471

 THE AGRARIAN BACKGROUND TO THE “DAĞLI” REBELLION
IN THE RHODOPE MOUNTAINS (1780-1810)

2022
i
THE AGRARIAN BACKGROUND TO THE “DAĞLI” REBELLION
IN THE RHODOPE MOUNTAINS (1780-1810)

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
I, Çağdaş Salih Öztaş, certify that
• I am the sole author of this thesis and that I have fully acknowledged and
documented in my thesis all sources of ideas and words, including digital
resources, which have been produced or published by another person or
institution;


The Agrarian Background to the “Dağlı” Rebellion
in the Rhodope Mountains (1780-1810)
This thesis examines the “dağlı” rebellion that emerged in the Rhodope Mountains
between 1780-1810 through agricultural, environmental, and economic factors. At
the end of the eighteenth century, the dağlıs formed large and small bandit groups in
the east of the Balkans and served as mercenaries under the command of the local
notables. The study looks at the activities of the dağlıs from a regional perspective. It
investigates how the region's mountain system shaped local people's economic
activities. It focuses on agricultural and animal products that were grown by the local
populace as subsistence and commercial products. Specifically, it asserts that the
deterioration of the balance in the production of agricultural products led to the dağlı
rebellion.
While explaining the rebellion, it refers to the characteristics of the rural
rebellions in the Ottoman Empire during the 19th century, the property system, and
landlord and peasant relations. It reveals the macro-economic structure of the
settlements in the Rhodope Mountains through salnames. It examines the microeconomic
structure on the basis of villages and households by using temettuat
registers. In the light of these data, it emphasizes that environmental, agricultural,
and economic factors were effective in the emergence of the dağlı rebellion.
v
ÖZET
Rodop Dağları’nda Dağlı İsyanı’nın
Tarımsal Arka Planı (1780-1810)
Bu tez 1780-1810 tarihleri arasında Rodop Dağlarında ortaya çıkan Dağlı İsyanı’nı
tarım, çevre ve ekonomi faktörleri üzerinden incelemektedir. 18. yüzyılın sonunda
dağlılar Balkanlar’ın doğusunda irili ufaklı eşkıya grupları oluşturmuş ve ayanların
emrinde paralı asker olarak görev yapmışlardır. Bu çalışma dağlıların faaliyetlerine
bölgesel bir perspektiften bakmaktadır. Bölgenin dağlık yapısının halkın ekonomik
faaliyetlerini nasıl şekillendirdiğini incelemektedir. Yerel halk tarafından geçimlik ve
ticari olarak yetiştirilen tarımsal ve hayvansal ürünlere odaklanır. Tarımsal ürünlerin
üretimindeki dengenin bozulmasının dağlı isyanına yol açtığını savunmaktadır.
İsyanı açıklarken 19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda yaşanan kırsal
isyanların mahiyetine, mülkiyet sistemine, toprak sahibi ve köylü ilişkilerine
değinmektedir. Ardından Rodop Dağları’ndaki yerleşim yerlerinin makro iktisadi
yapısını salname verileri aracılığıyla ortaya sermektedir. Mikro ekonomik yapıyı
köyler ve haneler bazında temettuat defterlerini kullanarak incelemektedir. Bu veriler
ışığında çevresel, tarımsal ve ekonomik değişkenlerin isyanın ortaya çıkmasında
etkili olduğunu vurgular.
vi

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….1
CHAPTER 2: GEOGRAPHICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND ECONOMIC
PORTRAIT OF THE RHODOPE MOUNTAINS………………………….15
2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………..15
2.2 Geographical portrait of the Rhodope Mountains………….…………...16
2.3 Administrative, economic and demographic structure of the settlements
in the Rhodope Mountains according to the Vilayet Salnames……………...21
2.4 The agricultural and artisanal production of the districts……………….31
CHAPTER 3: EMERGENCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE “DAĞLI”
(MOUNTAIN PEOPLE) REBELLION…………………………………….39
3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………..39
3.2 The activities of Dağlı bandits in Rumelia…………...……..………….45
3.3 The Dağlıs: Rebels or bandits?................................................................61
3.4 The Dağlı community……………………………………….………….66
CHAPTER 4: BACKGROUND TO REBELLION: LAND, AGRICULTURE, AND
ENVIRONMENT…………………………………………………………...74
4.1 Nineteenth-century rural rebellions in the Ottoman Empire……………74
4.2 The landholding and social structure in the Rhodope Mountains in the
eighteenth century…………………………………………………………...81
4.3 A micro-perspective: Agricultural, economic, and social structure of the
villages in Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy and Dimetoka according to Temettuat
Registers……………………………………………………………………..87
4.4 The environmental and agricultural roots of Dağlı rebellion…………...99
ix
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION…………………………………………………….112
APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………...117
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….123
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Sketch map of the Rhodope Balkans……………………………………..18
Figure 2. The map of Hasköy villages……………………………………………...87
Figure 3. The map of Dimetoka villages…………………………………………...89
Figure 4. Crop based averages of tithe collected on agricultural products in all
villages………………………………………………………………………90
Figure 5. Crop based averages of tithe collected on agricultural products in Hasköy
(in the left) and Dimetoka (in the right)……………………………………..91
Figure 6. Crop based averages of tithe collected on agricultural products in tobacco
villages in Hasköy…………………………………………………………...92
Figure 7. A part of oriental tobacco map by Marco Nestoroff……………………..93
Figure 8. Average distribution of cereal production in Dimetoka (in the right) and
Hasköy (in the left)………………………………………………………….94
Figure 9. The distribution of land types in Dimetoka and Hasköy villages………..96
Figure 10. Total revenues of agricultural and livestock products in Hasköy village97
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the Balkans had witnessed huge
political turmoil. The strife among ayans (local notables) to broaden their political
claims on adjacent regions and the central government’s struggle to cope with these
self-ordained actors became the main subject of this period’s historiography.
Therefore, the studies have mainly focused on powerful ayans and their relationship
with each other and the central government. However, there was another
phenomenon of the period in which mainly ordinary people were the main actors.
This phenomenon was the dağlı isyanları (the rebellions of the mountain people) that
took place roughly between 1780-1810, and its main actors were mountain bandits
known as the dağlı eşkıyası or the kırcali eşkıyası.
The rebellion of the dağlıs has not drawn much attention despite an
abundance of documents about this issue in the Ottoman archives. There are few
studies about the issue, and existing ones generally relate to the relationship and
struggle among the bandit leaders, ayans, and dignitaries. The studies about dağlı
rebellion provide some insight on the emergence of the rebellion by mainly focusing
on the relationship between ayans and bandits, the struggle of the central government
to suppress the rebels, and the emergence of bandits as remains of mercenaries that
fought in the wars against the Russian and Habsburg Empires during the years
between 1787-1792.1 Yet, the term dağlı has also a hint about the emergence of these
1 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları; Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion;” Esmer, “Economies of Violence, 163–
99; Başer, Eşkıyalıktan Ayanlığa; Başer, “Faaliyetleri ve Merkezi Hükümetle Olan İlişkileri;” Mazı,
“The Sultans of the Countryside.
2
events, which underlines a geographical affiliation and makes us think about possible
environmental causes of the rebellion.
Especially, using the term dağlı eşkıyası for all banditry activities during this
period in the Balkans and for the actions of unruly ayans against the central
government led to the emergence of a broader phenomenon. Ottoman documents
referred to some bandits as Hasköy eşkıyası and Kırcaali eşkıyası by remarking their
origins apart from labeling these groups as dağlı eşkıyası. However, dağlı and
Kırcali naming began to include Albanians and some ayans like Pazvandoğlu Osman
Ağa, who was active in a region far removed from the Rhodope Mountains.2 This
phenomenon probably stemmed from the widespread activities of the bandit groups
in the whole Balkans. It makes it hard to put this phenomenon into a more coherent
context because of their wide range of activities. They were plundering nearby
villages and towns, attacking ordinary people like peasants and merchants under the
leadership of their chieftains, and sometimes they were serving as mercenaries under
powerful local notables throughout the Balkans and fighting against the forces of
rival ayans and central government.3
Their loyalty was very problematic, and they could easily change alliances,
abandon their chiefs and ayans who enrolled them and begin to plunder any region
where they set foot. The loyalty problem caused a widespread upheaval and banditry
activities from Gallipoli to Wallachia in the northern-southern directions and from
Tekirdağ to Sofia in the eastern-western directions. Despite the prevalence of their
activities in broad geography and possible bandit participation from other regions,
these mountain bandits mainly originated from settlements located around the
Rhodope Mountains in the Southern Balkans, which included the administrative
2 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 61–64.
3 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 11, 61, 269.
3
districts of Gümülcine (Komotini present-day Greece), Yenice-i Karasu (Genisea in
present-day Greece), Çağlayık, Dimetoka (Didymóteicho in present-day Greece),
Sultanyeri (Momčilgrad in present-day Bulgaria), Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy (Haskovo in
present-day Bulgaria), and Kırcaali (Kardzhali in present-day Bulgaria).4
The hilly area that was home to these bandits roughly stretches from
Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy in the north to Gümülcine in the south and Dimetoka in the
east to Ahiçelebi (Smolyan in present-day Bulgaria) in the west. The fact that these
men originate from a mountainous region provides us an opportunity to look at these
events from a geographical and environmental perspective, which previous studies
have not taken into consideration. Therefore, this thesis aims to look at the
phenomenon of banditry of mountain people from a different perspective and bring
new explanations to the widespread unrest of these people in the Balkans by getting
inspiration from various historians with a geographical sensitivity, such as J. R.
McNeill and Faruk Tabak.5
The first comprehensive study about the banditry of mountain people as a
distinct phenomenon is Yücel Özkaya’s Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Dağlı İsyanları
(1791-1808), first published in 1983. Relying mainly on archival sources and the
works of Ottoman historians, this study focuses on the measures that the Ottoman
Empire had taken to suppress the activities of these bandit groups and the role of
ayans in the spread of banditry. The work suggests possible causes of the rebellion,
within a general context of the decline of the central political power of the empire.
The second part of the book focuses on the appointment by the central government of
certain notables to cope with the rebellion. It shows how the Ottoman Empire
struggled to end the dağlı rebellion for a long time. The study also provides a
4 Başer, Eşkıyalıktan Ayanlığa, 18–23.
5 Tabak, The Waning of the Mediterranean; McNeill, The Mountains.
4
timeline for the events. Kırcaali region is mentioned as the first place that dağlı
eşkıyası was born, with the participation of other men from the Deliorman region and
some Albanian groups.6
Alper Başer’s book, Eşkıyalıktan Ayanlığa Kırcaalili Emin Ağa presents a
brief history of Hasköy Ayanı Kırcaalili Emin Ağa from his rise at the beginning of
the 1800s until his death in 1813. The first part of the book is about the dağlı
rebellion. It tries to describe and date the events surrounding the rebellion by relying
on Ottoman historians such as Cevdet Paşa, Asım Efendi, and Ahmed Vasıf Efendi.
The study is significant in giving the names of important bandit centers and their
adjacent regions. It also provides information about the names of specific bandits,
their villages, and activities in nearby regions. The second part of the book deals with
the life of Emin Ağa, who struggled to achieve ayanship of Gümülcine and Filibe
regions but largely failed. The book attributes Emin Ağa’s roots to dağlı eşkıyası and
presents his network and connections with other bandit leaders.7
Erol Ozan Yılmaz’s master’s thesis, Militarization of Ottoman Rumelia: The
Mountain Bandits (1785-1808), analyses the dağlı phenomenon from a similar
perspective to Özkaya. First, the study focuses on the reasons that caused the
emergence of dağlı bandits and brings a systematic approach to the general
conditions that led to the unrest. The context is said to be the collapse of the Ottoman
central authority in the provinces, the decline in the power of governors and kadıs,
the rise of the ayans, the collapse of the Ottoman military system, and the decay of
the socio-economic conditions in the provinces. The book also details the emergence
and development of mountain banditry in chronological order. In this chronological
structure, the study focuses on the period between the emergence of mountain
6 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları.
7 Başer, Eşkıyalıktan Ayanlığa.
5
bandits in 1785 and its end in 1808. The study also looks at military and other state
measures taken against the rebellious groups.8
Alper Başer’s master’s thesis focuses on the relations of certain ayans with
each other and the state, who were called mountain bandits from time to time.
Among these ayans were Tokatçıklı Süleyman Ağa and Ali Molla, both of whom
struggled for the ayanlık of certain areas in Western Thrace. According to the study,
a certain political vacuum was what caused their struggles because, after the death of
Gümülcine Ayanı Mestan Ağa, Tokatçıklı was able to occupy his place at the
expense of Ali Molla. This study expands the area of the rebellion towards Ferecik,
where Ali Molla was located but he had to leave the town after the failure of his
endeavors. From after this that Ali Molla collaborated with other bandit leaders and
became a mountain bandit. Tokatçıklı was appointed to suppress these groups, but he
was not successful in this mission. Also, he was not a fierce opponent of dağlı
bandits. He sometimes supported and guarded them from time to time. Başer’s thesis
mainly focuses on the activities of these two local notables. The study later
concludes by describing how Ali Molla’s group was finally settled in Ferecik again.9
Tolga Uğur Esmer’s Ph.D. thesis, A Culture of Rebellion: Networks of
Violence and Competing Discourses of Justice in the Ottoman Empire, 1790-1808, is
a comprehensive study about the dağlı rebellion published in 2009. It focuses on
Kara Feyzi, one of the most famous bandit leaders, and presents the developments in
that he played a vital role from his rise as a bandit leader until he died in 1823. It
examines practices, networks, and mechanisms that made Kara Feyzi an influential
actor in Ottoman imperial politics. His network brought men together from different
social strata, including peasants, mercenaries, and dignitaries. The study is important
8 Yılmaz, “Militarization.”
9 Başer, “Faaliyetleri ve Merkezi Hükümetle Olan İlişkileri.”
6
in terms of presenting a bandit leader as a significant power broker in the imperial
playground and his prolonged struggle, which ended up with his resettlement as a
local ayan on the Serbian border.10
While Kara Feyzi was one of the most notorious bandit leaders, he was also a
kind of top representative of bandits in his retinue because the central authority
negotiated with him as the first person. At the end of these negotiations, he would be
an ayan on the Serbian border. His difference from other ayans derived from the fact
that he negotiated with the central government in the name of other group members
on the issue of settling the group, as a result of which he not only became an ayan
but also his men were allowed to settle down with him.11 However, Kara Feyzi was
not the only leader who bargained with the authorities. Also, Ali Molla negotiated
the settlement with the authorities.12 The negotiation between the central authority
and rebels was an ordinary situation in the Ottoman Empire. The rebels aimed to
acquire administrative positions and political privileges due to their bargaining. The
capital was generally inclined to accept the demands of rebel leaders by appointing
them to powerful positions. Thus, the central authority incorporated rebels into the
state apparatus and prevented their harmful activities.13 In the dağlı rebellion, the
empire similarly solved the problem as in the case of sixteenth-century celali
rebellions. However, the collective resettlement of bandit groups directs us to ask
some questions. Why did the dağlı bandits negotiate resettlement with the central
government, or why did the central government offer resettlement as a solution to
banditry? Did rebel’s request to be settled in another place derive from the conditions
or changing dynamics in their usual settlement areas?
10 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion.”
11 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 2.
12 Başer, “Faaliyetleri ve Merkezi Hükümetle Olan İlişkileri,” 56.
13 Barkey, Bandits and Bureaucrats, 236.
7
I think separating the banditry of mountain people into a number of aspects
will allow us to see its local roots, and to look at the issue from a regional
perspective will help to better explain the emergence of mountain bandits and bring
new perspectives. At this point, John R. McNeill’s above mentioned book is a
beneficial book for analyzing mountain environments. It is a comprehensive study
that focuses on five mountain ranges throughout the Mediterranean. It explains the
similarities and historical developments in the mountain way of life in the
Mediterranean mountain ranges. Although the book does not mention the Rhodope
Mountains at the northern edge of the Aegean Sea, this mountain range is part of this
common mountain geography in the Mediterranean.14 Therefore, it is probable for the
inhabitants of the Rhodope Mountains to experience similar changes in these five
ranges.
McNeill proposes that after about 1800, many mountain communities in the
Mediterranean started to experience an overshoot in population and market
integration. In the late eighteenth century, the population in the mountains began to
grow, and numbers had grown beyond the sustainable point. The unsustainable
environment led to several adaptations and results ranging from agricultural
experimentation to specializations, from military service and brigandage to
emigration.15 Therefore, we can assume that the inhabitants of the Rhodope
Mountains experienced a similar fate to other Mediterranean highlanders due to their
increasing banditry activities in roughly the same period.
The role of market integration was crucial for mountain environments
because it facilitated the marketing of mountain products and increased the living
standards of the inhabitants. However, this created a vulnerable situation because
14 McNeill, The Mountains, 13–14.
15 McNeill, The Mountains, 4.
8
concentrating on a specific product might lead to a catastrophe in the face of adverse
weather conditions, wars, political instabilities, and decreasing prices which lead to
declining production and trade.16 McNeill’s theoretical scheme provides us with an
example to look at the Rhodope case from an environmental and geographical
perspective and helps us to ask some relevant questions about the region. For
example, can we relate the dağlı rebellion with overpopulation and market
integration? Was their settlement (iskan) in other places due to such changes? Was
there any product specialization in the regions where the dağlı community inhabited?
Faruk Tabak’s book provides other insights into the dağlı people from an
environmental perspective. He focuses on how the Little Ice Age, from about the
fourteenth century to about the nineteenth century, affected the lowlands around the
Mediterranean and caused people to settle in the uplands. He proposes that cooling
weather conditions turned plains into wetlands. As a significant crop of the plains,
wheat left the lowlands and was exiled to hilly regions of the Mediterranean. Tree
crops covered hillsides and these areas became the main living places of the
inhabitants. However, these developments continued only until the second half of the
eighteenth century because, after this time, highland areas began to lose their
attraction for the local people.17
We can expand Tabak’s crop-based evaluation of the Mediterranean economy
by focusing on tobacco as a significant cash crop that changes many local
communities in the Balkans. Tabak mentions the role of certain crops such as wheat,
sugar, and cotton. Yet, he only briefly discusses the arrival of tobacco to the
Mediterranean basin and its transforming role in the mountainous regions, especially
in the Levant. He also draws attention to the role of maize that enabled easier living
16 McNeill, The Mountains, 5.
17 Tabak, The Waning of the Mediterranean, 14–15.
9
conditions in the highlands of the Balkans. Primarily, these two products are
essential to see the impact of the Columbian Exchange in the Balkans. Maize and
tobacco were introduced to the region after the discovery of the New World.
Therefore, they did not have any share in the agriculture and economy in the
Balkans.18 Notably, the region that the dağlıs originated from was one of the most
important tobacco-producing centers of the empire, almost from the beginning of
tobacco agriculture in the Ottoman Empire.
Fehmi Yılmaz’s unique comprehensive study, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda
Tütün; Sosyal, Siyasi ve Ekonomik Tahlili (1600-1883) provides considerable data
for the empire-wide tobacco production. It deals with tobacco agriculture, trade,
tobacco customs, and taxes throughout the empire. At the end of his study, Yılmaz
gives a chart of tobacco producers in the empire in 1691 according to the tütün tahrir
registers. According to the table, we see that 5437 out of 10487 tobacco producers
throughout the empire were located in Gümülcine, Yenice-i Karasu, Çağlayık,
Dimetoka, Sultanyeri, Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy, and Kırcaali, the geographical scope of
this thesis. This shows the early introduction and expansion of tobacco agriculture in
the region where dağlı rebels originated. Also, he shows how tobacco agriculture
expanded in Yenice-i Karasu and Çağlayık until 1771. According to the tahrir
registers in 1771, the volume of tobacco fields increased by 250% and reached 3.5
dönüms per farmer in Yenice-i Karasu and Çağlayık from 1691 to 1771. There were
3,127 tobacco farmers in 98 villages of Yenice-i Karasu in 1771 and 114 dönüms of
fields per village.19 The registers that were used in the study only measure tobacco
fields, so it does not contain any information about other agricultural products.
Therefore, it is hard to predict the volume of tobacco production in the total
18 Tabak, The Waning of the Mediterranean, 229, 259.
19 Yılmaz, “Tütün,” 42–43.
10
agricultural output by comparing tobacco production with other kinds of field crops
and livestock production. However, the high number of tobacco farmers and
increasing tobacco fields direct us to ask some questions about the presence of
agricultural specialization in the region. Was there a relationship between the dağlı
rebellion and the agrarian system that was shaped around tobacco and other
agricultural products?
Drew A. Swanson’s book, “A Golden Weed: Tobacco and Environment in the
Piedmont South,” is a good example. It is a significant book which shows how
tobacco changed the environment and fate of people in the hilly areas of Virginia and
South Carolina in the USA. Swanson’s book starts with a question, “How did such a
poor land make some people so rich, and how did they so quickly become poor
again?” and tells the story of tobacco agriculture in the region. It presents how
tobacco production (dark tobacco) in the coastal part of East Virginia spread to the
mountainous parts and how good quality tobacco (bright tobacco) of the hills
enriched the region thanks to environmental conditions. However, this was not an
age-long development. As a result of everyone’s orientation on tobacco agriculture,
the soil became completely unfertile and after a while, tobacco agriculture became
unprofitable. Opening new fields for tobacco production and cutting down trees to
dry tobacco accelerated the erosion in the hilly areas and made the region unfertile.
This situation caused people to leave the area or prefer other crops.20 This scheme of
the book can provide a significant base for relating the role of tobacco in the
Rhodope Balkans and its possible effects on the environment, agrarian patterns, and
people.
20 Swanson, A Golden Weed.
11
The dağlı rebels emerged in the Balkans during a tumultuous period. It was a
widespread phenomenon that affected vast geography. However, it has until recently
been mainly studied in terms of a narrow political perspective. The social and
economic reasons for the dağlı rebellion have been associated with other realities of
the period, such as their relationship with powerful ayans, the financial predicament
of the empire, and the effects of long-lasting wars. Recent studies showed that
environmental factors were significant determinants in the unrest of people in premodern
societies, who almost entirely relied on the environment for their
subsistence. Therefore, this study will try to seek environmental factors within an
agrarian framework behind the rebellions of mountain people in the late-eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries and bring a new perspective to a phenomenon that the
political developments of the period have overshadowed.
The thesis deals with three types of primary sources: hatt-ı hümayuns, vilayet
salnames, temettuat registers. This study firstly draws the boundaries of the Rhodope
Mountains where the rebels originated to determine environmental factors. It focuses
on the region’s economic, social, and political structure by using Ottoman yearbooks
(vilayet salnames). Then, it analyses temettuat registers (land and income surveys) of
30 villages in the Rhodope Mountains and provides an overall economic structure of
these villages and their agricultural production. In brief, it firstly delineates the
macro-level portrait of the region by using salnames and then the micro-level portrait
of villages by examining the temettuat registers. Thus, it aims to shed light on the
developments that led to the rebellion of mountain people in the region by looking at
these macro and micro-level structures in the Rhodope Mountains.
Thirty villages in the districts of Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy and Dimetoka are
selected by using historical maps of the region. Since not all villages and districts in
12
the Rhodope Mountains have temettuat registers, the study focused on surveys of the
villages that could be found in both the list of temettuat registers and the historical
maps. Although there are hundreds of villages in these two districts, I selected the
villages that are located on the high lands. 22 villages of Hasköy district and eight
villages of Dimetoka district are analyzed by using surveys of each village. Their
collective data were used to shed light on these villages' agricultural production,
economic activities, production, and landholding patterns.21 Tevfik Güran’s 19.
Yüzyıl Osmanlı Tarımı is an instructive work that helps how to use the temettuat
registers. Also, it provides examples of the villages of Filibe that are mainly located
in the plains to compare with the villages of Hasköy and Dimetoka that were located
in the highlands.22 The maps that are used in the detection of the villages are the
maps of Dimotiko and Stara Zagora (Eski Zagra) produced by Imperial and Royal
Military Geographical Institute of Austria-Hungary.23 Also, Special Map of All
Oriental Tobacco Regions (Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece) by Marco Nestoroff provides
a detailed map of settlements that produced tobacco in 1925. Although it is a later
map, it is crucial in terms of showing unchanged production patterns in the
Balkans.24
The second chapter starts with the geographical portrayal of the Rhodope
Mountains. It delineates the boundaries of the mountain range and the geographical
structures that form the region. Then, it presents the economic, agricultural,
21 BOA. ML. VRD. TMT. d. 5513, 5567, 5580, 5591, 5613, 5696, 5700, 5979, 6407, 6411, 6412,
6415, 6418, 6444, 6445, 6447, 6451, 6454, 6458, 6459, 6467, 6469, 6470, 6494, 6500, 6507, 6508,
6513, 6520
22 Güran, 19. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Tarımı.
23 E. Gautsch, R. Fischbacher, 44˚-41˚ Dimotika, 1/200.000, Wien: K.u.k. Militärgeographisches
Institut, 1906, from http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/digkonyv/topo/200e/44-41.jpg;
K. Maschka, R. Fischbacher, 43˚-42˚ Stara Zagora (Eski Zagra), 1/200.000, Wien: K.u.k.
Militärgeographisches Institut, 1903, from http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/digkonyv/topo/200e/43-42.jpg.
24 Nestoroff, Special Map of All Oriental Tobacco Regions (Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece), 1/500.000,
Sofia: FUMARO, 1925, from https://archives.saltresearch.org/handle/123456789/109049.
13
administrative, and demographic characteristics of Kırcaali, Dimetoka, Gümülcine,
and Sarışaban districts by analyzing salnames. Based on findings from salnames, the
last part of the chapter evaluates economic activities and agricultural production
patterns in these districts. Mainly, it focuses on the importance of tobacco, grape, and
cereal productions and shows how tobacco was significant for the region's economy.
The third chapter provides a detailed narrative of the dağlı rebellion. In
general, it presents the activities of rebels chronologically. It depicts the struggle of
the central government to suppress the rebellion and the relationship between bandits
and ayans. Then, it discusses the usage of rebel and bandit terms. Based on
secondary literature and archival documents shows how these men prefer to identify
themselves. The next part draws the boundaries of the region populated by the dağlı
community and highlights their communal differences from other groups by looking
at archival documents and dialect studies. Later, it shows how historical documents
establish a link between the impact of geography and dağlıs' characters.
The fourth chapter deals with more than one issue. It firstly describes the
nineteenth century rural rebellions in the Ottoman Empire. It examines the possible
roots of the rebellions in Vidin, Lebanon, Samsun, and conflicts in Western and
Eastern Anatolia. After showing the importance of property and land struggles in
these conflicts, it analyzes the landholding patterns in the Rhodope Mountains. It
discusses the presence of the çiftlik system in the region. Then, it focuses on how the
status of locals in the Rhodope Mountains changed at the beginning of the eighteenth
century.
