdari Taksimatı, pp. 89-90;

Şerafettin Turan, “XVII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun İdari Taksimatı: H.1041/M.1631-32 Tarihli Bir

İdari Taksimat Defteri”

188

transformations will be analyzed through an evaluation of the studies on the provincial

administrative organization in the first half of the 16th century.

4.2 Mapping Administrative Organization: The Division of Vilayets, Sanjaks and Kazas

in the 16th Century Ottoman Empire

4.2.1 Vilayet Division of Ottoman Empire in the Early 16th Century

The geographical distribution of the kazas constitutes the sanjak borders. These sanjak

borders unite and form the vilayets. These boundaries differ according to the sources

that we examined through the thesis. These differences are related to changes in kaza

distributions and the preparation of certain documents for specific regions. In the

kadıasker register of 1513,372 for instance, the vilayet of Rum and Karaman, which were

registered as separate provinces in other documents, were recorded under the title of

vilayet of Anatolia (see map 4.2).

372 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri."

189

Map 4.2.Vilayet of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1513

Turan Gökçe stated that Karaman, according to the literature, was founded between

1476 and 1512, when it was recorded in the status of sanjak. This categorization as

sanjak is important in terms of re-evaluating the establishment date of vilayet of

Karaman. 373 It also reveals that the administrative organization was just in the process

of formation in this period and that there was not a certain administrative distribution

as we observe in the 1530s. This situation also appears in the 1523 kadıasker register374

covering the information of a wider area, including Arab region (see map 4.3). The two

documents show similarities as we will mention in more detail the following sections.

This situation leads us to the idea that the 1523 record was prepared by making use of

the source dated 1513. With this in mind, the reason for the differences between the

373 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri," pp.227-228.

374 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11,”

190

more detailed administrative structuring in the 1522 kanunname375 and the 1523

kadıasker register is obvious. We should also underline that since Karaman was recorded

as both vilayet, and sanjak of Anatolia in the document, it was added to the map as a

separate vilayet. In the Anatolian kadıasker register dated 1528,376 the kazas in all

regions were recorded under the title of Anatolia without showing the distribution of

sanjak (see map 4.7).

Map 4.3. Vilayet Division of Ottoman Empire in the Kadıasker Register of 1523

Just as for the registers related the vilayet of Anatolia, there are also regional sources

belonging to Rumelia dated 1521377 (see map 4.4) and 1526-1528 (see map 4.6). In the

document dated 1526-1528, the sanjak of Kefe does not appear within the vilayet

375 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı.”

376 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları."

377 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar.”

191

borders. Since Kefe is within the borders of Rumelia in 1530 tahrir register,378 this

situation can be interpreted as missing information in the document.

Map 4.4. Vilayet of Rumelia in the Kadıasker Register of 1521

According to the 1522 kanunname, the Ottoman Empire consisted of 8 vilayets; Anatolia,

Rumelia, Karaman, Rum, Şam (Arab), Diyarbekir, Turkmen region (Zülkadriye) and Egypt

vilayets (see map 4.5). When we look at the historical background of the formation of

these 8 vilayets, the first to be established was Rumelia, made in order to take control of

the Ottoman Empire as it advanced rapidly in the Balkans. In 1393, the vilayet of Anatolia

was founded by Beyazıt I, covering Western Anatolia. This was followed by the

establishment of the Rum in 1413, Karaman in 1481, Diyarbekir in 1515, Egypt and Şam

between 1517 and 1520, and Zülkadriye in 1522.379

378 BOA TD 370

379 Halil İnalcik, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klasik Çağ (1300-1600), pp. 100-110.

192

Map 4.5. Vilayet Division of the Ottoman Empire in the Kanunname of 1522

In 1530, we see 7 vilayets in the tahrir records of the empire: Anatolia, Rumelia, Arab,

Diyarbekir, Karaman, Rum, and Zülkadriye (see map 4.9380). When we add the vilayet of

Egypt, which is not included in tahrir records, the number rises to eight. In this case, the

number of vilayets is the same according to the 1520s documents and the 1530 tahrirs.

Before proceeding, the situation of the Turkmen region in relation to the changes in the

vilayets between the 1520s and 1530s needs attention. In 1515, the ruler of the

Dulkadiroğlu Principality, Alaüddevle, was killed after he cooperated with the Mamluks

against the Ottoman Empire and this region, also known as the Turkmen Region, came

under the control of the Ottoman Empire and was given to rule of Şahsuvaroğlu Ali

Bey.381 However, it is seen that the vilayet of Zülkadriye was recorded in the 1530 tahrir

records with just one sanjak, Maraş. For this reason, the region, which was registered as

380 The vilayet of Egypt that were not registered in the tahrirs is added with a special symbol.

381 İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu Devletleri. Ankara, 1988, p.173;

İlhan Şahin, “Dulkadir Eyaleti.”

193

the Turkmen region in the sources of 1520s, was recorded as the vilayet of Zülkadriye in

the 1530s. Further new vilayets were established in the empire after 1530. Erzurum,382

Cezair-i Bahr-ı Sefîd, Cezayir-i Garb were established in 1535, Mosul and Baghdad in

1535.383

Map 4.6. Vilayet of Rumelia in the Register of 1526-1528

In the tahrir registers of Rumelia there is also a special province called Dukakin. This

province only contained the hâss of Sultan and Mustafa Pasha's properties. Apart from

382 In the tahrir register no. 387, Erzurum is mentioned as nefs and it is not included in the accounting in

this period because it is empty and devastated.

383 Nejat Göyünç, “Osmanlı Devleti'nde Taşra Teşkilatı (Tanzimat’a Kadar),” p. 77. For a list of all

beylerbeyliks established between 1362 and 1600, see Halil İnalcik, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klasik Çağ

(1300-1600; Tuncer Baykara, Anadolu'nun Tarihi Coğrafyasına Giriş. I. Anadolu'nun İdari Taksimatı; also

see İ. Metin Kunt gives detailed information about the vilayet and sanjak division of 1527, see İ.Metin Kunt,

Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi, pp.125-132.

194

these, since there was no record about such a tımar or sanjaks, Dukakin was not

considered as a sanjak or vilayet.384

Map 4.7. Vilayet of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1528

The Map 4.8 shows the difference between kadıasker registers of 1513 and 1528 in the

boundaries of the vilayet of Anatolia. We see that after the new conquests as we will

discuss the following sections, the Eastern Anatolian borders changed.

384 Osmanlı Yer Adları, Rumeli Eyaleti 1514-1550, T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü.

Ankara, 2013.

195

Map 4.8 The Difference of the Vilayet of Anatolia between 1513 and 1528 kadıasker

registers

Map 4.9. The Vilayet Division of Ottoman Empire in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

4.2.2 The Sanjak Division of the Ottoman Empire in the Early 16th Century

Sanjaks, which are an important unit in the administrative division of the Ottoman

Empire, were also formed or changed their status due to the strategic positions,

196

economic reasons or the new conquests according to different periods. Between 1520s

and 1530s, we determined changes and transformations in the sanjak of the Ottoman

Empire. As we discussed in detail in the previous chapter, the number of unique sanjaks

is 114 throughout the whole empire. In the sources containing information about the

different regions, while 50 sanjaks appeared in each period, only 64 sanjaks were

included in some sources.

In the tahrir records of 1530, we see important changes in comparison with 1522.

Karadağ, Sofya, A’lâ, Midilli, Harman, Florina, İnebahtı and Filibe were located in Rumelia

in 1522, but were included or their status was recorded differently in the tahrir

of sanjak of İskenderiyye (İşkodra) in the kaza list, it was recorded as a separate sanjak

under the control of İskender Bey in the sanjak list. Karadağ, which was a kaza of

İskenderiyye in 1499 during the reign of Beyazid II, was turned into a sanjak in 1514 and

was administered until 1528 by Iskender Bey who was the son of Ivan Crnojevic.386 In a

list published by Ömer Lütfi Barkan for the years 1520,387 in the kadıasker register of

1521388 (see map 4.10) and the kanunname of 1522 (see map 4.11),389 Karadağ was

registered as a separate sanjak.

385 Since we have not gain information on A’lâ and Harman they were not included in the analysis.

386 Osman Karatay, “Osmanlı Hakimiyetinde Karadağ”, in Balkanlar El Kitabı, I:Tarih , eds. Osman Karatay

and Bilgehan A. Gökdağ, Ankara 2006, p. 361; Uğur Özcan, “II. Abdülhamid Dönemi Osmanlı-Karadağ Siyasi

İlişkileri,” (Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences, Ph.D Dissertation, 2009) pp.4-5; Nenad

Moačanıṅ , “Karadağ,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2001, pp. 384-385.

387 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği”, pp. 303-304.

388 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”

389 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı.”

197

Map 4.10. The Sanjak Division of Rumelia in the Kadıasker Register of 1521

In the tahrir registers of 1530, the city was recorded again in the status of a kaza added

to the sanjak of İskenderiyye (see map 4.13). Sofya also differs in records from different

dates, both in terms of the number of kaza attached to it and as a separate sanjak. In the

15th century, after the conquest, Sofya was given the central sanjak status of Rumelia

where pasha resides.

198

Map 4.11. The Sanjak Division of Rumelia in the Kanunname of 1522

Halil İnalcık mentioned that Edirne and Sofya were among the central sanjaks of

Rumelia.390 In the list of 1520,391 the kadıasker register dated 1521392 and the

kanunname of 1522,393 it was recorded as sanjak consisting of Sofya, Şehirköy and

Berkofça kazas under the control of Numan Bey, separately from the sanjak of Paşa. In

another document dated 1526-1528 and published by Tayyib Gökbilgin, Sofya was again

recorded as a separate sanjak consisting of Sofya, Preznik, Çirpofça, Samakov, Şehirköy,

Berkofca, and Ihtiman (see map 4.12).394 In the tahrir registers of 1530, it was recorded

as one of the three regions of the sanjak of Paşa; Sağ kol, Sol kol, and Sofya.395 Under the

390 Halil İnalcık, “ Rumeli,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2008, pp.232-235

391 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği”, p. 303.

392 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”

393 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı.”

394 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve

Kasabaları”

395 BOA TD 370

199

title of liva-i Paşa, we see the kaza of Sofya, Berkofca, Samakov, and Şehirköy. In the 17th

and 18th century, Sofya was not registered as a separate sanjak in sancak tevcih

registers.396 İlhan Şahin also said that among the sanjaks that connected Rumelia, Sofya

was referred to as liva-i paşa meanings the “pasha’s sanjak” due to the fact that he lived

in Sofya as the highest administrator of Rumelia.397 In this case, the common statement

of literature sources, tahrir and kadıasker registers on Sofya is that it had the status of

being central sanjak in Rumelia. The only difference is that in the tahrir registers, Sofya

was included under the sanjak of Paşa as attributed sanjak where the pasha resides.

Map 4.12.The Sanjak Division of Rumelia in the Register of 1526-1528

When we look at the situation of Midilli, we see that after its conquest in 1462, it was

given the status of sanjak in the vilayet of Rumelia.398 As a matter of fact, Midilli was

396 İbrahim Sezgin, “Paşa Livası,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2007, pp.183-184.

397 İlhan Şahin, “Sofya,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2001, pp.344-348.

398 Michael Kiel, “Midilli,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2005, pp.11-14.

200

registered as a separate sanjak in the register of 1520399 and kadıasker register of

1521.400 In the kaza list of 1522 kanunname, even though Midilli was registered as a kaza

related to the sanjak of the Mora, it was registered as a separate sanjak in the list

published on other pages of the document.401 However, in the record dated 1526-1528,

Midilli appeared as a separate sanjak consisting of Midilli and Kale-i Molova (Molova

Castle). In this document, although nefs-i Midilli was recorded under the control of Rodos

it was not separately registered.402 In the tahrir register dated 1530, Midilli was recorded

as a kaza including nefs of Herese, Kaloniye and Molova (castle) in the sanjak of Rodos.403

Feridun Emecen stated that Rodos was converted into a sanjak immediately after the

conquest in 1522 and placed under the authority of Midilli where Dizdarzade Mehmed

Çelebi was the administrator. According to Emecen, the reason for this is that the two

islands are financially insufficient on their own, and their administrative organization is

united for the development and strengthening of the newly conquered Rodos after the

difficult war.404 In the kanunname of 1522, we also see that Rodos was registered as a

separate sanjak, but the administrator’s information was not registered.405 Levent Payzın

claims that the reason for this common form of administration was military rather than

financial. According to this view, it is claimed that Midilli and Rodos were given to the

same administrator to allow them to be better managed and operate in harmony, as

they were important bases in sea conquests.406 In this case, we understand why Midilli

399 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği”, p. 303

400 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”

401 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı.”

402 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve

Kasabaları”

403 BOA TD 367

404 Feridun Emecen, “XV-XIX. Yüzyıllarda Ege Adalarında Osmanlı İdari Teşkilatı” in Ege Adalarının Mali,

İdari ve Sosyal Yapısı (ed. İdris Bostan), Ankara 2003, pp.10-11; Cabir Doğan, “Fethinden Kaybına Rodos

(1522-1912),” SDU Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Journal of Social Sciences, December 2013, No:30, pp.74-

75; for conquest of Rodos see J. Von Hammer, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Tarihi, Vol: I, İlgi Kültür Sanat

Yayıncılık İstanbul 2008, pp. 455-456.

405 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı.”

406 Levent Payzın, “XVIII. Yüzyılda Midilli Adası,” (Master Thesis, Adnan Menderes University, Institute of

Social Sciences, History Department, 2008) pp. 15-16.

201

appeared as a part of Rodos and it was recorded as a separate sanjak, especially, in the

early dated records.

Map 4.13. The Sanjak Division of Rumelia in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

As for the situation of Filibe, after the foundation of the vilayet of Rumelia, it was

conquered between 1361 and 1363, even though the date of the settlement was

controversial.407 It is known that for a short period Filibe was the center of Rumelia

where the pasha lived. Yunus Uğur states that Filibe was an urbanizing city growing from

500 to 1,500 households between 1400 and 1500.408 With the conquest of Sofya, the

status of being a sanjak of pasha was transferred from Filibe to Sofya and Sofya was also

recorded as “sanjak of Paşa.”409 While Filibe was not recorded as a sanjak in 1520,410 in

407 Hoca Sadettin Efendi, Tacü’t-Tevarih, Vol:1, Kültür Bakanlığı yayınları, 1979, p.123.

408 Yunus Uğur, “Mapping Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Definitions and Groupings (1450–1700),” p.23.

409 Machiel Kiel, “Filibe,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1996, pp. 79-82; İlhan Şahin, “Sofya.”

410 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği”, pp. 303-329

202

the records of 1521411 and 1522,412 it was a sanjak consisting of three kazas: Filibe,

Tatarbazarı and Samakov. In a register dated 1527, Filibe was not registered as a separate

sanjak of Rumelia.413 In the record dated 1526-1528414 and 1530 tahrirs,415 we see Filibe

in the kaza status of the sanjak of Paşa consisting of two nefs; İstanimaka and Filibe.416

Machiel Kiel states that Sofya had a negative impact on Filibe as it became important as

the new center of the vilayet and stated that its population remained around 5000 during

the 16th century.417 In a document from 1525, it is stated that the population had begun

to decrease considerably.418 This situation could be a considerable reason for the

transformation of Filibe's status. As a matter of fact, in the records of early 1521 and

1522, Samakov was a kaza in the sanjak of Filibe, while in the records of 1526-1528 it

came under Sofya. Samakov was an important place in terms of metallurgy and

metalworking for Ottoman shipyards.419 Samakov's boundary change as a kaza of Sofya

which is the vilayet center, can also be considered as a sign of this negative impact.

411 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”

412 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 269.

413 İ.Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi; M. Tayyib

Gökbilgin, XV–XVI Asirlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livası: Vakıflar — Mülkler, Mukataalar. Istanbul Üçler Basımevi,

1952, pp.9-10.

414 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve

Kasabaları”; Selim Hilmi Özkan, “Balkanlarda Bir Osmanlı Şehri: Sofya (1385- 1878),” Avrasya Etüdleri 50,

(2016), pp. 247-294

415 BOA TD 370

416 BOA TD 370

417 Machiel Kiel, “Filibe,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1996, pp. 79-82. İlhan Şahin, “XV ve XVI.

Yüzyılda Sofya-Filibe-Eski Zağra ve Tatar Pazarı’nın Nüfus ve İskan Durumu”, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları

Dergisi, Issue: 48 (1987), pp. 249-256.

418Grigor Boykov, “Demographic Features of Ottoman Upper Thrace: A Case Study on Filibe, Tatar Pazarcık

and İstanıṁ aka, 1472-1614,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Bilkent University, 2004), p.62.

419 Gábor Ágoston, Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 175; Svetla Ianeva, “Samоkov: An Ottoman Balkan City

in the Age of Reforms” in The Ottoman State and Societies in Change: A Study of the Nineteenth Century

Temettuat Registers, (eds. Kayoko Hayashi and Mahir Aydın) Kegan Paul: London, New York and Bahrain,

2004, pp. 47-48.

203

Florina was recorded as a separate sanjak consisting of only one kaza in the documents

of 1520,420 1521,421 1522,422 and 1526-1528.423 In the register of 1520, Florina424 was

recorded under the control of Hasan bey, son of Isa Bey. The 1526-1528 register indicates

that Florina was a hâss of the Sultan beforehand and that this sanjak was transferred to

the control of subaşı (commander).425 In the 1530 tahrir, it was stated that Florina was

removed from sanjak status and included in the sanjak of Paşa as a kaza.426 This situation

leads us to think that when the city was ceased to be a hâss of the Sultan, the change in

status occured.

After İnebahtı was seized by Bayezit II in 1499 along with the ports of Modon and Koron,

a kadı and an administrator of the sanjak (sancakbeyi) were appointed.427 İnebahtı was

a strategic frontier for the Ottoman and important in terms of its shipyard.428 In the 1514

tahrir register,429 1520 document,430 1521 kadıasker register,431 and 1522 kanunname,432

İnebahtı was registered as a sanjak. In the document dated 1526-1528433 and in the

tahrir record of 1521,434 we see that İnebahtı is in the status of kaza within the sanjak of

Tırhala. Gökbilgin points out that although İnebahtı was mentioned separately as vilayeti

İnebahtı ma'a vilayet-i Tırhala in the tahrir register dated 1521, we cannot say these

420 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği”, pp. 303-304.

421 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”

422 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 269.

423 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve

Kasabaları”

424 Ö. Lütfi Barkan recorded as Florine.

425 Mücteba İlgürel, “Subaşı,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2009, pp.447-448

426 Register No:167 (1530) “sancaklıktan re‘ olunup Paşa sancağına mülhak olmuştur”

427 Halil İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klasik Çağ (1300-1600),pp. 285-287

428 Onur Yıldırım, “The Battle of Lepanto and Its Impact on Ottoman History and Historiography” in

Mediterraneo in armi (secc. XV-XVIII) (Supplement of the Journal "Mediterranea"), 2, (2007), pp.535-536.

429 BOA TD 167

430 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği”

431 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”

432 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 271.

433M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve

Kasabaları”

434 BOA TD 101

204

two units were separate sanjaks.435 In the first tahrir registers of the period of Suleiman

the Magnificent that were recorded after the 1530 tahrirs, we see that İnebahtı was

listed as a separate sanjak again.436 Between 1540 and 1570, the southern and

southeastern parts of Tırhala were separated and İnebahtı was established as a sanjak.

Machiel Kiel stated that the Muslim population of İnebahtı was less than its non-Muslim

population in its earlier years, and this situation was reversed as the number of Muslim

households was higher when it appeared again as sanjak in the 1540s.437 This brings our

attention to the possibility that there was mobility in the Muslim population. However,

since the information on the İnebahtı in the 1530 tahrir registers published by BOA was

missing, the information was completed from another register dated 1521.438 In this case

we are unable to provide the exact number of the population for 1530. This situation

also represents a significant difference between the kadıasker and tahrir records of 1521,

althouh they belonged to the same period.

The differences in the case of sanjaks in the early 16th century are not limited to Rumelia.

We also see changes in administrative organization in the vilayet of Anatolia, Karaman

and Rum. As we underlined before, some sanjaks belonging to Rum and Karaman were

recorded under the vilayet of Anatolia in the kadıasker records of 1513439 and 1523.440

From this point of view, there are differences with regard to other sources such the

kanunname of 1522441 and 1530 tahrir register r442 in the case of Anatolia, Rum and

Karaman. We see that the sanjak of Amasya and Trabzon within the vilayet of Rum

established in the 15th century443, were recorded as sanjaks affiliated to the vilayet of

435 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve

Kasabaları”

436 BOA TD 445

437 Machiel Kiel, “İnebahtı,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2000, pp. 285-287

438 BOA TD 101

439 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

440 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

441 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 271.

442 BOA TD 387

443 Halil İnalcik, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klasik Çağ (1300-1600), pp. 51-61.

205

Anatolia in the kadıasker registers dated 1513444 and 1523,445 while they were part of

vilayet of Rum in the kanunname of 1522446 and tahrir of 1530.447 Since the 1523

kadıasker record has similarities with the register dated 1513 at some points, it could be

possible that the register of 1513 was used as a source in the preparation of 1523

kadıasker record. Moreover, the aforementioned sanjak of Trabzon was stated as a

vilayet in 1522 kanunname without information on the sanjak division. During the reign

of Selim I (1512-1520), Trabzon was a sanjak containing 8 kazas in the vilayet of Rum.

Since the concept of vilayet was used to represent a military and administrative

environment in the sources, the vilayet-i Trabzon in the kanunname is listed and mapped

as a sanjak.448 These cases illustrate how the administrative organization was not yet

clear in the early period. Similarly, according to the sources through which we followed

the situation of Tokat, Niksar, and Sonisa dated 1513,449 1523450 and 1528,451 we see that

the three regions were recorded as kazas related to the sanjak of Amasya. In the

kanunname of 1522, they were recorded in the vilayet of Rum without sanjak

information.452 Also in the documents containing the sanjak list dated 1520453 and

1527,454 there is no information about Tokat, Niksar, and Sonisa. Although the

information we can obtain about their changes and transformations is limited here, we

see that these were recorded as separate sanjaks in the 1530 tahrir within the vilayet of

Rum (see map 4.15).455 Tayyib Gökbilgin states that in an archive document dated 1520,

Niksar and Sonisa were registered as sanjaks, and Tokat as a kaza in the Rum. Gökbilgin

444 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri”

445 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

446 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 271.

447 BOA TD 387

448 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “XVI. Yüzyıl Başlarında Trabzon Livası ve Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesi”, Öncesi ve

Sonrasıyla Trabzon’un Fethi, Yay. İsmail Hacıfettahoğlu, Ankara 2001, pp.293-295

449 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

450 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11,” pp.119-200.

451 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları”

452 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 275

453 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği”, p. 307

454 İ.Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi; Mehmet Öz, XVXVI.

Yüzyıllarda Canik Sancağı, p. 128.

