477

 VILLAGE BORDER DISPUTES IN TURKEY, 1943-1960
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY


Approval of the thesis:
VILLAGE BORDER DISPUTES IN TURKEY: 1943-1960


I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all
material and results that are not original to this work.

July 2022, 103 pages
This thesis examines the border disputes between villages that arose between 1943-
1960. The demographic change during the transition from the Ottoman Empire to the
Republican period led to the emergence of the peasantry as an important category for
the Republican regime. Transforming the structure of agricultural production, the
economic conjuncture of the post-World War II period led to mechanization and
caused an increase in the prices of agricultural products. For this very reason, land
disputes among the peasants have escalated significantly. The state apparatus
construed economically based land sharing and border demarcation within the scope
of the administrative border dispute. This thesis essentially seeks answers to two
questions. The first is the methods and factors utilized by the bureaucratic apparatus
in determining the borders between villages. The second is to what extent the
bureaucratic apparatus was apt to respond to the socio-economic claims of the rural
population. Based on these questions, this study attempts to analyze the tension
between the administrative concerns of the bureaucratic apparatus and the socioeconomic
demands of the villagers as rooted in their daily lives. The main method for
this study is using the qualitative data analysis method to look at the border detection
reports in the republican archives.
v
Keywords: Village, Boundary, Dispute, Topography, Republican Bureaucracy
v i
ÖZ
TÜRKİYE’DE KÖY SINIR ANLAŞMAZLIKLARI, 1943-1960

Bu tez 1943-1960 yılları arasında ortaya çıkan köyler arası sınır anlaşmazlıklarını
incelemektedir. Osmanlı İmparatorluğundan Cumhuriyet’e geçiş sürecindeki
demografik değişim, köylülüğün Cumhuriyet rejimi için önemli bir kategori olarak
ortaya çıkmasına yol açmıştı. İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrası dönemin siyasi konjonktürü
tarımsal üretim yapılarını dönüştürerek, makineleşme ve tarımsal ürün fiyatlarında
artışa sebep olmuştu. Tam da bu sebeple, köylüler arasındaki arazi anlaşmazlıkları
ciddi bir biçimde artış göstermişti. Yerelden gelen ekonomik temelli arazi paylaşım ve
sınır belirleme talepleri, devlet aygıtı tarafından idari sınır anlaşmazlığı kapsamında
değerlendirildi. Bu tez, temel olarak iki soruya cevap aramaktadır. Bunlardan ilki,
köyler arasındaki sınırlar belirlenirken bürokratik aygıt tarafından kullanılan metot ve
faktörlerin neler olduğudur. Bir diğeri ise, bürokratik aygıtın yerelden gelen sosyoekonomik
temellere ne ölçüde cevap verebildiğidir. Bu çalışma, bu sorulardan
hareketle, bürokratik aygıtın yönetimsel kaygılarıyla, köylülerin gündelik yaşamlarına
dayandırdıkları talepleri arasındaki gerilimi çözümlemeye çalışmaktadır. Bunu
yaparken, arşive yansıyan sınır tespit tutanaklarının nitel veri analizi yöntemiyle
incelenmesi, bu çalışmanın temel metodolojisini oluşturur.
vi i
Anahtar Kelimeler: Köy, Sınır, Anlaşmazlık, Topografya, Cumhuriyet Bürokrasisi
vi ii
DEDICATION
To Terzi Muharrem and Disobedient Zeynep
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is a pleasure to express my gratitude to everyone who has helped me along the road
with my thesis and has shown unwavering support in various ways. First and foremost,
I'd like to thank my invaluable advisor, Asst. Prof. Dr. Selçuk Dursun, for his
encouragement, patience, motivation, and support for my studies and development as
a graduate student. I know this journey would not have been completed without his
contributions and guidance. I also want to express my gratitude to the thesis committee
members, Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyitdanlıoğlu and Prof. Dr. Ferdan Ergut, for their
insightful comments and constructive criticism.
I am incredibly grateful to Prof. Dr. E. Attila Aytekin, who did not withhold his
valuable ideas from me, and Dr. Gürer Karagedikli, who also constantly motivates me
with short but beneficial hallway conversations in the department. I am also grateful
to Prof. Dr. Osman Gümüşcü for not hesitating to share his works on the subject with
me.