In the third part of this chapter, temettuat registers of Dimetoka and Hasköy
villages were analyzed and revealed agrarian patterns in these villages. It gives what
crops were produced and how many shares these crops had in the total production.
14
The registers show that land shortage was a significant problem in the Rhodope
villages. It portrays how certain products such as tobacco, maize, and rye contributed
to the peasants’ lives. After describing village structures, it shows how the
environmental and agricultural characteristics of the region played a role in the
emergence of the dağlı rebellion. Primarily, population and market integration are
described. The link between these phenomena and crop patterns in the Rhodope
Mountains are discussed. It explains how tobacco production started in the region
and developed. Finally, it concludes how the agrarian background of the region
paved the way for the rebellion of dağlıs.
15
CHAPTER 2
GEOGRAPHICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND ECONOMIC PORTRAIT OF
THE RHODOPE MOUNTAINS
2.1 Introduction
This chapter introduces the boundaries of the Rhodope Mountains, the geography of
this region, and the settlements. First of all, it presents the mountain ranges that
formed this geography, rivers, and the plains surrounding these mountains in order to
grasp the geographical boundaries and structure of the region. Then, it focuses on the
administrative, economic, and demographic structure of the settlements located
within these geographical boundaries. Thus, it forms an introduction in terms of
showing geographic factors that influenced the emergence of mountain bandits,
which is discussed throughout the thesis.
The chapter aims to provide a detailed geographical boundary of the region
where the dağlı bandits emerged, which has been generally opaque in previous
studies about the rebellion. Although studies on the subject point to the Rhodope
Mountains and settlements here as the homeland of the mountain bandits, these
studies do not attempt to draw the administrative borders of the region.25 After
describing the geographical boundaries of the Rhodope Mountains, this section
focuses on the settlements located here. It deals with the characteristics of these
settlements and the administrative units that they formed. Based on “vilayet
salnameleri” (provincial yearbooks), this chapter tries to reveal the economic, social,
25 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 1–3; Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 66.
16
and administrative structure of these centers. It discusses the population, economic
activities, varieties of agricultural products, and settlement density.
2.2 Geographical portrait of the Rhodope Mountains
The region that we focus on covers a significant part of the Rhodope Mountains,
which are now within the borders of Greece and Bulgaria. Meriç Valley in the north
and east, the Aegean Sea in the south, and the left bank of Karasu (Mesta) River in
the west constitute the region’s geographical boundaries.26 When we try to draw the
boundaries through the settlements, Çirmen, Dimetoka, and Ferecik towns form the
eastern border, and Despot Plateau forms the western border. The settlements in the
south start from Ferecik in the east and continue to Mekri, Gümülcine, and İskeçe
towns and end with Sarışaban in the west. On the northwest axis of Sarışaban,
Çağlayık and Despot Plateau lines roughly constitute the western borders of this
region. Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy district, on the other hand, forms the northern border
where this elevated region ends. Kırcaali, Ahiçelebi, Darıdere, Sultanyeri towns are
important centers that are located in the middle of these geographical borders. Apart
from these town centers, there are countless villages administratively affiliated with
these units. All these settlements constitute the geography of dağlıs (mountain
people).27
The Rhodope Mountains, where all these settlements are located, are one of
the two main mountainous regions in today’s Bulgaria. Koca Balkan Mountains
(Stara Planina) in the north and the Rhodope Mountains in the south formed the most
stable settlements in the region. These high lands, strategically located and covered
26 Viquesnel, Voyage, 486.
27 BOA C.DH. 37, 1815 [29 Z 1206 (18 August 1792)], BOA AE.SABH.I. 23, 1893 [29 Z 1193 (7
January 1780)].
17
with dense forests, served as a shelter and asylum in times of pressure and provided
the human resources needed by the fertile plains in times of peace.28 However, in the
period between 1780-1810, the Rhodope Mountains became one of the main sources
of instability in the region rather than creating stability. In addition to being
employed in the plains, the human resource of the mountains served as mercenaries
in the armies of local notables. When this opportunity was not available, they started
to banditry. Since the Rhodope Mountains were the homelands of mountain bandits,
the mountains served as their natural stronghold when they needed to escape from
soldiers of the central authority. As we mentioned before, although the Rhodope
Mountains are given as the birthplace of these bandits, the geographical, economic,
and social structure of this region has not been the subject of a detailed study. For
this reason, it is helpful to first look at the geographical structure of the Rhodope
Mountains and then the economic and administrative structure of the settlements in
this region.
2.2.1 The Rhodope Mountains
The Rhodope Mountains are the mountain range between Bulgaria and Greece today,
which are one of the few mountain ranges in the Balkan peninsula. The mountains
are located on the southern border of Bulgaria and block the country’s access to the
Mediterranean. While the massif that gave the name Balkan to this region was called
Koca Balkan by the Turks, they named the mountain range that formed the Rhodope
Mountains as Kara Balkan. Rila Mountain, which is known as Altun Balkan, is
located in the west of the Rhodope Mountains. The Rhodope Massif extends to the
east as a branch of the Rila Mountains in the west. The Rila Mountains form the
28 Hoffman, “Transformation,” 47–48.
18
southern border of the Sofia plateau, and Musalla peak, the tallest peak in the
Balkans at 2925 meters, is part of this range. A deep rocky valley separates the
Dospat range, the northwest end of the Rhodope Mountains, from the Rila
Mountains. This range has an elevation of 1675 meters and stretches to the southeast.
Kara Balkan, the center of the Rhodope Mountains, is located south of Filibe
(Plovdiv). Persenk peaks with a height of 2090 meters, and the Perelik peaks with a
height of 2173 meters situate here. The eastward part of this range divides into two
branches. The area surrounding the Arda valley gradually descends as it approaches
the Meriç River near Edirne. The other branch includes the 1283-meter-high Koca
Yayla Mountain and ends in the coastal plain in the north of the Aegean Sea. Its other
branches extend to the Dedeağaç coast, the Meriç River in the east, and the Arda
River in the north.
Fig. 1. Sketch map of the Rhodope Balkans29
29 Maunsell, “The Rhodope Balkans,” 9.
19
Considering the previously mentioned administrative borders, the main region we
focus on geographically covers the east and center parts of the Rhodope Mountains.
While the altitude reaches 2000 meters in the center, it descends to 1000 meters in
the east. The moderate altitude levels have led the region to become more suitable for
settlement.30
2.2.2 The rivers
One of the most important geographical features of the region is the rivers that arise
from these mountains and irrigate the surrounding plains. On the northern slopes of
the Rhodope Mountains, many small streams emerge from narrow valleys and flow
into the wide plains of Southern Bulgaria and form the tributaries of the Meriç River.
This river passes through the eastern border of the Rhodopes and reaches the Aegean
Sea near Dedeağaç. The Arda River, which is the main river of the Rhodope
Mountains, rises from the center of the mountainous region and flows between two
mountain ranges that form the Rhodopes’ eastern end. The Arda River merges with
many branches arising from these two ranges and joins with the Meriç River near the
city of Edirne. It is one of the main tributaries of the Meriç River. A little further
south, Kızıldeli Çayı (Erythropotamos), rises from the east of Koca Yayla Mountain
and joins the Meriç River near Dimetoka.31
There are no large streams in the coastal plain south of the Rhodope
Mountains. The largest is Yardımlı in the south of Koca Yayla Mountain, which
reaches the sea by crossing wide, cultivated lands that include meadows and
scattered forests in the east of Gümülcine. A stream rises from the mountainous area
30 Maunsell, “The Rhodope Balkans,” 8.
31 Maunsell, “The Rhodope Balkans,” 8.
20
in the north of İskeçe, but it can hardly exist in summer temperatures. Local people
benefited from this stream to irrigate their gardens in the vicinities of the town.32
Karasu (Mesta), another important river in the region, reaches the sea in the west of
İskeçe. Emerging from Rila Mountain, many branches along the Pirin and Dospat
ranges join Karasu and form the wide Karasu valley in the western part of the
Rhodope Mountains. It passes through a deep canyon along Razlık and enters the
Nevrekop plain. It then turns in the direction of Drama, passes through deep
passages, and heads towards the Aegean Sea. It flows into the sea right across the
island of Thasos. The river formed a wide sandy delta in this area with the alluvion it
carried from the mountains.33
2.2.3 The agricultural life in the Rhodope Mountains
While these mountains formed the geographical borders of the region, they also
shaped the lifestyles of their inhabitants. They had decisive impacts on both settled
life and pastoral life. A lifestyle based on mountains has developed in the Rhodope
Mountains as well. Mountains often served as forests and pastures for their
inhabitants. At the same time, the geographical characteristic of the mountains
affected agricultural activities. In the Rhodope Mountains, the combination of
altitude, thin soil layer and summer drought resulted in low grain yields. As a result
of this situation, different kinds of agricultural patterns developed in these areas.
Fallowing was widely practiced. For example, one-third of the agricultural lands in
the Ahiçelebi region were left for fallowing. Although wheat was the dominant crop
in Köstendil and Kırcaali, rye was the most important crop grown throughout the
region. Small cereals, barley, and oat were also dominant in higher altitudes. Apart
32 Maunsell, “The Rhodope Balkans,” 8.
33 Maunsell, “The Rhodope Balkans,” 10.
21
from cereal production, another important crop of the Rhodopes and its vicinities was
tobacco.34
Especially the climate and soil conditions made the region suitable for the
production of high-quality tobacco. In the mountainous areas, there were rich
alkaline soils composed of eroded and fragmented volcanic material, while in the
lowlands the soils were generally sandy alluvial soils at a depth of 1-1.5 meters.
These soils are loose, porous, and contain little organic matter. This soil structure is
ideal for the tobacco plant. The high capillarity of soils provides sufficient moisture
for tobacco plants during dry summer months. Both alluvial and mountain soils
contain sufficient amounts of calcium, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, which
are necessary for the production of high-quality tobacco. The climate conditions are
equally favorable. Rhodope and Thrace regions have long, dry, and warm summers.
Humidity increases at the beginning and towards the middle of the growing season,
but the humidity rate is at its lowest at the end of the season. This is advantageous for
producing a high-quality dry and aromatic tobacco leaf. Also, destructive winds that
can damage crops are rare. The only disadvantage of tobacco agriculture is the
diseases that are difficult to overcome.35 To understand this structure in detail, it is
better to look at the Ottoman documents about the region.
2.3 Administrative, economic and demographic structure of the settlements in the
Rhodope Mountains according to the Vilayet Salnames
The vilayet salnames (provincial yearbooks) are descriptive and statistical yearbooks
that started to be published by the Ottoman Empire after 1846/1847. They give
34 Cousens, “Changes in Bulgarian Agriculture,” 18–19.
35 Beshkov, “Tobacco in Bulgaria,” 188–89.
22
detailed information on the administrative and economic characteristics of
provinces.36 Therefore, they are unique sources from which we can obtain general
information about the settlements in the Rhodope Mountains. Although there are
eight decades between the publication dates of the salnames and the end of the
rebellion, it is very important that the salnames contain a compact cluster of
information about the economic and agricultural activities in these settlements in
terms of providing a general perspective on the region.
Edirne Vilayet Salnameleri and Selanik Vilayet Salnamesi provide a general
perspective on the administrative and economic situation of the region. In this part,
two salnames of Edirne dated 1892 and numbered 19 and 20 are used. Unlike the
salnames published in the previous years, these two salnames have a detailed
account of Edirne’s districts (kaza). Similar to these two salnames of Edirne, Selanik
Vilayet Salnamesi, dated 1907 provides a detailed portrait of Sarışaban district. 19
Numaralı Edirne Vilayet Salnamesi mentions the settlements of Kırcaali,
Dimetoka37, Gümülcine, Sultanyeri, Ahiçelebi, İskeçe, Eğridere, Darıdere38 and
Mekri.39 In this salname, these settlements are given as districts of Edirne Province.
In the Edirne Vilayet Salnamesi number 20 published in the same year, Kırcaali and
Dimetoka40 are the towns of the Edirne Province, while Gümülcine41 and Dedeağaç
(Mekri)42 are described as sanjaks. İskeçe, Sultanyeri, Eğridere, Ahiçelebi and
Darıdere are the districts of Gümülcine Sanjak. Selanik Vilayet Salnamesi provides
36 McCarthy and Hyde, “Ottoman Imperial and Provincial Salnames,” 10–11.
37 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 316–53.
38 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 408–81.
39 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 579–85.
40 “1310 Senesine Mahsus Edirne Vilayeti Salnamesi,” 125–36.
41 “1310 Senesine Mahsus Edirne Vilayeti Salnamesi,” 145–74.
42 “1310 Senesine Mahsus Edirne Vilayeti Salnamesi,” 203–10.
23
information about Sarışaban which is a district in Drama Sanjak of Selanik
Province.43
2.3.1 The district of Kırcaali
The small Kırcaali town of that time was an important settlement in terms of being at
the center of the region that we focus on and giving its name to the rebels. At this
point, 19 Numaralı Edirne Vilayet Salnamesi contains important information about
the administrative status, agricultural production, and economic activities in Kırcaali
and its vicinities. According to the salname, the district of Kırcaali consisted of 102
villages and eight nahiyes named Selmanlar, Osmanbeşeler, Hocalar, Yahyalı,
Ferağılar, Şaban, Gabrovo and Kurucaviran. It was located in the west of Edirne
province and was 24 hours away from Edirne. There were Hasköy, Harmanlı and
Hacıilyas townships in the north, Ahiçelebi and Eğridere townships in the west,
Gümülcine and Sultanyeri towns in the south, and Ortaköy town in the west.44 There
were 250,428 dönüms of cultivated and uncultivated land within the district’s
boundaries. The population of the center of Kırcaali consisted of 305 households,
and the district’s total population was 2140 in 1892.45 The district covered a largely
rural area, and its main economic activity was agricultural production.
The fertility of the soil was moderate in the district of Kırcaali. The main
crops were wheat, barley, kızılca, rye, maize, tobacco, and grapes. Secondary
products consisted of vetch, beans, lentils, onions. Also, local people produced
certain fruits such as cherries, pears, apples, quince, and apricots. There was no
significant industrial production in the region. There was only spoon production and
43 “1325 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Selanik Vilayet Salnamesidir,” 435–44.
44 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 320.
45 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 323.
24
trade in Nuşaliler, Yaşlı, and Şahinler46 villages. Villagers produced some textile
products in order to meet their needs. In every village, women made socks and
weaved clothes. However, if we looked at the general production of the region in
1893, it is clear that cereals had the most significant share of the total output. In that
year, 309,876 kilograms of wheat, 89,830 kilograms of kızılca, 1,643,460 kilograms
of barley, 444,000 kilograms of rye, 1,250,000 kilograms of maize, 24,000 kilograms
of vetch47, 15,000 kıyye beans, 7,000 kıyye chickpeas, 15,000 kıyye lentils, 30,000
kıyye onions were produced. Also, animal husbandry was a significant part of
economic activities and livelihood. There were 18,206 sheep, 30,998 goats, 2,528
oxen, 106 buffaloes, 51 horses, 158 mules, 3,500 cows, 900 calves, and 110 female
buffaloes in the settlements of Kırcaali.48 While the share of barley, maize, and rye in
total cereal production shows the impact of mountainous side of the region on the
production patterns, they also show that animal husbandry was a significant activity
in Kırcaali district because these cereals were primarily used as fodder. Goat
breeding is the main livestock activity since they formed the main animal stock in the
district. Also, the high amount of goats in the district shows that the mountains and
forests covered a significant place in the region.
Vineyards had an important place in the town. Local people used their grapes
for domestic consumption and sold the remaining amount to neighboring regions.
There were 14,689 dönüms of vineyards in the district and its villages, and these
46 The spoon production in Şahinler village can be seen in the village’s temettuat register. There are
two households that have income from spoon making.
47 Issawi, The Economic History of Turkey, 374–75. Since the salname gives the production amount of
wheat, kızılca, and barley in kilograms, I converted the products that are weighed in kile to kilograms
based on the rates in Issawi’s book: 1 kile = 36,8 liter, 1 okka = 1,2828 kg, 1 kile of barley = 17 to 20
okkas (approx. 23,7318 kg), 1 kile of wheat = 22 to 26 okkas (approx. 30,7872 kg), 1 kile of oats = 14
to 16 okkas (approx. 19,242 kg), 1 kile of maize = 23 to 25 okkas (approx. 30,7872 kg), 1 kile of rye =
23 to 24 okkas (approx. 30,1458 kg).
48 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 327–28.
25
lands produced 700,000 kıyye grapes. Since the town’s population was Muslim, they
mainly used their grapes for making molasses. However, they sold 200,000 kıyye of
total production to the neighboring towns since the main consumption field of grape
was winemaking.49 Another important product of the region was tobacco. However,
the production of this product fluctuated year by year. In this town, 90,071 kilos of
tobacco were produced in 1302 (1885), 43,044 in 1303 (1886), 27,392 in 1304
(1887), 41,470 in 1305 (1888), 28,581 in 1306 (1889), and 80,000 kilos in 1307
(1890). One third of this production was consumed in the town, and they exported
the rest. Production had decreased every year in Köklemezler, Ferağılar, and
Kurucaviran villages. The reason for the decrease in the production was that while
tobacco was sold at a price of 14-20 kuruş in the past, prices decreased and a disease
that occurred due to drought caused the destruction of tobacco plants in certain years.
This situation led farmers to stop growing tobacco.50
2.3.2 The district of Dimetoka
Dimetoka, located at a lower altitude on the eastern border of the Rhodopes, was one
of the centers of the bandits because it had a significant number of villages in its
mountainous regions. The town was located seven hours south of Edirne on the
banks of the Kızıl Deli River, a tributary of the Meriç River. It had four sub-districts.
Kuleliburgas had 11 villages, Karacahalil 13, Saltık 6 and Karakilise 12 villages. In
1893, the town center had a population of 8,707 in 1,702 households and 3,122 in 42
villages. The total population, which consisted of various nationalities, was 17,578.51
Most of the district’s lands were extremely fertile and suitable for producing all kinds
49 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 329.
50 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 325–26.
51 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 339.
26
of grains. Kızıl Deli River, which flows next to the town center, had a decisive role in
the agricultural production of the town. The river basin was a flood plain, and the
river flooded almost every year until the hıdrellez (May 6). After the flood had
ended, farmers planted summer crops such as corn, millet, and orchards. These
products gave good yields because of the fertility of the flood plain. When the river
did not flood, farmers planted winter crops such as wheat, red barley, and barley.
These crops grew very well and gave a product of forty-fifty to one.52
The primary crops of the town and villages of Dimetoka were wheat, barley,
rye, oats, kapluca, corn, sesame, vetch, lentils, beans, chickpeas, grapes, and silk
cocoons. Secondary products were tobacco, cotton, watermelon, melon, onion,
garlic, and various fruits. There were 176,377 dönüms of cultivated and uncultivated
land.53 In 1893, the district produced 178,000 bushels of wheat, 60,000 bushels of
barley, 48,000 bushels of rye, 20,000 bushels of oats, 16,000 bushels of kapluca,
64,000 bushels of maize, 12,000 bushels of sesame, 1,200 bushels of vetch, 4,000
bushels of millet, 8,000 kıyye vetch, 4,000 kıyye birdseed, 16,000 kıyye lentils,
32,000 kıyye beans, 40.000 kıyye chickpeas, 64.000 kıyye grapes, 32.000 kıyye silk
cocoons, 464 kıyye tobacco, 8,000 kıyye cotton, 95,000 kıyye onions, 180,000 kıyye
garlic and 4,000 ox cart of watermelon melons. There were 1,000 beehives producing
10.000 kıyye honey and 400 kıyye beeswaxes. Women wove socks, şayak, aba
(coarse woolen clothes), and various fabrics. 64,236 kilograms of wine and 72,000
kilograms of raki were produced.54 There were 5,166 oxen, 200 buffalos, 25 buffalo
bulls, 1,300 female buffalos, 900 buffalo calves, 40 bulls, 1,500 cows, 600 calves,
52 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 346.
53 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 339.
54 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 345.
27
1,200 horses, 39,134 sheep, 24,915 goats, 35 mules, 500 donkeys, and 3256 pigs in
the town.55
Dimetoka had 2,824 acres of vineyards and produced 640,000 kıyye grapes
annually. 642.360 kıyye wine was made. The local population consumed 600.000
kıyye of the produced grape and sold the remaining 42.365 kıyyes in neighboring
towns.56 Three villages produced tobacco in 1307. 308 kıyye tobacco were produced
in Ağurlu village, 15 kıyye in Divanemusa village and 141 kıyye in Hacıali village.
These tobaccos were low-grade type. For this reason, the reji administration burned
some of the tobacco because it was not of good quality, and bought the rest by
pricing 60 para to 2 kuruş.57 Therefore, Dimetoka was the only place where tobacco
was not a significant agricultural product when the salname was published. Yet, it is
evident that the decrease in the production of tobacco was a phenomenon of a later
period. A French geographer, Auguste Viquesnel, published a report that surveyed
the production of tobacco in the Rhodope Mountains as an appendix of his book,
published in 1868 about the geography of this region. In the report written in 1847,
Viquesnel gives testimony of Monsieur Badetti, a merchant living in Edirne for more
than twenty years. According to Badetti, while Kızıldeli was producing 800,000
kıyye tobacco 10 years ago, the trade of tobacco could reach 50,000 kıyye at the most
in recent years.58 This shows that although there was a drastic decrease in tobacco
production in Dimetoka when the salname published, the crop had a significant share
in the region’s total production in the past.
55 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 348.
56 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 347.
57 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 343.
58 Viquesnel, Voyage, 501.
28
2.3.3 The district of Gümülcine
Gümülcine was another important center of the region where bandits emerged. It was
the largest and most significant town in the Rhodopes region and the Western
Thrace. The town was at the junction point of the Via Egnatia and the road that
connects the coastal area to Filibe through the Rhodopes and Arda Valley.59 It is
comprised of three geographical parts: ova, yaka, and cebel. Ova (plain) describes
the lower plains adjacent to Aegean Sea. The area that formed the skirts of the
Rhodope Mountains was called yaka (the skirt of a mountain), and the mountainous
region was called Balkan/Balkan Kolu or cebel (mountain).60
While Gümülcine was a district governorship of Gallipoli Sanjak until the end
of April 1879, it was later given the status of a sanjak, and the towns of Ahiçelebi,
Darıdere, İskeçe, Sultanyeri and Cebel were included in this sanjak. The district of
Gümülcine consisted of eight townships, Maroniye, Şaphane, Yassı, Kura-yı Cedid,
Şeyhcuması, Çakal and Kirli, and 262 villages. İskeçe district included Sakarkaya,
Yassıören, Celebli, Yenice, Yeniköy sub-districts, 93 villages and two towns.
Darıdere district had Akpınar and Şahin villages and 30 villages. Ahiçelebi district
had a town center, Ismilan, Pasavik, Söğütçük, Çatak, Tuzburun, Karşılı towns and
42 villages. Sultanyeri district had Ada, Tekye, Geve, Taşlı, Mestanlı towns and 146
villages. Eğridere district had 71 villages which subject to Davud, Dolaşdır, Hotaşlı,
Vahidler-i Kebir, Meşkullu and Küçükviran towns. Finally, Rupçoz district had 26
villages, Tımışvar, Despot and Trigrad towns. As can be seen, Gümülcine sanjak was
the largest center of the region, which included seven towns, 41 sub-districts and 670
villages.61 Indeed, these towns could be compared to Kırcaali and Dimetoka towns,
59 Kiel, “Observations,” 417.
60 Alp, “Batı Trakya Türkleri,” 614.
61 Eren and Türe, Mühimme Defterlerinde Gümülcine, 14–15.
29
but all these settlements were described under the Gümülcine article in the salname.
Therefore, the data about Gümülcine district involves numerous settlements.
In 1893, the total population of Gümülcine district was 245,072. 44,761
people lived in the e town center. The population of Cebel was 20,088, İskeçe was
30,796, Darıdere was 20,599, Ahiçelebi was 28,162, Sultanyeri is 49,816, Eğridere
was 32,485, and Rupcoz was 13,996. The majority of the population was Muslim.
206,914 of total population were Muslims, 15,241 were Greeks, 20,671 were
Bulgarians, 360 were Armenians, 739 were Jews, 912 were Coptic, and 235 were
foreigners.62 Except for İskeçe and the town center of Gümülcine, all these
settlements were located in the Rhodope Mountains. This means that 69% of the total
population in Gümülcine lived in the mountain parts of the district.
The primary crops that were produced in Gümülcine district were wheat,
barley, corn, rye, grapes, and tobacco. Secondary crops were cotton, sesame,
chickpea, millet, feedstuff, beans, olives, acorns, melons, and watermelons. İskeçe
produced a large amount of tobacco. Since the tobacco crop of İskeçe was famous
worldwide, it was exported to Russia, Austria, Greece, and other countries. Although
products such as wheat, barley, corn, and rye were grown in İskeçe, these products
were few compared to the amount and value of tobacco. In the districts of Darıdere,
Ahiçelebi, Sultanyeri, Rupçoz and Eğridere, maize and rye were generally grown,
and some wheat, barley, feedstuff, silk cocoon, beans and grapes were also produced.