455 BOA TD 387

206

also mentions that in some tahrir records of the early 16th century, Tokat was recorded

as a separate sanjak, while Niksar and Sonisa were combined and recorded as a single

sanjak within the vilayet of Rum.456

Another interesting case is that of İspir, which is included in the list dated 1520 as a

sanjak of the vilayet of Diyarbekir.457 In the 1522 kanunname, it was registered in the

sanjak of Bayburd within the vilayet of Şam (Arab). As we mentioned earlier, the

kanunname contains a note stating that the sanjak of Bayburd was annexed to the Rum

vilayet. In the second sanjak list, İspir was registered in the vilayet of Rum as a sanjak,

without any information on the sanjak’s administrator (see map 4.14). In the list of 1526,

İspir was not recorded as part of the vilayet of Diyarbekir.458 We again observe the

complex situation and mobility of administrative organization. İspir was also not included

in the sanjak register of 1527459 and 1530 tahrir records. In the tahrir of 1530, we see

that İspir was recorded as a kaza in the sanjak of Bayburd within the vilayet of Rum.460

In the 1535 records, İspir has sanjak status once again and is located in the vilayet of

Erzurum.461 In the list of 1520, the term mahlul (abandoned) was used for the sanjak of

İspir.462 In this case, İspir may have been dropped from status of sanjak due to being

uncultivated or abandoned. This may also be related to population change between 1520

and 1530. In the tahrir of İspir in 1520, there are 9,036 Muslims and 10,833 Christians,

and the total population is 19,869. In 1530, 1726 Muslims and 4235 Christians lived

there, and the total population was 5,961. In 1642, 4335 Muslims and 1470 Christians

were registered in İspir, and the total population was 5805.463 İbrahim Etem Çakar also

456 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, "15 ve 16. Asırlarda Eyâlet-i Rûm." Vakıflar Dergisi, 6 (1965), pp. 51-61; Ahmet

Şimşirgil, “Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilatında Tokat (1455-1574),” PhD. Dissertation, Marmara University, İstanbul

1990).

457 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği”, p. 306

458 Nejat Göyünç, “Diyarbekir Beylerbeyiliğinin İlk İdârî Taksimatı”, Tarih Dergisi, Issue: 23 (1969), p. 30.

459 İ. Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi.

460 BOA TD 387

461 Mehmet İnbaşı,”Bayburt Sancağı (1642 Tarihli Avarız Defterine Göre),” Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi,

Vol:10/1, Erzurum 2007, p.93; İbrahim Etem Çakır, “1642 Tarihli Avarız Defterine Göre İspir Sancağı", The

Journal of International Social Research, 2009, 2 / 8, p.111

462 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği”, p. 306.

463 İsmet Miroğlu, Bayburt Sancağı, İstanbul 1975, p.119.

207

mentions villages in Ispir, which are still recorded as abandoned in the avârız record of

1642.464

Map 4.14. The Sanjak Division of Rum in the Kanunname of 1522

Another sanjak that changes in different periods is Ulu-Burun. In the kanunname of 1522

it was recorded as a sanjak in the vilayet of Rum under the control of Serrac Ali Bey.465

In 1527, Serrac Ali bey was recorded as sanjak ruler of Canik and there was no record

about Ulu-Burun as a separate sanjak.466 This leads us to consider that the sanjak of Ulu-

Burun may have been included in the same administrative unit as the sanjak of Canik. As

464 İbrahim Etem Çakır, “1642 Tarihli Avarız Defterine Göre İspir Sancağı”; For discussion on abandoned

villages see, Oktay Özel, "The Question of Abandoned Villages in Ottoman Anatolia" (in E. Kolovos (ed.),

Ottoman Rural Societies and Economies, Halcyon Days in Crete VIII, A Symposium Held in Rethymno, 13-

15 January 2012 (Rethymno, Crete University Press, 2015), pp.95-130.

465 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 281. Since Ulu-Burun's location could not be found, it was not added to the map.

466 İ.Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi..

208

a matter of fact, we could not find any information about the Ulu-Burun in the tahrir

records of 1530.

Map 4.15. The Sanjak Division of Rum in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

After the death of the Dulkadir principality’s leader Alaüddevle in 1515 during the period

of Selim I (1512-1520), Kırşehir was taken under Ottoman rule. In the register of the

vilayet of Anatolia dated 1513 published by Turan Gökçe, Kırşehir was registered as a

kaza within the sanjak of Amasya. In the kaza list of the 1522 kanunname, Kırşehir is

shown as a kaza in the vilayet of Rum without any sanjak information. Bozok also was

recorded in the Turkmen region under the control of Şahsuvaroğlu Ali Bey in the

kanunname. In the sanjak list on the following pages of the kanunname, these two cities

were recorded in the form of sanjak as “Kırşehir ma'a Bozok” within the vilayet of Rum,

and its management was given to Süleyman Bey. In this case, we understand that the

sanjak list was prepared after the death of Şahsuvaroğlu Ali Bey in 1522 and a new sanjak

arrangement was made under the name of Kırşehir ma'a Bozok by assigning a sanjak

209

ruler from the Ottoman Empire. This sanjak also had only two kazas; Bozok and

Kırşehir.467 In the kadıasker register of 1523, Kırşehir was recorded as a kaza within the

sanjak of Amasya, and Bozok was registered in the Turkmen region, which is under the

control of Alaüddevle468 who was succeeded by Şahsuvaroğlu Ali Bey.469 This indicates

that although the kadıasker register contains information on 1523, the starting year is

earlier. There are also some statements on kadıs' relation with vilayet of Rum, even

though there is no separate list specified as vilayet of Rum and concerning kaza division.

According to the list of administrative divisions dated 1527, the sanjak of Bozok was

recorded in the vilayet of Rum.470 Since the first establishment of Bozok had only two

kazas; Bozok and Kırşehir, we can infer that Kırşehir and Bozok were combined under a

single sanjak called liva-i Bozok within Zülkadriye. In the 1530 tahrir records, under the

name of vilayet of Zülkadriye, Bozok and Kırşehir were kaza as part of the sanjak of

Maraş.471 In 1554 Kırşehir became an administrative sanjak again. Kırşehir, which left the

sanjak of Bozok at this date, was turned into a separate sanjak and connected to vilayet

of Karaman.472 In the 1530 tahrir, administrative units of Bozok and Kırşehir were

organized according to their tribes without information on nahiye. Thus their

information on tahrir system was completed from the records of 1557 and published by

BOA.473 However, in the case of legal administration, we can follow the situation of these

two cities in different periods through kadıasker registers dated from 1513 to 1530. Also,

we see that the Ottoman Empire appointed a kadı to Kırşehir in 1513 as the legal

467 Orhan Sakin, Tarihten Günümüze Bozok Sancağı ve Yozgat. Doğu Kütüphanesi: İstanbul, 2012, p.52;

Orhan Kılıç “Klasik Sancaktan Malikâne Uygulamasına Bozok Sancağı ve Yöneticileri”. I. Uluslararası Bozok

Sempozyumu. 05-07 May 2016. Vol:.1. pp. 124-139.

468 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11,” pp.119-200.

469 İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu Devletleri.

470 İ.Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi, p.125.

471 BOA TD 998

472 İlhan Şahin, “Kırşehir,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2002, pp. 481-485. Ahmet Akgündüz

stated that between 1512 and 1593, Kırşehir and its region were connected to the vilayet of Karaman.

However, in any of the records we examined between 1513 and 1530, the city is not related with the

vilayet of Karaman: Ahmet Akgündüz, “Salnamelere Göre Kırşehir Sancağı Hakkında Bilgiler (1873–1910)

(Coğrafyası, Tarihi, Nüfusu, Nahiye ve Kazaları)”, Turkish Studies - International Periodical For The

Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, Volume 7/3, Summer 2012, p. 1377

473 Başbakanlık Devlet Arşıv̇ lerı ̇ Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları, Osmanlı Yer

Adları: II, Anadolu, Karaman, Rum, Dıẏ arbakir, Arap Ve Zülkadrıẏ e Eyaletlerı ̇ (1530-1556), 2013, p.30,

footnote:157.

210

administration while the provincial administration was in the hands of Dulkadir

principalities.

Another point that draws attention is the situation of the sanjak of Bayburd. After the

conquest in 1514 Bayburd gained sanjak status immediately and was connected to the

vilayet of Rum.474 In the kanunname of 1522, it was also registered as a sanjak with three

kazas within the vilayet of Şam in the kaza list. We do not have clear information about

why Bayburd was in Şam province, and this is not addressed in the literature that used

primary sources related to the sanjak. This is also an important example of the dynamic

and unfixed administrative organization of early periods.

In addition, Karaman was recorded as a sanjak in the 1513475 (see map 4.16) and 1523476

(see map 4.18) kadıasker registers, and as a vilayet in 1522477 (see map 4.17) and 1530478

(see map 4.20). We see again the similarities of 1513 and 1523 kadıasker registers (see

map 4.19). Turan Gökçe draws attention to the sanjak of Karaman, Amasya and Trabzon,

which were seen as affiliated with the vilayet of Anatolia during this period. Karaman

was a vilayet founded in 1512,479 as we mentioned before, was recorded in different

pages of the register by combining the vilayet and sanjak as Liva-i Vilayet-i Karaman.480

474 İsmet Miroğlu, “Bayburt,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1992, pp.225-228; Mehmet İnbaşı,

“Bayburt Sancağı (1642 Tarihli Avarız Defterine Göre)”, pp.89-117.

475 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları"

476 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

477 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

478 BOA TD 387

479 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “XVI. Asırda Karaman Eyaleti ve Larende (Karaman) Vakıf ve Müesseseleri”, VD,

VIII (1968), pp. 29-38; Tuncer Baykara, Anadolu'nun Tarihi Coğrafyasına Giriş. I. Anadolu'nun İdari

Taksimatı, p. 87.

480 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11,”

211

Map 4.16. The Sanjak of division Karaman in the Kadıasker Register of 1513

Larende, which was used instead of the name Karaman from time to time in Ottoman

sources, was also recorded as a sanjak in the records of 1476.481 In the kadıasker register

of 1513,482 1522,483 and 1523484 the kaza of Larende was recorded as part of Karaman.

Thus there is a gap in the Map 4.17, since Larende was recorded as kaza in the

kanunname of 1522 without sanjak division.

481 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “XVI. Asırda Karaman Eyaleti ve Larende (Karaman) Vakıf ve Müesseseleri”, p.32.

482 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

483 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

484 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

212

Map 4.17. The Sanjak Division of Karaman in the Kanunname of 1522

According to the tahrir records of 1517 and 1523,485 and a budget record of 1520486

Larende was registered as a separate sanjak. However, in a record in 1523,487 it was

written that Larende was removed from the status of sanjak. Tayyib Gökbilgin

emphasizes that this is because the sipahis (cavalryman) in Larende joined others in the

sanjak of Konya and went to war.488

485 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “XVI. Asırda Karaman Eyaleti ve Larende (Karaman) Vakıf ve Müesseseleri”, p.32.

486 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği”, p. 307

487 Sadık Müfit Bilge, “Karaman Eyâletı’̇ nıṅ Tarıḣ î Coğrafyası Ve İdarî Taksi̇matı (XV.-XVIII: Yüzyıllar),

International Review of Turkish Studies, Spring 2011, Volume: 1, Issue: 1, p. 4

488 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “XVI. Asırda Karaman Eyaleti ve Larende (Karaman) Vakıf ve Müesseseleri”

213

Map 4.18. The Sanjak Division of Karaman in the Kadıasker Register of 1523

Map 4.19 The Similarities of 1513 and 1523 Kadıasker Registers in the case of Karaman

In the 1530 tahrir record, we see that Larende was recorded as a separate sanjak within

the vilayet of Karaman again.489 Sam White emphasizes that Larende's population tripled

489 BOA TD 387

214

between 1500 and 1584.490 Metin Tuncel also states that during the Ottoman period, the

city expanded physically and new neighborhoods were established in the region.491 One

of the reasons why it is recorded again as a separate sanjak after removal from the sanjak

could be an increase in the population.

Map 4.20. The Sanjak Division of Karaman in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

When we look at the situation of Maraş and Elbistan, we observe that they were

recorded as kaza in the Turkmen region in 1522492 and 1523,493 and the sanjak list of the

same document indicates that they were first annexed to vilayet of Rum and then to the

vilayet of Karaman.494

490 Sam White, The Climate of Rebellion in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. Cambridge and New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2011, p.114.

491 Metin Tuncel, “Karaman,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2001, pp. 444-447

492 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, pp. 278-281

493 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11,”

494 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, pp. 278-281

215

In a tahrir register dated 1522, Maraş and Elbistan were recorded as two separate

sanjaks in the Zülkadriye region.495 However, one noticeable difference in the sources is

that in the first kaza list of 1522 kanunname, Maraş and Elbistan were also recorded as

kazas under the title of Turkmen Region. The second sanjak list of 1522 kanunname also

included the Maraş and Elbistan in the sanjak that changed borders from Rum to the

vilayet of Karaman.496 In another record dated 1527, Elbistan was not on the sanjak list

and Maraş was registered as a sanjak in the vilayet of Karaman.497

When we look at the 1530 tahrir records, we see that Elbistan was a kaza in the sanjak

of Maraş in the vilayet of Zülkadriye.498 Although the studies and archive resources for

the reasons of Elbistan's exclusion from sanjak status are limited, it may be

representative of a new order established after anti-Ottoman rebellions initiated by the

Turkmen tribes for fief (dirlik) under the leadership of Kalender Çelebi499 in the Elbistan

and Maraş regions.500

In the case of the vilayet of Anatolia, in the kadıasker register of 1513 (see map 4.21),501

the number of sanjaks rises in comparison with the 1522 and 1530 recods, since Trabzon,

Amasya, and vilayet of Karaman were registered as part of vilayet of Anatolia. There is

no change in the number of sanjaks in the records of 1522502 (see map 4.22) and 1530

(see map 4.24).503

495 İbrahim Solak, “XVI. Asırda maraş Kazâsı,” (Ph.D Dissertation, Selçuk University, Konya, 2002), pp.14-

15. It is stated that the Zülkadiye refers to a region instead of an official vilayet.

496 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

497 İ.Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi, p.128

498 BOA TD 998

499 Mücteba İlgürel, “Kalender Şah,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2001, p.249.

500 Alaaddin Aköz and İbrahim Solak, “Dulkadirli Eyâletine Ait Bir Kânûnnâme (1533–1546).” Kırgızistan

“Manas” Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,9 (2004), pp.11-12.

501 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

502 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

503 BOA TD 438, 166,

216

Map 4.21. The Sanjak Division of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1513

Map 4.22. The Sanjak Division of Anatolia in the Kanunname of 1522

217

The 1523 kadıasker record504 is similar to the 1513 one, and the only difference is that it

mentions the vilayet of Karaman (see map 4.23).

Map 4.23. The Sanjak Division of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1523

504 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

218

Map 4.24. The Sanjak Division of Anatolia in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

Although we cannot follow the sanjak division of Diyarbekir from the kadıasker register

dated 1523, which otherwise contains information about this vilayet, other sources allow

us to observe the changes and transformations in the region. As we mentioned earlier in

the kanunname of 1522, there are two separate lists of sanjaks regarding the vilayet of

Diyabekir.505 The second list is written as yurtluk-ocaklık sanjaks whose ruler

(sancakbeyi) is not certain. On the other hand, the first list includes 12 sanjaks whose

administrators are determined. This situation indicates that the administration in the

region has not yet been established properly. We see that the sanjak number of the first

list of Diyarbekir is less than the number of sanjaks in tahrir registers and some sanjaks

such as Sincar, Çirmük, Mardin and Siverek were only recorded in the second list of

505 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 281, footnote:70.

219

Diyarbekir. In the second list Mardin was recorded as a sanjak combined with Amid while

the first list recorded Amid as a single sanjak (see map 4.25).

According to Nejat Göyünç, Mardin and Sincar are one of the 12 sanjaks of the vilayet of

Diyarbekir in the 1518 records.506 In the 1527 records Mardin was under the rule of

Hüsrev Bey and combined with Amid, but Sincar was recorded in the Kurdistan region.507

In this case, we can observe that between 1518 and 1530 Mardin and Sincar were

registered as a separate sanjak.

Another important difference in the 1530 list is the status of Beyre (Birecik) sanjak, which

was recorded as Beriyyecik in some sources. While this place was registered as a sanjak

between 1518 and 1526,508 it was a kaza within the sanjak of Mardin in the tahrir records

of 1530 (see map 4.26).509 It is stated in the sources that there is no city and bazaar in

Beriyyecik and there were difficulties in collecting taxes due to the nomadic communities

living in the region.510 This situation can be evaluated as one of the reasons of change

and transformation in administrative status.

506 Nejat Göyünç, XVI. Yüzyılda Mardin Sancağı

507 İ.Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi.

508 Nejat Göyünç, XVI. Yüzyılda Mardin Sancağı

509 BOA TD 998

510 Nejat Göyünç, XVI. Yüzyılda Mardin Sancağı

220

Map 4.25. The Sanjak Division of Diyarbekir in the Kanunname of 1522511

Within the first administrative division of the vilayet of Diyarbekir, the Turkmen tribes

named Bozulus and Karaulus were given sanjak status under the name of Aşâir-i Ulus.512

In a record belonging to 1520, Aşâir-i Ulus was registered as a sanjak under the rule of

Yadigâr Bey and was listed as part of Cemaat-i Kürdân consisting of Kurdish, Arab and

Turkmen groups.513 In the kanunname of 1522, this sanjak was recorded under the rule

511 The map was prepared by the first list of Diyarbekir in the kanunname of 1522.

512 Since these region belongs to nomadic groups, they were not added to the map because of lack of exact

location of the region.

513 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği”, p. 307; for the

discussion on Bozulus and Karaulus see Mehmet Rezan Ekinci, “Osmanlı Devleti Döneminde Milli Aşireti

XVIII. - XIX. YY.” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Fırat University, Elazığ, 2017) for the discussion on Cemaat-i Kürdân

see Orhan Kılıç, "Osmanlı Belgelerinin Dili ve Işığında Kürdistan Kavramı" Dünden Bugüne Uluslararası Orta

Doğu Sempozyumu, 2015, Elazığ, Fırat Üniversitesi Orta Doğu Araştırmaları Merkezi Yayınları, No:27, pp.

445-460;

221

of Mahmud Çelebi within the vilayet of Diyarbekir.514 In another archive document of

1526, Aşâir-i Ulus was registered in the vilayet of Diyarbekir as a hâss of Sultan.515

Tufan Gündüz states that the tribes within this sanjak were disintegrated from Eastern

and Southeastern Anatolia, especially in the vilayet of Rum and Karaman, and their

sanjak status disappeared. According to Gündüz, after this situation these groups were

managed according to the kaza system through appointed kadıs.516 As a matter of fact,

in the tahrir records of 1530 we cannot see any sanjak information on Aşâir-i Ulus.

Map 4.26. The Sanjak Divison of Diyarbekir in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

514 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 282

515 Nejat Göyünç, “Diyarbekir Beylerbeyiliği’nin İlk İdârî Taksimatı”, Tarih Dergisi, No: 23 (1969), p.30

516 Tufan Gündüz, Anadolu'da Türkmen Aşiretleri (Bozulus Türkmenleri 1540-1640). Bilge Yayınları, İstanbul

1997.

222

In addition, we determined some sanjaks in other parts of the empire that were recorded

in the 1520s but did not appear in the 1530 tahrirs. Antakiyye and Kuds-i Şerîf (Jerusalem)

in vilayet of the Arab (Şam), and Cidde, Katiyye (Katya), Said, and Yenbû in the vilayet of

Egypt differ in the documents we have examined for different periods. We have already

mentioned that Egypt, which was conquered by Selim I in 1517, was not included in tahrir

because of its special status. For this reason, in the 1530 tahrir records, we do not

encounter sanjak related to the Egypt region. However, we can follow the administrative

distribution of these regions in 1522 kanunname517 (see map 4.27) and 1523 kadıasker

Map 4.277. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Egypt in the Kanunname of 1522

Regarding the vilayet of Egypt, some kazas were included in the kanunname of 1523 and

kadıasker record of 1523. In the 1523 record, it was informed that the sanjak of Said had

517 Enver Çakar, “XVI. yüzyılda Haleb Sancağı, 1516-1566,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Fırat University, Elazığ

,1998), p.24; Enver Çakar, “XVI. Yüzyılda Şam Beylerbeyliği’nin İdari Taksimatı.”

518 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

223

7 kazas under Arab management without on the names of the kazas. When we examine

the 1522 kanunname, the names of these kazas belonging to Said were listed such as

Miklût and (A) syût, Menû? and Circe and Fercût and Melesnâ?, Kûs, Behcûre, Semhûd,

Berdîs, Ahmîm and Menşâthâ?. It is also noted in the kanunname that they were under

Arab management and these rulers carried out their own appointments in these kazas.

Map 4.28. The Kaza Division of Egypt in the Kadıasker Register of 1523

Şam, which was abandoned (mahlul) in the Arab region during 1517,519 Gazze, Safed,

Kudüs, Kerek and Nablus were given to Canbirdi Gâzâli as a single sanjak. In 1518,

Canbirdi was appointed as ruler (beylerbeyi) of Şam including the sanjak of Şam.

Canbirdi, however, declared his reign and started a rebellion against the Ottoman Empire

in the region as an opportunity for his rule after Suleiman the Magnificent became the

new sultan.520 After he was killed in Halep, Kudüs, Gazze, and Safed were formed as

519 Enver Çakar, “XVI. Yüzyıl’da Haleb Sancağı, 1516-1566,” p.24; Enver Çakar, “XVI. Yüzyılda Şam

Beylerbeyliği’nin İdari Taksimatı.”

520 Feridun Emecen, “Canbirdi Gazâlî,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2001, pp. 141-143.

224

separate sanjaks as we see in the kanunname of 1522 (see map 4.29). Administrative

organization became more organized in the Arab region and Antakiyye521 was also

included in the sanjak lists during this period. However, it appeared as a kaza in the

sanjak of Halep within the vilayet of Arab in the 1530 tahrir register (see map 4.31). 522

In addition although we see the sanjak of Şam in 1522 and 1530, in the 1523 kadıasker

Safed, Trablus, Hama and Humus, Haleb, Adana, Kahta and Gerger, and Bire (Birecik) and

3 kazas as Damascus, Kara, and Kuds-i Şerif were recorded without the knowledge of

sanjak (see map 4.30).

Map 4.29. The Sanjak Division of Şam (Arab) in the Kanunname of 1522523

521 Halil Sahillioğlu, “Antakya,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1991, pp. 228-232

522 BOA TD 998, and BOA TD 397

523 The map includes the second sanjak list in the kanunname of 1522. We will discuss the sanjak division

of kaza list in the next section.

225

Another sanjak that took its place in the administrative organization after the political

turmoil in the region is “Salt ve Aclun.” In 1521, after the suppression of the rebellion of

Canbirdi Gazâlî, the administrative order in the region was required. In this process, each

region was subordinated to the sanjak administrators assigned to them by the Ottomans.