I am greatly indebted to Ali Askar Şahin and Sakine Şahin. They have stood by me in
every difficulty I have faced in my entire life. Seda Kılıç, who means more than a sister
to me, deserves a special thank for making me feel her support at all times. I also owe
my sincere thanks to Zeki Doğan, who constantly sheds light on me with his stance in
the life. I would also like to thank Serkan Kılıç, Ada Su Kılıç, and her tiny cactus that
brought me luck.
I would also like to express my sincere thanks to my esteemed colleagues, Gizem M.
Çiftçi, Burak Karakuş, and E. Ozan Yılmaz. They dealt with my moodiness in one
room during this process.
Lastly, I owe many thanks to dear friends, each of whom has a special meanings for
me, namely, Mevlüt Can Demir, Bedirhan Laçin, Yasemin Türker, Anıl Aşkın, Göksel
Baş, F. Burhan Ayaz, and Hüseyin A. Darar. I wholeheartedly appreciate their constant
material and moral support, affection, and caring for me all the time.
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAGIARISM ............................................................................................................ iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iv
ÖZ ............................................................................................................................... vi
DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................... ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. x
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. xiii
CHAPTERS
1.INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Archival Sources ................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Literature Review ............................................................................................... 5
1.4 Thesis Plan ......................................................................................................... 9
2.METHODS AND FACTORS USED IN DETERMINING VILLAGE
BOUNDARY ............................................................................................................. 11
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Administrative Framework .............................................................................. 13
2.3 Geographical Framework ................................................................................. 26
2.4 Socio-Economic Framework .......................................................................... 39
2.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 47
3.STATE AS AN AGENT OF GEO-ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER VIS A VIS AS
AN AGENT OF SEEKING LOCAL ECONOMIC BALANCE .............................. 48
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 48
3.2 Geo-Administrative Practice of Statecraft ....................................................... 50
3.3 Local Economic Practice of Statecraft ............................................................. 62
3.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 76
4.CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 78
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 83
APPENDICES
A. AN EXAMPLE OF ARCHIVAL SOURCES ...................................................... 88
x i
B. TURKISH SUMMARY / TÜRKÇE ÖZET ......................................................... 92
C. THESIS PERMISSION FORM / TEZ İZİN FORMU ....................................... 103
x ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. References Pointed by Bureaucracy in Demarcation Process Between
Villages ...................................................................................................................... 49
Table 2. Types of Disputed Natural Resources ......................................................... 63
Table 3. The Distribution of Disputes by Dates ........................................................ 76
xi ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Satellite View of Susuz and Arvana Vıllages ............................................ 29
Figure 2. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Susuz and Arvana Villages ........... 30
Figure 3. Satellite View of Akkise and Orta-Aşağı Karaören Villages ..................... 31
Figure 4. Historical Satellite View of Rast and Bük Island ....................................... 35
Figure 5. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Hasikli and Rostuşağı Villages ..... 36
Figure 6. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Villages of Erzincan and Gümüşhane
Provinces .................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 7. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Garipçe and Ürgütlü Villages ........ 56
Figure 8. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Köseler and Dümrek Villages ....... 57
Figure 9. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Villages of Ordu and Tokat
Provinces .................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 10. The Sketch of Boundary Between Eski Ömerler and Yukarı Hasinli
Villages ...................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 11. The Satellite View of Administrative Boundary Between Derecikviran
and Söğütçük Villages ............................................................................................... 71
Figure 12. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Gökçekuyu and Çamlıca Villages of
Konya Province .......................................................................................................... 75
.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Prosecutor : “Location: Kızılçullu…in the north of the administrative district…” Sergeant, what do you say? Is
this Kızılçullu here?
Sergeant : Well, Mr. Prosecutor, it’s like this. The fountain is right on the border. The side is Sarıçullu, the other
side Kızılçullu.
Prosecutor : -So?-
Sergeant : Well, it’s quite simple. Suppose we drew a line between us and the fountaion. This side to north is
Kızılçullu and the south side Sarıçullu… Sir.
Prosecutor : Meaning ?
Sergeant : Well, If you look at map coordinates… it’ll tell you exactly whether this is Kızılçullu or… Well, we
could say Kızılçullu, but it also tends towards Sarıçullu. Being outside the municipal limits, I know this point
very well. The municipal map actually marks this…
Prosecutor : Ok.