Also, the district produced a significant amount of wine and raki every year. In
Ahiçelebi and Darıdere, aba and şayak were made and they were famous. At the
same time, textile products such as kebe, rug, belt (kuşak), pillow (yastık), prayer rug
(seccade), undershirt (fanila) were a part of domestic production.63
62 Eren and Türe, Mühimme Defterlerinde Gümülcine, 39.
63 Eren and Türe, Mühimme Defterlerinde Gümülcine, 35–36.
30
Gümülcine produced 500,000 bushels of wheat and kızılca, 500,000 bushels
of barley, 16,000 bushels of oats, 400,000 bushels of rye, 750,000 bushels of maize,
20,000 bushels of millet, 3,000 bushels of vetch, 500 bushels of sesame, 100 bushels
of kapluca, 300,000 kıyye beans, 175,000 kıyye chickpeas, 20,000 kıyye lentils,
10,000 kıyye fava beans, 1,000 kıyye peas, 200,000 kıyye potatoes, 2,500,000 kıyye
tobacco, and 60,000 kıyye cotton. The total amount of these products reached
2,189,600 bushels and 28,160,000 kıyye.64In the district, there were 22,500 oxen,
4,400 buffalo, 75 buffalo bulls, 4,500 buffalo cows, 1,600 buffalo calves, 650 bulls,
30,000 cows, 15,000 calves, 8,000 horses, 444,635 sheep, 332,558 goats, 9,500
mules, 750 camels, 6,000 donkeys and 75 pigs.65
In Gümülcine and İskeçe, 209,671 kilograms of tobacco were produced on
3,533 dönüms of land within the reji administration on these dates. Highly aromatic
and good-quality tobacco was produced in the villages of Mülklü, Arabacı, Yassı,
Bahşişli, Solumluhoca, Özbek, Ahmedsipahi, Semerciler, Aşçılar, Tepealtı, Hisarcık,
Velicanbaşılı, Çamdere in the district of Gümülcine.66 The liva of Gümülcine had
49,030 households. In the liva, there were 1,503,225 dönüms of fields and 63,306
dönüms of meadows, 44,630 dönüms of pastures, 1,000 summer pastures, 177,974
winter pastures, and 210 mulberry gardens.67 The surroundings of Gümülcine town
entirely consisted of vineyards and gardens. The vineyards were 11,888 dönüms and
there were various fruit trees such as walnut and quince. Vegetable gardens consisted
of 592 dönüms, and all kinds of vegetables were grown. In this town, 275,000-
64 Eren and Türe, Mühimme Defterlerinde Gümülcine, 30.
65 Eren and Türe, Mühimme Defterlerinde Gümülcine, 32.
66 Eren and Türe, Mühimme Defterlerinde Gümülcine, 24.
67 Eren and Türe, Mühimme Defterlerinde Gümülcine, 28.
31
500,000 kilograms of wine were produced annually. Some of it was consumed within
the borders of the district; the rest was consumed in neighboring towns.68
2.3.4 The district of Sarışaban
Sarışaban town was located at the southwest border of the region. It was four hours
away from Kavala and ten hours away from the town of Drama. There were
mountains in the north and west of Sarışaban district. The town center was
established on a wide plain. There was a large forest called Koca Orman in the east
and the Aegean Sea in the south.69 The area around the sea was composed of marshes
and wetlands. The ground started to elevate from two hours away from the sea, and
olive trees covered these hills. The lands were so fertile and produced all kinds of
grains. Tobacco was one of the primary products.70 The wealth of the region
increased by means of highly aromatic tobacco production. It was the main source of
trade and export. 650,000 kıyye tobacco was produced in the town.71 Sarışaban
district consisted of three geographical parts, ova, yaka, and cebel, as in the case of
Gümülcine. Except for some of the villages in the plain and mountain, the villages in
this district generally produced tobacco. Especially the tobacco of the yaka villages
was famous for its aromatic taste. Mountain villages produced second-degree
tobacco. Apart from tobacco agriculture, other kinds of economic activities were also
significant. The pastures of the town were home to lots of sheep and livestock
coming from neighboring areas for wintering. The number of beehives is also high,
so farmers produced honey and beeswax. Industrial production consisted of various
68 Eren and Türe, Mühimme Defterlerinde Gümülcine, 29.
69 “1325 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Selanik Vilayet Salnamesidir,” 435.
70 Cousinéry, Voyage Dans La Macédoine, 76.
71 “1325 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Selanik Vilayet Salnamesidir,” 436.
32
textile products, socks production, and the production of necessary tools for the
region. However, they were not exported because the amount of production was not
high.72
2.4 The agricultural and artisanal production of the districts
The salnames offer important insights into the economic activities, livelihoods, and
administrative structure in the Rhodope Mountains, which former studies about the
dağlı rebellion mainly neglected. The inhabitants of the districts mentioned above
mainly lived in the mountains. Although mountains did not have abundant fertile
lands, the economic structure of all these settlements clearly shows that agricultural
production was the primary source of income in the region. There was no large
industrial or artisanal production in the region except for aba and şayak production in
Darıdere and Ahiçelebi.
2.4.1 Cereals and grape
Grains such as wheat, barley, corn, rye, and oats had the most significant share in
agricultural production. Since the geography was mountainous and high, high yields
of these products were not possible except for some parts of Gümülcine, Dimetoka,
and Sarışaban. This situation was understandable when the production patterns were
taken into consideration. Crops such as rye, and maize, which were preferred
especially in mountainous regions, were the most produced cereals, following wheat
and barley.73 There is no information about the export of these grains although the
salnames mention how much tobacco or grape were consumed within the borders of
the districts and how much was exported. However, Viquesnel says that the plains of
72 “1325 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Selanik Vilayet Salnamesidir,” 437.
73 Güran, 19. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Tarımı, 192.
33
Dimetoka, Hasköy, and Edirne exported grains when the demand from Europe
increased in 1848, which led to the decrease in tobacco production.74 Therefore we
can say that while in-demand crops such as wheat and barley was exported,
especially cheaper grains in the region were produced for the subsistence of locals.
Grape production was common in the region. Villagers used grapes for
making molasses and wine. The consumption of this product differed from
settlement to settlement. In the settlements where Muslim population were dominant
such as Kırcaali, grape was mainly used for making molasses. The remaining
amounts were sold to neighboring regions, but this amount was insignificant. Since
there were Christian populations in Gümülcine and Dimetoka, there was wine
production. Some of it was consumed in these districts. The rest was sent to
neighboring towns. In addition to being a subsistence crop, grape also had the feature
of being a commercial product. However, grapes had a lower share in trade than
tobacco, and such a limited grape trade was a part of the subsistence economy of
villagers.
74 Viquesnel, Voyage, 505.
34
Table 1. Agricultural Production in Kırcaali, Dimetoka and Gümülcine (in kg)
Kırcaali Dimetoka Gümülcine
Wheat and kızılca 399,706 4,272,000 12,000,000
Barley 1,643,460 1,110,000 11,750,000
Rye 434,750 1,128,000 9,400,000
Maize 1,200,000 1,536,000 18,000,000
Vetch 22,500 120,000 30,000
Beans 19,242 41,049 384,840
Chickpeas 8,979 51,312 224,490
Lentil 19,242 20,524 25,656
Onion 3,848 121,866 -
Grape 897,960 820,992 -
2.4.2 Tobacco
The salnames clearly show that the most important commercial crop in the region
was tobacco. Except for Dimetoka, there was a high amount of tobacco production in
the villages in Gümülcine, Kırcaali, and Sarışaban, and especially İskeçe and
Sarışaban produced very high-quality tobacco. There was a demand from foreign
countries for the tobacco grown in these towns. For this reason, the tobacco crop was
exported abroad.75 The tobacco of each district was exported to different countries
and cities. Dimetoka, Gümülcine, Fere, and Mekri exported their tobacco to Egypt,
Greece, İzmir, Livorno, and Trieste. The product of Hasköy was transported to
75 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 325–26, 343; Eren and Türe,
Mühimme Defterlerinde Gümülcine, 35–36.
35
Valachia. Drama and Sarışaban’s tobacco were sent to France. However, the best
quality tobacco in these districts was sold within the Ottoman Empire, especially to
Istanbul.76
The quality of tobacco leaves was determining factor in the trade of this
commodity. Tobacco produced in small quantities in Dimetoka was not offered for
sale because its quality was not high. This shows that tobacco production had
particular vulnerabilities, and natural, geographical, and economic factors could
easily affect tobacco quality. Villagers planted tobacco under changing conditions
which affected the amount of product that they harvested. The inevitable impact of
these factors on the producers in the region was undeniable. However, we understand
from salnames that this situation did not drastically affect İskeçe and Sarışaban,
which produced high-quality tobacco because the salnames tell that these places
were getting richer day by day thanks to tobacco production. The nearness of the two
towns indicates that there was an ideal microclimate and soil structure to produce
aromatic tobacco at high standards in the vicinities of İskeçe and Sarışaban.
However, this was not the case in Kırcaali and Dimetoka, which were located further
inland. The geographic location and local climate created an obstacle for these places
to produce high-quality products compared to İskeçe and Sarışaban.
Tobacco production fluctuated year by year in certain districts such as
Kırcaali and Dimetoka. In Kırcaali, while production in 1884 was 90,071 kıyye, it
decreased to 27,392 kıyye in 1886. There was a 70% decrease in production. A
fluctuation continued with ups and downs in production in the following years.77 As
Viquesnel reported in 1847, the tobacco production in Dimetoka decreased from
76 Viquesnel, Voyage, 502–3.
77 “1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne,” 325–26.
36
400,00 kıyye to 50,000 kıyye, and it did not reach higher proportions in the past.
There was 87,5% decrease for ten years period after 1837.78 The reason for this
fluctuation was the decrease in prices and drought-related diseases according to the
salname. Although, these accounts were recorded after 90-100 years from the dağlı
rebellion, they are significant in terms of showing the fluctuations in tobacco
production in the region. Also, when they are compared with hatt- ı hümayuns (1787,
1790, 1798, 1803), Viquesnel’s account (1837), and temettuat registers (1844), we
can see the continuing importance of tobacco agriculture in the region throughout
years.
Also, Viquesnel mentions a civil war (la guerre civile) that harmed tobacco
production in the Rhodope Mountains. According to the author, the Rhodopes’ local
population supported the remnants of janissaries who escaped from the abolition of
their corps. Janissaries organized a military resistance against the central government
and took refuge in the Rhodopes. During the so-called civil war, the region
experienced confiscations. The devastation ruined the wealthy landowners and led to
the destruction of livestock which formed the main wealth in the region. This
situation led to the scarcity of fertilizer that made itself felt since those times, and the
fields became infertile.79 These phenomena show that tobacco production was
vulnerable to certain factors such as diseases, the lack of fertilizers, and price
78 Viquesnel, Voyage, 501.
79 Cette décadence remonte à l'époque de la destruction des janissaires. Les montagnes du Rhodope,
habitées en très-grande partie par une population musulmane fanatique, et favorable à la cause des
janissaires, servit de refuge aux débris de cette milice formidable. Une résistance armée s'organisa. II
fallut la dompter par la force. La guerre civile, les confiscations et les dévastations qui en furent les
tristes conséquences ruinèrent les riches propriétaires et entraînèrent la destruction d'une quantité
considérable de bestiaux qui formaient la principale richesse du pays. La rareté des engrais s'est fait
sentir depuis cette époque; cependant la tranquillité paraît avoir réparé, du moins en partie, les
désastres de la contrée, puisque, d'après M. Badetti, le Kizildéli produisait encore, il y a dix ans,
800,000 oques de tabac. Ce district n'en fournit plus actuellement au commerce qu'une cinquantaine
de mille. Sa décadence réelle et celle des pays de montagnes remontent donc à l'époque du tanzimat
ou réforme. Viquesnel, Voyage, 504.
37
fluctuations. Viquesnel’s attribution to a civil war that stemmed from the abolition of
janissary corps is interesting. He probably referred to the dağlı rebellion while
mentioning the armed resistance of janissaries in the region because there is no
information about a janissary rebellion in the Rhodopes during the reign of Mahmud
II. He probably made a mistake about the civil war while associating it with the
janissary revolt and wanted to mention the dağlı rebellion. Indeed, he might have
referred to the Nizam-ı Cedid (New Order) reforms of Selim III because the reforms
also aimed to abolish janissaries, and the reform movement and the dağlı rebellion
occurred during the same period.
2.4.3 Animal husbandry
As Viquesnel stated that livestock raising had a significant place in agricultural
activities in the region. The region had high numbers of animal population.
Especially, Gümülcine had the highest numbers of livestock population since it
included many districts. Sheep had the first place in animal husbandry in this region,
and goat raising followed sheep raising. The geographical structure of the region can
be seen from these numbers as well. The settlements in the highlands had higher
numbers of goat population as in the case of Kırcaali. Kırcaali had almost twice as
many goats as sheep. Although there was less goat than sheep in Gümülcine, the gap
between these numbers were not high. The high numbers of goats in Gümülcine
derived from the fact that most parts of Gümülcine district were mountainous. The
numbers in salnames show that animal husbandry was an important economic
activity for the local populace. This economic activity was generally a secondary
activity that provided extra income or subsistence for peasant households. However,
there were also households that earned their existence only from animal husbandry.
38
We can not infer the share of households that primarily engaged in animal husbandry
from salnames. Yet, Viquesnel’s account and temettuat registers provide some hints
about the importance of livestock raising in the region.
Table 2. Livestock Numbers in Kırcaali, Dimetoka, and Gümülcine
Kırcaali Dimetoka Gümülcine
Sheep 18,206 39,134 444,635
Goat 30,998 24,915 332,558
Cow 3,500 1,500 30,000
Oxen 2,528 5,166 22,500
Horse 51 1,200 8,000
Calf 900 600 15,000
Water buffalo 216 200 4500
Mule 158 35 9,500
Pig 0 3,256 75
Donkey - 500 6,000
As we have seen above, livestock consisted of main wealth in the region and the
rebellion devastated the wealth according to Viquesnel. Also, temettuat registers
show that there were certain villages that primarily raised livestock for their
subsistence.
2.4.4 The artisanal manufacturing
Apart from agricultural production in the region, there was also handicraft
production consisting of various textile and weaving products for domestic
39
consumption. These products included products such as cloth (bez), aba, şayak, rug,
undershirt (fanila), pillow (yastık), prayer rug (seccade), socks. Women mainly
produced them within their homes. The salnames do not mention the intensive
production of these products for the foreign market. Therefore, the production was
likely to be consumed within the region. However, the fact that textile products such
as aba and şayak were important trade commodities in the Balkans may indicate that
these products were produced for the foreign market.80 While certain regions in the
Balkans were famous production centers of aba and şayak, it is not possible to talk
about a large-scale and intensive production in the Rhodope Mountains except for
Ahiçelebi and Darıdere towns. Production in other settlements was consumed within
the district borders.
80 McGowan, “The Age of the Ayans, 1699-1812,” 698.
40
CHAPTER 3
EMERGENCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF
THE “DAĞLI” (MOUNTAIN PEOPLE) REBELLION
3.1 Introduction
During the last quarter of the eighteenth century and the first quarter of the
nineteenth century, the Balkan peninsula witnessed a long-term turmoil that was led
by dağlı eşkıyası (mountain bandits). Bandit groups under the command of famous
bandit leaders ravaged the vast areas that stretched between the Danube River, the
Aegean and Marmara seas, and along the Maritsa River. The roads between Edirne,
Sofia, and Belgrade were encroached by bandits. They attacked merchants, travelers,
military expeditions and imposed heavy tributes on the local populace of the towns
and villages.81 These banditry activities turned into systematic and all-encompassing
violence and rebellion.82 This situation had radical impacts on the society, economy,
and politics of the period.
The most important phenomenon of the same period was the increasing
power of ayans (local notables) and provincial families. These actors dominated the
Ottoman political, economic, and social sphere from Albania to eastern Anatolia, and
from Egypt to Bosnia during the eighteenth and the early nineteenth century. They
formed the governing body in the provinces by acquiring offices and contracts from
the empire. Their relationship with the central order was not stable. Depending on
their interests, they were at the service of the sultanic order or conflicting with it.83
81 Shaw, Between Old and New, 227.
82 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 24.
83 Yaycıoğlu, Partners of the Empire, 67–68.
41
The rise of these provincial local notables became the characteristic of the eighteenth
century and mingled with the problems of that period. Therefore, this era has been
called the age of the ayans.84 It seems that the phenomenon of dağlı
banditry/rebellion has been overshadowed by the age of the ayans although the
impacts of bandits’ activities were drastic in Rumeli as much as rivalry among ayans,
and ayans’ struggle with the central government. Although the abundance of
documents about dağlı banditry in the Ottoman archive is obvious, there are still few
studies on the subject. Many obscure points wait to be illuminated. Therefore, I
would try to describe the dağlı banditry or rebellion while pointing out some missing
aspects of the subject but firstly I will draw the main lines and chronology of the
issue.
Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Thrace did not witness large-scale battles in the
eighteenth century. However, political anarchy and the consequences of wars
drastically affected these regions. The weakening of the central government caused
the emergence of power struggles among local officials, military men, and Muslim
notables in the Balkans. Extensive banditry activities of armed groups that were
consisted of deserters and disbanded soldiers ravaged the area. The region between
the Danube and the Balkan Mountains faced the worst case. Armed bands, known as
kirdjalis, and the proponents of Pazvandoğlu led to the depopulation and devastation
of the area.85 Therefore, the local memory of the inhabitants of the Central Balkans
called the period between the last quarter of the eighteenth century and the beginning
of the nineteenth century as the “kırcalı time”.86
84 McGowan, “The Age of the Ayans,” 642.
85 Jelavich, History of the Balkans, 97.
86 Gradeva, “Osman Pazvantoğlu of Vidin,” 105.
42
The agricultural and urban production critically decreased because of
unending raids of dağlı bands. It created a new form of social and economic
relationships in which the peasants and corrupted auxiliary soldiers provided their
subsistence by marauding local communities of the Balkans.87 They created armed
bands and became famous as dağlı eşkıyası (mountain bandits) and also, they were
called as “Hasköy eşkıyası” or “Kırcaali eşkıyası” by referring to their homelands in
some imperial dispatches.88 These bandits originally emerged in the mountains of
Kırcaali. Indeed, they were peaceful farmers who had left their villages in search of
booty.89 Later, other groups of bandits from different parts of the Balkans, such as
Albanians participated in them. They dispersed around the region, and they
plundered towns and villages in Rumeli. However, when we looked at their primary
movement area, dağlı unrest is specific to regions that are mainly parts of today’s
Bulgaria.90
It lasted approximately thirty years, but the exact starting point and date of
the rebellion are obscure. Moutaftchieva gives the last quarter of the eighteenth
century and the beginning of the nineteenth century as the period of dağlı rebellion.91
The district of Haskovo was the place where the first attempts of the revolt occurred
at the beginning of the 1780s.92 Özkaya makes a precise assumption about the start of
the rebellion by depending on an Ottoman document dated 1791 and indicates that he
could not find any document about the issue before that date. However, he again
remarks that bandits were most probably operating before this date. He determines
87 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 25.
88 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 61–62.
89 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 105.
90 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 1–3.
91 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 6.
92 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 66.
43
1791 as the first year of unrest because the capital ordered kadı and officials in
Edirne to campaign against the dağlı rebels in this year.93 As an ending point, he says
that the issue finished in 1807 because there were few mentions of dağlı term in the
Ottoman documents after 1807.94
A later study points out an imperial dispatch that was written in 1785 to show
that dağlı rebels had already existed during the middle of 1780s.95 Further inspection
of the Ottoman documents provides to trace back the rebellion in a slightly earlier
period. An archival document shows that the banditry problem had already started in
1779 in Yenice-i Karasu, Gümülcine, Dimetoka, Sultanyeri, Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy,
and Kırcaali Mountains. However, the bandits were not described as dağlıs in this
document.96 Also, another document dated 1796 indicates that the unrest began to
spark thirty years ago before that date. It shows that some banditry activities of the
local populace around the Rhodope Mountains in the 1760s were seen as the
sparking of the dağlı rebellion by the central government.97 However, the intensity of
dağlı banditry must have increased gradually after the 1780s. Especially after 1792,
the anarchy spread to all parts of Rumelia.98
There were specific reasons for the spread of anarchy according to Ottoman
historians. Vasıf Efendi explains the power struggles among the ayans, their
protection of bandits, their unending desire for wealth, and unjust behaviors and
93 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 18–19.
94 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 112.
95 Yılmaz, “Militarization,” 44–45.
96 Başer, Eşkıyalıktan Ayanlığa, 11–12.
97 “… işbu zikr olunan dağlıların sinin -i kesireden berü sureta devlet-i aliyyeye tabi‘ katı çok ___
sergerdeleri eksik olduğu yokdur ancak devlet-i aliyye işbu şerare-i fesad bad-ı zaman ateş serkeş olub
katı çok mahalleri harab edeceğini mülahaza ve ol emirde keyfiyet-i mezburenin def‘-i çaresini
mütalaa itmediğinden bu defa Rumeli ahvali işbu cereyan iden sureti kesb eyledi ve vakıa otuz sene
mukaddem Hasköy tarafında Hacı İbrahim oğlu dimekle maruf bir nefer kimesne işbu dağluların
___sine revaç virmekle başlayub badehu mezburun vefatından sonra Kör Yusuf ve Ak Kabak ve
Derdli ve Köprücüklü ve Halil Ağa ve İdris Ağa on sekiz nefer evladıyla me‘an Ahiçelebi kazasında
Süleyman Ağa nam kimesneler suret-i hakkaniyetde icra-yı memuriyet ve saltanat-ı seniyyeye arz-ı
hidmet vaiyesiyle töhmet-i ihanetlerin perde-i ihtiraz ile setr iderek…” BOA HAT 1344, 52527.
98 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 67.
44
inabilities of officials as the main reasons for the spread of banditry. Asım Efendi
relates this issue with the increase in tax rates and interest rate of muqataas and adds
that the local populace took arms and participated in the bandits due to these
developments. Also, he attributes this problem to the inadequacy of Edirne Bostancı
Ocağı, small numbers of bostancıs could not cope with the bandits. Pehlivan Ibrahim
Pasha points out the resentment derived from the formation of a new army and the
provocation of enemy agents to explain the emergence of banditry.99 Foreign
diplomats also reported to Sublime Porte that there were French revolutionaries
among these bandits.100 Cevdet Pasha wrote that the ones who were appointed with
the solution to the banditry problem were despots. Their involvement did not finish
the problem but rather accelerated it. Also, the problem of Pazvandoğlu and the
invasion of Egypt impeded the solution. Some contemporary officials like Firdevsi
Emin Beg held Tatar khans responsible for the increase in anarchy because they
gathered these bandits in their retinue, and they damaged the economy.101
Yücel Özkaya mainly attributes the causes of dağlı banditry to the
deterioration of the administrative authority and the rising power of ayans in the
Balkans. There are several reasons for the loss of authority in the region according to
the author. The Russian-Ottoman wars in 1768-1774, the Habsburg-Ottoman wars in
1787-1791, and the Russian wars in 1787-1792 caused the capital to lose authority in
the Balkans. The governors appointed by the capital lost their prestige in the eyes of
soldiers and local people due to the impacts of long-lasting wars. The corruption of
the state officials increased, which caused economic, administrative, and social
problems. The ayans demonstrated themselves as powerful and effective local rulers
99 Başer, Eşkıyalıktan Ayanlığa, 13-15.
100 Firges, French Revolutionaries, 137.
101 Başer, Eşkıyalıktan Ayanlığa, 16-17.
45
as an alternative to the administrative authorities appointed by the central
government in this period. They began to act independently and bypassed the viziers
while contacting the capital. Also, they implemented extra burdens on the local
populace as tax collectors. They recruited militias from local people, used bandits as
mercenaries, and began to struggle to expand their authority to the neighboring
regions held by rival ayans. The ayans, as the corrupt and self-seeking governors of
the region led to the chaos and corruption in the Balkans for years. Therefore, some
local people chose to leave their lands, some started banditry and others continued to
suffer in this turmoil.102
Another important factor in the emergence of dağlı banditry is the
disbandment and desertion of the auxiliary soldiers in the Ottoman army and ayans’
forces, especially during and after the Russian-Ottoman wars in 1768-1774, the
Habsburg-Ottoman wars in 1787-1791, and Russian-Ottoman wars in 1787-1792.103
The deserters and ex-soldiers were naturally bandit candidates.104 When the wars
ended, the mercenaries (sekbans) in the Ottoman army, which were recruited from
the surrounding areas became unemployed and began to plunder the settlements
around the Balkans. Also, some of these mercenaries continue to serve for ayans but
some were discharged and participated to the bandit groups due to the lack of
livelihood. Their numbers increased quickly because the urban and rural populace
participated in their groups continuously. The widespread violence led banditry to
turn into means of existence, and poor and landless peasants who could not serve in
the armies of ayans participated in bandit groups for their livelihood.105
102 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 11-15.
103 Yılmaz, “Militarization,” 31.
104 Hobsbawm, Bandits, 33.
105 Yılmaz, “Militarization,” 47.
46
3.2 The activities of Dağlı bandits in Rumelia
Indeed, just before the wars in 1787 broke out, a bandit group numbered around 700-
800 men, led by Hacı İbrahimoğlu, Ak Osman, and Kıvırcıklı Halil were operating
around Hasköy region in 1785. The bostancıbaşı of Edirne was sent to the region to
organize a resistance against the bandits. He bound the local population to a vow106
(nezir) that included certain obligations. According to the nezir, local people pledged
to maintain order. They had to act jointly with authorities and send captured bandits
to the government. If they did not fulfill their requirement, they needed to pay a
certain amount of penalty.107 However, these measures did not become effective on
the bandits, and their activities increased incrementally from that period forward.108
The response of the Ottoman central authorities for increasing banditry was to
send troops on the bandits. At first, the central government tried to suppress these
events by using Edirne Bostancı Ocağı between 1779 and 1791. When bostancıs’ of
Edirne failed to handle with rising activities of dağlıs, the central, thereupon,
appointed certain pashas to quell mutinous dağlıs after 1791.109 In 1791, certain dağlı
bandits attacked the merchants who went to İslimye fair and passengers. They
plundered and burned villages. After that, the capital ordered the judge and officials
of Edirne to capture bandits. Therefore, Çirmen Mutasarrıfı Tahir Pasha would
recruit soldiers from nearby towns, Zağra-i Atik, Çırpan, Filibe. The voyvodas of
Dimetoka, Sultanyeri, Gümülcine, Ahiçelebi would keep the borders of these towns
under control. The bostancıbaşı of Edirne, the ayans of Sultanyeri, Dimetoka,
Ahiçelebi, Filibe, Çırpan, Zağra-yı Atik, Zağra-yı Cedid, Akçekızanlık, Çirmen and
106 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 40.
107 Canbakal, “Vows as Contract,” 92–93.
108 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 40.
109 Başer, Eşkıyalıktan Ayanlığa, 23.
47
Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy would work collaboratively for the destruction of the bandits.
However, Tahir Pasha could not get along with ayans and he was dismissed.110 The
government needed a collective effort to suppress these events with the help of local
forces at first, but it seems that the situation was more complex than an issue that
could be handled with the local forces. Therefore, the central government appointed
officials to solve the banditry problem by bringing local forces of ayans together, but
local politics prevented the first attempt of the central government.
After the dismissal of Tahir Pasha, the central government successively
appointed Damat Alaaddin Pasha in 1791 and Hamamizade Ahmed Pasha in 1792
for the mission. At the beginning of 1792, military units from Edirne, commanded by
Halil and İdris, were sent to defeat the rebels in Hasköy. They clashed with the
bandits, but they could only capture a few. The bandits from Kırcaali (Kırcaali
eşkıyası) devastated several areas. The army was discouraged and dispersed. After
Hamamizade Ahmed Pasha, Zihneli Hasan Pasha who was the governor of Silistre
became responsible for the suppression of the dağlı bandits. The central government
ordered Topuzzade Mustafa, the ayan of Yenice-i Karasu, to serve under Hasan
Pasha’s command. On April 18, 1792, Hasan Pasha clashed with the bandits in
Karakaya which is a village between Gümülcine and Ferecik. However, this did not
put end to the activities of bandits. Especially, paying wages to the soldiers that were
deployed for chasing dağlıs was a severe problem for Hasan Pasha. The bandits were
constantly on the move. In September 1793, the bandits moved from Filibe to
Gümülcine and Yenice-i Karasu. Upon bandits’ oppression of the local populace, the
capital commanded bostancıbaşı of Edirne, Serbestzade Mehmed, to advance on the
bandits. The same order was sent to the authorities of Filibe, Sofya, Siroz, Drama,
110 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 18-19.