The Gazzevî family who resisted Gazâlî and cooperated with the Ottomans, was given

administrative authority in the Aclun.524 In the records of 1520,525 1522,526 and 1523,527

there is no record of Salt ve Aclun as a sanjak. However, in the 1527528 and 1530 tahrir

records, we see that Salt and Aclun were registered as a sanjak in the vilayet of Arab.529

"Divriği ve Darende," which were recorded as a separate sanjak in 1522530 and 1530,531

were registered as kaza in the sanjak of Adana in 1523 kadıasker register. In addition,

Kemah which was a seperate sanjak in other sources was recorded as kaza in the sanjak

of "Kahta ve Gerger" together with the kaza of Erzincan witihin the vilayet of Arab. Divriği

and Darende also joined the Ottoman lands after the Battle of Mercidâbık 532 and were

first connected to the vilayet of Şam and then to Rum as we see in the kanunname of

1522533 and tahrir of 1530.534 In this case, as we pointed before, it is possible that the

1523 kadıasker record were prepared by benefiting from early dated sources.

524 Muhammad Adnan Salamah Bakhit, “The Ottoman Province of Damascus in the sixteenth century,” (PhD

Dissertation, SOAS University of London, 1972); Mustafa Öksüz, “Şam Eyaleti̇’ni̇n Güney Sancaklarında

(Fıl̇ ıṡ ti̇n) Nüfus XVI. yy,” (Ph.D Dissertation, Mimar Sinan Fine Art University, Istanbul 2016); İdris Bostan,

“Aclûn,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1988, pp.326-327; Cemalettin Şahin, “Ürdün,” Türkiye

Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2012, pp. 352-354

525 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği”

526 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 276-277

527 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

528 İ.Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi.

529 BOA TD 998

530 Enver Çakar, “XVI. yüzyılda Haleb Sancağı, 1516-1566” p.24; Enver Çakar, “XVI. Yüzyılda Şam

Beylerbeyliği’nin İdari Taksimatı,” pp. 351-374

531 BOA TD 387

532 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği” p.306; Abdülkadir

Balgamış, “Divriği,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1994, pp.452-454

533 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 277

534 BOA TD 387

226

Map 4.30. The Sanjak Division of Şam (Arab) in the Kadıasker Register of 1523

The vilayet of Arab was registered also as vilayet of Şam in previous dates as we see in

the list of 1527.535 Another sanjak that took its share from the arrangement in the region

after the Şam districts was Üzeyr (Özer-ili) where the region of Özer (Üzeyr) Turkmens.

Üzeyr was recorded as a kaza in 1522 kanunname536 and in the kadıasker register dated

1523537 as part of the sanjak of Adana (Çukur-abad). After the Battle of Mercidâbık, the

Otoman Empire allowed the political and administrative status of the local

administrators who showed their loyalty, and gave them sanjak status.538 The sanjak of

535 Başbakanlık Devlet Arşıv̇ leri̇ Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları, 401 Numaralı

Şam Livası Mufassal Tahrir Defteri (942 / 1535),I, Ankara 2011, p.5.

536 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 277

537 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

538 Faruk Sümer, “Çukur-Ova Tarihine Dâir Araştırmalar (Fetihten XVI. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısına Kadar),” DTCF

Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, I / I, Ankara, 1963, p.27; Abdulkadir Gül, “Üzeyr Sancağının Sosyo-İktisadi Yapısı,

1521-1573,” (Master Thesis, Atatürk University, Erzurum, 1996); Ahmet Gündüz, “The Province of Özer

(Özer İlı)̇ In Icmal Registry of 1521,” Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute,Year:

227

Üzeyr, as one of them, appears as a separate sanjak in 1527539 and 1530 records of the

vilayet of Arab.540

Map 4.31. The Sanjak Division of Arab in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

In the case of the vilayet of Zülkadriye as we discussed previously, the region was called

as the Turkmen region under the control of regional families loyal to the Ottoman Empire

until 1526. Thus there is no sanjak division of the Turkmen region in the records dated

1522541 and 1523.542 In the tahrir register of 1530,543 however, the region was recorded

as the vilayet of Zülkadriye with the sanjak of Maraş (see map 4.32).

2015, Volume: 12, Issue: 31, pp. 76-88; Yılmaz Kurt, “Özeroğulları,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm

Ansiklopedisi, 2016, pp. 391-392

539 İ.Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi.

540 BOA TD 998

541 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

542 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

543 BOA TD 998

228

Map 4.32 The Sanjak Division of Zülkadriye in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

In this process, we have witnessed the emergence of new sanjaks and the change in the

status of existing ones due to economic and military concerns, as well as new conquests

as discussed in the secondary literature. In connection with these changes and

transformations, it will be meaningful to focus on the changes in the cities of the empire

at a more detailed level. By doing so, we will be able to observe the reasons behind this

process throughout the cities of the empire. In addition, we will have the chance to

discuss the differences in sources such as tahrirs, kanunname and kadıasker registers of

the same region during the early 16th century.

4.2.3 Kaza Division of Ottoman Empire in the Early 16th Century

Regarding the changes and transformations in the administrative division in Ottoman

cities, we see that some of them differ according to the records of the kadıasker and

tahrir registers, and some changed in status over time. As we discussed in the previous

229

chapter there are 703 kazas in the whole empire during the early 16th century. 322 of

them are available from all sources covering their regions. 381 kazas, however, appeared

in only some sources. Additionally, we see that 132 kazas changes their sanjaks in

different periods. The fact that some kazas between 1513 and 1530 did not exist in the

sources we examined suggested deficiencies in sources. Therefore, in general, we will

focus on kazas that changed borders, were recorded in different statuses or had

occurred later. It would be meaningful to evaluate the most important changes and

transformations across the empire between 1513 and 1530 by vilayets together with

their possible reasons. As we mentioned before, since there is no information about the

province of Egypt in the tahrir records, this region is not included in the comparative

analysis of the cities.544

4.2.3.1 The Regions and Cities in the Vilayet of Anatolia

In the archive records that we examine through this thesis, there are 255 unique kazas

recorded in the vilayet of Anatolia. 186 kazas also appear in all sources of Anatolia. The

boundaries of 47 kazas regarding the sanjak division changed in different periods, as we

will explore in this section.

In the vilayet of Anatolia, we see three different kaza units within the sanjak of Alaiye

such as Alaiye, Nevahi-i Alaiye and Perakende-i Alaiye. While Alaiye was registered in all

sources dated 1513545 (see map 4.32), 1522546 (see map 4.34), 1523547 (see map 4.35)

and 1530548 (see map 4.37) except the kadıasker register dated 1528549 (see map 4.36).

544 Since we could not gain information some kazas are not included into analyses; Beş-Tekke, Eserulus,

Yavice, Lâdık (?), Akşehıṙ (?), Laz, Teke, Safhun[?], Kara-Hisârcıklu, Barançak, Belgradi’l-Anzeviş?, Külfetler,

Nâhiye-i Üsküb, Erandanlı, Engelîn, Karaaynlı[?].

545 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

546 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 276-277

547 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

548 BOA TD 166

549 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları”

230

Nevahi-i Alaiye was in all other records except 1530. Also Perkande-i Alaiye was recorded

in 1522, 1523 and 1528.

Map 4.33. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1513

“Nevahi,” the plural form of nahiye comprises several nahiyes in the region. While

Nevâhi-i ‘Alaiye, also known as Akseki, appeared as a separate kaza unit in the records

of kadıasker and kanunname, it was recorded in tahrir register as Nahiye-i Akseki in 1528

-1530.550 According to tahrir register no: 990, which is estimated to belong to 1500, the

sanjak of Alaiye was divided into 11 nahiyes: Oba-bazarı, Dim-deresi, Kise, Çöngere,

Murt, Mahmudlar, Ginareş, Karacalar, (A)Nağlu.551 At that time, Akseki was mentioned

550 BOA TD 107 and BOA TD 166.

551 Selim Hilmi Özkan, XVI. Yüzyıl Kayıtlarına Göre Alâiye(Alanya) Sancağında Yer Adları Üzerine Bir

İnceleme,” International Journal of Social Science, Volume 5 Issue 3, June 2012 ,p.158; Mustafa Enhoş,

Bütün Yönleriyle Akseki ve Aksekililer. Hüsnütabiat Matbaası: İstanbul, 1974; Halil Hadimli, “Aksekı ̇

İlçesi̇’ni̇n Coğrafyası” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Atatürk University, Erzurum, 2008); Mehtap Akgül, "16. Yüzyıl

Arşiv Kayıtlarına Göre Alâiye nin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Hayatı ile Nüfus ve İdari Taksimatı,” (Ph.D.

Dissertation, 1989, Istanbul University).

231

as a bazaar name in Marolya village was the central nahiye. The 22 villages that we see

in 1500 were combined and formed the Nahiye-i Akseki in the 1530 tahrir records.

Akseki's village settlement increased to 37 and it was registered as a kaza in 1575.552

Map 4.34. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Anatolia in the Kanunname of 1522

Moreover, the word perakende meaning scattered was used for small nomadic (yörük553)

groups.554 They generally took their names from the region that they lived in or their

profession and people whom they were affiliated with.555 These yörük groups spread to

different parts of the empire were administratively and legally connected to the

552 İsmail Kıvrım, “16. Yüzyılda Aksekı ̇ (Yerleşme, Nüfus ve Ekonomi),” Journal of Ottoman Civilization

Studies, Volume 1, Issue 1, July 2015, pp.39-42.

553 Faruk Sümer, “Yörükler,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2013, 570-573; Tufan Gündüz,

“Konar-Göçer,” 2002, pp.161-163; Yusuf Halaçoğlu, Anadolu'da Aşiretler, Cemaatler, Oymaklar (1453-

1650), Vol:1, TTK, Ankara; for a bibliographic study on the yörüks see Ingvar Svanberg, "A Bibliography of

the Turkish-Speaking Tribal Yörüks," Materialia Turcica Bd 5 (Bochum 1981), pp. 25-40

554 Ferit Develioğlu, Osmanlıca-Türkce Ansiklopedik Lugat, Ankara, 2013, p. 858.

555 İsenbike Arıcanlı, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Yörük ve Aşîret Ayrımı,” Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Dergisi,

Beşeri Bilimler, Vol:7, 1979, pp.28-29

232

provincial system within the centralized structure of the state.556 With an administrative

and financial organization, these nomadic groups were registered in the tımar system

depending on the organization of their lands.557 A note the tahrir record no: 166 indicates

that although perakende groups were registered in a particular kaza, they could move

and live in different sanjaks and kazas.558

Map 4.35. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1523

In order for the nomads to be counted as a kaza, the groups had to reach a significant

population size. When they gained the status of kaza, a kadı was appointed to look at

the legal affairs of the nomads in the region without a specific kaza center.559 The

556 İlhan Şahin, Osmanlı Döneminde Konar Göçerler. İstanbul, Eren Yayınları, 2006, p.186; For the study on

perakende and yörük groups see Serkan Sarı, “XV-XVI.. Yüzyıllarda Menteşe, Hamıḋ Ve Teke Sancağı

Yörüklerı,̇ ” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta,2008).

557 Cengiz Orhonlu, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Aşiretlerin İskânı, p.16; Yusuf Halaçoğlu, XVIII. Yüzyılda

Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İskân Siyaseti Ve Aşiretlerin Yerleştirilmesi. Ankara, 1997, p.14.

558 Behset Karaca, “1522–1532 Tarıḣ leri̇nde Menteşe Bölgesı ̇ Yörükleri̇” Fırat University Journal of Social

Science, Vol: 18, Issue: 2, Elazığ-2008, p.409

559 İlhan Şahin, Osmanlı Döneminde Konar Göçerler, pp. 133-98.

233

nomads also could appeal to kadıs belonging to other kazas.560 In the kadıasker register

of 1523, it is stated that the Perakende-i Alaiye was combined with the kaza of Ladik in

the sanjak of Teke.561

Map 4.36. The Kaza Division of Anatolia in the Kadıasker Register of 1528

We see that Perakende-i Alaiye, which was registered as a kaza in the kadıasker register

of 1528, was under the management of two different kadıs with Ladik at that time. The

lack of a kaza record regarding Perakende-i Alaiye in tahrir records could be interpreted

as an important difference between the kadıasker registers and tahrir registers. As a

matter of fact, we cannot see nahiye or kaza records about Perakende-i Alaiye in the

tahrir registers even while it was registered as a kaza in kadıasker records during similar

periods. The places that are recorded in the juristic administration as kaza may differ in

the tahrir records, which are arranged to collect taxes, differentiating them from

560 Tufan Gündüz, XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri. İstanbul,2005, p.24.

561 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

234

kadıasker records. The tax records of such communities (aşiret) or yörük groups may

appear in other registers of different regions instead of their current location hence they

could not be added to the map. Researchers who conduct specific studies on these

groups will need to focus on a wider geography.562 However, since we focus on the

administrative units registered as kaza in the tahrir records within the scope of this

thesis, it is necessary to state that we are limited to evaluation within the scope of the

data recorded as a kaza. In this case, it is meaningful to say that although these groups

were recorded as a kaza in kadıasker registers, we could not locate specific data that

indicates them as a kaza in tahrir records.

Map 4.37. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Anatolia in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

562 Erhan Afyoncu, "Türkiye'de Tahrir Defterlerine Dayalı Olarak Hazırlanmış Çalışmalar Hakkında Bazı

Görüşler" p. 269.

235

The kaza of Ankara Yörüğü in the sanjak of Ankara where a large nomadic population

could be found563 is another example representing the disorganized structure of these

groups. These small and diverse groups, which were positioned in different locations in

the region according to tahrir records, were attached to the kadı of Yörük (Yörük kadısı)

who is legally concerned with the lawsuits of the yörüks in the sanjak region. In the

kadıasker records of 1513,564 1522,565 1523566 and 1528567 we see a separate kaza of

Ankara Yörüğü within the sanjak of Ankara. In 1523 tahrir records, for example, the

Haymana group that belonged to yörüks of Ankara were located in the kaza of Ankara,

Bacı, Çubuk, Murtazaâbâd, and the nahiye of Çukurcak and Kasaba as the main

homeland, as well as out of borders such as Aksaray, Sivrihisar, Koçhisar, Kalecik,

Karaman, Sultanönü, Karahisar-i Sahib and Turgud.568 The presence of another kaza

record under the name of Ankara Yörüğü (yörük of Ankara) in the kadıasker register of

the same period indicates the existence of another kadı in the legal sense. In the tahrir

records, groups that were connected to different kazas within the tax system were

registered with a more specific status in the kadıasker records. This is also another

example of the difference between tahrir and kadıasker records. We also need to

evaluate the cases of the kaza of Karacalar and Karacakoyunlu in the sanjak of Karesi,

Yörük in the sanjak of Kastamonu, Yörük in the sanjak of Karahisar-i Şarki, Ulu Yörük in

the sanjak of Amasya, Haleb Yöruğü and İzzeddin Kürt in the sanjak of Haleb, Kosun in

the sanjak of Tarsus and Rus Yörüğü in the sanjak of Niğbolu in this context.

Another nomadic group that we see in the sources of the vilayet of Anatolia is Tire

Bölmesi. Katip Çelebi states that the other name of Tire Bölmesi is Karacakoyunlu in

563 Halil İnalcık, “The Yürüks: Their Origins, Expansion and Economic Role”, The Middle East and the Balkans

under the Ottoman Empire Essays on Economy and Society, 1992, 97-136.

564 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

565 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 273.

566 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

567 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları”

568 Emine Erdoğan, “Ankara Yörükleri (1463, 1523/30 ve 1571 Tahrirlerine Göre),” Ankara Üniversitesi

Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi (OTAM), Issue: 18, pp.119-135.

236

Cihannüma.569 Tire Bölmesi, which was recorded as a separate kaza unit in the sanjak of

Aydın in 1513,570 1522571 and 1523,572 was recorded as a Karacakoyunlu in the 1528

kadıasker register.573 Although the Tire Bölmesi was recorded as a separate kaza in 1513,

it was recorded as subject to a kaza of Tire in terms of administration by a kadı. This

community was registered as a Bayramlu Karacakoyunlu community (cemaat-i Bayramlu

Karacakoyunlu) in the tahrir and taxed within the sanjak of Aydın.574 In addition, it was

noted that this community had a separate kadı, while tax units were recorded as a

community. As mentioned before, due to these groups' mobility in different regions, the

kaza that they are connected to was not clearly determined from the tahrirs because

they were recorded in the kaza in which they lived during the tahrir period.575 However,

we can see that this situation can be followed more clearly and systematically in

kadıasker records. The kaza of Seydi Gazi in the sanjak of Sultanönü was also recorded

as the place where the Karacakoyunlu yörüks were dense576, and the absence of Seydi

Gazi Bölmesi as a kaza in the tahrir register can be examined within the same framework.

Another example of the difference between the sources is the presence of some

combined kazas in terms of legal administration, indicated with the statement ma'a or

me'a. We can observe on the maps that these are geographically proximate kazas. For

example, the kaza of Tire was recorded as a separate unit in the 1513,577 1522,578 1523579

sources and 1530 tahrir,580 while it was recorded together with Güzelhisar as “Tıṙ e Me'a

569 Katip Çelebi, Cihannüma, İbrahim Müteferrika Baskısı, p.636

570 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

571 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”, p. 273.

572 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

573 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları"

574 BOA TD 166

575 Sadullah Gülten, “Batı Anadolu’da Bi̇r Yörük Grubu: XVI. Yüzyılda Karaca Koyunlular,” Balıkesir

Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12 (22), p.194

576 Halime Doğru, XVI. Yüzyılda Eskişehir ve Sultanönü Sancağı. 1992, pp.104-118; Ahmet Güneş, “XVI.

Yüzyılda Seyyid Gazi’de Sosyal ve Ekonomik Hayat,” OTAM, 11, Ankara 2000, pp.240-243.

577 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

578 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimat.ı”

579 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

580 BOA TD 166

237

Güzelhıṡ ar” in 1528.581 However, in the tahrir registers between 1461 and 1573,

Güzelhisar and Tire were recorded as separate administrative kazas in the provincial

organization.582 The Bergos and Lapseki kazas, which are connected to the sanjak of Biga,

were recorded as a unified kaza in 1522583 and 1528584 referred to as “Labsekı ̇ Me'a

Bergos.”585 However, in the 1513,586 and 1523 kadıasker register587 they were recorded

separately, although in different pages of the document of 1523 there is a note that

these two kazas were combined.588 In the 1516589 and 1530 tahrir590 records, we see that

these two places were recorded as separate kaza in the sanjak of Biga. In these cases,

these two cities, which have separate kaza status in the tax records, were recorded as

one place in the kadıasker register. In addition, in 1522, Çarşanba was jointly registered

with the kaza of Yörük in the sanjak of Bolu as “Yörük-i Bolu ma‘a Çeharşenbih.”591 In the

1528 kadıasker register, Çarşanba was merged with Yenıċ e-ı ̇Eflegan.592 In other sources,

we see that these kazas were registered as a separate unit. Moreover, while Devrek was

recorded as a kaza in the 1513,593 and 1523594 kadıasker registers, it was combined with

Yedi Divan in 1528.595 However, in the 1530 tahrir record, while Devrek was recorded as

a town related to the kaza of Hızırbeyili, Yedi Divan was recorded as a separate kaza.596

The difference in these two records, produced not too long after one another as part of

581 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları”

582 İlknur Gürgen, “XV.-XVI. Yüzyıllarda Güzelhıṡ ar Kazası,” (Master Thesis, Celal Bayar University, Manisa,

2015)

583 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı.”

584 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları”

585 Its pronunciation changes in different records.

586 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

587 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

588 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

589 Recep Dündar, “59 Nolu Tahrıṙ Defterıṅ e Göre Bıġ a Sancağı'nda Yerleşi̇m Ve Nüfus,” International

Journal of Social Science, Volume 6, Issue 2, February 2013, p. 1131-1167.

590 BOA TD 166, here Bergos is registered as Çatal Bergos.

591 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

592 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları”

593 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

594 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

595 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları"

596 BOA TD 438

238

kadı and tahrir system, makes us think about the changing status of being a kaza. As

another example, Mengen in the sanjak of Bolu was registered as a separate kaza in all

the sources we examined, but it was registered united with Çağa in the record of 1528

as “Mengen Me'a Çaga.” Mengen, which was written also as a separate kaza in the 1530

tahrir register, was recorded with Çağa again in another tahrir record (müsellem

registers) in the second half of the 16th century.597 Regarding the difference in records,

we should also emphasize that the terms of nahiye and kaza were used interchangeably.

Even while an administrative unit is recorded as a kaza, it may be recorded as a nahiye

on different pages of the same source. Combining the two kaza also could be linked to

completing the amount of akçe values of kadı salary. Another case is that of Todurga,

which was registered as a kaza in the 1530 tahrir record of the sanjak of Bolu, was not

recorded as a kaza in any kadıasker sources.598 We see that Todurga was registered as a

nahiye that belonged to the kaza of Göynük in the sanjak of Hüdavendigar in 1519.599 In

the tahrir of 1568 (müsellem register), Todurga was still registered in connection with

the kaza of Göynük.600 Although we do not find Göynük in connection with Todurga in

the kadıasker records, the fact that the Todurga's villages were closer to Göynük in the

sanjak of Hüdavendigar suggests that the same kadı may have played an administrative

role connecting him to both places. Our knowledge of the relationship of the kadı with

the kazas they were assigned and the position of the kadı in the system may also benefit

from biographical research.

597 Kenan Ziya Taş, “Tapu Tahrir Defterlerine Göre 16. Yüzyılda Bolu Sancağı,” (Ph.D Dissertation, Ankara

University, Ankara, 1993), pp. 60-61

598 BOA TD 438

599 Cengiz Orhonlu, “ Bolu,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1992, pp.276-278

600 Kenan Ziya Taş, “Tapu Tahrir Defterlerine Göre 16. Yüzyılda Bolu Sancağı,” (Ph.D Dissertation, Ankara

University, Ankara, 1993), p. 55

239

In addition, Sındırgı was recorded as a kaza in 1513,601 1522,602 1523603 sources, while it

was not recorded in the 1528 kadıasker register.604 Sındırgı, which was considered

among the kazas in the sanjak of Karesi after being included in the Ottoman territory,605

was recorded as a nahiye related to the kaza of Bigadiç within the sanjak of Karesi in

1530 tahrir.606 Another difference in the sources is that Sındırgı was attached to the

sanjak of Karesi in 1522, while it was recorded in the sanjak of Hüdavendigar in 1513 and

1523. This situation could be related to the lack of geographical integrity of

Hüdavendigar in the early periods and mixed borders with other sanjaks such as Karesi.

The reason for this has been considered Hüdavendigar’s status as the first Ottoman

administrative region.607 Another difference between the sources in the sanjak of

Hüdavendigar is the situation of Nevahi-i Bergama. In the sources between 1513608 and

1528,609 it was recorded as a separate kaza, which continued until the late 19th

century.610 However, there was not any record on Nevahi-i Bergama as a kaza name in

the records of the 1530611 period. This is once again a case representing the differences

between tahrir and kadıasker sources.