Sergeant : … as the exact boundary point...
Prosecutor: Ok. “ Location, Sarıçullu … in the vicinity of Kavurgalı village…1
The peasantry felt the transformative power of industrial development in the 20th
century more than any other class within society. The effects of modernity on
traditional structures have mainly manifested themselves at the village level. From
China to Russia, from Latin America to the Far East, this change in village life has
seriously affected political systems. Considering the demographic structure that the
Republican regime took over from the Ottoman Empire, we need to understand how
this global transformation has affected the Republican administration. In a
demographic structure where the villagers make up 80% of the total population, we
can understand the administrative and economic nature of the state apparatus more
clearly by analyzing village policies.2 The emphasis on Populism, created at the
1 Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (NBC Film, Production 2006, 1000 Volt, 2011),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkkcEFFGEoI.
2 Asım Karaömerlioğlu, Orada Bir Köy Var Uzakta: Erken Cumhuriyet Döneminde Köycü Söylem,
5th ed. (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2021), 11–21.
2
ideological level, strengthens this claim. The Republican regime attached great
importance to this issue, as reflected by its enactment of the Köy Kanunu (Village
Law) in 1924. One issue that this law prioritizes is the determination of village borders.
The Republican administration organized the state apparatus in rural space by
intervening in the village border disputes. Although the law was issued immediately
after the foundation of the Republic, the oldest document I found in the state archives
on border disputes belongs to 1943. That is why I chose to begin my analysis in the
1940s. I ended my research in 1960 when the Democratic Party’s power comes to an
end.
The years between 1943 and 1960 can be considered a transition period in the
Republic's history in implementing multi-party politics.3 The increase in the prices of
agricultural products in the international market after the Second World War and the
acceleration of mechanization in agriculture with the Marshall Plan increased the
demand for arable land in rural areas. Because of this demand, the number of disputes
over land and natural resources open to common use rose. Democratization and
economic pressure on agricultural production shifted the focus of populist policies to
villagers and village space.4 This thesis aims to determine whether or not the
relationship between the Republic and the villagers impacted space through disputes
over village borders. This thesis is about how the bureaucratic structure dealt with the
need for local areas to share natural resources and what factors were taken into account
when drawing administrative lines.
1.1 Methodology
The Grounded Theory, a kind of qualitative research technique, was used in the
research process of this thesis. Even though the archival sources are in a relatively
standard format, considering the complex and different forms of disagreement, it can
be understood why the Grounded Theory, which is an inductive rather than a deductive
3 Sinan Yıldırmaz, Türkiye’de Köylülüğün Sosyal Tarihi (1945-1960) (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları,
2021), 69–82.
4 Şevket Pamuk, Uneven Centuries (Princeton&Oxford: Prınceton University Press, 2018), 207–12,
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691166377/uneven-centuries.
3
approach, is preferred.5 Instead of evaluating archival sources with a pre-existing
conceptual perspective, it is a distinctive feature of Grounded Theory that a data set is
created by first examining the sources in depth, cross-checking them, and developing
a theoretical framework based on this data set. As a result, this technique allows the
researcher to dialogue with the research subject constantly. Glasser and Strauss
criticize the deductive method in two ways. First, in the conclusion stage of the
research, the researcher utilizes the conceptual framework in the previous stages to
provide sociological meaning to their empirical data. The researcher is trained to
validate another theoretical framework rather than try to make an explanation from the
observed data they are working on. Such a conceptual framework, not based on the
data set, cannot go beyond being a tacked-on explanation. The second criticism is of
sampling. The samples chosen based on a theoretical framework that already existed
are speculative because the theoretical framework is in a form that forces itself on the
examples, not as a set of ideas that come out of looking at the examples.
For this reason, the Grounded Theory methodology envisages the systematic analysis
of the data, the categorization of the concepts encountered in the analysis process, the
determination of the relations between these categories, and finally, an explanation
constructed from the related categories. This whole related analysis process is called
the “Constant Comparative Method.” According to this method, researchers subject
the research material to a three-stage coding cycle. In the first cycle, Open Coding,
even the most minor details of the material are coded to create a less systematic but
inclusive code matrix. In the second cycle, the Axial Coding, researchers group the
code matrices created with Open Coding regarding similarities and differences. A
more advanced code system is obtained by building different sub and major categories
than in the first stage. In the third cycle, the Selective Coding, the researcher tries to
reach specific themes and models by reviewing the data and codes for the last time.6
With the coding process carried out in these three stages, the obtained code matrices
are refined, and the research subject's major lines are determined. This thesis applied
5 Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory (SAGE Publications, 2014), 29.