48
Pazarcık, Samakov, Nevrekop, İzladi, İskeçe, Pravişte, Gümülcine, Dimetoka,
Plevne, Çirmen, and Kızanlık. They had to work under the command of Hasan
Pasha. However, Hasan Pasha could not become successful in wiping out the bandits.
Therefore, Seyyid Ali Pasha (Alo Pasha) replaced him.111
In 1794, the banditry activities of dağlıs increased, and their raids reached the
vicinities of Gelibolu. They attacked some villages of Gelibolu and threatened the
community of Gelibolu to attack them. The presence of baruthane and peksimadhane
in Gelibolu made the town a target for the bandits, and this situation frightened the
populace. Also, the bandits demanded money from the townsfolk of Bolayır and
threatened them to set afire the town. Therefore, the capital ordered the ayans and
naval units in the region to guard Gelibolu until the threat of dağlıs passed. The
measures that were taken by local authorities prevented the attack of bandits on the
town.112 While in the southeast of Rumelia was being under attack, the bands of Kara
Feyzi and Kara Hasan were ruining everything in their way towards Belgrade in the
southwest.113
In July 1794, the bandits deployed in Cuma town. Therefore, the capital
ordered certain ayans to recruit soldiers and to fight under the command of Ali
Pasha. The ayan of Hezargrad would send 300 soldiers and the ayan of Samakov 400
soldiers. Ali Pasha assaulted bandits who stayed in Kirli village near Hasköy with the
soldiers that were recruited with the help of ayans. The bandits could not resist and
dispersed to other villages. However, Ali Pasha chased them and killed lots of
bandits in Yasi and Yoğurdcu villages. Therefore, the bandits escaped to Despot
Yaylası for saving their lives. At the same time, the central government demanded a
111 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 20-21.
112 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 23-24.
113 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 72.
49
complete solution to the banditry problem from Ali Pasha, and other local
authorities.114
The efforts of local authorities and the number of soldiers to suppress the
rebels show that dağlı subject was not a simple banditry issue. Indeed, the towns
above were not attacked by dağlıs, except Hezargrad and Samakov, but the local
population in the areas that were under dağlı threat could sometimes collaborate with
the bandits.115 Therefore, the units that were recruited from these regions, which are
close to mountainous neighborhoods, were insufficient. Also, they were unreliable,
and recruiting more soldiers from these areas could lead the local population to
incline toward the bandits.
The impacts of widespread banditry were drastic in the eastern parts of the
Balkans. Local population in the areas between Küçük Çekmece and Selanik left
their homes due to increasing banditry activities. 116 The state sent orders to prevent
the migration of people, so it offered the dispensation of taxes like tekalif-i şakka and
örfiye or demanded lesser taxes.117
At the end of 1794, dağlı bands were under pressure, and they appealed for
mercy from the authorities. Ali Pasha got wounded during clashes with the bandits.
In November 1794, Ali Pasha sent a dispatch that informed the capital about his
situation. In this document, he stated that he would attack dağlıs after he recovered
and gave good news about the solution to dağlı problem. However, the amnesty that
was given to dağlıs did not mean the issue was over. Later developments showed that
their peaceful position did not last a long time. It was a strategic decision that saved
114 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 24.
115 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 23.
116 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 27.
117 Yılmaz, “Militarization,” 55.
50
them from destruction.118 Ali Pasha commanded regular troops made up of local
troops. Therefore, he preferred to negotiate with the chiefs of the bandits and
succeeded in obtaining their consent to go and settle in Anatolia. The Sublime Porte
agreed to finance the emigration of the bandits. However, most of the bandits had no
intention of leaving Rumelia, unlike some of their leaders, so the plan did not
actualize.119
Although it seemed that Ali Pasha overcame the dağlı problem by granting
amnesty to the bandits, they again started plundering activities not long after. Ali
Pasha was dismissed due to this situation, and he was sent to Anatolia. Hacı Abdi
Pasha took his place and began to work with local administrators like his
predecessors to cope with this issue. However, some local notables had close
relationships with dağlıs and used these bandits in their struggles against rival
notables. Thus, they aimed to expand their domains. The bandits took refuge in these
ayans when they faced a serious problem.120 In 1795, Hacı Manav who was a bandit
leader, gained strength and took control of Plevne. While he was trying to capture
Lofça, the town dwellers prevented this attempt. Abdi Pasha realized that he could
not cope with the bandits as they continued to collaborate with the ayans. Therefore,
he took some of them to his troops. He cooperated with the ayans of Şumnu and
Hezargrad and killed 500-600 bandits in Kadı Bican village. After that, Hacı Manav
escaped to Gümülcine, and the banditry in the northern parts of the Balkans ended,
but it accelerated in the regions around the southern Balkans and Edirne.121
118 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 26.
119 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 97-98.
120 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 27-28.
121 Uzunçarşılı, “Vezir Hakkı Mehmed Paşa,” 182.
51
The ayan of Gümülcine Mestan Agha, the ayan of Dimetoka Veysioğlu Halil,
the ayan of Fere Ahmed Haseki, the ayan of Hasköy Emin Agha, the ayan of
Sultanyeri Tokatçıklı Süleyman Agha were the main protectors of dağlı bandits.122
These ayans were ruling the areas where the bandits were mainly originated from,
and they had dağlı background. Nevertheless, their attitude towards bandits was not
stable, and they could also fight bandits from time to time when the state needed
their aid.123 As a result of their unreliable actions, most of them would be eliminated
by the state in the end.
The prominent bandit leaders recognized Pazvantoğlu as their supreme chief,
gave him part of their booty, and placed themselves under his command.124 He
patronized famous bandit leaders such as Macar Ali, Gavur İmam, Ali Molla,125
Cenkçioğlu, İsaoğlu, Kara Feyzi, Deli Kadri, Bekirlili Mustafa, Kara Yusuf, and
Sinab.126 He used them in his power struggle against rival ayans and the central
government. Vidin and its vicinities became a refuge for dağlı bands since 1793. The
dağlı groups and the units of Pazvandoğlu began to encroach distant places like
Şehirköy (Pirot), Belgrade, and Plevne. The Ottoman authorities decided to siege
Vidin at the end of 1795 due to Pazvandoğlu’s power and growing popularity.
However, the imperial forces could not become successful, and they had to retreat in
February 1796.127
After the temporary end of the Pazvandoğlu problem, the Ottoman authorities
could easily focus on the dağlı subject. They tried to settle them to finish their
banditry, but this did not happen. Therefore, Hakkı Pasha was appointed to suppress
122 Karal, Selim III’ün Hatt-ı Hümayunları, 115-116.
123 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 29.
124 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 90.
125 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 31.
126 Uzunçarşılı, “Vezir Hakkı Mehmed Paşa,” 182.
127 Gradeva, “Osman Pazvantoğlu of Vidin,” 122.
52
dağlı rebels in January 1796. After the arrival of Hakkı Pasha to Edirne in February,
efforts to end dağlı issue accelerated. It was realized that soldiers that were recruited
from Rumeli were not enough to eradicate bandits, so the central government also
demanded soldiers from the Anatolian ayans, Karaosmanzades and Çaparzades.
They would recruit soldiers from Ankara, Çankırı, İskilip, Kırşehir, Aksaray, and
Niğde and these soldiers would participate to the troops of Hakkı Pasha.128
Before Hakkı Pasha started his campaign, famous bandit leader, Hacı Manav
was killed. Hakkı Pasha firstly determined the notables who collaborate with the
dağlıs and eliminated the ayan of Dimetoka Veysioğlu Halil, the ayan of Yeni Zağra
Halil, the ayan of İştip Tokulluoğlu Mehmed, the ayan of Edirne Eyüb, the ayan of
Gümülcine Mestan, the ayan of Samakov Emin.129 He sent their heads to Istanbul
together with 500 bandit heads. He was quite active in the elimination of dağlıs. He
attacked the village of Aliköy, where the famous bandit leader Mehmed Sinab had
fortified castles. Sinab defended himself against Hakkı Pasha with 600 men but could
not resist artillery fire, and he died in this clash.130 At the end of 1796, the state was
seeking a remedy for the problem. For this, Hakkı Pasha would register how many
villages there were in Çirmen, how many neighborhoods there were in these villages,
how many households there were in these neighborhoods, and wrote the names of
every man who lived in these houses. Thus, they would determine the men who
incline to be bandits. The local populace would be the guarantor for their neighbors,
and they would be supervised. They had to report the men who helped the bandits
and hand them over to the authorities.131 However, these measures did not prevent
banditry activities.
128 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 34-36.
129 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 40.
130 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 128
131 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 40-41.
53
In the spring of 1797, Hakkı Pasha was dismissed because the problem did
not end. Mustafa Pasha was appointed as the governor of Rumeli. Mustafa Pasha had
1000 kırcalı soldiers because he was from Gümülcine, known as the center of the
kırcalıs. The capital sent 600 artillerymen, but Mustafa Pasha could not use these
soldiers because a conflict erupted between him and the ayan of Sofia. Therefore, he
could not even access the center of the territory and could not solve the dağlı
problem. At the same time, large rebel bands devastated both banks of the Meriç
River and established themselves in some Thracian villages. These offensives
reached to the surroundings of Edirne, to the regions of Plovdiv and Çirmen. It is
evident that by the summer of 1797, the attacks of bandits took an unprecedented
scale. Especially, the offensive of Hakkı Pasha forced the dağlıs to regroup and
launch campaigns. In 1797, the attacks of the bandits were no longer disorderly since
they manifested themselves in campaigns that targeted the capital.132
The victories of the bandits in eastern Thrace took on an alarming dimension
that it was decided to demand reinforcements from Ali Pasha, the governor of
Anatolia. He went to the help of Edirne with 1,000 janissaries because the bandits
sieged the city and occupied certain suburbs to exert their pressure better and obtain
the ransom that they requested. The intervention of Ali Pasha would be effective, and
the dağlıs commanded by Kara Feyzi found themselves caught between the troops of
Ali Pasha and Mustafa Pasha. Therefore, they chose to retreat to the mountains.133
In December 1797, the central government decided to undertake a second
campaign against Pazvandoğlu. Küçük Hüseyin Pasha was appointed for this
mission. The governor of Anatolia Seyyid Ali Pasha, Çaparzade Süleyman,
Karaosmanoğlu and some Anatolian ayans would participate him. Also, certain
132 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 130-131
133 Moutaftchieva, L'Anarchie, 131.
54
officials from the parts of the empire would enter under his service. The end of dağlı
banditry was almost unthinkable without Pazvandoğlu’s elimination because dağlı
bands were serving for Pazvandoğlu when they needed to hide.134
In the spring of 1798, the Ottoman army sieged Vidin for the second time, but
it could not succeed. As a result, Pazvandoğlu was forgiven and given a vizierate
title. After that, Pazvandoğlu sometimes dealt with the suppression of dağlı banditry.
After the amnesty of Pazvandoğlu, the state could focus more on dağlı issue.135
However, this situation increased Pazvandoğlu’s charisma and the intensity of
violence and banditry as a means of existence in the Balkans. Also, the imperial
documents reveal that Pazvandoğlu still kept on his connection with Kara Feyzi
despite his vow to destroy Kara Feyzi and his followers. Pazvandoğlu did not put an
end to his relations with dağlı rebels and continued to support them behind the
curtain by providing shelter, weapons, food, and other supplies. In this way,
Pazvandoğlu tried to show that he could still exert his control on dağlı groups alone,
but it was obvious that Kara Feyzi and other bandit leaders had their agendas, and
they did not share the same concerns with Pazvandoğlu.136
The dağlı rebels were operating around the Balkans under the leadership of
certain names. In 1799, a group consisted of Kara Feyzi, Manav İbrahim, Filibeli
Mustafa and Hızır, Manavoğlu, İsaoğlu, Mestanağaoğlu İbrahim assaulted merchants
returning from Selimiye panayırı near Edirne. The ayan of Gümülcine Tokatçıklı
Süleyman Agha who sometimes collaborated with dağlıs campaigned against rebels
and they had to escape. Manav İbrahim, Filibeli Mustafa and Hızır went to the
vicinities of Bergos and began plundering. Kara Feyzi Cenkçioğlu, and İsaoğlu
134 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 47, 49.
135 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 61-62.
136 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 109.
55
headed towards Kırkkilise. The soldiers in Edirne, and the ayan of Gümülcine
engaged in a great battle with dağlıs in June 1799 and many bandits were killed. 137
The bostancıbaşı of Edirne, Yusuf Pasha was making effort to eradicate these
bandits. Ali Zot escaped to Albania with Albanian soldiers. Manav İbrahim, and
other bandits fled to the mountains of Gümülcine. Yusuf Pasha sent orders to the
ayans of Tatarpazarı, İskeçe, Gümülcine, Akçekızanlık, Zağra-i Atik, Çırpan, and
Zağra-i Cedid to attack bandits who stays in their regions. However, bandits were
highly mobile, and when they got a harsh blow, they were escaping to another place.
Tepedelenli Ali Pasha reported that some Albanians also participated dağlıs.
Therefore, he would keep mountain passes to prevent their passage. However, Yusuf
Pasha also reported that the soldiers who were recruited to suppress dağlıs in the
mountains of Gümülcine consisted of Albanians, and their return to their homelands
would be acceptable. Thus, a bandit whose name was Ali Zot went to Albania with
his soldiers.138
Indeed, the actions of the bandits under the command of Kara Feyzi was
horrible for the capital. They defeated the troops of the bostancıbaşı of Edirne and
devastated the northern part of Eastern Thrace in 1799. They retreated to rest in the
winter and share immense booty. At the end of winter, new recruits reinforced them
and headed south again. It was still under the command of Kara Feyzi. Kara Feyzi
launched a campaign, 4000 to 5000 dağlıs advanced under a single command,
towards the most prosperous regions of Thrace. 5000 men led by Kara Feyzi seized
Karinabad and set fire to Fakya, Karabunar, and Kırkkilise. Then, they settled in
Lüleburgaz and cut off all communication between Edirne and İstanbul. The flow of
refugees surging towards the capital alerted the authorities. There was a panic in
137 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 62-63.
138 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 64-65.
56
Istanbul. All infantry in Levend Çiftlik were launched against the bandits, and the
governor of İznik was called for help. Sixty messengers were sent to the ayans of
Rumelia to throw all their forces against Kara Feyzi.139 The first campaign of the
dağlıs in eastern Thrace and before the gates of Constantinople took power in haste
for months but ended with a retreat towards the mountains140.
Palaslı Mehmed Pasha was appointed in 1800 and became a prominent agent
in the suppression of dağlı banditry, although there were some doubts about his
attitude in the beginning. Tirsinikli Mehmed Ağa, the ayans of Şumnu and
Hezargrad, governor of Silistre, nazır of Filibe, and voyvoda of Tırnova would
collaborate with him. However, there were some difficulties according to naib of
Eskicuma. Mehmed Giray captured Eskicuma with his 5000-6000 bandits and stayed
there for 40-50 days. They burned lots of villages and plundered some of them.
Therefore, recruiting soldiers was so hard in this area. Also, the ayans did not help
appointed officials willingly on this issue. They did not participate in these
campaigns personally and just sent some soldiers. Despite these negative effects,
Palaslı Mehmed Pasha and the ayans attacked the bandits in Tırnova, and bandits
escaped towards other directions.141
When dağlı bandits were defeated in Tırnova, they escaped to Eflak lands by
passing the Danube River. While they were escaping, they burned the towns of
Plevne and Niğbolu. Their arrival at Eflak created fear among the community. The
nazır of İbrail recruited 250 soldiers and deployed them in certain places. The
governor of Silistre Musa Paşa and Tokatçıklı Süleyman would chase the bandits.
However, the ayans could not work in a coordinated manner. Therefore, the rebels
139 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 192-193
140 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 196.
141 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 69-70.
57
continued to plunder nearby regions. At the same time, Pazvandoğlu again began to
act rebelliously and gathered bandits around himself. The ayans who helped the
bandits were being punished. The ayan of Babaeski was one of them. He permitted
burning and plundering of villages by the bandits. Therefore, people in Babaeski
requested his dismissal 142
The activities of bandits around Edirne scared the state because Istanbul was
under threat. Therefore, Tokatçıklı Süleyman Agha would chase bandits, and the
bostancıbaşı of Edirne would keep the roads that go to Istanbul with his soldiers. In
October 1800, Tayyar Mahmud Pasha was appointed for the dağlı issue. He came to
Edirne and sent his soldiers to Ciğercioğlu, and İsaoğlu. The treason of the ayan of
Edirne was realized, and he was executed. Also, Ciğercioğlu was killed during the
clashes. At the same time, the dağlı bandits were active in several parts of Rumelia.
They attacked Eflak by taking help from Vidin. They attacked Babaeski and Bergos,
but they were repelled. The massive banditry activities led to the purge of the
Ottoman lands. Some of Tekfurdağı populace left their homes and arrived Silivri,
and some went to Anatolia.143
During the governorate of Osman Pasha, the dağlı bandits were hounded
seriously, but the problem was not solved. In January 1801, the bandits raided many
places, and soldiers were sent on them, but the issue was not over. The central
government appointed Hakkı Pasha as the governor of Rumelia for the second
time.144 In 1801, the local authorities carried out serial offensives against dağlı
bandits. The governor of Silistre Musa Pasha wrote how he struggled with the
bandits in Plevne and Lom. Süleyman Agha and the bostancıbaşı of Edirne chased
142 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 70-73.
143 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 74-76.
144 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 79.
58
the bandits in the vicinities of Edirne, and Babaeski. The ayan of Zağra-i Atik Hacı
Emin Agha, ayan of Kızanlık Mustafa Agha, ayan of Yanbolu, and ayan of Samakov
clashed with the bandits in their regions. The bandit leader Manav İbrahim went to
Vidin, and Kara Feyzi came to Edirne and plundered the vicinities of Kırkkilise. The
voyvoda of Eflak defeated the bandits Manav İbrahim and Koşancalı Halil who
attacked Rahova. While some bandits were staying in the villages of Tırnova, the
ayan of the town reported that he waited for the soldiers would come from Kızanlık.
Also, the state still needed the soldiers that the ayans of Anatolia would send. For
this, Çaparzade Süleyman sent 260 soldiers from Anatolia.145
In 1802, Hakkı Pasha was dismissed, and the ayan of Filibe was appointed as
the governor of Rumeli. However, his mission did not last long, and Tepedelenli Ali
Pasha replaced him. Ali Pasha went to his place of duty late. This led to an increase
in bandits’ activities. They came to Bucharest, and the beg of Eflak escaped to
Austria. Other bands attacked Samakov, but the ayan Raşid Beg repulsed the bandits.
At the same time, the authorities in İskeçe recruited 3000 soldiers to chase the
bandits. When Ali Pasha moved against the bandits with lots of soldiers, the bandits
in Sofia appealed for mercy by pledging to stay in their homes. The state forgave
them on condition that Kara Feyzi and Cenkçioğlu settle in Hasköy, Kara Mustafa in
Filibe. Ali Pasha gained over Albanians among the bandits and split them.146
The fear of Tepedelenli Ali Pasha caused bandits to stay calm for a while.
The state sent Çavuşbaşı Osman Agha to negotiate settlement issue with the dağlı
leaders Kara Feyzi and Ali Molla. They agreed on a decision that Ali Molla would
settle in Fire, but Tokatçıklı Süleyman did not accept this situation. Also, the ayans
of Rumeli did not accept the governorate of Rumeli and requested his dismissal from
145 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 81-84.
146 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 87-89.
59
the central government. Hereupon, Vani Mehmed Pasha replaced him. At the same
time, Manav İbrahim was causing trouble. He held Tutrakan and launched an
offensive against Eflak lands. Tirsiniklizade İsmail sieged Manav İbrahim and
defeated him. Manav İbrahim was not killed and surrendered to Tirsiniklizade. He
took Manav İbrahim to his retinue and gave him farmland, but this situation did not
last long. Manav İbrahim and his friends continued their unruly behaviors. Therefore,
Tirsiniklizade attacked his band and executed him.147
However, the killing of one bandit leader did not end this issue. In 1803,
Selim III was furious because of the unending turmoil that was caused by the bandits.
He told his feelings by saying that,
Yesterday, I could not express myself properly. I could not get over
the fulness of my indignation because of dağlı issue. These hogs
brought us into derision in front of the world. Take strict measures
and eliminate them!148
He criticized unsuccessful attempts of amnesty for the bandits by stating that it leads
their activities to continue. Also, he was complaining about the indecison of the
selection of officials who would march on the bandits. Following the orders of the
sultan, the state sent orders to the ayans of Rumelia to eradicate the dağlı bands and
to unite with Tokatçıklı. However, they could not act together, so the bandits
continued their plundering activities. Sirozlu İsmail Beg scattered the group of Kara
Feyzi that plundered the area between Filibe and Pazarcık. Also, Tokatçıklı defeated
the dağlıs, but their spread to different areas caused new problems. Therefore, the
147 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 91-93.
148 “Dünki gün kemal-i infialimden güzelce ifade eyleyemedim. Şu dağlılar maddesinde ben bir dürlü
gazabımı hazm eyleyemiyorum. Bir değil iki değil bu hınzırlar bizi ‘aleme mashara eyliyor, tamam
tedbir alunub, def‘ ü ref‘lerine mübaşeret oluna…” BOA HAT 174, 7538 [29 Ra 1217 (16 April
1803)].
60
central government wrote orders to the authorities of Bergos, Kırkkilise, Şumnu,
İskeçe, Çorlu and Edirne.149
The state gave the governorate of Rumelia to Ibrahim Pasha in November
1803. At the same time, the actions of Tokatçıklı Süleyman casted doubts. Although
he worked for the destruction of dağlı bandits, the state realized that he secretly
supported the bandits as well. Therefore, the central government secretly looked for
some means for the killing of Süleyman Agha. Ibrahim Pasha was assigned to kill
Tokatçıklı Süleyman Agha, and Filibeli Hüseyin Agha. However, the bandits were
wandering around Çorlu and Tekfurdağı, and the state was scared that the rebels
would unite with Tokatçıklı. Therefore, the state called Kadı Abdurrahman Pasha to
fight these bandits and put Nizam-ı Cedid soldiers under his order in June 1804. He
faced the bandits in Malkara and defeated them. The rebels escaped to the other side
of the Balkans. Ibrahim Pasha would chase the rebels, but he did not want to bother
the ayans of the region and did not go there. So, he wrote to Tirsiniklizade to chase
the bandits. Tirsiniklizade beheaded Tokatçıklı when he came to Tırnova and sent his
head to Ibrahim Pasha.150
The bandits came together in Çorlu and went to Tekfurdağı. They shot at the
navy, so more units were sent from the naval troops. In the meanwhile, Deli Kadri,
Kara Feyzi, and Mahmud and Mestan who were the nephews of Tokatçıklı Süleyman
damaged the surroundings of Hasköy. In June 1805, the bandit leader Deli Kadri’s
band increased its activities and came to Edirne and Babaeski. At the same time, the
bostancıbaşı of Edirne wrote a letter to inform the capital that bandits were
approaching İstanbul and there would be a need for Anatolian soldiers. The situation
was so harsh because the bandits almost came to the capital. The state handled Deli
149 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 95-96.
150 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 102-104.
61
Kadri problem by forgiving and settling his band in Bergos, but this was not a
complete solution. Therefore, he was sent on Serbian rebels.151
The death of Tokatçıklı Süleyman was a turning point in the life of Kara
Feyzi. This did not end the problem but changed the content and nature of the
rebellion abruptly. After his death, the authorities in İstanbul began to think about the
settlement and co-optation of Kara Feyzi and his close retinue. 152 The settlement of
Kara Feyzi and his men in Meriç Valley could create a drastic problem so some
members of the local populace strictly refused this decision. Therefore, the central
government decided to settle him in the borderland between new autonomous
Serbian lands and the Ottoman Empire.153 Settlement process of such a crowded and
unreliable group was not easy because both sides did not trust each other. Therefore,
Kara Feyzi and his men would remain in Filibe and its vicinities.154 Later, their
settlement in Zağra-i Atik was discussed but it was not accepted.155 In 1806, the local
populace of Gümülcine, which was the town of deceased Tokatçıklı Süleyman
demanded Kara Feyzi to become their ayan from the capital. The sultan did not
confirm this request so their settlement to Breznik/İznebolu which was a new frontier
between Rumeli and Serbian was decided.156 The settlement of a famous bandit
leader and his men in the frontier led to the fade-out of the rebellion in the Balkans.
Former bandits became the warriors of the frontier against non-Muslim rebels.
In 1806, the governor of Morae Osman Pasha became the governor of
Rumelia. Also, Alemdar Mustafa Pasha became the ayan of Rusçuk. He eliminated
Yılıkoğlu Süleyman and his men Gavur İmam and Odacıoğlu Seyfullah. In 1807, he
151 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 106-107.
152 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 288-290
153 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 291.
154 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 297.
155 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 298.
156 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 303.
62
was granted a vizierate rank. His army consisted of lots of infantry that were called
as Kırcaali. When he came to İstanbul, he also brought his army, which led to the
decrease of riffraff in Rumelia. Also, local ayans were gradually eliminated after
1807, and this caused a diminution in patrons of the bandits. Tokatçıklı Süleyman,
Tirsiniklizade İsmail, Yılıkzade Süleyman, and Pazvandoğlu Osman died at this
stage. The remaining ayans were respectful towards Alemdar Mustafa Pasha.
Famous bandit leaders Koşancalı Halil and Kara Feyzi were settled in the Serbian
border and frontier by the state. Also, they took a mission in the Ottoman-Russian
Wars. Koşancalı Halil died in a battle in September 1810 with Russians. 157 All these
developments played a role in the decrease in dağlı banditry after 1808.
3.3 The Dağlıs: Rebels or bandits?
The comprehension of the difference between the terms “rebel” and “bandit” is a
significant factor in understanding the causes of dağlı phenomenon. The imperial
documents mainly label men who participated in the activities of dağlıs as eşkıyâ and
şakî, the terms literally mean bandit and brigand. However, they were sometimes
labeled as ‘âsi and bâgî, the terms designate a rebel, as in the case of Kara Feyzi.
Even the state called them as ha'inü'd-din ü devlet which means enemy of the faith
and the state. The difference in terminology derives from the imperial vocabulary
which was based on Islamic jurisprudence. According to the interpretation of some
jurists, rebels fight for a cause, and this constitutes the main difference between
rebels and bandits. This interpretation makes it difficult to fight against the rebels
because there are certain limits for fighting them. Preventing their damage and selfdefense
are legitimate reasons to combat them. However, fighting against bandits
157 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 109-113.
63
does not have limits as in the case of rebels and they could be punished for their
crimes.158 It is obvious that the usage of the term bandit in the official documents
legitimizes punishing and fighting the insurgents, so this is a probable reason to use
the term banditry intensively for dağlıs’ activities rather than the term rebellion.