The situation of Tuzla (Behram) included in the borders of the sanjak of Hüdavendigar is

an important example that shows us the necessity of spatial analysis and digital tools to

see networks of cities within the administrative system. Although Tuzla was

geographically within the boundaries of the sanjak of Biga, it was connected to the

601 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

602 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

603 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

604 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları"

605 İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Anadolu Beylikleri Ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu Devletleri, TTk Ankara, 1969,

p.102.

606 BOA TD 166

607 Feridun Emecen, “ Hüdâvendigâr,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1998, pp.285-286

608 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

609 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları"

610 Feridun Emecen, “Bergama,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1992, pp.492-495; Serap Tabak,

“II. Meşrutiyet Sonrasi Ve I. Dünya Savaşı Öncesi Bergama Kazası (1909-1914),” Türk-İslâm Medeniyeti

Araştırmaları Dergisi, Issue 4, 2007, pp. 125-150.

611 BOA TD 166

240

sanjak of Hüdavendigar interms of both provincial and legal administration (see map

4.38). According to the data in the tahrir registers, Tuzla was the richest place in the

region thanks to the salt mine (memleha).612 Özer Ergenç states that places like Tuzla

were included in Hüdavendigar instead of other sanjaks that were closer geographically,

since the existence of Bursa as an international trade city in Hüdavendigar. The fact that

Bursa has a large population due to its trade power created the necessity of keeping the

administrative zone wide to feed the city, resulting in changes in the relationship of these

kazas with sanjaks.613

Map 4.38. The Kaza Division in the Sanjak of Hüdavendigar in the Tahrir Register of

1530

612 M. Mustafa Kulu, “1530’larda Çanakkale Yöresinde Yerleşim ve Nüfus,” Çanakkale Araştırmaları Türk

Yıllığı Dergisi, 2, 2004, pp. 217-220

613 Özer Ergenç, XVI. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Bursa, Ankara: TTK, 2006, pp. 122-123

241

There are also differences between the sources in the sanjak of Karahisar-ı Sahib. While

Oynaş was seen as a kaza in the records of 1513614 and 1522615 it was not found in the

records of 1523,616 1528.617 Also, it was registered as a nahiye in 1530 tahrir register.618

Likewise, Fart, registered as a kaza in the sources we examined between 1513 and 1523,

was registered as a nahiye within the kaza of Manyas in the 1530 tahrir register. Oynaş

was registered as a nahiye where it was linked to sanjak directly in BOA MAD 230,

although others were recorded as part of other nahiyes in the region.619 This also can be

interpreted as a sign that the concept of nahiye was also used as the kaza area.620

Ada in the sanjak of Kocaeli was not recorded in the kadıasker register of 1513,621 1528622

and the kanunname of 1522.623 While it was mentioned as a nahiye in the 1523 kadıasker

record,624 it appeared as a separate kaza in the tahrir of 1530.625 Yücel Öztürk, who made

detailed studies on the historical development of Ada, gives information about the

records of kaza-i Ada in the tahrir register before 1520 and lists the names of the villages

connected to it.626 Although Ada was recorded in the tahrir registers, the absence of such

information in documents containing the records of kadıasker in the same period

appears as an important difference.

614 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

615 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

616 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

617 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları”

618 BOA TD 166, it was recorded as Fırt.

619 Mustafa Karazeybek, “Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilatında Karahisar-ı Sahib Sancağı’nın İdari Yapısı,” Afyon

Kocatepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Vol:2, Issue:1, pp.105.

620 Feridun Emecen, XVI. Asırda Manisa Kazası, p.111.

621 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

622 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları”

623 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

624 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11,”

625 BOA TD 438

626 Yücel Öztürk,“XVI. Asırdan XVII. Asrın Başlarına Kadar Ada Kazası”, in Sakarya İli Tarihi , I, Sakarya, 2005,

p. 230.

242

When we look at kazas changing their sanjak, we see that the greatest difference is

between the 1513 and 1523 kadıasker registers. As mentioned before, in the 1523

kadıasker register, only one sanjak was recorded in the vilayet of Karaman. In other

pages, Karaman was not registered as a separate vilayet but as a sanjak under Anatolia.

Rum, which was also a separate vilayet in other sources, was registered under the title

of Anatolia. As we have previously emphasized, the 1523 kadıasker records are similar

to the register dated 1513 in these two important aspects. This complex situation in the

Karaman and Rum regions was also reflected in the change of sanjaks and kazas.

We see that some kazas recorded in the vilayet of Anatolian in 1513 were registered in

the vilayet of Karaman in other sources. These cities are as follows; Aksaray, Akşehir,

Aladağ, Beyşehir, Belviran, Ermenek, Eskiil, Gülnar, Ilgun, İshaklu, Karahisar-i Develü,

Karataş, Kayseriyye, Koşhisar, Konya, Larende, Mud, Niğde, Seydişehir, Ürgüp, Anduğu,

and Selendi. We will examine the sanjak changes of these cities in the section of vilayet

of Karaman in detail.

In addition some kazas recorded in the vilayet of Anatolian in 1513 were registered in

the vilayet of Rum in other sources. Thes cities are as follows; Artukabad, Zile, Turhal,

Bafra, Kedegara, Kavak, Samsun, Satılmış, Bayramlu/Canik, Kocakayası, Tirme, Ünye,

Çorumlu, Katar, İskilib, Osmancık, Karahisar-i Demirlü, Karahisar-i Şarki, Koyluhisar,

Kırşehri, Nık̇ sar, Sivas, Sonisa. Also Bayburd that was recorded in the sanjak of Trabzon

in 1523 appeared in the sanjak of Bayburd within the tahrir registers of 1530. We will

focus on the sanjak changes of these cities in the section of vilayet of Rum in detail.

4.2.3.2 The Regions and Cities in the Vilayet of Diyarbekir

In the vilayet of Diyarbekir there are 25 unique kazas. While 9 of these kazas are available

in all sources containing information from this region, 16 of them are only found in some

243

sources. In the vilayet of Diyarbekir, the kaza list of the kanunname of 1522627 (see map

4.39)628 and 1523629 (see map 4.40) have no sanjak distribution. Thus we cannot follow

the changes of kazas through the sanjak level. In the 1522 kanunname, we see that some

kazas were combined with other administrative units in the region and recorded as kazai

"Arabgir ma‘a Şîrner?, Puşları," "Çermük, Çüngüş, Hisârân, Ebû Tâhir," "Siverek ma‘a

Çıbıkdân, İn, Oşûb (Oşun)," "Bîrecik (Berriyecik) ma‘a Tîl-Göran, Çemlem," "Mardin ma‘a

Nusaybin, Hâbûr," "Musul ma‘a Sincâr, Til‘Afer," "Sâvur ma‘a Berâzî, Besyân, Zemlân,"

"Atak ma‘a Çıska, Kulb, Başika, Azmed?, Batmân, Meyyâfarikin, Tercîl, Mihrânî," "Eğil

ma‘a Hanî, Berdenic," "Ergani ma‘a Medrese," "Âmid ma‘a Ulus," "Kiğı ma‘a Küçük,"

"Çabakçur ve Haçuk," "‘Anâ ve Hadse." In 1523 kadıasker register, these regions were

recorded as separate kazas. At the same time, in this document the kaza of Ana was

recorded with Hît, while in 1522 it was registered with Hadse. Buhayra and Cize, Eğin,

Kelit, Safhun [?] and Cizye, which were not found in other sources, were recorded in the

1523 kadıasker register as kaza. In addition, Kiğı and Çemişgezek which we see in the

sources dated 1522 and 1530630 were not listed in the kadıasker register of 1523 under

vilayet-i Diyarbekir, but Kiğı was mentioned in another page of the source related to kadı

appointments.631

627 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

628 The united kaza names were addede as shortened. For the long version see Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan

Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İdarî Taksimatı”, p.278.

629 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11,”

630 BOA TD 998

631 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

244

Map 4.39. The Kaza Division of Diyarbekir in the Kanunname of 1522

We should also point out that some of these places were registered as a nefs in the tahrir

record of 1530632 such as Ebû Tâhir in Çermük, Nusaybin in Mardin, Til‘Afer in Sincar. In

addition, there are some regions in the 1530 tahrir register of the vilayet of Diyarbekir

that were not recorded in other sources such as Deyr, Rahbe, and Aşşara (see map 4.41).

632 BOA TD 998

245

Map 4.40. The Kaza Division of Diyarbekir in the Kadıasker Register of 1523

Moreover, some kaza records of 1522 and 1523 could not be found in the tahrir register

as kazas such as Palu, Cizye, Eğin, Atak, Çapakçur, Buhayra ve Cize, Safhun[?], and Eğil.633

These regions were divided into yurtluk-ocaklık and hükümet sanjaks. These kinds of

sanjaks, as mentioned in previous sections, were under the control of tribal families

(aşiret) that were loyal to the Ottoman Empire. There is an important difference between

these two types of sanjaks. Only the yurtluk-ocaklık sanjaks were included in the tahrir

system. Palu, for example, had hükümet status and was not included in the tahrir

633 “Buhayra ve Cize,” Cizye and Safhun[?] were not added to the map, since their current location could

not be found.

634 Mehmet Ali Ünal, “XVI: Yüzyıl’da Palu Hükümeti,” Osmanlı Devri Üzerine Makaleler-Araştırmalar,

Isparta 2008,pp. 241-265; Orhan Kılıç, "Osmanlı Belgelerinin Dili ve Işığında Kürdistan Kavramı" pp. 445-

460.

246

Map 4.41. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Diyarbekir in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

As can be seen, the records of the same region differ between the kanunnames,

kadıasker, and tahrir registers. However, it is noteworthy that kazas of Diyarbekir were

recorded together with other places in the region, while they were recorded as a single

kaza in other sources. Since some of these regions were registered as nefs in tahrir

records, these united kazas in the kanunnames could represent the detail from the same

kazas including surrounding settlements under the control of same kadı.

4.2.3.3 The Regions and Cities of the Vilayet of Karaman

There are a total of 26 unique kazas in the vilayet of Karaman. 21 of them are in all

sources belonging to their period and the other kazas are recorded in only some sources.

We see that 23 kazas changed sanjak borders. Regarding the vilayet of Karaman, we

247

cannot follow the kaza division through the sanjak level in the records of 1522635 (see

map 4.43) and 1528.636 As the other sources that comprise Anatolia, the 1513637 (see

map 4.42) and 1523638 kadıasker registers (see map 4.44) were similar and the kazas of

the vilayet of Karaman were recorded as only part of the sanjak of Karaman.

Map 4.42. The Kaza Division of the Sanjak of Karaman in the Kadıasker Register of 1513

As we discussed for the other vilayets, there are also some kaza in the vilayet of Karaman

that show changes in administrative and legal management according to the periods.

Zengicek, for instance, was recorded as a separate kaza in the sanjak of Karaman in the

kadıasker record of 1523, while it was a nahiye in the sanjak of Konya according to tahrir

of 1530.639 In 1522, we see that Turgud-ili and Zengicek were registered as a combined

635 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

636 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları"

637 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

638 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11,”

639 BOA TD 399

248

kaza, although these kazas were recorded separately in 1513 and 1523 kadıasker

Akşehir are geographically closer to Turgud-ili, it was combined with Zengicek. In the

1523 kadıasker register, we see that Akşehir was merged with Çimeili that very close

geographically to it.

Map 4.43. The Kaza Division of Karaman in the Kanunname of 1522

In addition, the Selendi did not take place in the records of 1513 and 1522, while it was

recorded in the sources of 1523 and 1530 (see map 4.45).640 Akşehir and Çimenili which

were recorded as two seperate kazas in 1513,641 1522642 and 1528,643 were registered as

a combined kaza called “Akşehir ma‘a Çimenili in the kadıasker register of 1523.”

640 BOA TD 387

641 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

642 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

643 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları"

249

Map 4.44. The Kaza Division of Karaman in the Kadıasker Register of 1523

Another kaza of Karaman, Ortaköy, which was registered between 1513 and 1523, was

not in the tahrir records. Conversely, Bayburd, which appears in the tahrir 644 as a kaza

was not recorded in the kadıasker registers and the kanunname.

Some kazas of the sanjak of Karaman in 1523, were recorded in different sanjaks in the

1530 tahrir registers. For example, Aksaray and Koşhisar registered under the sanjak of

Karaman in 1523, were registered in the sanjak of Aksaray in 1530. Likewise, Akşehir,

İshaklu, and Ilgun were located in the sanjak of Akşehir, Beyşehir, and Seydişehir in the

sanjak of Beyşehir, Aladag, Belviran, and Larende in the sanjak of Larende. Also,

Ermenek, Gülnar, Selendi, Karataş, and Mud were recorded in the sanjak of İçil, Eskiil and

Konya in the sanjak of Konya, Kayseriyye in the sanjak of Kayseriyye, Niğde Anduğu,

Ürgüp, and Karahisar-ı Develü in the sanjak of Niğde.

644 BOA TD 387

250

Map 4.45. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Karaman in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

4.2.3.4 The Regions and Cities in the Vilayet of Rumelia

In the vilayet of Rumelia, there are 235 unique kazas and 131 of them are in all sources

containing their regions, while 104 kazas are found only in some sources. While analyzing

this section, we observed that the sanjak division of 14 kazas changed in different

periods. As we mentioned earlier, the boundaries of the sanjak are shaped according to

the locations of the kazas they cover. When we map archival sources for spatial analysis,

we see that in comparison to the other part of the empire, the administrative

organization in Rumelia is more complicated and the sanjaks do not always include kazas

which are simply geographically in proximity. On the other hand, the number of unified

kazas is very low in comparison with the vilayets of Anatolia, Diyarbekir and Arab (Şam).

251

We see the same geographic disintegration in the sanjak of Çirmen. In the 1521 kadıasker

register645 (see map 4.46) and the 1522 kanunname646 (see map 4.47), the kazas of the

Çirmen consist of Akçakızanlık, Hasköy, Çirmen and Zağra Yenicesi. However, in the

sources dated 1526-1528647 (see map 4.48) and the tahrir of 1530648 (see map 4.49) this

sanjak included İne-Bazarı and Tekür Dağı, which are geographically within the

boundaries of the sanjak of Gelibolu. This spatial picture indicates that there were other

dynamics beyond geographic proximity which played a role in the formation of the

administrative organization, and these changes could be economic, administrative or

military reasons as discussed in the literature. In addition, the scattered administrative

organization of Bosna, Hersek and Prizrin sanjaks in the sources of 1521 and 1522 is also

noteworthy in that they do not consist of geographically closer kazas.

645 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”

646 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

647 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve

Kasabaları”

648 BOA TD 370

252

Map 4.46. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Rumelia in the Kadıasker Register of 1521

Another example is Midilli, which was given sanjak status after its conquest in 1462. As

we discussed earlier, Midilli, which was connected to the sanjak of Rodos for economic

and military reasons, was recorded in the 1530 tahrir649 as a kaza. However, in the

kanunname of 1522, it was recorded as a kaza connected to the geographically distant

sanjak of Mora.

649 BOA TD 367

253

Map 4.47.The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Rumelia in the Kanunname of 1522

As mentioned in the previous chapter, 9 kazas are repeated in different sanjaks in the

tahrir record of BOA TD 167 and BOA TD 367; Vılçıtrın appears both in the sanjak of

Vılçıtrın and İskenderiye; Bihor in the sanjak of Prizrin and İskenderiye; Timur Hisarı in

the sanjak of Paşa and Köstendıl̇ ; Prizrin in the sanjak of Prıż rıṅ and İskenderiye; Priştine

in the sanjak of Vılçıtrın and İskenderiye; Nova Bırda in the sanjak of Vılçıtrın and

İskenderiye; Niş in the sanjak of Alacahıṡ ar and Semendire; in the tahrir record of BOA

TD 370 and BOA TD 75, there is Keşan in the sanjak of Paşa and Gelıḃ olu. Samakov and

Samakov-ı İvlayçov kazas in sanjak of Paşa were recorded in two different ways, although

representing same place. However, these kazas were recorded without repetition in the

kadıasker register and the kanunname. In this respect, the tahrir records prepared within

the framework of the tax system differ from the kadıasker records and the kanunname

prepared for legal reasons. These kazas could be responsible for two sanjaks in the tax

system.

254

The maps of the sources from 1521 and 1530 give us the opportunity to trace the

changes in the administrative organization of the cities in a more obvious way. Niş, for

instance, was recorded as part of the sanjak of Alacahisar in 1521,650 1522,651 and

1530652 while it changed borders with Semendire according to the source of 1526-

1528.653 Another example of variations between the sources is the situation of Filibe,

Samakov, and Tatarbazarı. According to sources in 1521 and 1522, these three kazas

were recorded in the sanjak of Filibe, while the Filibe and Tatarbazarı were included in

the sanjak of Paşa in 1526-1528 and 1530.654 Samakov was also recorded in the sanjak

of Sofya. As we have already mentioned, in the 1530 tahrir record,655 Sofya was

mentioned as a sanjak of Paşa, and Şehirköy, Berkofça and Sofya were included here.

Also Preznik and Çirpofça (Çiprovci) were recorded as part of Sofya in the register of

1526-1528, while this kaza was recorded within the sanjak of Paşa in the tahrir

650 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”

651 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

652 BOA TD 167

653 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve

Kasabaları”

654 BOA TD 370

655 BOA TD 370

656 BOA TD 370

255

Map 4.48. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Rumelia in 1526-1528

Another kaza which was added to the sanjak of Paşa is Florina. After its sanjak status

was removed, Florina became part of the sanjak of Paşa. Similarly, İnebahtı was recorded

as a kaza of Tırhala after its sanjak status changed. Another area that had changed the

status of Gelibolu and islands that were afiliated here. In the tahrir register of 1519,657

Semadirek, Limni, and Taşoz were recorded in the sanjak of Gelibolu.658 However, Limni

was recorded without any sanjak division in the 1521 kadıasker register. This is another

example of variations in kadıasker and tahrir registers. In 1522, Limni Island is connected

to the sanjak of Paşa. In addition, Keşan, İnöz and İpsala, which were related to Gelibolu

in the 1521 and 1522 records, were included in the sanjak of Paşa in the tahrir of 1530.659

Another example of changes in the borders is Birvenik. This kaza was recorded within

657 BOA TD 75

658 İlhan Şahin, “Semadirek,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2009, pp.458-459.

659 BOA TD 370

256

the sanjak of İzvornik in 1526-1528 and 1533,660 while it was part of Prezrin in the sources

of 1521 and 1522. Moreover, the sanjak of Kefe is available in all sources, comprised of

the kazas of Mangub, Azak, Taman, Kerş, Kefe ve Soğudak, while it was not recorded in

the register dated 1526-1528.

Map 4.49. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Rumelia in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

Böğürdelen was registered in the sanjak of Semendire only in the kadıasker register of

1521661 of Rumelia. However, in a tahrir dated 1533,662 it was recorded as a nahiye in the

sanjak of İzvornik. In addition, Kale-i Resava, Kale-i Hram, Kale-i Koyluca and Jejne

(Zsezsne, Kopaonik) were not registered in the kadıasker and kanunname records while

660 BOA TD 173

661 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”,

Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi (Asos Journal), XXXIII (November 2016):337-377

662 BOA TD 173

257

they were recorded in tahrir registers663 and the register of 1526-1528.664 As we have

discussed earlier, in different parts of the empire, some kazas had a second record as

"kaza-i nevahi-i ..." or "kaza-i nahiye-i ..." and "kaza-i hassa-i..." with the same name.

Nahiye-i Yanbolu was recorded as different from “kaza-i Yanbolu” in the sanjak of Silistre

only in the 1521665 and 1522666 records. This is explained by what Ahmet Cebeci pointed

out, that a second kaza administration was constituted as Nahiye-i Yanbolu for villages

far from the center.667

In addition, we see that the number of kazas in some sanjaks increased towards the

1530s. Koniçe, for example, was not recorded in 1521668 and 1522, 669 while it was

registered in the sanjak of Yanya in 1526-1528670 and the tahrir of 1530.671 When we

look at the sanjak of Bosnia, we see an increase in the number of kaza with the addition

of the Bazar-ı Olofça and Iskradin. In the sanjak of Hersek, Bazar-ı Balac (Balagay), and

Gorajde also resulted in a change in the number of kazas. Other regions with an increase

in the number of kazas are Köstendil, Semendire and Tırhala. Dubniçe, Nogoriçe, Timur

Hisarı, Menlik, Radomir and Kratova were added to the sanjak of Köstendil which only

consisted of İvranya, Ilıca, İştip and Usturumca in 1521 and 1522. Belgrad Kalesi and

Güvercinlik Kalesi were added to Rudnik, Semendire, Uziçe, Barancık, and Pojega in the

sanjak of Semendire. In the sanjak of Silistre, Misivri was added in the records of 1526-

1528 and 1530.672 In the 1526-1528 records and the tahrir register of 1521, the kazas of

663 BOA MAD 506, BOA TD 167

664 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve

Kasabaları”

665 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”

666 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

667 Ahmet Cebeci,"Silistre Sancağı Vakıfları ve H. 1006 (1597-1598) Tarihli Silistre Livası Vakıf Defteri (No:

561)." Vakıflar Dergisi, 20 (1988): 454-455.

668 Ercan Alan, “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”

669 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

670 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve

Kasabaları”

671 BOA TD 367

672 BOA TD 370

258

Dömeke, Ağrafa and İnebahtı were added to the sanjak of Tırhala, which already included

Yenişehir, Çatalca, Fenar, Tırhala, Badracık, Alasonya, and Kerniş.673 Feth-i İslam674 in the

sanjak of Vidin, Vatika675 in the sanjak of Mora, and Maden-i Trepçe676 in the sanjak of

Vıçıtrın also appear only in the records dated 1526-1528 and 1530.

Another important difference between the sources on the vilayet of Rumelia is the

administrative division of Istanbul, Hassha-i Istanbul, and Galata. The Istanbul kadı

administration was divided into four: Nefs-i İstanbul, Eyüp (Hâsshâ-i İstanbul or Hâsshâi

Konstantiniyye), Üsküdar and Galata. Nefs-i İstanbul as a part of mevleviyet kadı-ships

was the place where Sultan and high ranking statesmen reside, thus the city was

excluded from the tımar system and tahrir records. Eyüp, Üsküdar and Galata, as Bilâd-ı

Selâse,677 were also responsible for legal affairs within their specific borders under the

control of Istanbul. 678 These regions were not registered as part of any sanjak in the 1521

kadıasker register679 and 1522 kanunname680 but were recorded in various sanjaks in the

tahrir registers (see map 4.50). Hâsshâ-i İstanbul681 and Galata was registered in the

sanjak of Vize,682 while Üsküdar was recorded as nefs of the Gegevize in the sanjak of

Kocaili683 according to the tahrir records.

673 BOA TD 367

674 BOA TD 370

675 BOA TD 367

676 BOA TD 167

677 Mehmet İpşirli, “Bilâd-ı Selâse.”

678 İ. Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlmiye Teşkilatı, p.133; R. Ekrem Koçu, “Bilâdi Selâse, Bilâdi

Selâse Kadıları, Kadılıkları”, İst.A, V, 2764-2765; Mehmet İpşirli, “Bilâd-ı Selâse”; Mehmet İpşirli, “İstanbul

Kadılığı,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2001, pp.305-307; Ahmet Akgündüz, Osmanlı

Kânûnnâmeleri ve Hukûkî Tahlilleri.