6 Christina Silver and Ann Lewins, Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Step-by-Step Guide (1
Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2014), 84–85.
4
these triple coding steps to 265 different archive documents using MAXQDA, a
computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software program. Another critical stage of
this categorization process is the memos explicitly created for each archival source.
These memos comprise short and explanatory notes on the examples. The crossreading
of the memos obtained after the entire coding process constituted another
critical point in categorizing the bureaucratic approach. Two different contexts
emerged with the refining of the code system and cross-readings among memos. The
first is the bureaucratic method and factors used to determine village boundaries. I
divided these methods and factors into three subheadings: administrative,
geographical, and socio-economic frameworks. The second is the decision-making
mechanisms of the bureaucracy. I divided these mechanisms into two as Geo-
Administrative and Local-Economic perspectives. These upper and lower headings
show that all archival sources were examined in ways that facilitate the application of
the Grounded Theory methodology since it can process them without requiring further
categorical expansions. All the statistical tables used in the text are the data obtained
from the coding system.
1.2 Archival Sources
The archival records examined within the framework of this thesis are the village
border determination reports kept in the catalog of the Bakanlıklararası Tayin Daire
Başkanlığı (Interministerial Appointment Department); a catalog that is directly
affiliated with the Prime Ministry catalog of the directorate of the Republic Archives.
These reports were prepared by the İller İdaresi Genel Müdürlüğü (General Directorate
of Provincial Administration) affiliated with the Ministry of Interior. The boundary
determination reports, which date back to 1943, are followed up to 1983. Between
1943 and 1960, there were 598 village border determination reports. I reduced the
number of reports subjected to qualitative analysis to 265 following a preliminary
examination procedure among these reports. I have narrowed the sample because most
border determination reports provide little or no information about the causes of
boundary disputes and the procedures of bureaucratic decision-making. Despite their
exclusion from the research, these reports lack the content necessary to contribute to
the qualitative analysis. However, the 265 border determination reports included in the
qualitative research process include details about boundary disputes between villages
5
and present statements that provide insight into the bureaucratic process. The archive
records under examination are essentially the same in document format. The Reasoned
Decision section contains, respectively, the historical background and reasons for the
disagreement, the mutual demands and claims of the İl İdare Kurulları (Provincial
Administrative Boards), and the explanations of the Karma Kurullar (Mixed Boards)
sent from the center for establishing the boundary to be drawn. The verbal boundary
is drawn over fixed topographic points. In the thesis, I included simple sketches
showing the agreed boundaries for visualization. Almost all of these archival sources
also contain simple sketches showing the agreed boundary.
In conducting this study, which is based entirely on archival records, I did not consider
the archival materials as descriptions of the existing situation. These reports, created
by the bureaucracy, remained silent and left meaning gaps at certain points. For
example, when describing conflicts between villages, some transcripts provide
examples of severely distorted narratives. There are some ways of expressing
contentions that contradict the legal spirit of the reasoned decision, such as incomplete
expression, incorrect punctuation, or inverted sentences, which make it difficult to
discern the true causes of local disagreements. However, in topographic location
definitions and administrative matters, the report's form is clear and understandable.
The identification of such a situation in the creation process of documents may indicate
that bureaucrats are more focused on the geographical boundary than on local
economic issues related to the sharing of natural resources. The distorted expressions
used while describing the main economic reasons for the conflict may indicate that the
importance given to these reasons is less than the administrative-topographic context
in the bureaucratic mind that creates reasoned decisions. In this sense, these archival
sources are open to "reading against the grain" to grasp the inner meanings of conflicts.