The rebels were the inhabitants of Gümülcine region, and there were more
than 3,000 settled rebels (kazalarda olan oturak eşkıya) in the districts. The central
government needed 8,000 soldiers to suppress these rebels.159 The self-description of
dağlıs is significant to see how they described their activities and whether they call
themselves rebels or bandits. Although it is hard to hear the voices of these people in
the imperial dispatches, there are few documents that carry their statement. Kara
Feyzi, as one of the most famous dağlı leaders, strictly refused the label of an
ordinary bandit in his direct correspondences with the Ottoman government and
strived to display himself as a rebel who had a cause.160 A document dated 1796
about dağlı issue clearly presents how dağlı insurgents describe themselves. In the
document, a conversation between a villager and one of the rebel leaders called Ak
Kabak is mentioned. After Ak Kabak settled in a villager's house, he mercifully
warns the owner of the house about bandits. He says to the villager to hide his
belongings immediately in a secure place, to take care of himself, and to provide his
supply because robbers would come there and destroy his house when rebels leave
the village. Then the villager asks curiously, “Aren't you the ones you called robbers,
or will another dağlı chief like you come to our village?” (Ya hırsız dediğiniz siz
158 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 176–77.
159 “…tathir-i kaza buyurulur ise yalnız Gümülcine kazasında üç binden ziyade oturmuş eşkıya
olmağla bunlar top olmak ve ayağa kalkmak lazım gelir ise mezburlara galib olacak kadar tedarikat ---
lazım --- emr-i tathire şüru sureti tercih olunur ise başı bağlı askere muhtaç olduğunu ve bu suretde tez
elden sekiz bin asker tertib olunup işbu sekiz binden üç bin nefer piyade ve iki bin nefer süvari olarak
beş bin neferi tarafına vasıl olur ise kifayet edeceğine binaen…;” “fi-ma-ba’d kazalarda olan oturak
eşkıya ayaklanmamak ve yeni baştan peyda olmamak için icra olunacak --- tedbirlere” BOA HAT
1404, 56823. [29 Ra 1193 (16 April 1779)].
160 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 177.
64
değil misiniz yoksa sizin gibi karyemize konacak başka bir dağlu sergerdesi mi
gelecek?). Ak Kabak replied that since they are men of rebellion (erbâb-ı ‘isyân),
they are not interested in looting his belongings like plate, tongs, cooking pot, and
straw mat but the other group is used to doing this kind of robbery, and when they
come to his village, they destroy his village and snatch all his things. Indeed, the next
day, an official comes with a group of Albanians, and exactly what Ak Kabak said
comes true. Villagers lost all materials that they have acquired with great effort for
long years in one day.161 The document explicitly shows that dağlı rebels
differentiated themselves from Albanian bands and labeled them as robbers (hırsız).
The men of rebellion (erbâb-ı ‘isyân) is a significant term to display self-description
of dağlı insurgents. They pointed out a precise difference between their actions and
banditry while labeling other groups as robbers and naming themselves as the men of
rebellion. However, there is a lack of information about the primary motive for what
led them to revolt in the document.
There were both rebels who had their cause and among these groups bandits
who bore arms for looting. The upheaval in the region, the involvement of different
groups in violence and plundering activities make it difficult to determine whether
the actors of these incidents were rebels, or bandits, or mercenaries who were
recruited by ayans. As we have seen above, imperial documents tended to label dağlı
161 “…dağlu sergerdelerinden Ak Kabak dimekle maruf kimesne hanesine konduğu köylünün birine
büsbütün eşyayı hakiraneni düşirüb bildiğin mahfuz ve me’men mahallere hıfz ve kendi selametin
çaresine bak ve tedarikini gör zira bu tarafdan kalkub gittiğimiz gibi işbu karyeye hırsız gelüb
muhtemel senin dahi haneni harab ve yebab iderler ve bu zikr olunan köylüye keennehu terahhum
yüzünden haber virdikde zikr olunan köylü dahi ya hırsız didiğiniz siz değil misiniz yohsa sizin gibi
karyemize konacak başka bir dağlu sergerdesi mi gelecek diyü sual yüzünden izhar-ı suret-i taaccüb
ve istiğrab eyledikde biz erbab-ı isyandan olduğumuzdan kendi sahan ve maşa ve tencere ve hasır
misüllü eşyanızı ve malzemenizi garet ve yağma etmeği irtikab ider makuleden değiliz ancak didiğim
öbür takım bu makule hırsızlık ile meluf olduğundan köylerinize geldikçe sizleri harab iderler ve
büsbütün şeylerinizi alenen kapuşurlar ve bu cevab virmişdir vakıa zabt ve rabta memur olanlardan
biri ertesi günü yanında olan Arnavud taifesiyle karye-i mezbura uğrayub Ak Kabağın didiği aynıyla
vaki olmuş dermend köylülerin her biri kedd-i yemin ve ‘arak-ı cebin ile ömrünü telef iderek sinin-i
kesire zarfında tedarik edebildiği büsbütün levazımatdan bir gün içinde mahrum kalmışdır…” BOA
HAT 1344, 52527 [29 Z 1210 (5 July 1796)].
65
bands as bandits while dağlıs were describing themselves as rebels. At this point,
when we look at the event by focusing on dağlı groups, it would be more suitable to
describe the events as the rebellion of dağlıs. The rebels identified themselves as the
men of rebellion by carefully differentiating themselves from bandits and refusing to
be bandits. Also, the empire used the bandit term with a legal and political aim that
helped to legitimize its actions against these people by ignoring the causes behind the
rebellion. Therefore, the frequent use of the bandit term in the imperial discourse was
an intentional usage that neglects the background of events by focusing on the
violence led by rebels.
The imperial documents and local people are keen on describing rebels as
bandits. They named all plundering activities as banditry. On the other hand, rebels
refused this classification, and they emphasized the rebellious overtones of their
activities by indicating that they were not interested in goods of villagers. However,
the same document dated 1796 also shows that farmers who were called as the men
of cultivation and agriculture (erbab-ı hars ve ziraat) left their children and livestock
due to increasing atrocities and attacks. According to the document, they started
robbery everywhere by taking arms and thus leading to the increase of banditry day
by day.162 It seems that there was a cycle of violence that caused the rural
communities in the Balkans to rebel. The actions of one group triggered another
group to participate in this cycle. The dağlıs as the first ring of chain of violence
gave their name to the rebellion and banditry activities and motivated many others to
participate in them. Most of the leaders of the rebellion, and villagers who attended
to banditry activities were members of dağlı community. Therefore, understanding
162 “… erbab-ı hars ve ziraat haklarında dahi zuhura gelen mezalim ve teaddiyat derece-i kemale
reside olduklarından aceze-yi mezkurun dahi hah ve nanah kendi sıbyan ve hayvanatlarını terk ile berü
tüfenk ellerine alub her tarafda hırsızlığa mübaşeret itdiklerine binaen eşkıya zümresi yevmen-feyevmen
tekessür bulmakdadır…” BOA HAT 1344, 52527. [29 Z 1210 (5 July 1796)].
66
the roots of this community would help to look at the causes of the rebellion from a
meaningful framework, but firstly we need to categorize different groups that had
participated in the rebellion and banditry activities.
The dağlıs differentiated themselves from ordinary bandits and named
themselves as the men of rebellion. Also, imperial dispatches made a distinction
between bandits by categorizing one group as real dağlı bandits and the other ones as
foreigners (yabancı) even though they acted in unison. Being aware of the difference
between the two groups, the capital sent officials to the region to separate these two
groups from each other by sending foreigners to their home provinces and settling
real bandits in their homelands and so aimed to prevent their banditry. At this point,
while the real dağlı bandits refer to the locals of the region who were called as
dağlıs,163 foreigners were Albanian mercenaries and bandits who came to the region,
participated in rebels, their plundering activities, and did not return to their
homelands. Albanians were more prone to be mercenaries and bandits because when
the empire tried to resettle them, they did not accept to be settled by stating that they
could not engage in farming, contrary to dağlı rebels.164
Both dağlıs and Albanians could enter ayans’ service as mercenaries. Also,
Albanians could be recruited by pashas sent by the central government to fight
against dağlı rebels and unruly ayans. The loyalty of both groups could change
depending on conditions so they could fight against each other.165 The imperial
163 “… çavuşbaşı ağa taife-i merkumeyi yerli yerlerine iskân etmek ve yabancılarını dahi vilayetlerine
göndermek üzere taraf-ı devlet-i aliyyeden memur olarak İskeçeye azimet etmiş…” BOA HAT 65,
2837 B. [29 Z 1217 (22 April 1803)]
164 “… ve taife-i merkumenin yabancıları asıl dağlı sergerdelerine sizler ötede haksız ve birkaç
neferden ibaretsiniz lakin biz kırk neferden mütecaviz sergerdeyiz biz rencberlik idemeyiz diyerek
beynlerinde kıylükal suretiyle yabancı olan Arnavudlardan üç yüz mikdarı haşerat Bergoslu Deli
Kadri ve --- oğlu ile ayrılub Havas-ı Mahmud Paşa tarafına doğru azimet eyledikleri havadisleri
söylenmekde olmağla …” BOA HAT 65, 2837. [29 Z 1217 (22 April 1803)]
165 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 49-50.
67
officials discussed suppressing dağlı rebels by posting Albanian mercenaries under
the command of Albanian pashas in town centers around the settlements that dağlıs
lived, but officials also were not trusting Albanians and regarding them like dağlıs.166
The state officials were aware of the disloyalty of Albanian mercenaries because they
could participate in dağlı bands when they found their payments low. These two
groups were similar in terms of consisting of men who were inclined to become
bandits and mercenaries.167 In spite of the similarities between these two groups and
the convenience of dağlı term for Albanian groups since they came from the
mountainous territories of Albania, they were categorized differently from dağlı
rebels of the Eastern Balkans. They created a distinct group from dağlıs in a multiactor
environment of the period.
3.4 The Dağlı community
In an environment with several actors, the central role belonged to dağlı rebels in the
violence and banditry activities in that period. The brief chronology of events given
in the previous section explicitly reveals how diverse the actors are and how intense
the transition among groups is. The multiplicity of actors led dağlıs to be evaluated
in the same place with these different groups or as a part of them. This situation
makes it harder to determine the main reasons of dağlı rebellion. To understand the
probable reasons for the rebellion, I will first try to discuss the characteristics of
dağlı community rather than complex sequence of events. At this point, I will
166 “…Hasköy ve Gümülcine ve Sarışaban ve Darıdere semtlerinde üç nefer mirmiran bin nefer adam
ile ikamet eylemesi maddesine bin nefer adam idaresine muktedir mirmirandan kimler var ve üç bin
nefer asker senevi ne mikdar masraf ile olur meğer Arnavud paşaları tayin oluna Arnavud askeriyle
Arnavud paşalarının ol tarafta ikametleri dağlının ikametlerine müşabih olmaz mı şu kadar farkı olur
ki bu askere dağlı denilmeyip Arnavud denilir bir taraftan kasabat ve kurayı harap ve fukara-yı
raiyyeti tecrim ve bir canibden dahi taraf-ı miriden ulufe talep ederler bu mahzurlar varid olduğu
halde işbu üç nefer mirmiranın mahal-i mezkureye tayin ve ikameleri etraflı --- muhtaçtır zan
ederiz…” BOA HAT 1404, 56823. [29 Ra 1193 (16 April 1779)]
167 Anscombe, “Albanians,” 103.
68
propose some ideas about the roots of rebels by concentrating on the constituents of
the dağlı community, their geography, and their means of subsistence.
The geographical region that the dağlı community lived in was the Rhodope
Mountains and the settlements around it. An archival document dated 1796 explicitly
shows that this group lived in the mountainous region between Fire and Dimetoka in
the east, and Despot Yaylası (Dospat Plato in present-day Bulgaria) in the west,
Yenice-i Karasu and Gümülcine in the south and Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy in the
north.168 Also, linguistic studies that were done in the later years around Kırcaali
region and Thrace show that there is a special dağlı dialect and it is one of the
dialects of Turkish in Rumelia.169 When we bring together the archival documents
and linguistic studies, it seems possible to mention the existence of a specific dağlı
group or identity with some typical characteristics that share the same geography and
have a unique dialect. The leading role in the dağlı rebellion must have belonged to
this group as the members giving their name to the rebellion.
Former studies have mainly ignored a specific dağlı identity and tended to
display the dağlı rebellion as the activities of some groups that first started banditry
and then took shelter in the mountains rather than the rebellion of the local populace
of these mountains, although they have also mentioned the Rhodopes region as the
homeland of some dağlı leaders. Esmer, citing Vera Moutaftchieva, states that the
issue was the result of the banditry of villagers who took refuge in the mountains due
to the aggressions of Tatars who left their homelands after the invasion of Crimea by
168 “…Rumeli memalikinin ekseri mahallerine şerarepaş ihtilal olan dağluların bulundukları asıl
mesken ve mevaları Fire tarafından ve Dimetoka kazasından ve Despot Yaylası dimekle maruf mahale
dek denizin deniz tarafından Yenice ve Gümülcine didikleri maruf yerlere dek mümted olub sakin
oldukları işbu mahallerin ekseri taşlık ve dağlıktır…” BOA HAT 1344, 52527 [29 Z 1210 (5 July
1796)].
169 In the linguistic studies made within the borders of Turkey, interviewees who speak dağlı dialect
express that their ancestors or themselves migrated from Bulgaria. Kalay, Edirne İli Ağızları, 8; Şanlı,
“Kırklareli,” 11; Tulu, “Kırcali,” 154.
69
Russian Empire in 1783 and came to Meriç valley. Also, he explains why bandits
were called mountain bandits by indicating that they mainly escaped to and hid in the
Rhodopes and Balkan Mountains. 170 However, Moutaftchieva also proposes that
most bandits were ordinary villagers who lived around Kırcaali and began banditry
because of poverty.171 Esmer mentions the same region with Moutaftchieva as the
homeland of Kara Feyzi and his band’s core members and suggests that they were
from Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy region.172 Although there are some uncertainties about
the origins of rebels because of the multiplicity of actors, both Esmer and
Moutaftchieva indicate that the area that rebels were originated from was the
settlements around the Rhodope Mountains. The labels of Hasköy eşkıyası (Haskovo
bandits) and Kırcaali eşkıyası (Kardzhali bandits) and certain Ottoman documents
support the idea that they had their origins in the Rhodope mountains.173 However,
these studies do not mention any group identity that took shape around this
geography. The dağlı as an inclusive epithet complicates ascertaining the identity of
rebels and their homelands because of the fact that the Balkans is a generally
mountainous region, and people from other regions participated in dağlı rebels.
Taking notice of local classifications of the inhabitants of the region helps to
distinguish other local rebel and bandit groups from dağlı rebels because most
imperial documents are generally opaque about the origins of various groups. At this
point, linguistic studies are important to show the presence of a specific dağlı
170 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 59-60; Yılmaz uses the same comment of Esmer while
classifying the roots of rebellion, Yılmaz, “Militarization,” 42-43.
171 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 105.
172 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 61-62.
173 “…bu defa tesyar eylediğin tahriratında ve ilamlarda sabık’ül-beyan Gümülcine ve Yenice-i
Karasu ve Çağlayık ve Dimetoka ve Sultanyeri ve Ferecik ve Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy ve Çirmen ve
Kırcaali kazaları ahalileri huşunet ile meftur ve fezahata ma’il olduklarından bi’d-defaat ba-ahkam-ı
celile mübaşirler tayin ve içlerinden şaki olanlar temyiz ve mücazatları infaz ve ba-hücec-i şeriyye
nüzura kat‘ ve nizam-ı rabta…” BOA C.AS. 1099, 48547 [29 Ra 1193 (16 April 1779)].
70
community in the eastern Balkan geography and its differences from other groups.
These studies show that there are two main Turkish dialects in the Eastern Balkans,
which are gacal and dağlı dialects.174 These two groups are mainly divided from
each other geographically. Dağlı dialect is specific to the Rhodope region, especially
settlements around Kırcaali town.175 Although central parts of Bulgaria in the south
of Deliorman (Ludogorie in present-day Bulgaria) are mountainous areas, inhabitants
of these regions were different from dağlıs, and they were called as gacals. This
Turkish-speaking group also sees themselves as the natives of the region that mainly
corresponds to central and northern Bulgaria and eastern Thrace.176 Some of them
were probably participating in the rebellion and banditry activities with the name of
Deliorman bandits (Deliorman eşkıyası),177 but they were different from dağlıs based
on their geographical origins and particular identity.
Although there was a specific dağlı dialect of Turkish specific to the people
who lived in the Rhodope Mountains, Turkish-speaking people did not wholly
constitute the whole inhabitants of the territory. Pomaks, Bulgarians, Greeks, and
Sarakatsinis lived in this region. Therefore, the participation of these different ethnic
groups to the rebellion was a usual situation. It was known that members of non-
Muslim subjects such as İnce Stoyan and Kara Tanaş became active in some dağlı
bands.178 The region had a crowded Pomak population that was also identified by
living in the mountains.179 This Muslim group was living all around the Rhodope
174 These studies also mention the Pomak dialect as a third dialect of Turkish in these provinces. Since
this dialect has developed with the learning of Turkish by Pomaks whose mother tongues were Pomak
language which is a completely different language than Turkish, it must be appropriate not to include
Pomak dialect in this paragraph; Kalay, Edirne İli Ağızları, 6–10; Şanlı, “Kırklareli,” 11–15.
175 Tulu, “Kırcali,”: 154; Günşen, “Doğu Trakya,” 446-47.
176 Kowalski, “Kuzey-Doğu,” 480; Olcay, Doğu Trakya Yerli Ağzı, 10.
177 Özkaya, Dağlı İsyanları, 12-14.
178 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 322; Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 39,343.
179 Demetriou, “Prioritizing,” 100–101.
71
Mountains but especially centered around the western part of the mountain.180 They
played a significant role in the rebellion. Their role can be seen in the case of Sinab
who was a member of this community and one of the most famous dağlı rebel
leaders. He controlled the northwestern parts of the Rhodope Mountains with his
group, which numbered around five hundred men.181 He became a controversial
protagonist in many Rhodope legends. While some legends were mentioning his
exploits, cruelty, and immense wealth, the rest presented him as a real hero.182 As
being the natives of the region, Pomaks must have played a significant role in dağlı
rebellion under the leadership of dağlı chiefs as well.
In this part, I tried to explore the roots of dağlıs and the usage of dağlı term.
As a geography-specific term: the dağlı label described the rebels originating from
the Rhodope Mountains without paying attention to their ethnic identities, so it must
have become an inclusive term that encompasses the rebels originating from the
region. However, the presence of a Turkish speaking group from the same region,
also called dağlıs causes an ambiguous situation about the origins of the rebels. This
makes it harder to ascertain the roots of the rebels and may lead to an assumption
only this group rebelled. Yet, the participation of other groups shows that it was a
general problem involving the entire region. As a result of this situation, it would be
proper to say that the rebels who had a dağlı identity consisted mainly of the
population of the same area, which was inhabited by a Muslim population. Turkish
groups that were called dağlıs might play a leading role and might have given its
name to the rebellion but also Pomak community and non-Muslims in the region
180 Apostolov, “The Pomaks,” 728-29.
181 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 103.
182 Moutaftchieva, L’Anarchie, 128.
72
participated in the rebellion. The main common point of all these different groups
was that they were inhabitants of the Rhodope Mountains.
Living in a mountainous area, the geographical and environmental aspects
must have had a significant role in the activities of the inhabitants of the region.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to find the roots of the rebellion by firstly
indicating that the rebellion was located in a specific region and then focusing on this
specific geography. Firstly, I tried to show the roots of people who had the dağlı
ethnonym in the Balkans. In the remaining sections, I will focus on how living
conditions in the mountains shaped the lives of their inhabitants and their livelihoods.
Thus, I will try to understand the roots of the rebellion by looking at the changes in
these factors.
In his majestic work, Braudel mentions a typical mountain dweller character,
famous for his wild personality, that has been the subject of Mediterranean
literature.183 Undoubtedly, their characteristics were the result of harsh living
conditions in the mountains of the Mediterranean because they had to struggle in
tough circumstances for their daily necessities such as food, water, shelter, and fuel.
They were frequently under threat of hunger, famine, epidemics, brigandage, and
war.184 Poverty and physical difficulties were just ordinary aspects of life in the
highlands. They lived outdoors without putting on sufficiently protective clothes,
walked over frozen terrains and cold rivers without shoes. This lifestyle endowed
them with endurance and toughness, which they could especially show during longlasting
wars. They distinguished themselves by their breathtaking resistance and
fortitude during their services in various armies and wars.185 The dağlıs of the
183 Braudel, The Mediterranean, 30.
184 McNeill, The Mountains, 104.
185 McNeill, The Mountains, 33–34.
73
Rhodope Mountains had common traits as members of the Mediterranean mountain
communities.
With similar statements, Ottoman documents delineate a particular wild
character of the dağlı community in the Rhodopes area. According to a document,
roughness and villainy were the inherent characteristics of the population who lived
in Gümülcine, Yenice-i Karasu, Çağlayık, Dimetoka, Sultanyeri, Ferecik,
Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy, Çirmen, and Kırcaali.186 Another document explains how
they got their physical endurance and valor before they reached their twenty-fives by
stating that they acclimatized themselves to cold and hot weather conditions
according to the season from their young ages, marched against each other, always
used muskets and swords, and climbed the mountains and took shelter there.187
The important issue was what reasons engendered the empire to take notice of
the characteristics of this folk and why the issue became the subject of imperial
dispatches in detail. Their rebellion was the main reason that the empire sent officials
to investigate and suppress the revolt but it is also obvious that prolonged activities
of the rebels led the state to realize that the activities of the rebels were not ordinary
banditry. Therefore, imperial officials tried to inspect the issue comprehensively,
reflected on the problem carefully, and sent these detailed documents explaining the
possible causes of the rebellion to the capital.
As we have seen in the previous chapter, the state officials deliberated on
certain measures to prevent the activities of the rebels. Settling Albanian mercenaries
186 BOA C.AS. 1099, 48547.
187 “…küçük yaşlarından mukteza-yı mevsime göre gah berd ve hararetin şiddetine kendilerin
alıştırmak ve gah biri birleri aleyhlerine yürümek ve daima tüfenk ve kılıç kullanmak ve nice nice
mesafat -ı baideyi meşyen yürümek ve büyük dağlara ve balkanlara çıkmak ve ihtifa etmek misüllü
zahmet ve meşakkatler ile meluf olduklarından sin ü salleri yirmi beş seneyi mütecaviz olmazdan
evvelce mukavemete kadar ve gereği gibi bahadır bir kavim olur…” BOA HAT 1344, 52527 [29 Z
1210 (5 July 1796)].
74
in the towns from where the rebels originated was one of the ideas of some state
officials. However, the solution was seen as an improper measure and faced the
opposition of other officials.188 The imperial measures that were taken against the
rebels mainly consisted of suppressing their rebellion by brute force. However, longlasting
rebellion demonstrates that the state could not succeed to eradicate their
actions in this way. The other option that the empire mainly preferred to prevent
rebellion was the negotiation with the rebel leaders, appointing them to state
positions or as governors in certain provinces. As a matter of fact, this occurred in
the case of Kara Feyzi, as we have seen in the first part of this chapter.189 However,
the negotiation issue needs to be considered carefully because it provides certain
clues for the rebellion. The subject was the resettlement of the rebels in certain
places. The empire negotiated this matter with the bandit leaders, and the problem
was solved to a great extent after the relocation of the rebel groups in various places,
such as Breznik in the case of Kara Feyzi. If the rebels demanded their resettlement
in other regions, it was a sign of inevitable problems in their homelands. Therefore,
focusing on their geography would provide multiple answers for understanding the
roots of the rebellion.
188 BOA HAT 1404, 56823 [29 Ra 1193 (16 April 1779)].
189 Esmer, “A Culture of Rebellion,” 2.
75
CHAPTER 4
BACKGROUND TO REBELLION:
LAND, AGRICULTURE, AND ENVIRONMENT
This chapter makes a general assessment of the nineteenth-century rebellions in the
Balkans and other parts of the empire and looks at common points and differences
between these rebellions and dağlı rebellion. Since the rebellions in the Ottoman
lands in the nineteenth century were mainly related to land issues, it tries to show
how the land regimes developed in the Rhodope Mountains. Then, it examines the
agricultural production dynamics of the villages in these Rhodopes through an
analysis of the temettuat registers (land and income surveys).
4.1 Nineteenth-century rural rebellions in the Ottoman Empire
Banditry activities in the Balkans are generally seen as activities specific to non-
Muslim minorities. The reason for this was associated with the retreat of the Slavic
communities in the region to the mountainous areas after the Ottomans conquered
and dominated the Balkans. Non-Muslim communities formed special bands called
haiduk. They sometimes adopted a semi-independent lifestyle that is far from the
central authority and sometimes rebelled against this authority.190 This kind of
lifestyle had an important role in the nationalist revolts of the Balkan nations in the
nineteenth century. However, the driving force of nationalism in these revolts has
been discussed in previous studies, and it has been argued that these revolts mainly
stemmed from economic, social, and agricultural changes.191 As a matter of fact, the
190 Barkan, “Balkan Memleketlerinin,” 485.
191 İnalcık, Tanzimat; Barkan, “Balkan Memleketlerinin Ziraî Reform Tecrübeleri.”
76
dağlı rebellion, which broke out just before the national revolts in the Balkans, was
led by mainly Muslim groups. Considering the dağlı rebellion, the view that Turks
and other Muslim groups could not penetrate the mountainous regions, especially in
the Balkans, does not seem consistent if we consider the Rhodope Mountains.
Especially in the eastern part of the Rhodopes, the majority of the population
consisted of Turks and Pomaks towards the west. They were the main agents of this
rebellion.
The phenomenon that dağlı rebels consisted of a mainly Muslim population is
related to the presence of the Left Branch (Sol Kol), one of the main routes of the
Ottoman advance, and the settlement of crowded Turcoman groups in this region
after the conquest of the region.192 The settlement of Muslims in the Rhodopes was
followed by the conversion of the Christian population to Islam.193 At this point, the
fact that the dağlı rebellion originated in a region mostly composed of Muslims
makes the nationalist roots of the revolts in the Balkans questionable. As Ömer Lütfi
Barkan stated, the general historiography's attempt to explain the revolts in the
Balkans with nationalist motives caused the economic and social reasons of these
revolts to be ignored. Barkan emphasized that the economic conditions of the
communities who had to live under the Ottoman yoke and whose lands were
confiscated were effective in the emergence of these revolts.194 Similarly, Halil
İnalcık revealed that the revolts initiated by the Bulgarian peasants in Vidin in 1849
and 1850 resulted from the deterioration of the land regime. Although he pointed out
that nationalism played a role in these events that emerged in the Balkans, he studied
the land and tax issues in the emergence of this and similar rebellions.195
192 Yeni, “The Yörüks,” 1.
193 Minkov, Conversion to Islam, 77–78.
194 Barkan, “Balkan Memleketlerinin,” 498–99.
195 İnalcık, Tanzimat, 100–101.