679 Bilgin Aydın, İlhami Yurdakul, Ayhan Işık, İsmail Kurt, Esra Yıldız, İstanbul Şer‘iyye Sicilleri Vakfiyeler

Kataloğu, Ankara: İSAM, 2015.

680 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

681 BOA TD 370

682 BOA TD 202 and BOA TD 210

683 BOA TD 370

259

Map 4.50. İstanbul, Hasshâ-i İstanbul and Galata in the Kanunname of 1522

4.2.3.5 The Regions and Citites of the Vilayet of Rum

There are a total of 52 unique kazas in the vilayet of Rum and 31 of which are in all

sources belonging to their period. The other 21 kazas are only available in some sources.

As we will discuss in this section, we found changes in sanjak affiliation for 32 kazas. It is

worth remembering that the kazas in the vilayet of Rum differ in terms of their sanjak

division from other regions. The register of 1528684 and the kanunname of 1522685 doest

not provide information about the distribution of kazas according to their sanjaks in the

vilayet of Rum except the sanjak of Trabzon. Thus we can observe changes and

transformation in kazas through other sources. Şoğayn and Tercan, for instance, were

included in the tahrir record686 as kaza related to the sanjak of Bayburd after the

684 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları”

685 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

686 BOA TD 387

260

expansion of borders toward the 1530s.687 These two kazas, however, were not included

in the kadıasker records of 1513688 (see map 4.51), 1523689 (see map 4.53) or the

kanunname of 1522 (see map 4.52).690 Koğans also was registered in the sanjak of

Bayburd in the tahrir in 1530691 (see map 4.54) but was registered in the sanjak of

Trabzon in the kanunname dated 1522. 692

Map 4.51. Kaza Division of Rum in the Kadıasker Register of 1513

Moreover, Bafra, Erim, Kavak, Kedegara, Kocakayası, Samsun, Satılmış, Tirme, Ünye, and

Canik, which were included in the sanjak of Canik in the tahrir693 were all registered in

687 İsmet Miroğlu, “Bayburt”

688 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri"

689 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11,”

690 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

691 BOA TD 387

692 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

693 BOA TD 387

261

the sanjak of Amasya in the records of 1513694 and 1523.695 This points to another

similarity between these two documents.

Map 4.52. The Kaza Division of Rum in the Kanunname of 1522

Çorumlu, İskilib, Karahisar-i Demirlü, Katar and Osmancık were all connected to the

sanjak of Amasya in the kadıasker records of 1513 and 1523, while in the tahrir register

of 1530 they were subjected to the sanjak of Çorumlu.696 However, the sanjaks of Canik

and Çorumlu were recorded as sanjak in the vilayet of Rum in the tahrirs since the late

15th century.697 Here we again see the unclear situation of administrative organization in

the early periods. Similarly, Karahıṡ ar-i Şarkı ̇ and Koyluhisar were recorded within the

sanjak of Amasya in the 1513 and 1523 kadıasker records, while they were as part of the

sanjak of Karahisar-i Şarki in the tahrir of 1530.698

694 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri”

695 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

696 BOA TD 387

697 Ali Açıkel, “Rum Eyaleti,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2008, pp. 225-226.

698 BOA TD 387

262

Map 4.53. The Kaza Division of Rum in the Kadıasker Register of 1523

Another difference arises in the administrative situation of Erzincan, Kemah and

Malatya. These three kazas were recorded in the sanjak of Kahta ve Gerger in 1523. In

kanunname of 1522 and the tahrir of 1530699 Erzincan and Kemah were registered in the

sanjak of Kemah, and Malatya in the sanjak of Malatya. Niksar, Sonisa and Sivas were

also registered as a separate sanjak in the tahrir record and they had kazas in their own

names. These three places were registered in the 1513 and 1523 kadıasker records as

kazas related to the sanjak of Amasya. Regarding Niksar and Sivas, the tahrir stated that

since there was no administrator (sancakbeyi) they were connected to the Beylerbeylik

of Rum directly.700 Moreover, Artukabad, Etrakiyye-i Büzürk, Tokat, Turhal, and Zile,

which are seen in the sanjak of Tokat according to the tahrir of 1530701 were registered

in 1513 and 1523 kadıasker records as affiliated to the sanjak of Amasya. As it is seen,

699 BOA TD 387

700 BOA TD 387, p.2

701 BOA TD 387

263

the kadıasker records of 1513 and 1523 had important similarities, and many kazas

recorded in different sanjaks in the vilayet of Rum were registered in the sanjak of

Amasya in general. Also, the changes and transformations in the sanjaks in the southern

lands could be read keeping in mind that their administrative conditions had not yet been

fully formalized after the conquests.

Map 4.54. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Rum in the Tahrir Register of 1530

We see that some geographically close kazas were unified as a single administrative unit

in the kadıasker record of 1528,702 although they were recorded seperatly in other

records. Darende and Divriği also were registered in the sanjak of Adana in 1523, it was

connected with the sanjak of Divriği ve Darende in 1522 and 1530.703 Hısn-ı Mansur,

which was connected to the sanjak of “Divriği ve Darende” in the tahrir register,704 was

recorded in the sanjak of Kahta ve Gerger as a unified kaza, "Behisni nâhiye-i Hısn-ı

702 Turan Gökçe "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları"

703 BOA TD 387

704 BOA TD 387

264

Mansur"in the kanunname of 1522. In the case of 1523, this place was registered in the

Turkmen region. Behisni, Gerger and Kahta were registered as three separate kazas of

the sanjak of Gerger-Kahta-Behisni in the tahrir register,705 while Kahta and Gerger are

combined in the kanunname of 1522 and the kadıasker register of 1523. The kadıasker

record dated 1528 also had some combined kazas, such as Amasya with Merzifon and

Ladik. Likewise, Arhova was combined with Hemşin, and Satılmış was recorded together

with Ünye. Yet, these kazas were included separately in the tahrir record of 1530.706

4.2.3.6 The Regions and Cities in the Vilayet of Arab (Şam)

When we look at the transformations in the vilayet of Arab (Şam), we see changes in the

sanjaks of some cities. In the vilayet of Arab there are 134 unique kazas, 29 of which are

found in all sources containing their own regions, while 105 were registered only in some

sources. We also observed that 15 kazas changed sanjak affiliation in the region. We

need to read these changes in relation to the effort to restructure administration in the

region after the Canbirdi Gâzâli rebellion. We observe that the status of some cities in

the administrative organization differs in tahrir and kadıasker records.

Dirbesak/Gündüzlü, for example, was registered as a kaza with Bakrâs in the kanunname

of 1522707 (see map 4.55708) and 1523 kadıasker record709 (see map 4.56) within the

sanjak of Haleb. In the tahrir record of 1530, it was recorded as a nahiye within the sanjak

of Ayntab (see map 4.57).710 Since Dirbesak is the only place in the Haleb region where

nomadic Turkmens live,711 these changes could be part of the connection of mobility of

these groups in different sanjaks like the situation of nomads in Anatolia. The kaza of

Ayntab was also recorded in the sanjak of Haleb in the 1523 kadıasker record, although

it was connected to the sanjak of Ayntab in the 1522 kanunname and all tahrirs of later

705 BOA TD 387

706 BOA TD 387

707 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

708 The name of nahiyes were added on the map as shortened.

709 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

710 BOA TD 998

711 BOA TD 397, p.21.

265

dates.712 As we mentioned earlier, the administrative division has been arranged

generally at the level of nahiye rather than kaza in the tahrir records of the Arab region.

However, these nahiyes were registered as kaza in the kadıasker registers and the

kanunname as part of the distinction between the sources.

Map 4.55. The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Şam (Arab) in the Kanunname of 1522

As another example, Kudüs was attached to the sanjak of Kuds-i Şerif in 1522713 while it

was recorded under the administration of the sanjak of Gazze in 1530 tahrir.714 In this

period, Gazze and Kudüs were combined as a single sanjak. Also the kaza of Kudüs was

registered with the nahiye of Halilü'r-Rahman. It is seen that Kudüs was granted status

as a separate sanjak in the records after 1530. In 1522, we see that Kudüs was under the

management of Kara Hasan Bey with a value of 350.000 akçe, but when it was combined

712 Enver Çakar, “XVI. Yüzyılda Haleb Sancağı 1516-1566.”

713 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

714 BOA TD 998

266

with Gazze, it reached 550.000 akçe and was given to Üveys Bey birader-i Mehmed

Bey.715 This may also be a management change to achieve the specific amount that the

appointed sanjak ruler (sancakbeyi) needed to receive. In the kadıasker register of

1523,716 Kudüs, Kara and Şam were recorded under the title of vilayet-i Şam without

sanjak information.

Map 4.56.The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Şam (Arab) in the Kadıasker Register of 1523

Safed in the Arab region also differs according to the sources. It is stated in the kadıasker

sanjak of Safed were dangerous places, they were under the rule of Arabs.717 In the 1530

tahrir record, these kazas were not registered and we see that only Safed was recorded

715 İ. Metin Kunt, Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi, pp.125-198; Enver

Çakar, XVI. Yüzyılda Şam Beylerbeyiliğinin İdari Taksimatı”; Amy Singer, Kadılar, Kullar, Kudüslü Köylüler;

Ümit Koç, “1527-1528 (H.934) Tarihli Gazze Mufassal Tahrir Defterinin Değerlendirilmesi,” (Ph.D.

Dissertation, Fırat University, Elazığ, 1996).

716 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

717 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

267

as a nefs.718 Kerek-i Nuh-i Nebi was also recorded as part of the sanjak of Safed in 1523,719

while it was registered within the sanjak of Şam in the kanunname of 1522720 and the

tahrir registers of 1530.721 Also, Ba'lebek and Beyrut, which were seen as kaza related to

the sanjak of Safed in kadıasker register of 1523, were recorded as nahiye connected to

sanjak of Şam in the tahrir register722 and as a kaza in the kanunname of 1522.723 Once

again, this may be because the administrative structure in the region was not yet clear

in the newly conquered region, and also due to the differences between the tahrir

records and the kadıasker records. Another sanjak change is related to Kosun, Ulaş and

Tarsus. While Kosun and Ulaş were recorded within the sanjak of Adana in 1522 and

1523, it was registered in the sanjak of Tarsus. In addition Tarsus appeared in the sanjak

of Tarsus in the records dated 1522724 and 1530,725 while it was part of the sanjak of

Adana according to kadıasker register of 1523.726 As we mentioned before, Darende,

Divriği, Erzincan, Kemah, and Malatya were recorded within the vilayet of Şam in the

kanunname,727 while they were registered as part of the vilayet of Arab in the tahrir

registers.728 Also, while their sanjak division was the same in the kanunname and tahrir

registers, their sanjak division changed according to 1523 kadıasker register.729

718 BOA TD 998

719 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

720 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

721 BOA TD 998

722 BOA TD 998

723 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

724 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

725 BOA TD 998

726 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

727 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

728 BOA TD 387

729 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

268

In the tahrir record of 1530730 of the vilayet of Arab731, we see that some of the nahiyes

recorded were combined as a single kaza in the kanunname of 1522.732 The map of the

1530 tahrir register shows that these combined regions were geographically closer in the

region (see map 4.56). By focusing on these kazas in more detail, in addition to the

examples we have given before to reveal a picture showing that the same cities

belonging to the Ottoman Empire differed according to two different systems: judicial

and administrative. Antakiyye, for instance, was recorded as a combined kaza with

“nevâhi-i Kuseyr, Deyrgüş, Şuğur, Altun-özü, Cebel-i Akra‘ and Süveydiye” in the

kanunname of 1522,733 within the sanjak of Antakiyye. We see that it was a sanjak in the

administrative division of Arab lands in the earlier periods734 while it was registered as a

nahiye within the sanjak of Haleb in the tahrir record of 1530735 and included as a kaza

in kadıasker register of 1523.736 Kınık which was recorded as a nahiye in the tahrir, was

also combined with other units as a single kaza of "Kınık ma‘a Şeyh Meleklü, Peçeneklü,"

the nahiye of Azaz, Cum, Menbic and Ravendan as the kaza of "A‘zâz ma‘a nevâhi-i Kilisî,

Munbûc, Com, Vâdî Haşb, Râvendân," the nahiye of Haleb,737 Arsuz-ili, Bab, Mutih,

Nukra/Cebbül and Cebel-i Siman were also united into the single kaza of "Mahrûse-i

Haleb ma‘a nevâhi-i Cebel-i Sem‘ân, Matah, Hâss, Cebbûl, Nukre-i Benî Esed, Bâb"; the

nahiye of Cebel-i Akra, Cebel-i Ala, Halkalar and Cebel-i Berişa into the kaza of "Hârim

ma‘a Cebel-i A‘lâ, Cebel-i Barîşâ, Halkalar," the nahiye of Amik as "‘Amik ma‘a Tîzîn,

Şeyhü’l-Hadîs"; the nahiye of Kusayr, Süveyde and Şugur into the the kaza of “Antakiyye

ma‘a nevâhi-i Kuseyr, Deyrgüş, Şuğur, Altun-özü, Cebel-i Akra‘, Süveydiye” the nahiye of

Kefertab, Masyaf and Şeyzer into "Kefr Tâb ve Şeyzer ve Efâmiye ve Masyâf ve Ebî

Kubeys"; the nahiye of Sermin, Cebel-i Sümmak, and Cebel-i Benî ‘Alîm into kaza of

730 BOA TD 998

731 The name of nahiyes were added on the map as shortened.

732 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

733 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

734 Enver Çakar, “XVI. Yüzyılda Haleb Sancağı 1516-1566,” pp.27-28.

735 BOA TD 998 and BOA TD 397

736 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

737 BOA TD 397

269

"Sermîn ma‘a Cebel-i Samâk ve Cebel-i Benî ‘Alîm," the nahiye of Zaviye as the kaza of

“Erîhâ ve Zâviye-i Erûcîn.” In the sanjak of Şam, the nahiye of Beyrut was recorded as

the kaza of "Beyrût ma‘a Bilâd-ı Seyfüddin el-Velî," the nahiye of Sayda as the kaza of

"Sayd(a) ma‘a İklîm-i Harnûb." There are also combined kaza in the sanjak of Tarsus. The

nahiye of Tarsus, for example, was recorded as the kaza of "Tarsus ma‘a Cemâ‘at-i

Ulaşlu" and the nahiye of Kosunlu as the kaza of "Kosunlu and Kuştemürlü." The sanjak

of Trablus is another administrative unit consisting of combined kazas. The separate

nahiyes of Cebele, Kadmus, Kehf, Kali'a, Müneyka, Şahyun, Lazikkiyye, Havabi, Belatnis

were recorded as the single kaza of "Cebeliye ma‘a nevâhi-i Sahyûn ve Lazkiye ve Hevâbî

ve Balâtnûs ve Kadmûs ve Kehf ve Manîka ve Kuley‘a"; the nahiye of Akkar, Zaviye,

Cübeyl, Fütuhu-yi Beni Rical, Zinniyye, Müneytara and Arka were recorded as the kaza of

"Trablus ma‘a nevâhi-i Zâviye ve Cübeyle ve Zannîn ve Betrûn ve Fütûh-ı Benî Ricâl ve

Manîtra ve ‘Arkâ ve ‘Akkâr ve Cübbet-i Büşreti," the nahiye of Hısnü’l-Ekrâd, Merkab,

Menasıf, Safita, Antartûs, Mey'ar and ‘Ulleyka as the kaza of "Hısnü’l-Ekrâd ma‘a nevâhii

Merkab ve Menâsif ve Sâfitâ ve Antartûs ve Mi‘âr ve ‘Ulleyka."

270

Map 4.57.The Sanjak and Kaza Division of Arab in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

Other combined kazas in the vilayet of Arab include İskenderun and Üzeyr. After Çukurabad

joined the Ottoman lands in 1516, İskenderun, Arsuz-ili, Dörtyol, and Payas in the

region were organized as a single administrative unit and Özeroğlu (Üzeyroğlu) Ahmed

Bey was appointed as the first Ottoman sanjak ruler.738 As a matter of fact, Üzeyr was

recorded as a single kaza of "‘Üzeyr ma‘a İskenderun, ‘Arsuz-ili, Ağaslu" within the sanjak

of Adana in 1522 kanunname.739 When Seydi, the son of Ahmed Bey's brother Seydi Bey,

revolted in the region, he was eliminated by Ramazanoğlu Pîrî Bey, who came from

Adana with 4500 soldiers.740 In this period, the connection of Üzeyr to the sanjak of

Adana after the conquest can be evaluated both in relation to the geographical location

738 Yılmaz Kurt, “Özeroğulları”

739 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

740 Yılmaz Kurt, “Özeroğulları”

271

and the suppression of this riot by Adana’s ruler Pîrî Bey. As we mentioned earlier when

Üzeyr gained the status of sanjak, Üzeyr became part of this region as a kaza in 1530.741

There are some cities in the 1530 tahrir register742 related to vilayet of Arab that we

could not find in the other sources such as the nahiye of Nehrü'l Cevz, Ruc and Tel-Başir

in the sanjak of Haleb, the nahiye of Araban, Merzuban, and Sıvac/Suruç in the sanjak of

Birecik, the nahiye of Şe'raveiklimu'z-Zebib, Şuf-i İbnima'an, Vadi'l Yetmve'l Hüla, Vadi'l-

Acem, Zebdani ve vadi'l Berade, Cerd-i Beyrut, Daranive'l Billan, El-Miten, Garb-i Beyrut,

Guta ve'l Merc, Hammare ve Şüfü'l Beya, Havran, Karaveşüfü'l Harradinmine'l Bia',

Kisrevan in the sanjak of Şam, the nefs of Salt and Aclun in the sanjak of Salt ve Aclun,

and also the nahiye of Anapa, Beşera, Bırziyye, Kura, Tetrun, Vadi-i Kandil in the sanjak

of Trablus. Some kaza records of the vilayet of Arab could also not be found in the tahrirs

of 1530, such as Kudreş[?], Eriha, Ma‘arra, Taberiye , Şakif, Keferkine, Cebel-i Amile, Ata,

Kura ve ‘amâlihâ.

4.2.3.7 The Regions and Cities of the Vilayet of Zülkadriye (Turkmen Region)

In the archive records that we examined in this thesis, there are 8 unique kazas recorded

in the vilayet of Zülkadriye. After Zülkadriye joined in the administrative organization

with the status of vilayet, the kazas recorded in the Turkmen region in the early registers

were linked to this new province. In the kanunname of 1522,743 the vilayet of Turkmen

region under rule of Şahsuvaroğlu Ali Bey comprised the kaza of Boz-ok, Samantu,

Göğercinlik, Elbistan, Mar’aş, and Kars (see map 4.58).

741 BOA TD 998

742 BOA TD 998

743 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

272

Map 4.58.The Turkmen Region in the Kanunname of 1522

In the kadıasker register of 1523, Bozok, Elbistan, Kars, Güvercinlik, Karaaynlı [?], Maraş

and Zamantu were recorded as part of the vilayet of Turkmen Alaüddevle (see map

4.59).744

744 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

273

Map 4.59.The Kaza Division of Turkmen Region in the Kadıasker Register of 1523

Except for Güvercinlik, which was registered as nahiye, we see that Bozok, Elbistan, Kars,

Kırşehri, Maraş and Zamantu were included as kaza in the sanjak of Maraş within the

vilayet of Zülkadriye in the 1530 tahrir register745 (see map 4.60). Hısn-ı Mansur was also

recorded as part of the sanjak of Dıv̇ rığ̇ ı ̇ve Darende within the vilayet of Rum in the tahrir

registers,746 while it was part of Turkmen region in sources of 1522747 and 1523.748

745 BOA TD 998

746 BOA TD 387

747 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

748 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

274

Map 4.60.The Kaza Division of Zülkadriye in the Tahrir Registers of 1530

Hence, according to the early 16th century records of the empire, there was mobility and

change within the provincial organization. The organization of the cities underwent

transformation due to economic, military and administrative reasons after the conquests

that took place during the era. In this regard, our results support the discussions in the

literature regarding the reasons for the changes in the administrative units to a large

extent. Apart from these studies in which we evaluate and find traces of the reasons for

the changes, it is necessary to point out the gaps we noticed in the studies on

administrative organizational units in literature. Most of these studies only provide

descriptive information about administrative units without focusing on the historical

reasons behind their transformation. In other words, these studies were generally

devoted to revealing which vilayet, sanjak or kaza existed in certain periods within a

limited region without discussing the reasons for the changes in the organization. There

are very few studies focusing on the background reasons behind the changes and

275

transformations that occurred in different periods. However, these studies also evaluate

the history of administrative units and cities within their borders and do not focus on

their relational aspects with other regions. Within the scope of this thesis, we brought

together the literature studies and re-evaluated transformations in the administrative

organization of the whole empire focusing on the reasons of the changes. Hence a

general panorama of the empire was presented from a holistic perspective. We also

observed that the administrative organization of the empire was not clear in the early

period. In addition, in this thesis, we tried to critically analyze the archive documents

produced for different administrative and judicial imperatives as another important

reason that feeds the changes. Although they often support each other, tahrirs and

kanunname that recorded for the needs of the administrative system and the kadıasker

registers that appeared in the functioning of the legal system, have been shown to differ

in the cases of the same cities and regions. This distinction shows that an overall

acceptance of the titles of administrative units without taking into account the

divergence of the sources, as we see in the current literature, can lead to

misinterpretation. This study shows the necessity of identifying cities and other units

according to the different types of sources used in the administrative organization.

276

CONCLUSION

In this study, as part of the aims of the thesis, we have determined and map the early

16th century Ottoman lands through the administrative divisions that were organized as

vilayet, sanjak, and kaza. We have also focused on the changes and transformations of

administrative unites and Ottoman cities as well as the factors behind these mobilities.

As the most important contribution and motivation of the present thesis, we have used

the digital methodology to conduct all analyses within the framework of digital history

and more specifically digital urban history in the case of Ottoman studies.

In order to conduct all aforementioned research stages, the present thesis was designed

as four chapters that include important outputs. Firstly, we focused on the purpose,

period, sources, and methodology of the thesis as well as the literature review. The scope

of this study covers the early 16th century Balkan, East / West Anatolian, and Arab-African

(MENA) lands as the period of the empire with the largest territory. After we defined the

vilayet, sanjak, and kaza as administrative units, we examined the sources of the thesis

in detail. The kanunname and kadıasker registers prepared as part of the legal

organization, and the tahrir registers created for the imperial-wide tax system in the

early 16th century are the main sources of the study. Thus, we have created a basis for

the discussion on changes in the Empire's lands and cities according to the records

formed for different purposes. As a distinctive feature of this thesis, we also focused on

the digital methodology and digital history tools. We have introduced ArcGIS, the

program on Geographical Information System (GIS) that allows us to digitally map

Ottoman lands and cities, to produce visual materials, and to create an accessible online

database.