1.3 Literature Review
Since there are so few studies on the boundary disputes between the villages in the
Republican era, this study is largely based on archival sources. We can roughly divide
the existing literature into two categories. Articles from the bureaucratic staff of the
relevant period, especially those written by district governors and deputy governors,
fall under the first category. To this category of bureaucratic literature, we can add
6
another valuable study by members of the judiciary on village commons. Two studies
comprise the second category. The first is a study by Osman Gümüşçü that evaluates
the concept of the border from the Ottoman Empire to the Republican period.7 The
second is the study carried out on the district and provincial administration in Turkey
between 1955 and 1957 by the Faculty of Political Sciences of Ankara University.
8Thirty different researchers worked on the project that included the analysis of the
questionnaires answered by the governors and district governors. The ideas of the local
bureaucracy on regional problems and administrative functioning constitute the
dominant theme of this study. The conclusions in this thesis can be tested with the help
of information from the local government about border disputes.
Articles in the first category, which were published in the Türk İdare Dergisi, can be
seen as texts in which local bureaucratic cadres discussed administrative processes
among themselves. These sources are not scientific but instead written from an
administrative perspective. Even so, if you can read these texts, which are based on
experience rather than research, with a critical eye, you can learn a lot about how
border conflicts happen.
The study in the first category, written by Sait Köksal, attributes the origin of border
conflicts to economic and administrative factors. He argues that the increase in
agricultural prices on a global scale during the Second World War and the significant
increase in mechanized agriculture activities in the Anatolian geography after the
Second World War increased the local encroachment on pastures and plateaus which
exacerbated border conflicts. Aside from the economic basis, some administrative
inadequacies also contributed to this process. Several administrative and technical
deficiencies that weakened the organizational capacity of the government on the land
played a critical role in the emergence of these disputes, such as the cadastral failings
in determining ownership, boundaries, and measurements of areas such as pastures,
7 Osman Gümüşçü, ‘The Concept of Village Boundary in Turkey From The Ottoman Times to The
Present’, Archivum Ottomanicum, No. 24 (2007): 37–60; Osman Gümüşçü, ‘Siyasi Coğrafya
Açısından Sınırlar ve Tarihi Süreç İçinde Türkiye’de Sınır Kavramı’, Bilig / Türk Dünyası Sosyal
Bilimler Dergisi 0, No. 52 (2010): 79–104.
8 Turhan Feyzioğlu and Arif Payaslıoğlu, Kaza ve Vilayet İdaresi Üzerine Bir Araştırma (Ankara:
Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi, New York University Graduate School of Public
Administration and Social Service, 1957).
7
plateaus, and grasslands, and failing to implement land reform programs.9 We can
determine the validity of this view by considering the cadastral activity capacity of the
republican regime. The cadastral activities carried out until 1984 could record only
52% of the total land of the Turkish Republic. The vast majority of these areas are
urban rather than rural.10 Even in 2006, the rate of villages where cadastral activities
were completed was 76%.11 Using Mann's conceptualization, the Republic's
“infrastructural power”–which refers to the ability to control and dominate the territory
under its rule as a modern nation-state– was significantly weak when the cadastral
activities of the Republican regime were considered.12
The articles of Reşit Yalın and Fethi Aytaç are important for understanding the
bureaucratic process in administrative border disputes. Reşit Yalın claims that the
concept of the administrative border is an issue that the "ignorant" peasants cannot
comprehend.13 He claims that the administrative border drawing is only a necessary
procedure to determine the territorial authority and responsibility of local
governments. When these claims are considered, the issue that normally does not have
any effect on the life of the villagers has turned into a land-sharing issue in their minds.
As Yalın notes, “the approach of the peasants to this issue is so terrible that moving
the borders one meter forward or backward is a great gain or loss, and even, for this
reason, it causes endless bloody events.”14 Fethi Aytaç, while adopting a more
9 Sait Köksal, ‘Memlekette Sınır İhtilafları’, Türk İdare Dergisi, İçişleri Bakanlığı, Strateji Geliştirme
Başkanlığı 24, No. 225 (1953): 43–48.
10 O. Demir, B. Uzun, and M. Çete, ‘Turkish Cadastral System’, Survey Review 40, No. 307 (January
2008): 63, https://doi.org/10.1179/003962608X253484.
11 Sedat Bakıcı and Şinasi Bayraktar, ‘Land Registry and Cadastre in Turkey’ (General Directorate of
Land Registry and Cadastre, 2006), 9,
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiw37jC_Ov
3AhUKsKQKHcinD9QQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.unece.org%2Fdownload%2Fa
ttachments%2F9798078%2FMr.Sedat%2520Bakici%2520LAND%2520REGISTRY%2520AND%25
20CADASTRE%2520IN%2520TURKEY.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D13703591
98228%26api%3Dv2&usg=AOvVaw0VqKSvM8USe0-PeDoIaeeK.