77
For example, the Serbian revolt was not an urban revolt, it was a revolt
incited by the peasant classes. It ended when the Turkish landowners left the country,
and the peasants got rid of their liabilities to the landlords. Similarly, the revolts in
Bosnia, which had a landed aristocracy, occurred for socio-economic reasons.196 In
the rebellion of Vidin, the dominance of the aghas over the land was one of the main
reasons for the emergence of the rebellion. This showed that the main character of
the rebellion was based on economic and social factors. The Vidin rebellion was an
important example in terms of showing how these factors played a role in the revolts
that broke out in Rumelia and other regions of the Ottoman Empire.197 The
deterioration of the land regime caused the uprising of the reaya in the Balkans and
put the peasants under the economic domination of the aghas.198 However, the main
triggering factor for these rebellions were the changes in land regimes that stemmed
from Tanzimat reforms. Tanzimat reforms became a reference point for the peasants
who struggled to change old property relations with their landlords. Indeed, this was
not a one-sided struggle. Landlords also wanted to benefit from property rights and
exerted their claims on lands, which created tension between peasants and landlords.
On the other hand, since peasants had to pay taxes both to the state and their
landlord, this situation created a huge burden on them. Therefore, peasants demanded
the abolition of the çiftlik regime and the distribution of çiftlik lands to them.199
As in the case of the Vidin and Niş rebellions, the land disputes that escalated
with the Tanzimat reforms were the main reason for peasant rebellions and
resentment in the Balkans. Peasant communities struggled against the privatization of
the lands by landlords, and they prevented these attempts in certain situations.
196 İnalcık, “Tanzimat Nedir?,” 45–46.
197 İnalcık, Tanzimat, 110.
198 İnalcık, “Tanzimat Nedir?,” 46.
199 Terzibaşoğlu and Kaya, “19. Yüzyılda,” 73.
78
However, they could not resist the deterioration in common properties and common
use rights of certain lands. The restrictions on tenants’ use rights of lands and their
bondage to the soil led to the emergence of social and economic problems and
peasant rebellions in the Balkans. These problems were the signs of agricultural
transformation in the Balkans and paved the way for extensive tensions.200 The
transformation did not only lead to large-scale events, but also small-scale rural
crimes spread all over the Balkans.201 The dağlı rebellion had both large-scale and
small-scale characteristics of rural unrest. While bigger groups of dağlıs were looting
the region between Sofia and İstanbul, smaller groups were also committing crimes
against the local communities.202 When we look at these large and small-scale
characteristics of the rebellion, the dağlı rebellion had similarities with the rural
rebellions in the nineteenth century, so a comparative evaluation of these rebellions
would provide some answers for the roots of the rebellion. Although the dağlı
rebellion occurred before the Tanzimat reforms, it is also necessary to look at the
impacts of agricultural transformation and changes that stemmed from land or crop
regimes on the emergence of the dağlı rebellion. Yet, these problems were not native
to the Balkans in the nineteenth century. The rebellions and conflicts throughout the
Ottoman Empire marked the century. Therefore, looking at other rebellions in the
200 Terzibaşoğlu and Kaya, “19. Yüzyılda,” 49–50.
201 Terzibaşoğlu, “The Ottoman Agrarian Question,” 323.
202 “Ağa-yı mumaileyh ahz ü tenkil-i eşkıyaya ba-evamir-i aliyye memur kılındığı veçhile Çirmen
kazasına lede’l-vürud marifet-i şer‘ ve ahali-i kaza ittifakıyla karyelere mübaşiran neşr ve taharri ve
tecessüs olundukda yirmi seneden berü şekavet ile me’luf Çirmen kazası eşkıyalarının
sergerdelerinden Kuvvet Karyeli Kör Hasan ve karındaşı İdris nam şakiler üç nefer avaneleriyle ahz
ve mukaddema cesaret itdikleri şekavetden ma‘ada bu aralıkda Edirne tabi‘ Kalfa karyesinde susam
tarlasından iki nefer ehl-i ‘ırz bakire kızlarını gasb ve hetk -i ‘ırz ve badehu yine babalarına ahali-i
kaza ibramıyla altı yüz guruşa bey‘ ve badehu iki nefer reaya kızlarını dahi kezalik gasb ve hetk-i ‘ırz
idüb mezbureler kemal-i hicablarından tesmimen kendülerini helak eylediklerinden muvacehelerinde
feryad itmeleriyle merkumların cezaları tertib --- ruus-ı maktuaları irsal olduğun.” BOA HAT. 25,
1252 A [12 Z 1199 (16 October 1785)].
79
empire will provide a comprehensive understanding of the roots of rebellions in the
19th century.
A similar dispute occurred in Lebanon in the other part of the empire. As a
result of the pressure of the Druze landlords on the Christian peasants, the peasants
revolted and agreed with the central authority to reduce taxes. However, the central
authority refrained from making any concessions on the property to the detriment of
the landlords.203 Also, Lebanon became a scene for another outburst between the
Christian landowners, the Khazin sheikhs, and the peasants who used Khazins' lands
as their tenants. Contributing to this struggle was the economic weakening of the
large Christian landowners, especially the Khazins. However, commercialized
agriculture also influenced the emergence of this situation. The French Revolution
damaged France's silk trade with Lebanon. This greatly affected the Khazin family
because they were intermediaries in selling the raw silk that was produced here to
French spinning mills. At the same time, his lands were divided by inheritance, and
in the nineteenth century, some members of this family were almost landless. During
the nineteenth century, the silk trade gained impetus, but European traders were
exporting their silk fabrics back to the region. This, in turn, stroke the small domestic
industry that produced silk fabrics. The sheikhs who employed peasant women were
significantly affected by this. At the same time, the French opened modern silk
spinneries and this worsened the situation because the French became economically
advantageous.204 In this respect, the factor of commercialized agriculture had impacts
in the emergence of the dağlı rebellions, similar to the rebellion in Kisrawan.
However, we have to consider the whole structure of a region to evaluate these
rebellions. The consistency in multiple factors provided the stabilization of regions.
203 Traboulsi, A History, 28.
204 Porath, “The Peasant Revolt,” 84–85.
80
Yet, the deterioration of the balance between these factors led to the collapse of the
whole structure. As we have seen in the case of Kisrawan, the spoil in multiple
factors such as land regime and agricultural patterns led to the Kisrawan Revolt. This
provides us with a unique example for the dağlı rebellion. While the share of silk
production in total agricultural output made the region fragile in terms of economic
and agricultural structure in Kisrawan, the specific agrarian structure of the Rhodope
Mountains created similar fragility for the region. Especially, the deterioration of the
balance between production patterns such as tobacco and cereal production and
animal husbandry paved the way for the emergence of the dağlı rebellion.
Another rural conflict in the empire occurred in Northern Anatolia in the
nineteenth century. The peasants in Samsun revolted against the claims of local
notables in the 1840s and 60s. After the abolition of the tax farming system, the
Hazinedar family, who lost their former tax farming privilege, claimed that the
ownership of the villages where they collected taxes belonged to them. They treated
the peasants as tenants and levied extra taxes on peasants. The peasants refused the
demands of the Hazinedar family and refused to pay these taxes. In this example, the
peasants did not have large-scale armed struggles, but many peasants left their land
and began to migrate to Russia.205 Tanzimat had an important role in the case of
Vidin, Niş, Kisrawan, and Canik. The villagers wanted to benefit from the Tanzimat
reforms, and they interpreted the Tanzimat in their way and made demands.206
Although the rebellions and disputes in this period did not have nationalist
characteristics, the land disputes in this period would pave the way for later
nationalist movements. As a result of Tanzimat reforms, landless and unprotected
205 Aytekin, “Peasant Protest,” 202–3. In this study, Aytekin makes a detailed comparison of Vidin,
Kisrawan, and Samsun-Canik Rebellions.
206 Aytekin, “Peasant Protest,” 221–22.
81
Armenian groups emerged in Eastern Anatolia. The reforms did not only affect
Armenians but also Kurdish peasants because they had to pay taxes to both the state
and their landlords. Although the disputes derived from class conflict, in the
beginning, they later turned into ethnic clashes between Kurdish and Armenian
groups.207
In the Western part of the empire, rural communities in Ayvalık engaged in a
struggle with each other for the land. The main reasons for the disputes were the
status of properties and land distribution. Since the empire lost control of Crimea, the
Caucasus, and provinces in the Balkans, especially Western Anatolia and Thrace,
faced a great wave of immigration from the lost regions. Immigrants settled in
certain regions, and the state gave them lands. However, problems occurred in the
distribution of lands because there were different groups and different claims on the
land. The seizure of lands by newcomers created tension between native people and
immigrants. Also, the natives of the region, yörüks, and non-Muslim inhabitants
conflicted with each other. All groups had different claims on the land. Yörüks
defended their rights of passage, grazing, and collecting acorns in certain areas.
Immigrants demanded the title of the lands that they created by drying marshlands.
Landlords struggled with both of these groups and tried to secure their lands and title
deeds.208 Even though these problems did not incite rebellions in nineteenth century
Anatolia, they led to tension between the landlords and immigrants.209
The dağlı rebellion differed from these rebellions due to the Tanzimat factor
because it broke out before the Tanzimat. However, based on these examples, it is
crucial to focus on whether the factors originating from the land regime, property,
207 Cora, “Doğu’da,” 132–34.
208 Terzibaşoğlu, “Landlords,” 65–77.
209 Terzibaşoğlu, “Land Disputes,” 176.
82
and agricultural patterns were influential in the outbreak of the dağlı rebellion in
order to understand the causes of the revolt. In this way, the social, economic and
agricultural factors of the rebellion will be understood. However, before that, it is
necessary to present the economic structure and land regime in the Balkans.
4.2 The landholding and social structure in the Rhodope Mountains in the eighteenth
century
The period in which the dağlı rebellion emerged was the era known as the age of
ayans and the emergence of çiftliks.210 The deterioration of the tımar system played
an important role in the concentration of lands in the hands of the notables. The lands
belonging to the state passed into the hands of the landlords, and the peasants living
in these lands began to work for these landlords under difficult conditions. Local
leaders’ possession of lands occurred in several forms: The lands belonging to the
state were given by the sultan as property to certain persons. As a result of the
renting of tımar lands as mukataa, they passed into the hands of the notables. The
state sold miri (state) lands as malikanes (life-lease tax-farm) because of the deficit in
treasury and military personnel seized miri lands.211
The example of Tırhala provides us with information about the structure of
çiftliks and small peasant holdings in Rumeli. Two types of land tenure were
common in Tırhala by the nineteenth century. There were simple villages inhabited
by individual peasants who had small peasant holdings and çiftlik villages inhabited
by sharecroppers that cultivated çiftlik lands.212 In small villages, peasants only paid
their tithe to the state as taxes. However, in çiftliks, sharecroppers had to pay half or
210 McGowan, “The Age of the Ayans, 1699-1812,” 661.
211 Inalcık, “Tanzimat Nedir?,” 39–41.
212 Kaya, “On the Çiftlik Regulation,” 337.
83
one-third of the harvest to the landlords depending on the çiftlik structure. Also,
çiftliks had subaşıs who were responsible for the management of çiftliks and
collecting taxes. They had made contracts with the sharecroppers by providing credit
with a 20% of interest rate and exploited them by taking annual payments other than
their usual taxes.213 Çiftlik conditions were harsh for sharecroppers so this led them
to leave their villages and dispersed to the rural areas.214 This example is important
because local population had a similar situation in the dağlı example. Therefore, it is
necessary to look at the presence of çiftliks in the Rhodope Mountains.
4.2.1 The presence of çiftliks in the Rhodope Mountains
Few studies about Gümülcine region show that çiftlik numbers were not high
compared to other regions. Therefore, the data makes it harder to have precise
assumptions about çiftlik related problems in the case of dağlı rebellion, as we have
seen in the nineteenth century rebellions that we presented above. Avarız registers of
Gümülcine in 1701 and 1709 give the number of çiftlik holders besides ordinary
people in the city and its districts. It was not possible to understand the
characteristics of these çiftliks from avarız registers because they provide
information population. The çiftlik holders made up of 2.30% the registered
population in 1709. While there were 144 çiftlik holders in Gümülcine in 1701, this
number had decreased to 80 in 1709. In Ağrıcan district of Gümülcine, it decreased
from 15 to 14. There were not any çiftlik holders in the district of Cebel that was one
of the homelands of dağlı rebels.215 If there were çiftliks in Cebel, their holders
213 Kaya, “On the Çiftlik Regulation,” 341–47.
214 Kaya, “On the Çiftlik Regulation,” 366.
215 Gökçe, “Osmanlı Nüfus,” 96–97.
84
probably preferred to live in Gümülcine because of the rough living conditions in the
mountainous area.
At the end of the eighteenth century, Tokatçıklı Süleyman Ağa, who was the
ayan of Gümülcine during the dağlı rebellion, had four farms, and his brother had
two farms. After their death, the heirs of Mestan Ağa, the former ayan of Gümülcine,
demanded returning of four çiftliks because Tokatçıklı Süleyman Ağa forcefully took
possession of the çiftliks. However, officials rejected their demand due to the lack of
registers. The worth of four çiftliks was 25,000 kuruş. Also, he had properties worth
14,500 kuruş in Sultanyeri. 216 These properties were a drop in the bucket compared
to the farms of Tepedelenli Ali Pasha. He had 15 farms and 23 villages as çiftliks in
Paşa Sancağı.217 For example, the worth of Ali Pasha’s “Dört Kapılı Kiloçeste
Çiftliği” was 30,000 kuruş and the çiftlik had 1024,5 dönüms land.218 Although land
values are highly changeable depending on the location, land type, and buildings, this
might provide an idea about the size of Tokatçıklı’s çiftliks.
One of the main aspects that leads us to suppose the number of farms in the
region was high is that the region was a significant tobacco-producing region. In the
eighteenth century, the spread of agricultural products requiring expertise such as
tobacco, cotton, silk played an important role in the emergence of farms.219
McGowan’s findings show that the size of the çiftliks in this region was not big
compared to çiftliks in other parts of the empire from the late seventeenth to mideighteenth
century.220 The fact that tobacco production was widespread in the region
in 1691221 suggests that the farms recorded in 1701 and 1709 and the farms of
216 Başer, “Faaliyetleri ve Merkezi Hükümetle Olan İlişkileri,” 49–50.
217 Sezer, “Tepedelenli,” 103.
218 Sezer, “Tepedelenli,” 75–78.
219 McGowan, “The Age of the Ayans, 1699-1812,” 687.
220 McGowan, Economic Life, 77.
221 Yılmaz, “Tütün,” 270.
85
Tokatçıklı Süleyman Ağa may have been engaged in tobacco production. However,
the lack of knowledge about çiftliks in Cebel district of Gümülcine suggests that
farms were not widespread in the mountainous area or that the villagers here may be
composed of independent small peasants. As we would see in the second part, the
inhabitants of the villages that we examined in the temettuat registers were also small
landowners. They were called erbab-ı ziraat in Hasköy registers and rençber in
Dimetoka registers. However, the lack of registers from other parts of the region
prevents making a general inference about the presence of çiftliks.
4.2.2 Changing status of locals in the Rhodopes: From Evlad-ı Fatihan to reaya
Before dealing with the temettuat registers, it would also be beneficial to look at the
social structure of the Rhodopes region because it would provide some insights about
evolving situation of the peasants in the Rhodope Mountains. There is no
comprehensive study on the transformation of the tımar system over the years until
1800 for the Rhodope Mountains. However, Tayyip Gökbilgin’s work on the yörüks
in Rumeli provides important clues about the social structure in the region.
According to this study, a part of the population in the region constituted evlad-ı
fatihan (the sons of conquerors) that had a privileged status. In other words, the
people of the region had a special military status that made them exempt from taxes
in return for their service during the campaigns. With 1,154 infantries, Gümülcine
was home to the most populous evlad-ı fatihan group in all of Rumelia. There was a
total of 2,622 evlad-ı fatihan infantry in the districts of Gümülcine, Uzuncaabad-ı
Hasköy, Sultanyeri, Ferecik, Yenice-i Karasu, Çağlayık, Dimetoka and Mekri. When
their families are included, their population is around 15,000 in the Rhodopes. These
numbers show that in 1691 there was an important yörük population in the Rhodopes
86
under the title of evlad-ı fatihan. The group, which is especially concentrated in the
Rhodopes, is composed of the Tanrıdağı yörüks222 whose name is derived from a
mountain in the region.223
The fact that this group has a privileged status under the title of evlad-ı
fatihan may be helpful in understanding the later developments and transformation of
the lifestyle of the population in the region. Although this group was categorized
under a military class, they made their living by farming and stockbreeding.
However, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, dissolution occurred in this
group, and the number of eşkincis and yamaks registered in this ocak began to
decrease.224 As a matter of fact, evlad-ı fatihan groups living in the mountains of
Gümülcine made a request to the state to renounce their privileged military status
that made them exempt from certain taxes in 1708. For this reason, the state sent
tahrir officers to count this population.225 In the tahrir of 1709, the district of Cebel
in Gümülcine was composed of the villages of evlad-ı fatihan. The purpose of
keeping this record is that this population, who was registered under the title of
evlad-ı fatihan and who were yörüks with a special status, wanted to change their
status into raiyyet. The state accepted this demand and included this group, which
has land tenure like ordinary reaya, in the avarız tax base.226 A part of the population
in the Rhodopes got rid of their military liability to the state and became ordinary
reaya at the beginning of the eighteenth century.
222 Gökbilgin, Rumeli’de Yürükler, 257–72: According to evlad-ı fatihan tahrirs in 1691, there were
16,582 evlad-ı fatihan infantry in all of Rumelia. Assuming that there was an average of 5.5-6
inhabitants in the households of the people who were registered at that time, the author reveals that
this group consisted of approximately 100,000 people throughout Rumelia. The infantry enlisted from
the Rhodopes region constituted 15.81% of the total number of infantries in Rumelia.
223 Gökbilgin, Rumeli’de Yürükler, 67; Altunan, “XVI. ve XVII. Yüzyıllarda,” 190.
224 Altunan, “XVI. ve XVII. Yüzyıllarda,” 194–95.
225 Gökçe, “Osmanlı Nüfus,” 85.
226 Gökçe, “Osmanlı Nüfus,” 95–97.
87
The districts of Gümülcine, Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy, Sultanyeri, Ferecik,
Yenice-i Karasu, Çağlayık, Dimetoka and Mekri were also host to the 59% of
tobacco farmers by 1691227 and they were homeland of dağlı rebels. Although there
is no explicit document228 or study that mentioned yörük groups in Rumeli turned
into tobacco farmers or dağlıs were descendants of yörüks in the Rhodope
Mountains, the coincidence of these phenomena leads us to think about the evolution
of at least a part of yörüks into tobacco farmers and later dağlı rebels. It is hard to
ascertain such a phenomenon in this study. However, the documentary, Tobacco
Girl, also gives a clue about the evolution of yörüks into tobacco farmers. The
documentary, which depicts the life of a yörük family in Macedonia, begins with a
song, “They call us yörüks. 600 years ago, our ancestors came to Macedonia from
Anatolia by foot.” In the background, the protagonists of the documentary are
picking tobacco in the field. Throughout the film, the importance of tobacco for the
subsistence of this community is easily seen.229 This fact helps us to think about the
transformation of yörük groups into settled farmers with the help of tobacco
agriculture in the Balkan geography since the soil conditions are suitable for growing
more flavorful and lower-nicotine tobacco.230 Rather than being tenant farmers in the
increasing numbers of çiftliks, they just changed their lifestyle and economic activity
in the highlands where they herd since they have a free status.
227 Yılmaz, “Tütün,” 270.
228 “…Yenice-i Karasu ve tevabii gümrüklerinin muhtevi olduğu mahallerde hala Edirne
Bostancıbaşısı Ağa kulları teftiş-i eşkıya bahanesiyle taife-i tüccar ve zürra‘yı tabir-i hakk tazyik ve
tecrim idüp ve bu esnada havali-i mezkurede hasıl olan duhanın gümrüklere idhal ve bazen iskelelere
ve mahal-i saireye nakl ve tesviki vakti olub taife-i tüccar ve kiracıların esna-yı rahda ahz-birrle sizler
dağlı ve eşkıyasız diyerek hilaf-ı emr-i ali ve mugayir-i şürut-ı serbestiyet tazyik ve tecrim ve
hayvanatların zabt itmeleriyle emval-i gümrük-i mezbura hasarat-ı azimeyi mucib ve şiraze-i
nizamının ihtilalini --- bir keyfiyet idüği…” BOA AE. SSLM III. 43, 2520 [28 R 1213 (9 October
1798)].
229 Garvanlieva, Tobacco Girl.
230 Neuburger, Balkan Smoke, 46.
88
4.3 A micro-perspective: Agricultural, economic, and social structure of the villages
in Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy and Dimetoka according to Temettuat registers
This part focuses on the economic, agricultural, and social structure of the villages in
the region, whose borders we have drawn in the previous section and whose
economic structure has been revealed through salnames.
Fig. 2. The map of Hasköy villages231
Based on the temettuat registers, it concentrates on the agricultural production
patterns in the villages of Hasköy on the northern border of the region and Dimetoka
on the western border. It reveals the village life and living conditions in the region by
presenting the product types, outputs, and their monetary values on a micro scale. It
231 K. Maschka, R. Fischbacher, 43˚-42˚ Stara Zagora (Eski Zagra), 1/200.000, Wien: K.u.k.
Militärgeographisches Institut, 1903.
89
also focuses on the landholding issue. The findings show that the population
consisted of peasants who had small amount of land and landless peasants. It seems
that since the state solved the problem by settling rebels in different areas, the
shortage of land in the region was one of the main factors that led the dağlı
population to rebel at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The temettuat registers
clearly describe the land shortage in the Rhodope Mountains. In this way, based on
these landholding and production patterns, the section focuses on whether the living
conditions here were effective in the emergence of the dağlı rebellion. For this,
temettuat registers of 22 villages of Hasköy district and eight villages of Dimetoka
district were examined.
The lack of temettuat registers of all villages in the Rhodopes region
constitutes a major shortcoming of this study. There were no temettuat registers of
the towns such as Gümülcine, Yenice-i Karasu, and Sarışaban and the villages that
were part of these districts. However, there are surveys of Dimetoka, Hasköy, and
Mekri in this region. This leads to the limitations of the examples in the study.
Therefore, it was selected the temettuat registers of the villages which can be
identified on the map in Dimetoka and Hasköy. The 22 villages of Hasköy are İdrisli,
Sofular, Yaylacık, Dağ Harmanlusu, Akçealan Mehmedçe, Çakır, Dedeler, Kırcaali,
Eğercili-i Kebir, Osman Beşeler, Kayacıklar, Karaahadlar, Şeremetler, Eğercili-i
Sagir, Hocalar, Şahinler, Yöricekler, Esmerli, Durbalı, Kalfalar, Çepelceler and
Kozluca.232 The eight villages in Dimetoka are Karakilise, Kulfallar, Yuvacılar,
Maskaralar, Ahlatçı, Çelebiler, Hisarlık, Ruşenler.233
232 BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6407, 6411, 6412, 6415, 6418, 6444, 6445, 6447, 6451, 6454, 6458,
6459, 6467, 6469, 6470, 6494, 6500, 6507, 6508, 6513, 6520
233 BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 5513, 5567, 5580, 5591, 5613, 5696, 5700, 5979.
90
Fig. 3. The map of Dimetoka villages234
The total number of households in these 30 villages was 816. Considering
that a household consists of five individuals235, an average of 4,080 people lived in
30 villages. Household structures in these villages differed. However, in general, the
villages discussed in Dimetoka were more populous settlements. The villages of
Dimetoka consisted of an average of 30.62 households. In Hasköy, this number was
on average 25.95. There were 245 households in eight villages of Dimetoka, and 571
households in 22 villages of Hasköy. The entire population of these villages
consisted of Muslims. Almost all households in these villages were engaged in
agricultural activities. Few of them were servants (hizmetkar), teachers (muallim-i
sıbyan), tobacco sellers (duhancı). Apart from this, people whose occupations were
farming (erbab-ı ziraat and rençber) also had income from professions such as
reaper (orakçı), spoon making (kaşıkçı), tar making (katrancı), butchery (kasap),
234 E. Gautsch, R. Fischbacher, 44˚-41˚ Dimotika, 1/200.000, Wien: K.u.k. Militärgeographisches
Institut, 1906.
235 Barkan, “Research,” 6.
91
firewood making (çıracı), hoeing (çapacı), and milling (değirmenci). However, they
met the basis of their income from agricultural production.
Fig. 4. Crop based averages of tithe collected on agricultural products in all villages
4.3.1 Agricultural production in the villages
In 1870, cereals were the main agricultural product in Ottoman Bulgaria. Then
grapes, fruit, oilseeds, legumes, and tobacco were following.236 The villages we
examined also reflect this reality. Agricultural products grown in these villages
consisted of cereals, legumes, grapes, and tobacco. Wheat, barley, rye, maize, vetch,
kaplıca, and millet were the grain varieties that were produced in these villages.
Beans and lentils were produced as legumes. Apart from these, tobacco and grapes
had an important share in total agricultural production. When the monetary value of
the tithe paid by the villagers was taken as the basis for determining the income rates,
the product that brought the highest income in all these villages was wheat with 37%.
It is followed by tobacco with 17%, rye with 16%, maize with 13%, and barley with
10%. These numbers show that a significant part of the crop production in the region
236 Palairet, The Balkan Economies, 58.
Wheat
37%
Barley
10%
Maize
13%
Bean
1%
Tobacco
17%
Grape
5%
Rye
16%
Alef
1%
Kapluca
0%
Lentil
0%
Millet
0%
Vetch
0%
92
consisted of subsistence products that enabled the villagers to meet their living needs.
However, the large-scale production of wheat in Hasköy villages can be seen as a
sign of commercialization in wheat production. This was a possible change in
production patterns. Viquesnel described that the farmers in the plain of Dimetoka
left tobacco production and began to plant cereals as a result of demands from the
European countries in 1846. This situation provides a good example of the
commercial aspect of cereals.237 Also, the fact that tobacco production was in the
second place indicates that the inclination toward commercial agriculture had an
important place in the economy of the region. The high number of tobacco-producing
households in certain villages indicates that the main source of income in these
villages was commercial agriculture. This is particularly evident in the villages of
Dimetoka.
Fig. 5. Crop based averages of tithe collected on agricultural products in Hasköy (in
the left) and Dimetoka (in the right)
237 Viquesnel, Voyage Dans La Turquie d’Europe: Description Physique et Géologique de La Thrace,
2:505.