We focused also on the historiographical theme to better understand the goals and

outcomes of the thesis. We have discussed the historical background of Digital

277

Humanities, digital history, current digital studies, and projects. More specifically, we

have discussed digital urban history and digital studies on Ottoman history. We have also

detailed how digital historical methodology has advantages to understand the Ottoman

administrative system, to examine the transformation periodically and to reveal the

differences between types of sources. Thus, we have provided an idea about the position

of the findings of our analyses and the methodology of this thesis in the field of digital

urban history.

We achieved to examine all archive sources and to create a detailed inventory. We

determined the sources in terms of their included information about the early Ottoman

administrative organization, and their deficiencies through digitizing and producing 19

tables. The sources allocated according to their types were examined under three

headings: kanunname, kadıasker records, and tahrir registers. The 1522 kanunname,

published by Enver Çakar, contains information about the administrative organization of

whole empire in the level of vilayet, sanjak, kaza and amount of kadı salary.749 According

to this archivale record, the administrative division of the entire empire consisted of 8

vilayets as Anatolia, Rumelia, Arab, Diyarbekir, Karaman, Rum, Egypt, and also Turkmen

Region. We have determined that in 1522, there were 103 sanjaks and 500 kazas in the

Ottoman lands. Since the sanjak of Trabzon was recorded as a vilayet in this document,

we have revealed the idea that the administrative organization was not completely

regular in early periods and that some administrative terms were used interchangeably.

As another type of source, we focused on the kadıasker register of 1513, which contains

information on appointments, dismissals, names, kazas, and salaries of kadıs.750 This

document, published by Turan Gökçe, provides data about 235 kazas and 20 sanjaks in

the Anatolian region, as well as the kadı salaries through akçe value. We should underline

that the cities in Karaman and Rum were registered under the title of the vilayet of

Anatolia as another example of an unregular situation of the administrative organization

749 Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun

İdarî Taksimatı”

750 Turan Gökçe, "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri."

278

in the early dates. Another kadıasker record published by Ercan Alan showing the sanjak

and kaza division and kadı salaries of cities in the vilayet of Rumelia in 1521. We digitized

172 kazas and 30 sanjaks of Rumelia through this kadıasker register. Another source is

the kadıasker document dated 1523, which covers the Anatolian and Arab lands of the

Ottoman Empire published by Abdurrahman Atçıl.751 The document includes 6 vilayets,

29 sanjaks and 335 kazas and comprises the similarities with the 1513 kadıasker register.

Here again Karaman and Rum were recorded under the vilayet of Anatolia. However, in

some pages of this document, Karaman was written as both sanjak and vilayet. These

similarities indicate that the 1523 kadıasker register could be prepared by benefiting

from the 1513 record that represents the confusion in the administrative organization in

the early period. The last kadıasker record that we have examined in this study is the

document dated 1528 published by Turan Gökçe. Although this document does not

provide information about sanjak distribution, it provides us with information about the

administrative organization within the framework of the 211 kazas and kadı salaries of

the vilayet of Anatolia.

Another type of source is tahrir registers that are prepared for the tahrir system including

tax payers' names, tax types, demographic information, and the detailed administrative

units in the level of vilayet, sanjak, kaza, nahiye and villages. These registers, published

by Presidential State Archives (BOA) and providing information for the whole empire at

the focus of 1530, are unique sources providing information about the Ottoman

provincial organization. The undergoing TÜBİTAK project, "Mapping Ottoman Cities"

conducted by Yunus Uğur, provides us all the available data of Ottoman lands and cities

in 1530.752 According to these tahrir registers the Ottoman Empire had 7 vilayets known

as Anatolia, Rumelia, Arab, Diyarbekir, Karaman, Rum, and Zülkadriye and consisted of

94 sanjaks and 593 kazas during the 1530s. Because of the special status of Egypt and

Hejaz region, these regions were not included in tahrir registers as part of the tax system.

751 Abdurrahman Atçıl, “TSMA D. 8823.11”

752 Yunus Uğur, “Mapping the Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Conjunctions and Distinctiveness (1520-

1540)”

279

Another source of this thesis is the record covering the vilayet of Rumelia dated between

1526 and 1528 and published by Tayyib Gökbilgin.753 This source is similar to the tahrir

registers in terms of providing information about the administrative organization and the

income of cities. Through this register we have determined the 182 kazas and 27 sanjaks

in Rumelia during 1526-1528. As a result, in this section, according to all sources, we have

revealed that the Ottoman Empire has 8 vilayets, 114 sanjaks and 703 kazas in the early

16th century. We have also determined that 93 kazas newly appeared in 1530 newly. In

addition, 99 kazas were recorded at least in one period between 1513 and 1528 including

the cities in Egypt and Hejaz region which were not registered in the tahrir registers of

1530.

We have geographically positioned all the data on administrative organization that we

have revealed from the archive sources through the ArcGIS georeferencing program. We

digitally mapped different periods of Ottoman lands on the basis of vilayets, sanjaks, and

kazas. In this aspect, we have produced a unique study with 60 maps on the level of the

whole empire to add to the existing literature. Thus, we had the opportunity to analyze

the administrative organization and observe the changes and continuities both

periodically, spatially, and thematically according to the different types of resources of

the early 16th century. We also discussed the reasons behind the transformations in the

administrative organization as one of the objectives of the thesis. Based on the literature,

we found that the factors that caused these changes were generally classified under

three headings; 1) administrative necessities related to conquests and distance, 2)

military, and 3) economic.

When we look at changes of the administrative organization on the sanjak basis, we have

revealed that while 50 sanjaks appeared in each period, only 64 sanjaks were included

in some sources. We have determined that some sanjaks lost the status between 1513

753 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve

Kasabaları”

280

and 1530 such as Midilli, Filibe, Florina and İnebahtı in the vilayet of Rumelia, Ulu-Burun,

Elbistan, and İspir in the vilayet of Rum, Bozok and Kırşehir in the vilayet of Zülkadriye,

Antakiyye and Kuds-i Şerîf in vilayet of the Arab (Şam), Aşair-i Ulus, and Beyre (Birecik) in

the vilayet of Diyarbekir. On the other hand some kazas gained sanjak status in 1530

such as Tokat, Niksar and Sonisa in the vilayet of Rum, Larende in the vilayet of Karaman,

“Salt ve Aclun” and Üzeyr in the vilayet of Arab.

We have also detected the changes of administrative organization on the basis of kaza.

322 kazas out of 703 are available in all sources in terms of their specific regions. 381

kazas, however, include in the only some sources. We also revealed that 132 kazas

changed their sanjak borders in different periods. According to outputs of analyses, in

the vilayet of Anatolia there are 255 unique kazas and 186 of them are available in all

sources of the region. The boundaries of 47 kazas change regarding the sanjak division

in different periods. In the vilayet of Diyarbekir there are 25 unique kazas and 9 of these

kazas are available in all sources, while 16 of them are recorded in only some sources.

The vilayet of Karaman has 26 unique kazas and 21 of them appear in all sources

belonging to their period and also 23 kazas changed sanjak borders. In the case of

Rumelia there are 235 unique kazas and 131 of them are in all sources. In terms of sanjak

division 14 kazas changed borders in different periods. As another vilayets of the empire,

Rum includes 52 unique kazas. 21 kazas were recorded in all sources and 32 kazas

changed their sanjaks. In the vilayet of Arab, there are 134 unique kazas and 29 of them

are found in all sources. In this vilayet, 15 kazas changed their sanjak affiliations within

the region. Finally, the vilayet of Zülkadriye covered 8 unique kazas and one of them had

its sanjak borders change in the source from 1530.

Within the scope of digital historical methodology, we have spatialized all archive

records with GIS. This methodology contributed to see details that cannot be easily

noticed by reading documents. When we map the data, we have revealed that some

kazas were recorded in different sanjaks instead of the sanjaks they were located in.

281

Tuzla, for instance, was geographically located in the sanjak of Biga, but in the

administrative organization it is registered within the sanjak of Hüdavendigar due to

economic reasons. Another example is in the vilayet of Rumelia. İne-Bazarı and Tekür

Dağı, which are geographically within the boundaries of the sanjak of Gelibolu were

recorded as part of the sanjak of Çirmen.

As we examined the regions through the archive records arranged for different purposes,

legal and administrative, we uncovered that the same lands and cities changed status

according to type of sources such as kadıasker and tahrir registers. İnebahtı, for instance,

was registered as a sanjak in kadıasker document of 1521, while it was recorded as a

kaza in the tahrir registers of 1521. In addition, Maraş and Elbistan were registered as

kaza in the kanunname of 1522, however, these regions appeared as sanjaks in the tahrir

from other examples. “Labsekı ̇Me'a Bergos" was recorded as unified kaza in kadıasker

registers, while Labseki and Bergos were recorded separately in the tahrir registers.

Although Ada was registered in some tahrir records dated before 1530, we have not

observed it in the kadıasker registers. As another example between sources, the majority

of kazas which yörük groups located was not recorded in the tahrir registers. The

hükümet sanjaks and their kazas such as Palu, was excluded from the tahrir registers

while they were part of the administrative division in the kadıasker registers. Also, in

Rumelia we have revealed that some kaza repeated in different sanjaks in the tahrir

records of 1530 such as Vılçıtrın, Bihor, Timur Hisarı, Samakov, Prizrin, Priştine, Nova

Bırda, Niş, and Keşan. These cities were recorded in kadıasker registers only once. In the

case of Istanbul, Hassha-i Istanbul, and Galata we also observed important differences

between legal documents such as kadıasker record and tax surveys such as tahrir

registers. These cities were registered without sanjak information in 1521 kadıasker

record and the 1522 kanunname, since these regions as part of payitaht. In tahrir

registers, however, Hassha-i Istanbul was part of the sanjak of Vize. There are also some

changes in the administrative units according to sources of Arab region. We have realized

282

that some kaza names in the kadıasker registers, were recorded as nahiye in the tahrir

registers of 1530. These differences between sources represent important results for the

researches on the Ottoman administrative organization. In this thesis, we have revealed

that the type of sources used to understand and explain the administrative organization

of the Ottoman Empire has great impact on the results of the analysis.

Thanks to the digital historical methods allowing us to create a database, prepare tables,

along with the benefit from the use of GIS in this study, we were able to carry out all

these analyses and monitor the results more clearly. Through this, we had the

opportunity to see the relationship between the administrative status and geographical

distribution of Ottoman regions and cities. In addition, with digital historical

methodology, which is the most original part of this study, we have visualized the data

in the documents at a more visible, understandable and readable way and used it to

make spatial analyses. Although the number of cases is limited, these observed

differences can be seen as the beginning of the research question for further studies on

Ottoman administrative organization and the cities. In the future studies to be carried

out in this context, investigating the relationship between the geographical location of

the cities and the administrative organization in the light of spatial analysis will make

important contributions both to the local history of those regions and to the general

administrative system of the Ottoman Empire. New relationship networks can be created

with questions to be asked within the framework of the strategic location, demography,

or economy of these cities. In addition to spatial analysis, another important contribution

of this digital methodology is that all data, beyond printed texts, can be displayed, used,

and updated in the online world. The maps produced are not only a simple visual

material, but also create the digital database content of all information in the documents

regarding the vilayet, sanjak, and kaza data and allow it to add unlimited information. It

represents an important digital study at the imperial level to ensure mapping of all cities

and other administrative units and creating an accessible online database. Furthermore,

digital maps prepared within the scope of this thesis can form the basis of Ottoman

283

studies in various areas. In addition to urban history, it creates an accessible digital

environment for many areas such as administrative history, military and economic

history, network analysis, road maps, and biographical relationship analysis.

284

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archival Sources

Ottoman Archives of the Prime Ministry (BOA)

TT.d-75

TT.d-91

TT.d-94

TT.d-101

TT.d-107

TT.d-164

TT.d-166

TT.d-167

TT.d-173

TT.d-200

TT.d-202

TT.d-210

TT.d-367

TT.d-370

TT.d-387

TT.d-390

TT.d-397

TT.d-399

285

TT.d-438

TT.d-445

MAD-506

MAD-540

TT.d-998

TT.d-1078

Published Primary Sources

T.C. Başbkanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı,

Osmanlı Yer Adları I Rumeli Eyaleti (1514-1550), Ankara, 2013.

T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Yer Adları, Rumeli Eyaleti

1514-1550, Ankara, 2013.

T.C. Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi Rehberi, Başbakanlık Basımevi, İstanbul 2010.

Başbakanlık Devlet Arşıv̇ lerı ̇ Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları,

Osmanlı Yer Adları: II, Anadolu, Karaman, Rum, Dıẏ arbakir, Arap Ve Zülkadrıẏ e Eyaletlerı ̇

(1530-1556), 2013.

T.C.Başbakanlık Devlet Arşıv̇ lerı ̇ Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı

Yayınları, 401 Numaralı Şam Livası Mufassal Tahrir Defteri (942 / 1535),I, Ankara 2011.

Secondary Sources

Abbott, Alison. "The 'Time Machine' Reconstructing Ancient Venice's Social Networks."

In Nature. 546 (7658), (2017), pp. 341–344.

Abdülazîz ed-Dûrî, “Emîr.” İslam Ansiklopedisi, 1995, pp.121-123.

Acun, Fatma. “Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırmalarının Genişleyen Sınırları: Defteroloji.” In Türk

Kültürü İncelemeleri Dergisi, I (1999), pp.319-332.

———. “Ottoman Administration in the Sancak of Karahisar-ı Şarki (1485-1569): An

Analysis Based on Tahrir Defters.” (Ph.D. diss., University of Birmingham, 1993).

———. “A Portrait of Ottoman Cities.” The Muslim World, Vol: 92, Fall 2002, pp.255-285.

286

Açıkel, Ali. “Rum Eyaleti.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 35: 225-226, 2008.

Afyoncu, Erhan. "Osmanlı Devleti'nde Tahrir Sistemi." In Osmanlı, Vol. 6, Yeni Türkiye

Yayınları, Ankara 1999, pp.311-314.

———. “Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilâtında Defterhâne-i Âmire (XVI-XVIII.Yüzyıllar),” (Ph.D.

diss. Marmara University,1997).

———. "Türkiye'de Tahrir Defterlerine Dayalı Olarak Hazırlanmış Çalışmalar Hakkında

Bazı Görüşler", Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, Vol: 1, No: 1 (2003), pp.267-286.

Ágoston, Gábor. Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the

Ottoman Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Akgül, Mehtap. "16. Yüzyıl Arşiv Kayıtlarına Göre Alâiye nin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Hayatı ile

Nüfus ve İdari Taksimatı.” (Ph.D. diss., 1989, Istanbul University).

Akgündüz, Ahmet. Osmanlı Kânûnnâmeleri ve Hukûkî Tahlilleri, Vol: 1, İstanbul: Fey Vakfı

Yayınları, 1990.

———. “Salnamelere Göre Kırşehir Sancağı Hakkında Bilgiler (1873–1910) (Coğrafyası,

Tarihi, Nüfusu, Nahiye ve Kazaları).” In Turkish Studies - International Periodical For The

Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, Volume 7/3, Summer 2012, pp.

1373-1393.

Aksel, Bahar and Öğretmen, Filiz. Kent Araştırmaları Bibliyografyası. İstanbul: Türkiye

Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, 2001.

Aköz, Alaaddin and Solak, İbrahim. “Dulkadirli Eyâletine Ait Bir Kânûnnâme (1533–

1546).” In Kırgızistan “Manas” Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,9 (2004), pp.9-29.

Alan, Ercan. “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları

ve Kadılar.” In Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi (Asos Journal), XXXIII (November

2016), pp. 337-377.

———. "Kadıasker Ruznamçelerine Göre XVII. Yüzyılda Rumeli'de Kadılık Müessesesi.”

(Ph.D. diss., Marmara University, 2015).

———. "Kadıasker Ruznamçe Defterlerine Göre XVII. Yüzyılda Rumeli'de Kaza Teşkilatı

Ve Kadılar". Güneydoğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2013, pp 53-97.

———. “934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Belgeye Göre Rumeli’de Kadılık Müessesesi.” In

Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Vol: 9, No: 46, 2016, pp. 168-177.

287

Altuğ, Uğur. “Ankara Örneğinde Tahrir Defterlerinin Şehir Tarihi Araştırmalarındaki Yeri

ve Önemi Üzerine.” In 4. Milletlerarası Şehir Tarihi Yazarları Kongresi, Türkiye Yazarlar

Birliği, 2017.

al-Ṯurayyā Project: Retrieved 1 December, 2020 from https://althurayya.github.io/

Arıcanlı, İsenbike. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Yörük ve Aşîret Ayrımı.” In Boğaziçi

Üniversitesi Dergisi, Beşeri Bilimler, Vol:7, 1979, pp.27-34.

Atçıl, Abdurrahman. “TSMA D. 8823.11,” In Abdurrahman Atçıl and Ercan Alan, XVI. Yüzyıl

Osmanlı Ulema Defterleri, Ankara, 2018, pp.119-200.

———. “Memlükler’den Osmanlılar’a Geçişte Mısır’da Adlî Teşkilât ve Hukuk (922-

931/1517-1525).” In İslâm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 38 (2017), pp. 89-121.

Atsuyuki, Okabe. Islamic Area Studies with Geographical Information Systems.

London/New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004.

Aydeniz, Tuğba. “Osmanlı Döneminde Mekke’nin Yönetimi (1517-1617).” (Ph.D. diss.,

Marmara University Institute of Turkic Studies, Istanbul, 2010).

Aydın, Bilgin, Yurdakul, İlhami and Kurt, İsmail. Bâb-ı Meşîhat Şeyhülislâmlık Arşivi Defter

Kataloğu. İSAM Yayınları, İstanbul 2006.

Aydın, Bilgin, Yurdakul, İlhami, Işık, Ayhan, Kurt, İsmail, and Yıldız, Esra. İstanbul Şer‘iyye

Sicilleri Vakfiyeler Kataloğu, Ankara: İSAM, 2015.

Aydın, Bilgin and Günalan, Rıfat. ‘‘Ruus Defterlerine Göre XVI. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Eyalet

Teşkilatı ve Gelişimi.’’ The Journal of Ottoman Studies, XXXVIII (2011), pp.27-160.

Balgamış, Abdülkadir. “Divriği,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 9:452-454,

1994.

Baltacı, Cahid. “Kadıasker Rûznâmçelerinin Tarihi ve Kültürel Ehemmiyeti.” In İslam

Medeniyeti Mecmuası, Vol: 4, No.1, 1979, pp. 55-100.

Bakhit, Muhammad Adnan Salamah. “The Ottoman Province of Damascus in the

sixteenth century.” (PhD diss., SOAS University of London, 1972).

———. “The Ottoman Province of Damascus in the sixteenth century,” (PhD diss., SOAS

University of London, 1972).

288

Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî yılına ait bir bütçe örneği.” İstanbul

Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, XV/1-4 (1953-54), pp. 251-329.

———. Hüdavendigar Livası Tahrir Defterleri, I, Ankara, 1988.

———. "Research on the Ottoman Fiscal Surveys.” In M. A. Cook (ed.), Studies in the

Economic History of the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 163.

———. “Türk İktisat ve Mâliye Tarihi İçin Kaynaklar: Türkiye'de İmparatorluk Devirlerinin

Büyük Nüfus ve Arazi Tahrirleri ve Hakana Mahsus İstatistik Defterler I.” In İÜ İktisat

Fakültesi Mecmuası, 11/1(1940), pp. 20- 59;ll/2(1941), pp.214-247.

———. "Tarihi Demografi Araştırmaları ve Osmanlı Tarihi." In Türkiyat Mecmuası, X

(1951-53), pp.1-26.

Baykara, Tuncer. “Kaza.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 25: 119-120, 2002.

———. Anadolu'nun Tarihi Coğrafyasına Giriş. I. Anadolu'nun İdari Taksimatı. Türk

Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü Yayınları: Ankara, 1988.

Başar, Fahameddin. Osmanlı Eyalet Tevcihatı (1717-1730). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu,

1997.

Beldiceanu, Nicoara. XIV. Yüzyıldan XVI. Yüzyıla Osmanlı Devleti'nde Tımar, translated by

Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay, Teori Yayınları, Ankara 1985.

Berry, David M. Undertsanding Digital Humanities. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Berry, David M. and Fagerjord, Anders. Digital Humanities: Knowledge and Critique in a

Digital Age. Cambridge, England ; Malden, MA : Polity Press, 2017.

Beyazıt, Yasemin. “Osmanlı İlmiyye Tarîkinde İstihdam ve Hareket: Rumeli Kadıaskerliği

Ruznâmçeleri Üzerine Bir Tahlil Denemesi.” (Ph.D. diss., Ankara University Institute of

Social Sciences, 2009)

———. “Rumeli Kadılıklarının Rütbelerine Dair 1253/1837 Tarihli Bir Yazma.” In Belgeler,

XXVIII/32 (Ankara 2008), pp. 11-56.

———. “Rabia’dan İnebahtı’ya Rumeli Kadılık Rütbeleri.” In Yeni Türkiye, Rumeli ve

Balkanlar Special Issue-I, 66, Ankara, 2015, pp.1228-1235.

———. “Osmanlı’da Kaza Sınırlarını Belirleyen Temel Etkenler.” Doğu Batı Dergisi,

Osmanlılar III, 53 (Ankara 2010), pp. 75-98.

289

Bilge, Sadık Müfit. “Karaman Eyâletı’̇ nıṅ Tarıḣ î Coğrafyası Ve İdarî Taksıṁ atı (XV.-XVIII:

Yüzyıllar).” In International Review of Turkish Studies, Spring 2011, Volume: 1, Issue: 1,

pp.1-14.

Bodenhamer, David J. et. al. Deep Maps and the Spatial Humanities, (eds.) David J.

Bodenhamer, John Corrigan, and Trevor M. Harris. Bloomington and Indiana, USA:

Indiana University Press, 2015.

———. “Making the Invisible Visible Place, Spatial Stories and Deep Maps” in Digital

Research in Arts and Humanities, eds. David Cooper, Christopher Donaldson, Patricia

Murrieta-Flores. New York: Routledge, 2016, pp.207-220.

Bostan, İdris. “Aclûn.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1:326-327, 1988.

———. “Salyâne.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Ansiklopedisi, 36: 59-60, 2009.

Boykov, Grigor. “Demographic Features of Ottoman Upper Thrace: A Case Study on

Filibe, Tatar Pazarcık and İstanıṁ aka, 1472-1614.” (Ph.D. diss., Bilkent University, 2004).

Bozkurt, Nebi. “Müderris.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 31: 467-468, 2006.

Brummett, Palmira. Mapping the Ottomans: Sovereignty, Territory, and Identity in the

Early Modern Mediterranean. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Bruinessen, Martin van. “The Ottoman Conquest of Diyarbekir and the Administrative

Organisation of the Province in the 16th and 17th Centuries.” In Evliya Çelebi in

Diyarbekir, Eds. Martin van Bruinessen and Hendrik Boeschoten (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988),

pp 13-28.

Bruzelius, Caroline. “Overview: The Visualizing Venice Enterprise” in Visualizing Venice:

Mapping and Modeling Time and Change in a City. (Eds.) Kristin L Huffman, Andrea

Giordano, and Caroline Bruzelius. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2017, pp.1-5.

———. “Conclusion” in Visualizing Venice: Mapping and Modeling Time and Change in a

City. (Eds.) Kristin L Huffman, Andrea Giordano, and Caroline Bruzelius. Abingdon, Oxon:

Routledge, 2017, p.137-145.

Bazzaz, Sahar, Batsaki, Yota, and Angelov, Dimiter. Imperial Geographies in Byzantine

and Ottoman Space. Hellenic Studies Series 56. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic

Studies, 2013.

Calabi, Donatella. “The Role of Digital Visualization for the History of the City” in

Visualizing Venice: Mapping and Modeling Time and Change in a City. (Eds.) Kristin L

290

Huffman, Andrea Giordano, and Caroline Bruzelius. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2017,

pp.7-15.

Cebeci, Ahmet. "Silistre Sancağı Vakıfları ve H. 1006 (1597-1598) Tarihli Silistre Livası

Vakıf Defteri (No: 561)." In Vakıflar Dergisi, 20 (1988), pp.454-455.

Chorley, Lord. Handling Geographic Information: Report of the Committee of Enquiry,

Department of the Environment. London: HMSO, 1987.

Clarke, Keith C. “Advances in Geographic Information Systems.” In Computers,

Environment and Urban Systems, Vol: 10, Issues: 3–4, 1986, pp.175-184.

Clement, Tanya et. al., "Sounding for Meaning: Using Theories of Knowledge

Representation to Analyze Aural Patterns in Texts." In DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly

2013, Volume 7, Number 1. Retreived 1 January, 2019 from

http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/7/1/000146/000146.html

Cohen, Daniel J. and Rosenzweig, Roy. Digital History: A Guide to Gathering, Preserving,

and Presenting the Past on the Web. (Fairfax, VA: Center for History and New Media,

2005), Retrieved 1 December, 2019 from http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/.

Cook, Michael A. Population Pressure in Rural Anatolia, 1450-1600. London: Oxford

University Press, 1972.

Corrigan, John. “Qualitative GIS and Emergent Semantics.” In Spatial Humanities: GIS and

Future of Humanities Scholarship. Eds. David J. Bodenhamer, John Corrigan, Trevor M.

Harris, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2010, pp.76-89.

Coşgel, Metin M. "Ottoman Tax Registers (Tahrir Defterleri)." Economics Working Papers.

200247, 2002).

Cvetkova, Bistra. “Early Ottoman Tahrir Defters As a Source for Studies on The History of

Bulgaria and The Balkans.” In Archivum Ottomanicum, 8 (1983), pp.131-213.

Çakar, Enver. “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı

İmparatorluğu’nun İdarî Taksimatı.” In Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, XII/1

(Elazığ 2002), pp. 261-282.

———. “XVI. yüzyılda Haleb Sancağı, 1516-1566.” (Ph.D. diss., Fırat University, Elazığ,

1998).

———. “XVI. Yüzyılda Şam Beylerbeyiliğinin İdari Taksimatı.” In Fırat University Journal

of Social Science Vol: 13, No: 1, pp.351-373.

291

Çakır, İbrahim Etem. “1642 Tarihli Avarız Defterine Göre İspir Sancağı." In The Journal of

International Social Research, 2009, 2 / 8, pp.109-122.

Çelebi, Katip. Cihannüma. İbrahim Müteferrika Baskısı.

Çınar, Hüseyin. "18. Yüzyılda Ayıntab (Antep) Sancağı'nın İdarî ve Malî Yapısı."

Selçukludan Cumhuriyete Şehir Yönetimi, (ed.) Erol Özvar - Arif Bilgin, Türk Dünyası

Belediyeler Birliği Yayınları, İstanbul 2008, pp. 267-297.

Çiçek, Kemal. “Osmanlı Tahrir Defterlerinin Kullanımında Görülen Bazı Problemler ve

Yöntem Arayışları.” Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, 97 (1995), pp.45-56.

Darling, Linda. “Avarız Tahriri: Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Ottoman Survey

Registers.” In Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 10 (1986), pp.23–26.

Demirci, Süleyman. “XVII. Yüzyılda Trabzon Eyâletinin İdarî Taksimati Ve

Vergilendirilebilir Nüfus: Giresun, Keşap, Kürtün Ve Yavabolu Nam-I Diğer (Görele)

Kazâlari Örneği.” In Journal of Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences,

2012/1, Number:15, pp.15-29.

Develioğlu, Ferit. Osmanlıca-Türkce Ansiklopedik Lugat. Ankara, 2013.

Digital Islamic Humanities Project, Brown University. Retrieved 9 December, 2019 from

https://islamicdh.org/

Dingeç, Emine.”Osmanlı Ordusunda Bir Geri Hizmet Kurumu Olarak “Vize Müsellemleri.”

Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17 (2007), pp. 241-256.

Doğan, Cabir. “Fethinden Kaybına Rodos (1522-1912)” In SDU Faculty of Arts and

Sciences, Journal of Social Sciences, December 2013, No:30, pp.67-88.

Doğru, Halime. XVI. Yüzyılda Eskişehir ve Sultanönü Sancağı. 1992, pp.104-118; Ahmet

Güneş, “XVI. Yüzyılda Seyyid Gazi’de Sosyal ve Ekonomik Hayat,” OTAM, 11, Ankara 2000,

pp.240-243.

Dündar, Recep. “59 Nolu Tahrıṙ Defterıṅ e Göre Bıġ a Sancağı'nda Yerleşıṁ Ve Nüfus,”

International Journal of Social Science, Volume 6, Issue 2, February 2013, pp. 1131-1167.

Efendi, Ayni Ali. Kavânîn-i Âl-i Osman Der Hulâsa-i Mezâmin-i Defter-i Divân. Tasvîr-i

Efkar Matbaası: İstanbul, 1280.

Efendi, Hoca Sadettin. Tacü’t-Tevarih, Vol:1, Kültür Bakanlığı yayınları, 1979.

292

Ekinci, Mehmet Rezan. “Osmanlı Devleti Döneminde Milli Aşireti XVIII. - XIX. YY.” (Ph.D.

diss., Fırat University, Elazığ, 2017)

Emecen, Feridun. XVI. Yüzyılda Manisa Kazası. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara 1989.

———. “Yaya ve Müsellem” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 43:2354-356,

2013.

———. “Hüdâvendigâr.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 18: 285-286, 1998.

———. “Bergama.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 5: 492-495, 1992.

———. “Beylikten Sancağa Batı Anadolu'da İlk Osmanlı Sancaklarının Kuruluşuna Dair

Bazı Mülâhazalar.” In Belleten, Cilt: LX – No: 227, 1996, pp. 81-91.

———. “Canbirdi Gazâlî.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2001, 7: 141-143.

———. “XV-XIX. Yüzyıllarda Ege Adalarında Osmanlı İdari Teşkilatı.” In Ege Adalarının

Mali, İdari ve Sosyal Yapısı (ed. İdris Bostan), Ankara 2003, pp.7-32.

———. Osmanlı Klasik Çağında Hanedan, Devlet ve Toplum, Istanbul, 2011.

———. “Süleyman I.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 38: 74-75, 2010.

———. "Mufassaldan İcmale." The Journal of Ottoman Studies XVI, (1996), pp. 37-44.

———. “Sosyal Tarih Kaynağı Olarak Tahrir Defterleri.” In Osmanlı Klasik Çağında

Hanedan, Devlet Toplum (2011), İstanbul.

Emecen, Feridun M. and Şahin, İlhan. “Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilâtının kaynaklarından 957-

958 (1550-1551) Tarihli Sancak Tevcih Defteri I.” In Belgeler-Türk Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi,

XIX/23, Ankara, 1999, pp. 53-123.

Emiralioğlu, Pınar. Geographical Knowledge and Imperial Culture in the Early Modern

Ottoman Empire. (Transculturalisms, 1400–1700.) Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate Publishing

Co., 2014.

Enhoş, Mustafa. Bütün Yönleriyle Akseki ve Aksekililer. Hüsnütabiat Matbaası: İstanbul,

1974.

Erdoğan, Emine. “Ankara Yörükleri (1463, 1523/30 ve 1571 Tahrirlerine Göre).” In Ankara

Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi (OTAM), Issue: 18,

pp.119-135.

293

Ergenç, Özer. 16. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Bursa. Ankara. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2006.

———. “Şehir Tarihi Araştırmaları Hakkında Bazı Düşünceler.” In Belleten, LII (203), 1988,

pp. 667-683.

———. XVI. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Bursa. Ankara: TTK, 2006.

———. Osmanlı Tarihi Yazıları: Şehir, Toplum, Devlet. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları,

2012.

———. Osmanlı Klasik Dönemi Kent Tarihçiliğine Katkı, XVI. Yüzyılda Ankara ve Konya.

Ankara: Ankara Enstitüsü Vakfı, 1995.

Eroğlu Memiş, Şerife. Hurûfât Defterleri’nde Kudüs-i Şerîf Kazası: Vakıflar, Görevler ve

Görevliler. Yeditepe Yayınevi, İstanbul, 2017.

Erünsal, İsmail. “Nuriosmaniye Kütüphanesinde Bulunan Bazı Kazâsker Rûznâmçeleri,”

İslam Medeniyeti Mecmuası, Vol:.4, No. 3, İstanbul, 1980, pp.1-15.

———. “Kazasker Ruznamçeleri ve Nuruosmaniye Kütüphanesi’nde Bulunan Bazı

Ruznamçeler.” In Osmanlı Kültür Tarihinin Bilinmeyenleri, İstanbul, 2014, pp. 401-447.

Escovitz, Joseph H. “The Establishment of Four Chief Judgeships in the Mamlūk Empire.”

In Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 102, No. 3 (Jul. - Oct., 1982), pp. 529-

531.

Fahrettin Atar, “Kadı,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 24: 66-69, 2001.

Faroqhi, Suraiya. Osmanlı’da Kentler ve Kentliler. Translated by Neyyir Kalaycıoğlu,

İstanbul 2004.

———. Approaching Ottoman History: An Introduction to the Sources. (Cambridge,UK:

Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp.46-82.

Ferrighi, Alessandra. “Visualizing Venice: A Series of Case Studies and A Museum on The

Arsenale’s Virtual History.” In Built City, Designed City, Virtual City: The Museum Of The

City:, ed. Donatella Calabi. Roma: CROMA, 2013, pp.137-151.

Flaherty, Colleen. “Tweeting Your Way to Tenure.” Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved by 06 May

2020 from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/09/08/sociologists-discusshow-

departments-should-consider-soc.i.al-media-activity-and-other

Fraser, Benjamin. Digital Cities: The Interdisciplinary Future of the Urban Geo-

Humanities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

294

Giddens, Antony. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of

Structuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984.

Giordano, Andrea and Olson, Mark. “Visualizing Venice Developing a Methodology for

Historical Visualization” in Visualizing Venice: Mapping and Modeling Time and Change

in a City. (Eds.) Kristin L Huffman, Andrea Giordano, and Caroline Bruzelius. Abingdon,

Oxon: Routledge, 2017, pp.20-27.

Gökbilgin, M. Tayyib. “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları,

Şehir ve Kasabaları.” In Belleten C. XX, TTK Basımevi, Ankara, 1956, pp.247-294.

———. “XVI. Yüzyıl Başlarında Trabzon Livâsı ve Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesi.” In Belleten,

XXVI/102 (1962), pp. 293-338.

———. “XVI. Asırda Karaman Eyaleti ve Larende (Karaman) Vakıf ve Müesseseleri.” In

VD, VIII (1968), pp. 29-38.

———. XV–XVI Asirlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livası: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar. Istanbul

Üçler Basımevi, 1952.

Gökçe, Turan. "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri." In TlD IX,

(1994), pp. 215-259.

———. "934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilayeti Kadılıkları ve Kadıları." In 3

Mayıs 1944, 50. Yıl Türkçülük Armağanı, İzmir, 1994, pp.77-94.

———. "Anadolu Vilayeti'ne Dair 919 (1513) Tarihli Bir Kadı Defteri." In Tarih İncelemeleri

Dergisi IX, (1994), pp.163-259.

———. “934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilâyeti Medreseleri ve

Müderrisleri.” Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, S. XI, İzmir, pp.163-175.

———. “XVI. Yüzyıl Sonları ve XVII. Yüzyıl Başlarında Osmanlı İdârî Taksimâtında Görülen

Kazâ Sayısındaki Artışa Dâir Bazı Tespitler” In (ed.) M. Akif Erdoğru, Doğumunun 65.

Yılında Prof. Dr. Tuncer Baykara’ya Armağan Tarih Yazıları, İstanbul 2006, pp. 237-266.

Göyünç, Nejat. “Osmanlı Devleti'nde Taşra Teşkilatı (Tanzimat’a Kadar).” In Osmanlı, Vol.

6, Ankara, 1999, pp. 77-88.

———. XVI. Yüzyılda Mardin Sancağı, Edebiyat Fakültesi, İstanbul 1969.

———. “Diyarbekir Beylerbeyiliğinin İlk İdârî Taksimatı.” In Tarih Dergisi, Issue: 23 (1969),

pp. 23-34.

295

———. “Yurtluk-Ocaklık Deyimleri Hakkında.” In Prof. Dr. Bekir Kütükoğlu’na Armağan,

İstanbul 1991, pp. 269-277

Grallert, Till. “Mapping Ottoman Damascus through News Reports: A practical

approach.” In Digital Humanities and Islamic & Middle East Studies, ed. Elias Muhanna

(Boston, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), pp. 175–198.

Gregory, Ian N. and Geddes, Alistair. “Introduction: From Historical GIS to Spatial

Humanities: Deepening Scholarship and Broadening Technology.” In Toward Spatial

Humanities, eds. Ian Gregory and Alistair Geddes. Bloomington and Indiana: Indiana

University Press, 2014.

Gregory, Ian N. and Ell, Paul S. “GIS and its role in historical research: an introduction.”

In Historical GIS: Technologies, Methodologies and Scholarship. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2007.

———. “Using GIS to Visualise Historical Data.” In Historical GIS: Technologies,

Methodologies and Scholarship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp.89-

118.

Gregory, Ian N. “Exploiting Time and Space: A Challenge for GIS in the Digital Humanities”

in Spatial Humanities: GIS and Future of Humanities Scholarship eds. David J.

Bodenhamer, John Corrigan, Trevor M. Harris, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana

University Press, 2010, pp.58-75.

Guldi, Jo and Armitage, David. “Big Questions, Big Data.” In The History Manifesto,

Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 88-116. Retrieved 9 December, 2019 from

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/history-manifesto/big-questions-bigdata/

F60D7E21EFBD018F5410FB315FBA4590

Gül, Abdulkadir. “Üzeyr Sancağının Sosyo-İktisadi Yapısı, 1521-1573,” (Master Thesis,

Atatürk University, Erzurum, 1996).

Gülten, Sadullah. “Batı Anadolu’da Bıṙ Yörük Grubu: XVI. Yüzyılda Karaca Koyunlular.” In

Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12 (22), pp.192-215.

Gümüş, Osman. “The Ottoman Tahrir Defters as a Source for Historical Geography.” IN

Belleten, (265), pp.911-941.

Günay, Hacı Mehmet. “Vakıf,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 42: 479-486,

2012.

Gündoğdu, İsmail. “Osmanlı Tarihi Kaynaklarından Kazaskerlik Rûznâmçe Defterleri Ve

Önemi.” In Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, Vol:6, Issue: 2,200p, pp.697-722.

296

Gündüz, Ahmet. “The Province of Özer (Özer İlı)̇ In Icmal Registry of 1521.” In Mustafa

Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute,Year: 2015, Volume: 12, Issue: 31,

pp. 76-88.

Gündüz, Tufan. Anadolu'da Türkmen Aşiretleri (Bozulus Türkmenleri 1540-1640). Bilge

Yayınları, İstanbul 1997.

———. “Konar-Göçer.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 26:161-163, 2002.

———. XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Danişmendli Türkmenleri. İstanbul, 2005.

Gürbüz, Adnan. XV. XVI. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Sancak Çalışmaları, Değerlendirme ve

Bibliyografik Bir Deneme. İstanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 2001.

Gürgen, İlknur. “XV.-XVI. Yüzyıllarda Güzelhıṡ ar Kazası.” (Master Thesis, Celal Bayar

University, Manisa, 2015).

Hadimli, Halil. “Aksekı ̇ İlçesı’̇ nıṅ Coğrafyası.” (Ph.D. diss., Atatürk University, Erzurum,

2008).

Halaçoğlu, Yusuf. XIV-XVII. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlılarda Devlet Teşkilâtı ve Sosyal Yapı, Türk

Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, 2007.

———. Anadolu'da Aşiretler, Cemaatler, Oymaklar (1453-1650), Vol:1, TTK, Ankara.

———. XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İskân Siyaseti Ve Aşiretlerin

Yerleştirilmesi. Ankara, 1997.

———. "Tapu-tahrir Defterlerine Göre 16. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Sis (Kozan) Sancağı."

In İUEF Tarih Dergisi, XXXII (1979), pp.819-892.

Hammer, J. Von. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Tarihi, Vol: I, İlgi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık, İstanbul,

2008.

Hayles, N. Katherine. “How We Think: Transforming Power and Digital Technologies.” In

Undertsanding Digital Humanities. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Heywood, Colin. “Between Historical Myth and ‘Mytho-history’The Limits of Ottoman

History.” In Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 12, pp. 315-345.

Hockey, Susan. “The History of Humanities Computing.” In A Companion to Digital

Humanities. Edited by Schreibman, Susan, Raymond George Siemens, and John

Unsworth. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publication, 2004.

297

Humanist Discussion Group. Retrieved 9 December, 2019 from https://dhhumanist.org/

Ianeva, Svetla. “Samоkov: An Ottoman Balkan City in the Age of Reforms.” In The

Ottoman State and Societies in Change: A Study of the Nineteenth Century Temettuat

Registers, (eds. Kayoko Hayashi and Mahir Aydın) Kegan Paul: London, New York and

Bahrain, 2004, pp. 47-77.

İlgürel, Mücteba. “Subaşı.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 37:447-448,2009.

———. “Kalender Şah.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 24:249, 2001.

İnalcık, Halil. “Eyalet.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 11: 548-550, 1995.

———. “The Ruznâmçe Registers of The Kadıasker of Rumeli as Preserved in the Istanbul

Müftülük Archives.” In Turcica XX , 1988, pp. 251-275.

———. “The Yürüks: Their Origins, Expansion and Economic Role.” In The Middle East

and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire Essays on Economy and Society, 1992, 97-

136.

———. “Ottoman Methods of Conquest.” In Studia Islamica, No. 2, 1954, pp. 103-129.

———. “Rumeli.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 35: 232-235, 2008.

———. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klasik Çağ (1300-1600), translated by Ruşen Sezer,

Istanbul, 2003.

———. Hicrî 835 Tarihli Sûret-i Defter-i Sancak-i Arvanid. Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu

Basımevi, 1954.

———. “Kanunname.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 34: 333-337, 2001.

———. The Ottoman Empire: Conquest, Organization and Economy. London: Variorum,

1978.

———. “Tımar.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 41: 168-173, 2012.

İnbaşı, Mehmet. ”Bayburt Sancağı (1642 Tarihli Avarız Defterine Göre),” Sosyal Bilimler

Enstitüsü Dergisi, Vol:10/1, Erzurum 2007, pp.89-117.

———. “Bayburt Sancağı (1642 Tarihli Avarız Defterine Göre)”, pp.89-117.

İpşirli, Mehmet. “Kazasker.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 25: 140-143, 2002.

298

———. “Osmanlılar.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 33: 504-505, 2007.

———. “Beylerbeyi.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1992, 6: 69-74.

———. “Ayn Ali Efendi.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 4: 258-259, 1991.

———. “Bilâd-ı Selâse.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 6: 151-152, 1992.

———. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kazaskerlik,” In Belleten, LXI/232 (1998), pp. 605- 611.

———. “İstanbul Kadılığı.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 23: 305-307, 2001.

———. “Osmanlı İlmiyye Teşkilatında Mülâzemet Sisteminin Önemi ve Rumeli Kadıaskeri

Mehmed Efendi Zamanına Ait Mülâzemet Kayıtları.” In Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları

Dergisi, 10-11, İÜEF Basımevi, 1983, pp.221-231.

İstanbul Türbe, Hazire ve Kabirleri: Fatih, Eyüpsultan, Üsküdar ve Beyoğlu, İstanbul Şehir

University, and İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi. Retrieved 1 May 2020 from

https://www.academia.edu/38518173/Sessizler_Diyar%C4%B1na_Giri%C5%9F_%C4%B

0stanbul_T%C3%BCrbe_Hazire_ve_Kabirleri_

Kaldy-Nagy, J. “The Administration of the ṣanǰāq Registrations in Hungary” In Acta

Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 21, No. 2 (1968), pp. 181- 223.

Karaca, Behset. “1522–1532 Tarıḣ lerıṅ de Menteşe Bölgesı ̇ Yörüklerı.̇ ” In Fırat University

Journal of Social Science, Vol: 18, Issue: 2, Elazığ-2008, pp.403-440.

Karatay, Osman. “Osmanlı Hakimiyetinde Karadağ.” In Balkanlar El Kitabı, I:Tarih , (eds).

Osman Karatay and Bilgehan A. Gökdağ, Ankara 2006, pp. 361-370.

Karazeybek, Mustafa. “Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilatında Karahisar-ı Sahib Sancağı’nın İdari

Yapısı.” In Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Vol:2, Issue:1, pp.100-115.

Kemp, Karen K. “Geographic Information Science and Spatial Analysis for the

Humanities.” In Spatial Humanities: GIS and Future of Humanities Scholarship eds. David

J. Bodenhamer, John Corrigan, Trevor M. Harris, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana

University Press, 2010.

Kenanoğlu, M. Macit. “Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri Neşriyatı Üzerine Bir Tahlil.” In Türkiye

Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, Vol: 3, Issue: 5, 2005, pp. 141-186.

Kılıç, Orhan. “Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilatı: Beylerbeylikler, Eyaletler,

Kaptanlıklar, Voyvodalıklar, Melikler (1362-1799).” In Türkler Ansiklopedisi, Vol.9,

Ankara, 2002, pp. 887-898.

299

———. "Osmanlı Belgelerinin Dili ve Işığında Kürdistan Kavramı" Dünden Bugüne

Uluslararası Orta Doğu Sempozyumu, 2015, Elazığ, Fırat Üniversitesi Orta Doğu

Araştırmaları Merkezi Yayınları, No:27, pp. 445-460.

———. “Klasik Sancaktan Malikâne Uygulamasına Bozok Sancağı ve Yöneticileri”. In I.

Uluslararası Bozok Sempozyumu. 05-07 May 2016. Vol:.1. pp. 124-139.

———. 18. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Osmanlı Devleti'nin İdarî Taksimatı, Eyalet ve Sancak

Tevcihatı. Elazığ:Ceren Matbaacılık, 1997.

———. “Ocaklık.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 33:317-318, 2007.

———. “XVII. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Osmanlı Devleti'nin Eyalet ve Sancak Teşkilatlanması."