Wheat
43%
Barley
13%
Maize
20%
Bean
1%
Tobacco
8%
Grape
4%
Rye
10%
Alef
1%
Kapluca
0%
Lentil
0%
Millet
0%
Wheat
25%
Barley
5%
Maize
0%
Bean
0%
Tobacco
35%
Grape
6%
Rye
26%
Alef
2%
Vetch
1%
93
Although the villages of Hasköy and Dimetoka are not far away from each
other, there were differences between the incomes earned from agricultural
production in the villages of the two districts. While the share of wheat production in
incomes in Hasköy villages was 43%, this rate was 25% in Dimetoka villages. In
Hasköy, wheat is followed by maize with 20%, barley with 13%, rye with 10% and
tobacco with 8%. The share of tobacco, which was an important trade commodity, in
these registers shows that commercial agricultural products had an important share in
total agricultural production. The share of tobacco in production in the villages of
Hasköy was in fifth place.
The income from tobacco in the villages of Dimetoka was the first with a
share of 35%. Tobacco is followed by rye with 26%, wheat with 25%, grapes with
6%, and barley with 5%. Commercial agriculture was at the center of agricultural
activity in Dimetoka villages. 232 of 254 households produced tobacco and this
consisted of 95% of the households. The other products were probably produced to
feed household members in a limited amount.
Fig. 6. Crop based averages of tithe collected on agricultural products in tobacco
villages in Hasköy
Wheat
37%
Barley
10%
Maize
13%
Bean
1%
Tobacco
17%
Grape
5%
Rye
16%
Alef
1%
Kapluca
0%
Lentil
0%
Millet
0%
Vetch
0%
94
In both districts, 482 of 816 households produced tobacco and the rate of
tobacco producing households was 59%. In the villages of Hasköy, 44% of the
households produced tobacco. This corresponds to 250 of 571 households. At this
point, it will be useful to look at the villages that produced tobacco over 44% of the
population, to understand the agricultural structure in the settlements where tobacco
production was intense. In Hasköy, more than 44% of the households in 10 of the 22
villages produce tobacco. These were Sofular, Akçealan Mehmedçe, Dedeler, Osman
Beşeler, Karaahadlar, Eğercili-i Sagir, Hocalar, Yöricekler, Esmerli, Çepelceler
villages. The value of the tithe collected from tobacco in these villages is 1595,5
kuruş and corresponded to 16% of the total tithe. It ranks third when compared to
other products. Wheat comes first with 40%, followed by maize with 18%.
Fig. 7. A part of oriental tobacco map by Marco Nestoroff238
When we look at the Oriental tobacco map of Marco Nestoroff dated 1925,
we can understand the relatively low levels of tobacco production in the villages of
238 Nestroff, Special Map.
95
Hasköy compared to tobacco because they produce lesser quality tobacco compared
to other parts of the Rhodope Mountains. However, the villages of Dimetoka in this
map produce better quality tobacco.239 Therefore, we can see that when the quality of
tobacco increases, farmers prefer to produce more tobacco.
The share of rye and maize in total production clearly shows the impact of
mountainous character of the region.240 Taking into consideration the average grain
production on the basis of bushel (kile) in all villages, wheat ranks first with a share
of 32%. Rye and barley come right after with 23%. Maize was the fourth product
with a 17% share. However, when the villages of Hasköy and Dimetoka are
examined separately, rye production in the villages of Dimetoka ranks first with
44%. Wheat was in second place with 34%, and barley was in third place with 14%.
It is seen that the farmers in Dimetoka did not prefer maize. In the villages of
Hasköy, on the other hand, the share of maize among the cereals ranks third with
23%. The second preferred crop was barley, followed by rye with 15%.
Fig. 8. Average distribution of cereal production in Dimetoka (in the right) and
Hasköy (in the left)
239 Marco Nestoroff, Special Map of All Oriental Tobacco Regions (Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece),
1/500.000, Sofia: FUMARO, 1925.
240 Güran, 19. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Tarımı, 192; Stoianovich, “Le Maïs Dans Les Balkans,” 1038.
Wheat
34%
Barley
Maize 14%
1%
Rye
44%
Alef
6%
Vetch
1%
Wheat
32%
Barley
26%
Maize
23%
Rye
15%
Alef
3%
Kapluca
1%
Millet
0%
96
In the research of Tevfik Güran on the villages of Filibe, wheat production
changes depending on the farming structure in the villages. Consequently, the share
of wheat production in crop production is high in villages where independent small
agricultural enterprises are concentrated. It varies between 75% and 58%. However,
the production of wheat rate varies between 45% and 9% in villages where çiftlik and
tenancy relations exist. Güran says that the demand of the families for cheaper
cereals that can be substituted for wheat leads to low wheat production in these
villages.241 Considering that all households in the villages of Dimetoka and Hasköy
consist of small farmer families, we can see that the households in the region also
prefer cheaper grains. This impacts wheat production in these villages as in the case
of Filibe. Wheat production is at a lower level than the villages in Filibe with a share
of 32%. This indicates that the inhabitants of the villages in Hasköy and Dimetoka
are poorer peasants.
4.3.2 Land use patterns in the villages
The size of the land owned by the households shows that the population of the
villages consisted of small peasant families. These households were families who
cultivated the land with their own means of production and labor, and they could
earn a small living.
Güran states that in villages in Filibe, the households had an average of 35
dönüms of land, which was not enough for their subsistence, and it was necessary to
have 45-50 acres of land to generate enough income.242 The land sizes in the villages
of Hasköy and Dimetoka were much lower than this amount. The size of land
241 Güran, 19. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Tarımı, 191.
242 Güran, 19. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Tarımı, 192–93.
97
belonging to households was very low with 11,4 dönüms on average. In terms of land
size, the households in Dimetoka had slightly more land than Hasköy.
Fig. 9. The distribution of land types in Dimetoka and Hasköy villages
While the average land size was 13,8 dönüms in Dimetoka, it was 10,3 dönüms in
Hasköy. Çelebiler village in Dimetoka has the highest average with 24,3 dönüms of
land, while Kulfallar village had the lowest average with eight dönüms. In Hasköy,
Kayacıklar village was in the first rank with 17,4 dönüms in land size. Şahinler
village was the village where the villagers had the least land with 2,3 dönüms.
However, the households in Şahinler village were more engaged in animal husbandry
as can be understood by goat numbers. Şahinler village was followed by Karaahadlar
village with 4,8 dönüms. These numbers show that the amount of land owned by the
farmers was far below the amount to meet their subsistence. This caused the people
of the region to engage in activities such as commercial agriculture that would
generate income on their limited lands or engage in different economic activities.
Cultivated
land
44%
Uncultivated
land
51%
Vineyard
5%
Dimetoka
Cultivated
land
55%
Uncultivated
land
42%
Vineyard
3%
Hasköy
98
Fig. 10. Total revenues of agricultural and livestock products in Hasköy villages243
Land use patterns also enable us to have information about the production in
the districts. Accordingly, there were three types of land in the region. These were
vineyards, cultivated, and uncultivated lands. However, their shares differed between
districts. Cultivated lands in Hasköy were higher than uncultivated lands. Vineyards
made up 3% of the land. 52% was cultivated and 45% was uncultivated land. The
excess of cultivated lands shows that fallow was less practiced in Hasköy. As can be
seen from the intensity of grape production in Dimetoka, the vineyards had a rate of
5%. 44% of the land consisted of cultivated lands, and 51% consisted of uncultivated
lands. This situation must be related to the intensive production of tobacco. Because
lands producing quality tobacco were generally eroded lands with thin soil cover.244
243 While calculating the monetary value of crops, I multiplied the monetary value of tithe (öşr) with
10.
244 Swanson, A Golden Weed, 256.
2870 2724875,51593730,25 75 390
104300
32005
48860
2205
18590
9585
23960
2985
435 70 40
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
99
This might impact the fallow rate in the villages of Dimetoka due to the intense
tobacco production.
Under these scarce conditions, the peasants also had to keep animals to meet
their needs. In addition to the oxen that they owned to plow the fields, families also
raised farm animals to meet their needs such as cheese, butter, milk, meat, leather,
and wool. They also sold the products of these animals in the market. At the same
time, the animals provided fertilizer for the farmers. The fact that animal husbandry
is complementary to plant production, which Güran put forward in the villages of
Filibe, was also generally valid for the villages in Hasköy and Dimetoka. However,
few amounts of land per household in Şahinler village and the high number of
animals indicate that there were villages in this region whose only livelihood was
animal husbandry. Few amounts of land in this village shows that plant production
was a complementary activity to animal husbandry. The total number of milch
(sağmal) and infertile (kısır/yoz) goats in this village of 35 households is 540. This
amount constitutes 46% of the goats in all villages in Hasköy. However, crop
production was low. Peasants produce 10 bushels of wheat in total in this village.
Alef and barley, which were used as animal feed were the most significant products.
Apart from this, there was also the production of rye consumed by the mountain
villagers. These data show that the main livelihood of the village was animal
husbandry and the villagers produced animal products for the market. Crop
production in this village was carried out to support animal husbandry.
Sheep and goat breeding was common in the region. There are 1,172 goats in
the villages of Hasköy. Goats were in the first place with 45% of income-generating
animals. However, income from goats was low in terms of income. The proportion of
income from goats is 27%. The reason why the villagers prefer goat breeding despite
100
the low income must be related to the mountainous character of the region. The
number of sheep was also almost close to goats. There were 1,108 sheep in these
villages. Since sheep was a more profitable animal than goats, 39% of the income
obtained from animals came from sheep breeding. Apart from sheep and goat
breeding, there were a total of 292 milch cows (sağmal kara sığır ineği) in these
villages. 31% of the villagers’ total income from livestock comes from cows. Apart
from these animals, there were 13 buffaloes and 15 hives in the region. 4% of income
was obtained from buffaloes and 1% from hives. All these numbers show that in
most of the villages, animal husbandry was complimentary to crop production and
met household needs because the size of land that is required for enough crop
production was also low. In villages where the amount of land is much lower,
livestock was the main source of livelihood.
4.4 The environmental and agricultural roots of Dağlı rebellion
The temettuat registers of the villages in Dimetoka and Hasköy provide a micro-scale
depiction of the Rhodope Mountains about agrarian patterns, livelihood, and
landholding. Therefore, we can trace the relationship between the region’s
characteristic and the historical developments that Tabak and McNeill presented in
their books. Especially, the findings from temettuat registers are significant to
compare the agrarian patterns of the Rhodopes and the mountainous areas of the
Mediterranean. Registers show that there are similarities with the patterns in the
Rhodopes and the findings of Tabak and McNeill. Therefore, we can see that the
characteristics of mountain way of life in the Rhodope Mountains had impacts in the
emergence of dağlı rebellion.
101
The dağlı rebellion occurred around a period, as both John McNeill and Faruk
Tabak described in their books, which is called the “demise of mountain way of life”
and when mountain communities began to leave their lands that had been home to
them for centuries.245 Therefore, the reasons behind the dağlı rebellion must have
been related to the developments that led mountain communities to leave their lands,
and apparently, the fact that the rebellion ended with the resettlement of the rebels in
different places points out this phenomenon. According to McNeill, this phenomenon
resulted from two significant developments, were overshoot and market integration
that many mountain environments in the Mediterranean began getting integrated into
after 1800s, which might have started earlier in some regions and later in the others.
These two terms provide a hypothetical base for understanding of the dağlı rebellion.
The population of highlands boosted so much that the resources could not meet the
basic survival demands of the population, and it was harder to increase these
resources technically. The result of these developments was population overshoot.246
The overshoot in the mountain context could have different consequences
such as clashes that one group tries to capture the resources of others, migration to
new areas that they can earn their livelihoods easily, or finding new ways of
subsistence in the mountains, like trying new products or engaging with new
occupations.247 In the example of the Rhodope Mountains, these factors can be easily
seen. Local people were engaged in different professions other than farming.
Temettuat registers show that there were reapers (orakçı) and hoers (çapacı) in the
villages. In fact, these professions were their secondary jobs because they were
farmers. They probably worked on the plains during the times of planting and
245 Tabak, The Waning of the Mediterranean, 293; McNeill, The Mountains, 2.
246 McNeill, The Mountains, 2–3.
247 McNeill, The Mountains, 3.
102
harvesting. Seasonal emigration was a widespread activity. However, small labour
demands for these professions were a huge problem because it led to the emergence
of bandits in the mountains.248
Indeed, the outcomes of the overshoot were not always negative at first hand,
and it triggered people to meet their demands in new ways, which increased carrying
capacity of their environments. They experienced new agricultural products,
specialized in certain crops, or mastered new professions. When they could not
satisfy their demands in this way, they became mercenary soldiers in the armies or
started doing banditry activities in neighboring regions. However, carrying capacity
of mountainous regions could suddenly increase or decrease depending on the
situation. If the population could acquire new skills and technologies, carrying
capacity would increase and prevent the problems of population pressure by bringing
new opportunities and growth. These periods were prosperous times for the
population, but when the skills were lost, and resources were depleted, carrying
capacity was going down.249 In the case of dağlı rebellion, we can not reach data
about the population size in the Rhodope Mountains. However, some aspects of the
rebellion had similarities with the results of overshoot in the other parts of the
Mediterranean. One of the results of this phenomenon was that mountain people
served in the armies. This situation can be seen in the Rhodopes case because the
dağlı rebels served in the armies of ayans as mercenaries. When they could not find a
job in armies, they turned into bandits. Indeed, they objected to the term bandit for
themselves, and they preferred the term rebel. However, the economic structure of
the region was also important because market integration was the second aspect that
affected mountain way of life.
248 Hobsbawm, Bandits, 31.
249 McNeill, The Mountains, 3–4.
103
Market integration and overshoot were interactive phenomena. Overshoot led
to the experimentation of new products that made life easier in the mountains
because the economic and agricultural activities were not enough for the increased
population of the region. When locals could achieve high yield and income from a
new product, they generally focused on the new product. If they are advantageous in
producing the new crop, market integration provided benefits for them because the
region became the main hub of this product. On the other hand, it was detrimental for
those who could not produce cheaper or high-quality products compared to others.
Those who had fewer products or products of low demand could be susceptive to
unpredictably changeable factors such as climate, war, politics, and prices. Market
integration had different effects on the mountain peasants of the Mediterranean.
Since it meant the increase in demand from outside on a particular production site,
first it brought prosperity to the region, but it was becoming destructive for the
mountain way of life in the end. The dağlı rebellion helps us to trace the impacts of
market integration in the Rhodope Mountains because the region turned into a
banditry center for a long period.
Evaluating the development and transformation of the agriculture,
consumption, and trade of these crops would help to shed light on how overshoot and
market integration occurred in the Rhodopes region and how these changes paved the
way for the process that led to the dağlı rebellion. Focusing on the production of
grains and tobacco as the main outputs of a region whose main economic activity
was agriculture would provide us with some answers about the rebellion. All these
products were important for mountain way of life in the Mediterranean and even the
effects of some were revolutionary after their introduction to the region as in the case
of tobacco and maize since they were not native to the Mediterranean.
104
First, we can trace the role of grains because they were the main ingredient of
bread that was essential for the Mediterranean diet both in the lowlands and
highlands. It had many different varieties such as wheat, barley, rye, and maize.
Temperature and humidity were the main factors that determined what kinds of
grains could be grown and the places where grains could grow. All these factors
determined the type of bread on which peasants’ survival depended. Irrigation was an
essential factor for wheat production in the high villages. Villages in arid lands could
grow barley. In high-altitude places, villagers could cultivate rye because of the short
growing season in the mountain climate. With the introduction of maize to the
Mediterranean, maize bread became a principal food in the region.250 These grains
constituted the main crops in the Rhodope Mountains. Temettuat registers explicitly
show that the share of maize, rye, and barley were high. Although wheat production
has the highest percentage in total, it was low compared to the plains. Problems in
the production of these grains would create troubles for the inhabitants of highlands
since bread was their staple food.
As a matter of fact, a document dated 1803, that talks about the resettlement
of dağlıs has an enlightening statement regarding the reasons for the rebellion. It says
that since until then, the cereal of Gümülcine fed Yenice, İskeçe, mountain villages,
and tobacco farmers of these towns, extreme poverty occurred due to the depletion of
cereals and the dağlı issue came to this situation.251 Although it does not give an idea
about the types of cereals, it mentions a provision problem that paved the way for the
250 McNeill, The Mountains, 126–27.
251 “…biz ita‘atte bulunalım diye merkuman yazıb Kara Feyzi’ye göndermişler bu surette heriflerin
iskana ve bizi te’mine meylleri ziyade görünür cenab-ı hakk fesaddan hıfz eyleye ve müfsidleri ve
devlet ha’inlerini kahr tenkil eyleye amin --- amin şimdiki hale nazaran Süleyman Ağa yola yatsa
dağlı takımı uygundur avn-i hakk ile iskan olunmaları anlaşılır öteden beri Yenice’yi ve İskeçe’yi ve
bunların dağ köylerini ve duhan zürra‘larını besleyen Gümülcine’nin zahiresidir inkıta‘ı sebebiyle
kemal-i müzayaka mess edip asıl madde dahi bu hey’ete geldiğinden agavat kulları rica ve i‘tizarı
ziyadeleyip …” BOA HAT 54, 2510 [17 M 1218 (09 May 1803)].
105
rebellion. However, an earlier document dated 1792, provides a piece of invaluable
information about bread types that local people consume, and peasants’ source of
income. According to the document, the population of Yenice-i Karasu district
consisted of tobacco farmers, and the town demands cereals from neighboring
Gümülcine, and Çağlayık since the scarcity in cereal stocks of the town. Most
tobacco farmers feed on only maize and rye bread so there should be no problem in
the transportation of maize and rye from Gümülcine and Çağlayık to Yenice market
and in their sale.252 The document obviously presents the importance of maize and
rye, which were the main ingredients of bread locals consumed, and tobacco which
was a commercial source of income for the local populace.
These documents are significant in terms of showing the production and
consumption patterns of locals and pointing out a provision-related problem during a
period when the dağlı rebellion emerged. Also, temettuat registers present that the
most produced grain was rye with a 44% share in Dimetoka’s villages that had the
highest proportion of tobacco production. The share of rye in Hasköy’s villages was
15% and it was the fourth grain in total cereal production. In this respect, both hatt-ı
hümayuns and temettuat registers provide information about the importance of rye
production in the Rhodope Mountains. Rye helped poor mountain villagers by
providing a fruitful harvest in harsh mountain conditions. It had been grown as a
substitute grain in the Mediterranean. However, it gained popularity around the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries because of changing climate conditions
resulting from the Little Ice Age, which provided appropriate humidity conditions in
252 “…fi’l-hakika Yenice-i Karasu kazasının ahalileri zürra‘-i duhan olub ve kaza-yı mezburun
hububatı akall ü kalil olduğu ve etrafında vaki Gümülcine ve Çağlayık kazalarından celb-i hububata
muhtaç ve ekser zürra‘-i duhanın ekl eyledikleri kokoroz ve çavdar ekmeğine münhasır olmağla
Gümülcine ve Çağlayık kazalarından kokoroz ve çavdar zahirelerini Yenice pazarına irsal ve bey‘ine
mümanaat olmamak babında…” BOA C.DH. 50, 2463 [14 C 1204 (1 March 1790)].
106
the higher altitudes for rye. Therefore, populations of highlands began to expand
their rye fields in their regions, and rye became one of the main staple crops.253 Even
though it was not the first product in certain places, it diversified the product range. It
contributed to overshoot as an easy-growing and substantial cereal in the mountain
ranges. Also, it consolidated market integration by providing a cheaper staple for
tobacco farmers. Therefore, the scarcity of this crop must have had an impact on the
emergence of the rebellion.
Rye, as the second product that made it possible to live in highlands, was,
unlike maize, native to the Old World. However, maize was one of the imported
American crops like beans, potatoes, and tobacco. They entered the Mediterranean
following the period when people from the plains began to migrate to the highlands.
They helped the region’s poor to live without much difficulty in these areas of hard
conditions by providing cereals, fodder, and commercial products. They adapted to
the Mediterranean environment easily since they were grown in the mountainous
regions of South America and supported the movement of inhabitants of low-lying
plains of the Mediterranean to the mountains.254 Maize, as one of these crops that
facilitated living in highlands, gained an indispensable place in Mediterranean
agriculture, especially in mountainous regions. In the Balkans, it has largely
supplanted traditional grains by the eighteenth century and became one of the staple
crops since it had advantages in terms of providing high yields and growing easily in
the Mediterranean climate and high altitudes.255
Rye was more productive than common grains. While the yield of rye was 3-
10 for 1 in the eighteenth century, the yield of maize was going up 24-80 for 1. It
253 Tabak, The Waning of the Mediterranean, 257.
254 Tabak, The Waning of the Mediterranean, 252.
255 McNeill, The Mountains, 89; Tabak, The Waning of the Mediterranean, 256–57.
107
was exempt from tithe because it could be grown in the gardens and highlands that
were far from the roads and tax collectors. Since it was a new crop, it did not have a
place in the tax system. Also, it was advantageous compared to wheat, rice, and
barley because the central authority did not demand maize for the provisioning of
capital.256 In both hatt-ı hümayuns and temettuat registers, the importance of maize
can be seen. It was the third crop with a 23% share in the villages of Hasköy. The
total share of rye and maize production in Hasköy was 38%. Maize consisted of only
1% of the cereal production in Dimetoka villages but it seems that the high amount
of rye production compensated for the lack of maize agriculture. It is obvious that
these products increased the carrying capacity of the mountainous areas. Maize, like
rye, became the main staple food of local people in the Rhodope Mountains because
they had high yields in the mountain conditions and complemented other products,
especially tobacco in our case.
While the population of highlands was supplying their food from crops that
were suitable for higher altitudes, they were also providing certain services and
products that lowlanders could not produce at a cheaper cost and with higher quality
such as timber, honey, silk, and labor force.257 Locals of the Rhodope Mountains
produced timber and silk as well and they mainly exported their labor force by
serving as mercenaries in the armies of local ayans. However, one of the most
important outputs of the region was its tobaccos of different qualities. Tobacco
became a significant cash crop in the Mediterranean’s mountainous regions. The
commercialization of agriculture in the Ottoman Empire, which approximately
started in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, intensified the production of
256 Stoianovich, “Le Maïs Dans Les Balkans,” 1038–39.
257 McNeill, The Mountains, 8.
108
tobacco throughout the empire.258 Tobacco agriculture mainly centered in the
Balkans and became a significant cash crop. As we have seen in salnames, temettuat
registers, hatt-ı hümayuns, and maps, the many inhabitants of the Rhodopes preferred
planting tobacco in changing quantities as an agricultural activity. Since it was not a
native crop to the Mediterranean and its fast adoption by the peasants in the region,
the spread of tobacco agriculture is an interesting phenomenon.
Fernand Braudel stated that wheat, olive, and grape as an eternal trinity of the
Mediterranean.259 Faruk Tabak pointed out the change in the agricultural system of
the basin, which mainly consisted of this triad, after agricultural and commercial
developments, and the Columbian Exchange.260 As a result of these changes, tobacco
got a considerable foothold as a profitable cash crop in the hills of the Levant261 and
it started to be grown in Macedonia and western Anatolia. İskeçe, Yenice-i Karasu,
Kavala, Serez, Kırlıkova, and İzmir became important tobacco production centers.
Tobacco fields expanded incrementally since tobacco had the adaptive capacity to
different types of soils and climates. 262 Although the tobacco plant could easily adapt
to the lands in the Ottoman Empire, the ruling elite could not adopt the consumption
and agriculture of the plant.
In the beginning, the Ottoman Empire tried to prevent tobacco agriculture and
trade around 1609 and 1649 due to religious reservations. The decrees, dated 1631,
that were sent to the towns in the left branch (sol kol) of Rumeli, stated that the
production, trade, and consumption of tobacco was strictly forbidden, the ones who
did not obey the rules would be punished and their tobacco fields would be
258 White, The Climate of Rebellion, 276.
259 Braudel, The Mediterranean, 236.
260 Tabak, The Waning of the Mediterranean, 91.
261 Tabak, The Waning of the Mediterranean, 259.
262 Tabak, The Waning of the Mediterranean, 265.
109
confiscated by the state. However, these measures did not prevent cultivation of
tobacco and its production sites increased immensely. The state abolished the
prohibition in 1649. Until 1688 when the state accepted tobacco as a source of
income and turned it into a revenue unit (mukataa), tobacco agriculture continued to
flourish. Therefore, the empire began registering tobacco farmers to levy taxes upon
them. A tobacco tahrir register dated 1691 gives a considerable account for the
numbers of tobacco farmers and the areas where tobacco was grown, even though it
probably does not include all units in the Ottoman Empire. According to the register,
there were 10,273 tobacco farmers in 819 villages of 41 towns throughout the
Ottoman Empire. 9,197 farmers lived in 954 villages of 27 towns in Rumeli, and they
were constituting 89.5% of the registered tobacco producers.263
According to this register, towns around the Rhodope Mountains,
Uzuncaabad-ı Hasköy, Çirmen, Dimetoka, Çağlayık, Sultanyeri, Yenice-i Karasu,
and Gümülcine were home to 5,437 tobacco farmers in 356 villages. They
constituted 59% of 9,197 farmers in Rumeli by 1691.264 The comparison with the
later registers dated 1771 shows that tobacco agriculture increased almost threefold
in Yenice-i Karasu, and Çağlayık. While the acreage of the field per farmer was one
dönüm in two towns by 1691, it increased to 3.5 dönüm per farmer in 1771. In
Yenice-i Karasu, the number of farmers also rose to 3.127 from 994 during this time
span. This was the result of specialization in tobacco agriculture in the region, which
means farmers depended on this crop for their living.265 As we have seen the
previous chapter, Gümülcine, Yenice-i Karacasu, Çağlayık, and Sarışaban did not
have temettuat registers. Since these districts were the most important tobacco-
263 Yılmaz, “Tütün,” 24–29.
264 Yılmaz, “Tütün,” 270.
265 Yılmaz, “Tütün,” 43.
110
producing areas in the Rhodope Mountains, this study has a deficiency in this
respect. It is not possible to compare tobacco production in these districts with later
periods. However, temettuat registers provide information about general agrarian
activities and tobacco production in the northern parts of the Rhodope Mountains. In
1844, tobacco was the second product with a 17% share in crop-based averages of
the tithe in the villages of Hasköy and Dimetoka. Since tahrir registers only dealt
with tobacco production, they can not provide information about a general agrarian
scheme of the villages that produced tobacco. However, this study used slightly later
but more detailed temettuat registers and provided more comprehensive information
about the agrarian structure of the villages. Therefore, it helped us to see the
importance of other products other than tobacco such as rye and maize.