In Osmanlı, Vol. 6, Ankara 1999, pp. 89-110.

Kiel, Michael. “Midilli.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 30:11-14, 2005.

———. “Filibe.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 13: 79-82, 1996.

———. “İnebahtı,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 22: 285-287, 2000.

Kıvrım, İsmail. “16. Yüzyılda Aksekı ̇ (Yerleşme, Nüfus ve Ekonomi).” In Journal of Ottoman

Civilization Studies, Volume 1, Issue 1, July 2015, pp.39-62.

Kirschenbaum, Matthew. “What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English

Departments?” In Debates in Digital Humanities, ed. Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis,

London: University of Minnesota Press, 2012, pp.55-61.

Knowles, Anne Kelly. (Ed.) Placing History: How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS AreChanging

Historical Scholarship. Redland: ESRI Press; 2008.

Koç, Ümit. “1527-1528 (H.934) Tarihli Gazze Mufassal Tahrir Defterinin

Değerlendirilmesi.” (Ph.D. diss., Fırat University, Elazığ, 1996).

Koçu, R. Ekrem. “Bilâdi Selâse, Bilâdi Selâse Kadıları, Kadılıkları.” In İst.A, V, 2764-2765.

Kulu, M. Mustafa. “1530’larda Çanakkale Yöresinde Yerleşim ve Nüfus.” In Çanakkale

Araştırmaları Türk Yıllığı Dergisi, 2, 2004, pp. 197-240.

Kunt, İ. Metin. “Süleyman Dönemine Kadar Devlet ve Sultan: Uç Beyliğinden Dünya

İmparatorluğuna.” In Yeniçağda Osmanlı Dünyası Kanuni ve Çağı, Eds. Metin Kunt-

Christine Woodhead, Istanbul, 2015.

———. Sancaktan Eyalete, 1550-1650 Arasında Osmanlı Ümerası ve İl İdaresi, İstanbul

1978, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, No:154.

300

Kurşun, Zekeriya. “Hicaz.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 17:437-439, 1998.

———. “Osmanlı Devleti İdaresinde Hicaz (1517-1919).” In Osmanlı, Vol:1, Yeni Türkiye

Yayınları, Ankara, 1999, pp.316-325.

Kuru Levent and Önal, Ahmet. Osmanlı Kaza Teşkilatı (1078/1667-1668 Düzenlemesine

Göre), İstanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2018.

Kuru, Levent. “Kazasker Ruznamçelerine Göre 18. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli’de Kadılık

Müessesesi.” (Ph.D. diss., Marmara University, 2016).

———. “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Döneminde Rumeli Kadılıkları (XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısı).”

In The Pursuit of History, 2019, Issue: 21, pp.247‐272.

———. “XVI. Yüzyılın İkıṅ cı ̇ Yarısında Rumelı ̇ Kadiılıkları.” In Journal of Balkan Research

Institute, Volume: 8, Number: 2, December 2019, pp. 261-294.

Kurt, Yılmaz. “Özeroğulları.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2:391-392, 2016.

Kütükoğlu, Mübahat S. “Defterdar.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 9: 94-96,

1994.

Lafi, Nora, Esprit civique et organisation citadine dans l’Empire ottoman (XVe-XXe

siècles). Brill: Leiden, 2018.

Lajos, Fekete, “Türk Vergi Tahrirleri" In Translated by Sadettin Karatay, Belleten, Xi(1947),

pp.299-328.

Lelo, Keti. “A GIS Approach to Urban History: Rome in the 18th Century.” In ISPRS

International Journal of Geo-Information, 2014,3, pp.1293-1316.

Levy-Minzie, Kori. “Authorship Attribution In The E-Mail Domain: A Study of The Effect

of Size of Author Corpus And Topic on Accuracy of Identification.” (Master Thesis, Naval

Postgraduate School, 2011).

Lit, L.W.C. van. Among Digitized Manuscripts. Philology, Codicology, Paleography in a

Digital World. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 1, The Near and Middle East,

Volume: 137. Leiden: Brill, 2019.

Lowry, Heath. Trabzon Şehrinin İslamlaşma ve Türkleşmesi 1461-1588. Boğaziçi

Üniversitesi Yayınları No. 159, İstanbul, 1981.

———. “The Ottoman Tahrir Defterleri as a Source for Social and Economic History:

Pitfalls and Limitations.” In Heath Lowry, Studies in Defterology: Ottoman Society in the

Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, Istanbul, 1992.

301

———. "The Ottoman Liva Kanunnames Contained in the Defter-i Hakani." In Journal of

Ottoman Studies II, 1981, pp.43-74.

———. "The Ottoman Tahrir Defters as a Source for Urban Demographic History: The

case study of Trabzon (ca. 1486-1583).” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, 1977).

Lowry, Heath W. and Emecen, Feridun. “Trabzon.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm

Ansiklopedisi, 41: 302-304, 2012.

Mapping Ottoman Epirus, Stanford University. Retrieved 7 December, 2019 from

https://web.stanford.edu/group/spatialhistory/cgi-bin/site/project.php?id=1147

Matsuo, Yuriko. “The Mülâzemet System in the İlmiye Organization in the Ottoman

Empire (1520- 1620): According to Candidate Registers (Rumeli Kazaskerliği Ruznâmesi).”

In Japan Association for Middle East Studies, No 11, 1996, pp. 39-69.

McGowan, Bruce W. Sirem Sancağı Mufassal Tahrir Defteri. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları,

Ankara, 1983.

Mehmet Öz, "Tahrir Defterlerinin Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırmalarında Kullanılması Hakkında

Bazı Düşünceler." Vakıflar Dergisi, 22 (1991), pp.429-439.

Miroğlu, İsmet. XVI. Yüzyılda Bayburd Sancağı. İstanbul: Üçler Matbaası, 1975.

———. Bayburt Sancağı, İstanbul, 1975.

———. “Bayburt,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 5:225-228,1992.

Moačanıṅ , Nenad. “Karadağ.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 24: 384-385,

2001.

Muhanna, Elias. The Digital Humanities and Islamic & Middle East Studies. Berlin/Boston:

De Gruyter, 2016.

Murphey, Rhoads. “Ottoman Census Methods in The Mid-sixteenth Century: Three Case

Histories.” Studia Islamica 71: 115-26.

———. “The Conceptual and Pragmatic Uses of the ‘Summary’ (idjmal) Register in

Sixteenth Century Ottoman Administrative Practice.” In Archivum Ottomanicum , Vol. 14

(1996), pp. 111-131.

Nawrotzki, Kristen and Dougherty, Jack. “Writing History in the Digital Age.” Retrieved 7

December, 2019 from https://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dh/12230987.0001.001/1:7/--

writing-history-in-the-digital-age?g=dculture;rgn=div1;view=fulltext;xc=1#top

302

OpenOttoman. Retrieved 1 May, 2020 from https://openottoman.org/

Orhonlu, Cengiz. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Aşiretlerin İskânı. İstanbul, 1987.

Ortaylı, İlber. “Kadı.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 24: 69-73, 2001.

———. Türkiye İdare Tarihi. Türkiye ve Orta Doğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü Yayınları,

No:180, Ankara, 1979.

“OTAP Project Description.” Retrieved 1 January, 2020 from

http://courses.washington.edu/otap/archive/data/arch_inf/info_en/des_eng.html

Ottoman Tax Registers (Tahrir Defterleri), University of Connecticut. Retrieved 1 January,

2020 from https://ottoman.uconn.edu/bibliography/published-tahrirs/

Öksüz, Mustafa. “Şam Eyaletı’̇ nıṅ Güney Sancaklarında (Fıl̇ ıṡ tıṅ ) Nüfus XVI. yy.” (Ph.D

diss., Mimar Sinan Fine Art University, Istanbul 2016).

Öz, Mehmet. “Tahrir Defterlerindeki Sayısal Veriler” in Halil İnalcık and Şevket Pamuk

(eds.), Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bilgi ve İstatistik. Ankara: Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü Matbaası:

2000.

———. “XV.-XVI. Yüzyıllarda Canik Sancağı. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara 1999.

———. “Tahrir.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 39: 425-429, 2010.

Özcan, Uğur. “II. Abdülhamid Dönemi Osmanlı-Karadağ Siyasi İlişkileri.” (Süleyman

Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences, Ph.D diss., 2009).

Özçelik, İsmail. Devlet-i ‘Aliye’nin Taşra Yönetimi, Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara, 2016.

Özel, Oktay. “Avarız ve Cizye Defterleri.” In Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bilgi ve İstatistik, (Halil

İnalcık, Şevket Pamuk), T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, Ankara, 2000, pp.35-

50.

———. The Collapse of Rural Order in Ottoman Anatolia: Amasya 1576‒1643. Brill:

Leiden 2016.

———."The Question of Abandoned Villages in Ottoman Anatolia." In (in E. Kolovos (ed.),

Ottoman Rural Societies and Economies, Halcyon Days in Crete VIII, A Symposium Held

in Rethymno, 13-15 January 2012 (Rethymno, Crete University Press, 2015), pp.95-130.

Özergin, M. Kemal. “Eski bir Rûznâmeye Göre İstanbul ve Rumeli Medreseleri.” In İÜEF

Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4-5 (1973-1974), pp. 263-290.

303

———. “Rumeli Kadılıklarında 1078 Düzenlemesi.” In Ord. Prof. Dr. İ. Hakkı Uzunçarşılı’ya

Armağan, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara 1988, pp. 251-309.

Özkan, Selim Hilmi. “Balkanlarda Bir Osmanlı Şehri: Sofya (1385- 1878).” Avrasya Etüdleri

50, (2016), pp. 279-314.

———. “XVI. Yüzyıl Kayıtlarına Göre Alâiye(Alanya) Sancağında Yer Adları Üzerine Bir

İnceleme.” In International Journal of Social Science, Volume 5 Issue 3, June 2012, pp:

275-291.

Özkaya, Yücel. XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Kurumları ve Osmanlı Toplum Yaşantısı. Kültür Ve

Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları: Ankara, 1985.

Öztürk, Yücel. “Yerel İdare Tarihi Açısından Kefe Örneği (16. Yüzyıl).” In Selçukludan

Cumhuriyete Şehir Yönetimi. (eds.) Erol Özvar - Arif Bilgin, Türk Dünyası Belediyeler Birliği

Yayınları, İstanbul 2008, pp. 163-190.

———. “XVI. Asırdan XVII. Asrın Başlarına Kadar Ada Kazası.” In Sakarya İli Tarihi, I,

Sakarya, 2005, pp. 223-304.

Payzın, Levent. “XVIII. Yüzyılda Midilli Adası.” (Master Thesis, Adnan Menderes

University, Institute of Social Sciences, History Department, 2008).

Pitcher, Donald Edgar. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Tarihsel Coğrafyası. Translated by

Bahar Tırnakçı, Yapı Kredi Yayınları: İstanbul, 2018.

Porsdam, Helle. “Too much ‘Digital’, too little ‘Humanities’? An attempt to explain why

many Humanities scholars are reluctant converts to Digital Humanities.” In Arcadia

Papers, 2011. Cambridge University Library. Retrieved December 12, 2019, from

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42337087.pdf

Presner, Todd, Schnapp, Jeffrey and Lunenfeld, Peter. “Digital Manifesto 2.0.” Retrieved

5 December,2019 from http://www.humanitiesblast.com/manifesto/Manifesto_V2.pdf

Presner, Todd and Johanson, Chris. “The Promise of Digital Humanities.” A Whitepaper,

2009. Retrieved 6 December, 2019 from

http://www.itpb.ucla.edu/documents/2009/PromiseofDigitalHumanities.pdf

Presner, Todd. “Digital Humanities 2.0: A Report on Knowledge.” Retrieved 15

December, 2019 from https://cnx.org/contents/J0K7N3xH@6/Digital-Humanities-2-0-AReport-

on-Knowledge

“Prospect.” Computers and the Humanities, vol. 1, no.1, 1966.

304

Ramsay, Stephen. “Databases.” In A Companion to Digital Humanities, (eds.) Susan

Schreibman, Raymond George Siemens, and John Unsworth. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Publication, 2004.

Rieder, Bernhard and Röhle, Theo. “Digital Methods: Five Challenges“ In Undertsanding

Digital Humanities. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, pp.67-84.

Robertson, Stephen. “The Differences between Digital Humanities and Digital History.”

Retrieved December 10,2019 from http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/part/12

Rumsey, David and Williams, Meredith. “Historical Maps in GIS.” In Past Time, Past Place:

GIS for History, ed. Anne Kelly Knowles. US: ESRI Press, 2002.

Sahillioğlu, Halil. “Osmanlı Döneminde Irak'ın İdari Taksimatı.” In Belleten LIV/211 (1990),

Ankara 1991, pp.1233-1257.

———. “Avârız.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 4: 108-109, 1991.

———. “Antakya.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 3:228-232,1991.

Sakin, Orhan. Tarihten Günümüze Bozok Sancağı ve Yozgat. Doğu Kütüphanesi: İstanbul,

2012.

Sarı, Serkan. “XV-XVI. Yüzyıllarda Menteşe, Hamıḋ Ve Teke Sancağı Yörüklerı.̇ ” (Ph.D.

diss., Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta,2008).

Sezgin, İbrahim. “Paşa Livası.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 34:183-184,

2007.

Shafir, Nir. “How Digitization Has Transformed Manuscript Research: New Methods for

Early Modern Islamic Intellectual History.” In Chris Gratien, Michael Polczyński, and Nir

Shafir, “Digital Frontiers of Ottoman Studies,” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish

Studies Association 1, no. 1–2 (2014), pp. 37–51.

Singer, Amy. “Tapu Tahrir Defterleri ve Kadı Sicilleri: A Happy Marriage of Sources.” In

Tarih, Vol.1 (1990), pp.95-125.

———. “Designing the Digital Ottoman Project: Six Hundred Years, Twenty-Five

Languages, and Eight Alphabets.” In The Institute Letter, (Fall 2015). Retrieved 1

December, 2010 from https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2015/singer-digital-ottoman

———. Kadılar, Kullar, Kudüslü Köylüler. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul, 1996.

Solak, İbrahim. “XVI. Asırda maraş Kazâsı.” (Ph.D diss., Selçuk University, Konya, 2002).

305

Sula, Chris Alen and Hill, Heather. “The Early History of Digital Humanities” Making of the

Humanities V. Conference -Society for the History of Humanities- Johns Hopkins

University, Baltimore, 2016.

Sümer, Faruk. “Çukur-Ova Tarihine Dâir Araştırmalar (Fetihten XVI. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısına

Kadar).” In DTCF Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, I / I, Ankara, 1963.

———. “Yörükler,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 43:570-573, 2013.

Svanberg, Ingvar. "A Bibliography of the Turkish-Speaking Tribal Yörüks." In Materialia

Turcica Bd 5 (Bochum 1981), pp. 25-40.

Şahin, Cemalettin. “Ürdün.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 42: 352-354, 2012.

Şahin, İlhan. “Sancak.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 26: 97-99, 2009.

———. “Şehir.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 38: 449-451, 2010.

———. “Dulkadır Eyaleti.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 9: 552-553, 1994.

———. “Nahiye.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 32: 306-308, 2006.

———. “Sofya.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 37:344-348, 2001.

———. “Kırşehir.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 25:481-485, 2002.

———. “Semadirek.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 36: 458-459, 2009.

———. “XV ve XVI. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilatı’nın Özellikleri.” In XV ve XVI.

Asırları Türk Asrı Yapan Değerler, İstanbul, 1997, pp.233-258.

———. “XV ve XVI. Yüzyılda Sofya-Filibe-Eski Zağra ve Tatar Pazarı’nın Nüfus ve İskan

Durumu”, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Dergisi, Issue: 48 (1987), pp. 249-256.

———. Osmanlı Döneminde Konar Göçerler. İstanbul, Eren Yayınları, 2006.

Şakul, Kahraman, Uğur, Yunus, Kırmızı. “Türkiye'de Deneysel ve Dijital Tarihçiliğin

Gelişimi İçin Bir Strateji Çerçevesi.” A. S. Özkaya (Ed.), Türk Askeri Kültürü: Tarih, Strateji,

İstihbarat, Teşkilat, Teknoloji, İstanbul: Kronik Yayınları, 2019.

Şimşirgil,Ahmet. “Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilatında Tokat (1455-1574).” (PhD. diss., Marmara

University, İstanbul 1990).

306

Tabak, Serap. “II. Meşrutiyet Sonrasi Ve I. Dünya Savaşı Öncesi Bergama Kazası (1909-

1914).” In Türk-İslâm Medeniyeti Araştırmaları Dergisi, Issue 4, 2007, pp. 125-150.

Tanaka, Stefan. “Pasts in a Digital Age.” In Writing History in the Digital Age, Web-book

edition, (eds). Jack Dougherty and Kristen Nawrotzki. (Michigan: University of Michigan

Press, 2013), pp. 35-46. Retrieved 1 December, 2019 from

https://writinghistory.trincoll.edu/revisioning/tanaka-2012-spring/

Taş, Kenan Ziya. “Tapu Tahrir Defterlerine Göre 16. Yüzyılda Bolu Sancağı.” (Ph.D diss.,

Ankara University, Ankara, 1993).

Text Encoding Initiative (TEI): Retrieved 1 December, 2020 from https://tei-c.org/

The Database of Ottoman Inscriptions (DOI): Retrieved 1 December, 2019 from

http://info.ottomaninscriptions.com/

The Deep Map of West Cork: Retrieved 1 December, 2019 from

http://www.deepmapscork.ie/

The Historical Geographical Information Systems (HGIS), Economic and Social Research

Council. Retrieved 1 December, 2019 from http://www.hgis.org.uk

The Islamisation of Anatolia, The University of St Andrews. Retrieved 1 December, 2019

from https://www.islam-anatolia.ac.uk/

The Map of Early Modern London (MoEML). Retrieved 1 December, 2019 from

https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca

The Open Islamicate Texts Initiative (OpenITI). Retrieved 1 December, 2019 from

https://iti-corpus.github.io/

The Time Machine FET Flagship: Retrieved 1 December, 2019 from

https://timemachine.eu/

Tuncel, Metin. “Karaman.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 24: 444-447, 2001.

Turan, Şerafettin. “XVII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun İdarî Taksimatı (H. 1041) M.

1631-32 Tarihli bir İdarî Taksimat Defteri." In Atatürk Üniversitesi 1961 Yıllığı, Erzurum,

1963, pp. 201-232.

Uğur, Yunus. “Mapping the Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Conjunctions and

Distinctiveness (1520-1540)” TÜBİTAK 1001 - Scientific and Technological Research

Projects Funding Program

307

———. "Big Data in Ottoman Urban Studies: A Relational Approach to the Archival Data

and to Socio-Spatial Analyses of an Early Modern Ottoman City." In Social Sciences, MDPI,

Open Access Journal, vol. 7(4): 1-12, April, 2018.

———. “Şer’iyye Sicilleri,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2010, 39:8-11.

———. “Tarihçilik Sahasında Teknolojik İmkânlardan Yararlanma” in M. Y. Ertaş (Ed.)

Tarih Bilimi ve Metodolojisi, Istanbul: İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık, 2019, pp.377-382.

———. “Mahkeme Kayıtları (Şer’iye Sicilleri): Literatür Değerlendirmesi ve

Bibliyografya,” Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, Vol:1, Issue:1, 2003, pp.305-344.

———. “The Ottoman Court Records and the Making of ‘Urban History’, with Special

Reference to Mudanya Sicils (1645-1800).” (Master Thesis, Boğaziçi University, 2001).

———. "Mapping Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Definitions and Groupings (1450–1700)."

Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 18, No. 3 (2018), pp.16-65.

———. “Historiography and Historical Sources: Remapping of Tax Registers (Tahrir and

Avarız Defters) in the Ottoman Studies.” In II. Uluslararası Osmanlı Coğrafyası Arşiv

Kongresi Arşiv Belgeleri, 2017.

———. “Osmanlı Şehirleri ve Şehirleşmesi,” Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Çevre ve

Şehir.” İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi-TC. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı Özel Yayını,

(Aralık 2015), pp.293-327.

———. "Şehir Tarihi ve Türkiye'de Şehir Tarihçiliği: Yaklaşımlar, Konular ve Kaynaklar." In

Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, Vol: 3, Issue: 6, 2005: 9-26.

———. “The Historical Interaction of the City With Its Mahalles: Ottoman Edirne in The

Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries” (Ph.D. diss., Boğaziçi University 2014).

Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı. Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilâtına Medhal. Türk Tarih Kurumu

Yayınları, Ankara 1988.

———. Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu Devletleri. Ankara, 1988.

———. Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlmiye Teşkilatı. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1988.

Ünal, Mehmet Ali. “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Merkezi Otorite ve Taşra Teşkilatı.” In Osmanlı,

Vol. 6, Ankara, 1999, pp. 111-122.

———. XVI. Yüzyılda Harput Sancağı (1518-1566). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi,

1989.

308

———. “XVI: Yüzyıl’da Palu Hükümeti.” In Osmanlı Devri Üzerine Makaleler-Araştırmalar,

Isparta 2008, pp. 241-265.

Varlık, Mustafa Çetin. "XVI. Yüzyılda Anadolu Beylerbeyliği Sancakları ve Kadılıkları

Üzerine." In Atatürk Üniversitesi'nin Kuruluşunun XX Yıl Armağanı, IV. Kitap, Atatürk

Üniversitesi Yayınları, Ankara, 1978, pp.19-39.

———. “Anadolu Eyaleti Kuruluşu ve Gelişmesi.” In Osmanlı, Vol: 6, Yeni Türkiye

Yayınları, Ankara, 1999, pp.123-129.

———. “Anadolu Eyaleti.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 3: 143-144, 1991.

———. “XVI. Yüzyıl Osmanlı İdari Teşkilatında Kütahya.” In Marmara Üniversitesi Türklük

Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol:2, 1986, İstanbul 1987.

Visualization Venice. Retrieved 1 December, 2019 from

http://www.visualizingvenice.org/visu/

White, Sam. The Climate of Rebellion in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. Cambridge

and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Yediyıldız, Bahaeddin. Ordu Kazası Sosyal Tarihi. T.C.Kültür Bakanlığı Yayını, Ankara 1985.

Yıldırım, Onur. “The Battle of Lepanto and Its Impact on Ottoman History and

Historiography” in Mediterraneo in armi (secc. XV-XVIII) (Supplement of the Journal

"Mediterranea"), 2, (2007), pp.533-5356.

Yılmazçelik, İbrahim. “Diyarbakır Eyaletinin Yeniden Teşkilâtlandırılması (1848-1864).” In

Osmanlı, Vol. 6, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, Ankara 1999, pp. 221-237.

Yınanç, Refet. “Dulkadıroğulları.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 9: 553-557,

1994.

Zarinebaf, Fariba, Bennet, John, and Davis, Jack L. A Historical and Economic Geography

of Ottoman Greece: The Southwestern Morea in the Eighteenth Century The American

School of Classical Studies, Athens, Greece, 2005.

Sayfalar

2 Temmuz 2024 Salı

41

Hiç yorum yok:

Yorum Gönder