These settlements coincided with the homelands of dağlı rebels.266 Problems
related to or derived from the general agrarian structure or trade might be a
significant factor in the rebellion of the mountain population. Widespread tobacco
agriculture led to a fragile situation for the peasants who focused on a single cash
crop as we have seen in the former documents. The supply problem in the staple
crops created a famine which led tobacco farmers to think about giving up tobacco
266 “…Gümülcine ve Yenice-i Karasu ve Çağlayık ve Dimetoka ve Sultanyeri ve Kırcaali ciballerinde
zuhur iden eşkıyanın ebna-yı sebil ve fukara-yı raiyyet ve kuttan-ı memlekete vuku‘ bulan mezalim ve
taaddiyatlarına binaen…” BOA AE.SABH.I. 23, 1893 [29 Z 1193 (7 January 1780)]; “Eyalet-i
Rumeli’de Paşa Sancağı tabir olunur liva dahilinde müretteb kazalardan Yenice-i Karasu ve
Gümülcine ve Çağlayık ma‘a Sarışaban ve Mekri ve Ferecik ve Dimetoka ve Sultanyeri ve Ahiçelebi
ve Çırpan kazalarının bazıları ve kuralarının ekseri cibal tabir olunur sa‘b ü’l-menal kuhsar ve
sengistan mahal ve mevazi‘de vaki olduğundan ekser ahalileri şekavetle mecbul ve kazaha-yı mezkure
ve kuralarının ahalileri beynlerinde ehl-i ırz güruhu var ise dahi eşkıya-yı mezkureye mağlub ve
mecbur ve kezalik Çirmen Sancağı’nda kain dört beş aded kaza ve kuralar dahi cibalde kain ve
ahalileri bunlara mümasil olmakdan naşi ekser evkat ve ehyanda zikr olunan cibal ahalileri mesken ve
me’va larının sa‘bü’l-menal olduklarına iğtiraren izhar -ı isyan ve tuğyan ve etraf ve eknafda kain
kuzat ve kura ahalileri ve zuhafa-yı reaya veya husus-ı ebna-yı sebil ve panayırların mürur ve uburları
ve hengam-ı kıyam ve avdetleri esnalarında fukara-yı tüccara ve haza’in-i miriye ve saireye isal ve ---
ve hasar ve katl-i nüfus ve gasb-ı emval ve hetk-i ırz ve namus misillü itmedükleri şekavet ve fezahat
kalmadığına binaen…” BOA C.DH. 37, 1815 [29 Z 1206 (18 August 1792)].
111
cultivation and producing subsistence crops.267 Apparently, the introduction of
tobacco and maize, and the expansion of rye increased carrying capacity of a fragile
mountain environment and increased the density of population in a limited
environment. Market integration directed people to cultivate more tobacco by
bringing an intense demand for the famous tobacco. Intensive uses of resources in
the region because of increasing population, depending on cash crops, and the
decrease in the production of cereals had disastrous results for the people. Therefore,
locals started doing banditry and to serve as mercenaries under the service of local
ayans. This was an ordinary rule in the mountainous regions of the Mediterranean, as
McNeill stated.
The problems in the production and provision of cereals were not the only
sources of famine. Also, tobacco production and trade could be drastically affected
by certain factors such as wars, natural disasters, and price collapses. These kinds of
problems had terrible consequences for tobacco producers because their only source
of income was a cash crop. They might not have enough money to acquire their
staple foods when they face a problem that harms tobacco production. A document
dated 1787 points out such kind of problem in tobacco production. It reports that
there was a scarcity of tobacco that was grown in the mountains, and districts of
267 “Yenice-i Karasu kazasında kadimden berü duhan zer‘ oluna gelür ancak kaza-yı mezburede zehair
akall-i kalil zer olunduğu ve zer olunan zahairleri mubayaalarına kafi olmadığından civarında vaki‘
Gümülcine kazasından zahair kaza-yı mezbure pazarına tevarüdüyle bey ü şira birle rüesa-yı sefaine
muktezi beksimad ve tüccaran tabh olunan nan-ı aziz ve zürra‘ taifeleri dahi ortakçılarına kafi zahireyi
pazardan iştira ile taayyüş idegeldikleri ve bu sene-i mübarekede zikr olunan Gümülcine kazasından
pazar-ı mezkura zahair vürudu memnu olduğundan bir keyl zahire vürud etmediğinden kaza-yı
mezburun müzayakaları derkar ve salif’üz-zikr Gümülcine kazasından zahair vürud etmediği suretde
kaza-yı mezburda sakin tüccar-ı duhan ve rüesa-yı sefaine muktezi beksimad tabh olunmadığı halde
gümrüğü iradına noksan-ı külli tari olduğundan başka zürra‘ taifesi dahi sinin-i sairenin rub‘ı
mertebesi duhan zer‘ etmeyecekleri aşikar olmakla kemafi’s-sabık pazar-ı mezbura civarları olan
mezkur Gümülcine kazasından zahair irsal olunması babında…” BOA C.DH. 50, 2463 [14 C 1204 (1
March 1790)].
112
Hasköy, Sultanyeri, and Dimetoka due to the paucity of precipitation.268 In the
following part, the document urges officials to transport the few amounts of
harvested tobaccos to the customs and collect their custom duties. It does not
mention a resentment of local people that derived from the scarcity but when we
bring the information from other documents, we can see a series of harvest related
problems during the years when dağlı rebellion occurred. Apparently, the agrarian
structure had a determining role in the destiny of local people in the Rhodopes area.
Good harvest and high prices led tobacco producers to prosper. However, if the
harvest fails, people could not provide their subsistence foods. While problems in the
provision and harvest of subsistence crops were leading to famine, bad tobacco
harvest also could have dire consequences for producers who could not afford to
sustain their daily food. These problems in agricultural production most probably
directed villagers to participate in banditry activities. Therefore, it is essential to look
at the development of agricultural structure in the region from a broader perspective.
268 “Hasköy ve Sultanyeri ve Dimetoka kaza ve ciballerinde zer‘ hasıl duhanların işbu sene-i
mübarekede nedret-i emtardan kıllet üzere olmağın bazı muhtekirler vakti ile İnöz ve Tekfurdağı ve
Gümülcine ve sair getürecekleri iskelelerine nakl-i tesyir itmeyüb ol vechile duhan gümrüklerine
hasarat tareyan itmekle merahim-i aliyyelerinden mercudur ki ruz-ı hızırdan kırk gün evvele varınca
kazaha ve ciballerinden berüdeki girüye kalmamak üzere duhan sevk ve tesyirine Hasköy kazasından
Eğerçelerli Bilal nam kulları ihtimam-ı tam eylemek üzere memur olub nakl ve eğer ketm ve ihtifa
iden olur ise şurutı mucibince mallarında vezn-i kantar ve resm-i gümrükleri tahsil ittirileceği cümleye
ilam içün Hasköy ve Dimetoka ve Sultanyeri kazalarına hitaben bir kıta emr-i ali inayet buyurulmak
babında emr ü ferman devletlü inayetlü merhametlü efendim sultanım hazretlerinindir.” BOA C.İKTS.
43, 2118 [24 R 1201 (12 May 1787)].
113
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
This thesis deals with the roots of the dağlı rebellion that emerged between the years
1780-1810 in the Rhodope Mountains from an environmental, geographical, and
agrarian perspective. Even though it seems that it is a micro-scale study of the
rebellion, it also provides a macro-scale depiction of the settlements in the Rhodopes
geography. I discussed the large-scale economic, administrative, and agricultural
structures of the settlements in the Rhodope Mountains where the insurgents
emerged on. On a micro-scale, production patterns in certain villages and the
economic structure of the households were examined. Thus, I aimed to discover the
agrarian background of the dağlı rebellion. At the beginning of my research, I
expected to find a connection between the uprising and its environmental roots. The
abundance of hatt-ı hümayuns about the rebellion helped me to look at the case from
multiple perspectives and directed me to ask new questions. My findings on tobacco
agriculture and the role of maize and rye in the locals’ diet in the documents led me
to focus on agricultural production in the region. I asked how these crops influenced
the lives of people. Therefore, I decided to focus on agrarian patterns in the Rhodope
Mountains together with rebels’ activities. I began by presenting the macro-scale
geographical depiction of the Rhodope Mountains. Then, I examined the economic,
agricultural, and administrative structure of the settlements in the region by using
salnames. Even though the dates of documents differed from each other, their
primary focal point was the Rhodope Mountains.
114
In the second chapter, I started to introduce the mountain ranges, rivers, and
human geography of the Rhodope Mountains which was the homeland of the dağlı
rebels. By examining salnames, I presented the geographical, economic, agricultural,
and administrative depiction of the Rhodope Mountains in the nineteenth century to
understand what kind of agrarian patterns were dominant in a macro-scale structure.
In this respect, I showed that agriculture was the main occupation in the districts of
Gümülcine, Kırcaali, Dimetoka, and Sarışaban. I presented total agricultural
production in the districts. I again noticed the importance of tobacco as a significant
crop in the region although it lost its former magnitude in total production in certain
places.
In the third chapter, I presented chronologically the activities of the dağlı
rebels in the Balkans and how they ravaged the settlements in the region. The
chronology covers their emergence as bandits and the end of their rebellion. I aimed
to show different rebel groups and their intricate relationship with other groups and
ayans. Since ayans from the Rhodope Mountains, such as Tokatçıklı Süleyman Ağa,
and Kırcaalili Emin Ağa, had dağlı backgrounds, they maintained their ties with
rebels, and sometimes they did not follow the orders of the central government to
suppress the rebellion. Although the rebels lived in their area of influence, they did
not wage a total war against them. Especially their settlement (iskan) process drew
my attention because it helped to relate their rebellion with environmental factors in
the region. The state negotiated their settlement in certain areas, and the rebellion
finally ended after the most notorious rebel Kara Feyzi accepted to settle on the
Serbian Border. This brought to my mind the concept of population overshoot in the
Mediterranean Mountains. When the population limit reached the highest level,
mountain ecosystems cannot carry the burden, and the inhabitants engaged in new
115
activities such as being bandits and mercenaries and migrated to new areas. I argued
this phenomenon in the next chapter.
Then, I examined whether they were bandits or rebels because they are
different concepts. When I realized the numbers and terms they used for themselves,
I preferred the term rebel. Also, I drew the definite boundaries of the region by using
hatt-ı hümayuns. I argued that former studies did not pay attention to the homelands
of dağlı rebels, even though some of them presented the settlements that gave birth to
them. Therefore, this part helped me focus on which districts I should concentrate on
salnames, and temettuat registers. Later, I emphasized that the rebels called dağlıs
were a separate community living in the Rhodope Mountains. Since the Balkans are
generally a mountainous region, this naming does not cover all the groups in the
Balkans. While addressing this phenomenon, I used archival documents and dialect
studies made in places such as Edirne, Kırklareli, and Tekirdağ, which later took
refugees and immigrants from the Balkans, and I tried to emphasize that the dağlıs
were a unique community that lived in the Rhodope Mountains. Then, I presented
their relationship with geography and the impact of geography on this community
because the documents show that the mountain way of life led them to be more
courageous and have warrior characteristics.
In the fourth chapter, I offered a general overview of the nineteenth century
rebellions in the Ottoman Empire to understand factors behind them. These
rebellions directed me to focus on property and land regimes in the region. I
discussed the potential impact of çiftlik system in the Rhodope Mountains, but the
lack of studies about the system in this region prevented having a general view of
landholding patterns. Later, I looked at the historical status of the local population. It
gives us an idea about why people chose the path of rebellion because they had
116
military status in the past. As Hobsbawm stated, the role of groups with military
status in the past played a vital role in the emergence of banditry. When we look at
the dağlıs, they served as mercenaries in the service of the notables during that
period, fought in the Ottoman-Russian wars, and had a military status called evlad-ı
fatihan at the beginning of the century. Their military status gives some idea about
their banditry and rebellious activities in a sense.
Then, I looked at temettuat registers to have knowledge on the micro-scale by
analyzing agrarian activities in the villages of Hasköy and Dimetoka. Temettuat
registers show that the amount of land per household was very low. This helped me
to link the rebellion with population overshoot again. It explained why some rebels
accepted settlement in other regions because there was not enough land for the
crowded population. I presented the main agrarian patterns in the villages by
examining these registers. Tobacco, maize, and rye were the most significant
products, following wheat. Their total share in the production also showed how they
helped to survive in the mountainous areas, as in the examples of McNeill. They
contributed to the increase in population, but later, the ecosystem could not carry a
high population which paved the way for the rebellion.
Following temettuat registers, I presented the story of tobacco production in
the Rhodope Mountains. As a commercial crop, tobacco was important for the
livelihood of the local population. Because historical sources, salnames, and travelers
visiting the region clearly indicate that the region was one of the most important
tobacco production areas in the Ottoman Empire. After the introduction of tobacco
agriculture into the region, production has increased incrementally. This cash crop
had led a significant part of the farmers in the region to choose to produce tobacco
because it provided good income in a land-scarce region. But the negative
117
consequences of focusing on a cash crop in a resource-scarce region were evident.
When a supply problem of cereals occurred in the region, the farmers were faced
with the problem of famine. For this reason, they preferred giving up tobacco
agriculture and starting to produce subsistence crops. Again, archival sources show
that this famine-based situation might have led to the dağlıs’ rebellion. As a matter of
fact, the state sent orders not to hinder the grain sold in the markets. However, the
length of the rebellion shows that this situation is not enough to solve the problem in
the region.
These factors had a decisive effect on the lifestyle of the communities before
the industrial revolution. They influenced the economic activities of people, their
relations with the environment they live in, and their agrarian preferences and
production methods. Especially due to the Little Ice age, living in the plains in the
Mediterranean basin became harder. However, crops that were brought from
America and suitable for growing in the mountainous region began to be grown in
the mountains around the Mediterranean and made living conditions in the
mountainous areas easier. However, this situation started to push the population
limits in these places towards the nineteenth century, and the highlands became
uninhabitable for a part of the population. I tried to present how this development
occurred in the Rhodope Mountains and led to the dağlı rebellion.
118
APPENDIX
Facsimiles of primary documents
BOA AE. SABH I. 23/1893
119
BOA C.AS. 1099/48547
120
BOA HAT 25/1252-A
121
BOA HAT 1344/52527
122
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 5979
123
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 5567
124
REFERENCES
PRIMARY SOURCES
Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives (Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi-BOA)
BOA AE. SABH I. 23/1893.
BOA AE. SSLM III. 43/2520.
BOA C.AS. 1099/48547.
BOA C.DH. 37/1815.
BOA C.DH. 50/2463.
BOA C.İKTS. 43/2118.
BOA HAT 25/1252-A.
BOA HAT 54/2510.
BOA HAT 65/2837.
BOA HAT 65/2837-B.
BOA HAT 174/7538.
BOA HAT 1344/52527.
BOA HAT 1404/56823.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 5513.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 5567.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 5580.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 5591.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 5613.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 5696.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 5700.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 5979.
125
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6407.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6411.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6412.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6415.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6418.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6444.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6445.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6447.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6451.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6454.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6458.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6459.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6467.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6469.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6470.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6494.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6500.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6507.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6508.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6513.
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 6520.
ISAM Library, Database of Ottoman Yearbooks (İSAM Kütüphanesi Osmanlı
Salnameleri Veritabanı)
1310 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Salname-i Vilayet-i Edirne. (1892). Edirne, Edirne
Vilayet Matbaası.
126
1310 Senesine Mahsus Edirne Vilayeti Salnamesi. (1893). Edirne, Matba’a-yı
Vilayet.
1325 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsus Selanik Vilayet Salnamesidir. (1907). Selanik,
Hamidiye Mekteb-i Sanayii Matbaası.
Documentary
Garvanlieva, B. (Director). (2009). Tobacco Girl. Berlin, Gebrueder Beetz
Filmproduktion.
127
SECONDARY SOURCES
Alp, İ. (1995). Batı Trakya Türkleri. Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, XI(33),
613–52.
Altunan, S. (2005). XVI. ve XVII. yüzyıllarda Rumeli’de Tanrıdağı yürüklerinin
askeri organizasyonu. In Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet dönemi Türk-
Bulgar ilişkileri sempozyumu (pp. 189–200). Eskişehir, Turkey: Odunpazarı
Belediyesi Yayınları.
Anscombe, F. F. (2006). Albanians and ‘mountain bandits.’ In F. F. Anscombe (Ed.),
The Ottoman Balkans, 1750-1830 (pp. 87–113). Princeton, NJ: Markus
Wiener Publishers.
Apostolov, M. (1996). The Pomaks: A religious minority in the Balkans.
Nationalities Papers, 24(4), 727–42.
Aytekin, E. A. (2012). Peasant protest in the late Ottoman Empire: Moral economy,
revolt, and the Tanzimat reforms. International Review of Social History,
57(2), 191–227.
Barkan, Ö. L. (1944). Balkan memleketlerinin ziraî reform tecrübeleri. İstanbul
Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 4(453–554), 1–70.
Barkan, Ö. L. (n.d.). Research on the Ottoman fiscal surveys. İktisat Fakültesi
Mecmuası, 51(1), 1–11.
Barkey, K. (1994). Bandits and bureaucrats: The Ottoman route to state
centralization. Ithaca, NY; London, the UK: Cornell University Press.
Başer, A. (2014). Eşkıyalıktan ayanlığa Kırcaalili Emin Ağa. Konya, Turkey: Çizgi
Kitabevi Yayınları.
Başer, A. (2014). Gümülcine ayanı Tokatçıklı Süleyman Ağa ile Ferecik ayanı Ali
Molla’nın faaliyetleri ve merkezi hükümetle olan ilişkileri (Master thesis).
Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.
Beshkov, A. (1940). Tobacco in Bulgaria. Economic Geography, 16(2), 188–94.
128
Braudel, F. (1976). The mediterranean and the mediterranean world in the age of
Philip II (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Canbakal, H. (2011). Vows as contract in Ottoman public life (17th-18th Centuries).
Islamic Law and Society, 18(1), 85–115.
Cora, Y. T. (2015). Doğu’da Kürt-Ermeni çatışmasının sosyoekonomik arkaplanı. In
F. Adanır & O. Özel (Eds.), 1915: Siyaset, Tehcir, Soykırım (pp. 126–39).
İstanbul, Turkey: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Cousens, S. H. (1967). Changes in Bulgarian agriculture. Geography, 52(1), 12–22.
Cousinéry, E. M. (1831). Voyage dans la Macédoine, contenant des recherches sur
l’histoire, la Géographie et les antiquités de ce pays (Vol. 2). Paris, France:
Imprimerie Royale.
Demetriou, O. (2004). Prioritizing ‘ethnicities’: The uncertainty of Pomak-ness in the
urban Greek Rhodoppe. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(1), 95–119.
Eren, H., & İskender T. (2017). Mühimme defterlerinde Gümülcine: (BOA,
A.DVNS.MHM.d) Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi Dîvân-ı Hümâyûn sicillâtı
mühimme defterleri 1-73. İstanbul, Turkey: BALMED Yayınları.
Esmer, T. U. (2014). Economies of violence, banditry and governance in the
Ottoman Empire around 1800. Past and Present, 224(1), 163–99.
Esmer, T. U. (2009). A culture of rebellion networks of violence and competing
discourses of justice in the Ottoman Empire, 1790-1808, (Ph.D. dissertation)
The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Firges, P. (2017). French revolutionaries in the Ottoman Empire: Diplomacy,
political culture, and the limiting of universal revolution, 1792-1798. Oxford,
the UK: Oxford University Press.
Gökbilgin, T. (1957). Rumeli’de Yürükler, Tatarlar ve Evlâd-ı Fâtihân. İstanbul,
Turkey: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları.
129
Gökçe, T. (2005). Osmanlı nüfus ve iskân tarihi kaynaklarından ‘Mufassal-İcmâl’
avârız defterleri ve 1701-1709 tarihli Gümülcine kazâsı örnekleri. Tarih
İncelemeleri Dergisi, 20(1), 71–134.
Gradeva, R. (2005). Osman Pazvantoğlu of Vidin: Between old and new. Princeton
Papers: Interdisciplinary Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 13, 115–61.
Günşen, A. (2008). Doğu Trakya ağızlarının şekil bilgisini belirleyen temel
özellikler. Journal of Turkish Studies, 3(3), 402–70.
Güran, T. (1998). 19. yüzyıl Osmanlı tarımı. İstanbul, Turkey: Eren Yayıncılık.
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1981). Bandits. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Hoffman, G. W. (1964). Transformation of rural settlement in Bulgaria.
Geographical Review, 54(1), 45–64.
İnalcık, H. (2015). Tanzimat nedir? In H. İnalcık & M. Seyitdanlıoğlu (Eds.),
Tanzimat: Değişim sürecinde Osmanlı İmparatorluğu (pp. 29–56). İstanbul,
Turkey: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
İnalcık, H. (1992). Tanzimat ve Bulgar meselesi. İstanbul, Turkey: Eren Yayıncılık.
Issawi, C. (1980). The economic history of Turkey, 1800-1914. Chicago, Illinois;
London, the UK: The University of Chicago Press.
Jelavich, B. (1995). History of the Balkans: Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The
joint committee on eastern Europe publication series (Vol. 1). Cambridge, the
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kalay, E. (1998). Edirne ili ağızları (inceleme-metin). Ankara, Turkey: Türk Dil
Kurumu Yayınları.
Karal, E. Z. (1942). Selim III’ün hatt-ı hümayunları. Ankara, Turkey: Türk Tarih
Kurumu Basımevi.
130
Kaya, A. Y. (2015). On the çiftlik regulation in Tırhala in the mid-nineteenth
century: Economists, pashas, governors, çiftlik-holders, subaşıs, and
sharecroppers. In E. Kolovos (Ed.), Ottoman rural societies and economies,
(pp. 333–79). Rethymno, Greece: Crete University Press.
Kiel, M. (1971). Observations on the history of northern Greece during the Turkish
rule: Historical and architectural description of the Turkish monuments of
Komotini and Serres, their place in the development of Ottoman Turkish
architecture, and their present condition. Balkan Studies, 12(2), 415–62.
Kowalski, T. (1949). Kuzey-Doğu Bulgaristan Türkleri ve Türk dili. Türk Dili ve
Edebiyatı Dergisi, 3(2–3), 477–500.
Maunsell, F. R. (1906). The Rhodope Balkans. The Geographical Journal, 28(1), 7–
24.
Mazı, M. (2020). The sultans of the countryside: The Girays’ displacement into
Ottoman Rumeli and their widespread roles in networks of violence (1792-
1807) (Master thesis). Central European University, Vienna, Austria.
McCarthy, J., & Hyde, J. D. (1979). Ottoman imperial and provincial salnames.
Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, 13(2), 10–20.
McGowan, B. (2010). Economic life in Ottoman Europe: Taxation, trade and the
struggle for land, 1600-1800. Cambridge, the UK: Cambridge University
Press.
McGowan, B. (1994). The age of the ayans, 1699-1812. In H. İnalcık & D. Quataert
(Eds.), An economic and social history of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914,
(pp. 637–758). Cambridge, the UK: Cambridge University Press.
McNeill, J. R. (2002). The mountains of the mediterranean world: An environmental
history. Cambridge, the UK: Cambridge University Press.
Minkov, A. (2004). Conversion to Islam in the Balkans: Kisve bahası petitions and
Ottoman social life, 1670-1730. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill.
Moutaftchieva, V. (2005). L’anarchie dans les Balkans á la fin du XVIIIe siècle.
İstanbul, Turkey: The Isis Press.
131
Neuburger, M. C. (2013). Balkan smoke: Tobacco and the making of modern
Bulgaria. Ithaca, NY; London, the UK: Cornell University Press.
Olcay, S. (1995). Doğu Trakya yerli ağzı. Ankara, Turkey: Türk Dil Kurumu
Yayınları.
Özkaya, Y. (2020). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda dağlı isyanları (1791-1808).
Ankara, Turkey: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
Palairet, M. (1997). The Balkan economies c. 1800-1914: Evolution without
development. Cambridge, the UK: Cambridge University Press.
Porath, Y. (1966). The peasant revolt of 1858–61 in Kisrawan. In G. Baer (Ed.),
Asian and African studies (Vol. 2), (pp. 77–158). Jerusalem, Israel: The Israel
Oriental Society.
Şanlı, C. (1990). Kırklareli ili merkez ilçe köyleri ağızları (inceleme-metin). (Master
Thesis). Trakya Üniversitesi, Edirne, Turkey.
Sezer, H. (1998). Tepedelenli Ali Paşa’nın çiftlikleri üzerine bir araştırma. Belleten,
62(233), 75–106.
Shaw, S. J. (1971). Between old and new: The Ottoman empire under Sultan Selim
III, 1789-1807. Cambridge, the UK: Harvard University Press.
Stoianovich, T. (1966). Le maïs dans les Balkans. Annales. Economies, Sociétés,
Civilisations, 21(5), 1026–40.
Swanson, D. A. (2014). A golden weed: Tobacco and environment in the Piedmont
South. New York, NY; London, the UK: Yale University Press.
Tabak, F. (2008). The waning of the Mediterranean, 1550–1870: A geohistorical
approach. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Terzibaşoğlu, Y. (2004). Land disputes and ethno-politics: Northwestern Anatolia,
1877-1912. In S. Engerman & J. Metzer (Eds.), Land rights, ethno-nationality
and sovereignty in history, (pp. 153–80). London, the UK: Routledge.
132
Terzibaşoğlu, Y. (2001). Landlords, refugees, and nomads: Struggles for land around
late-nineteenth-century Ayvalik. New Perspectives on Turkey, 24, 51–82.
Terzibaşoğlu, Y. (2015). The Ottoman agrarian question and the making of property
and crime in the nineteenth century. In E. Kolovos (Ed.), Ottoman rural
societies and economies, (pp. 309–32). Crete, Greece: University of Crete
Press.
Terzibaşoğlu, Y., & Kaya, A. Y. (2020). 19. yüzyılda Balkanlar’da toprak rejimi ve
emek ilişkileri. In U. Karakoç & A. Y. Kaya (Eds.), İktisat tarihinin dönüşü,
(pp. 49–105). İstanbul, Turkey: İletişim Yayınları.
Traboulsi, F. (2012). A history of modern Lebanon. London, the UK: Pluto Press.
Tulu, S. (2021). Kırcali ağzı örneğinde Doğu Rumeli ağzının Batı Anadolu bölge
ağzı ile ilişkisi. Journal of Old Turkic Studies, 5(1), 146–60.
Uzunçarşılı, İ. H. (1939). Vezir Hakkı Mehmed Paşa (1747-1811). Türkiyat
Mecmuası, 6(0), 177–285.
Viquesnel, A. (1868). Voyage dans la Turquie d’Europe: Description physique et
géologique de la Thrace (Vol. 2). Paris, France: Librairie maritime et
scientifique, libraire de la société de géographie.
White, S. (2011). The climate of rebellion in the early modern Ottoman Empire. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Yaycıoğlu, A. (2016). Partners of the empire: The crisis of the Ottoman order in the
age of revolutions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Yeni, H. (2013). The Yörüks of Ottoman Western Thrace in the sixteenth century
(Ph.D. thesis), İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.
Yılmaz, E. O. (2016). Militarization of Ottoman Rumelia the mountain bandits
(1785-1808). (Master thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
Turkey.
Yılmaz, F. (2005). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda tütün: Sosyal, siyasi ve ekonomik
tahlili (1600-1883) (Ph.D. thesis). Marmara University, İstanbul, Turkey.