12 Michael Mann, ‘The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results’,
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie 25, No. 2 (November 1984):
189, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600004239.
13 Reşit Yalın, ‘İdarede Sınır Meselesi’, Türk İdare Dergisi, İçişleri Bakanlığı, Strateji Geliştirme
Başkanlığı 26, No. 235 (1955): 67.
14 Yalın, 76.
8
conciliatory attitude towards the peasants, criticizes the bureaucratic functioning more
seriously. He complaints that the bureaucrats assigned to determine the borders do not
perform their duties properly. Officials who do not pay due attention to the
demarcation process make superficial decisions without examining the disputed lands
on foot. This prevents the resolution of disputes, prolonging the process and bringing
more serious problems.15 After almost thirty years of legal regulations, the
determination of the borders of only 15 villages in a district of Sivas province,
comprising 119 villages, is a powerful sign that the bureaucracy cannot fulfill its duties
on border determination.16
Another study that belongs to this category of bureaucratic literature was conducted
by Ali Arcak and Tevfik İmsel. This study is basically on the legal nature of common
village properties. The authors examine the legal nature of pastures and plateaus since
the Ottoman period and deal with the disputes reflected in the law department of the
Supreme Court. This study offers a descriptive analysis of the court data, as does the
literature mentioned above, rather than a categorical analysis. In contrast to studies in
the first category, which do not go beyond explaining the legal procedure in
administrative border disputes, this study offers the only evidence that local economic
resource sharing is at the heart of such disputes.17
Considering the inconsistency of the legal frameworks in the demarcation processes,
the inadequacy of the bureaucratic staff, the weak technical power of the state
apparatus to control the space in cadastral activity, and the approach of the peasantry
to the border disputes, it becomes clear how complex the demarcation process was.
Although these texts produced by local bureaucratic staff offer detailed and useful
approaches to the subject, they are far from producing a scientific framework. The
only work that tries to shed light on the border concept in Anatolian geography from
a political-geographic perspective belongs to Osman Gümüşçü. He discusses the
concept of the border between villages from the early modern Ottoman Empire to the
15 Fethi Aytaç, ‘İdari Sınır Anlaşmazlıkları’, Türk İdare Dergisi, İçişleri Bakanlığı, Strateji Geliştirme
Başkanlığı 30, No. 260 (1959): 39.
16 Aytaç, 39.
17 Ali Arcak and Tevfik İmsel, Mer’a ve Yayla Davaları Köy Orta Malları Idari Sınır Anlaşmazlıkları
(Ankara: Güneş Matbaası, 1970).
9
Republican period. The determination of the village boundaries, which form the basis
of the tımar system and therefore the taxation practices, and the disagreements on this
subject are mentioned in different sources, and it is stated that the bordering practices
of the Republican period do not differ significantly from the early modern practices.18
Thus, the issue of village borders shows the continuity of state-making practices
between the Ottoman Empire and Republican Turkey. Gümüşçü's focus is mainly on
the Ottoman period, and its coverage of the Republican period is only descriptive.
Focusing specifically on the Republican period, this thesis aims to close the gap in the
historiography on the village border disputes.
1.4 Thesis Plan
The first part of this thesis discusses the factors and methods used by the bureaucracy
in determining administrative borders. I will examine these methods and factors under
three main headings: administrative, geographical, and socio-economic frameworks.
The most important factor determining the administrative framework is the legal basis.
In this context, the laws referenced in the boundary determination process, especially
the Village Law and the Provincial Administration Law, will be examined. As this
legal framework describes the method, the concept of security plays a crucial role in
administrative decisions. In the sub-title of security, the importance of the control and
domination that the state apparatus has tried to establish in the rural areas will be
elaborated on. The "geographical framework" is a term that underlines the importance
the state has attached to topography while drawing administrative borders. I will
examine the geographical framework under two sub-headings. Topographical
suitability and the concept of distance are sub-titles in physical geography; ehl-i vukuf
and incompatibility of place names are sub-titles in human geography. The most
important factor determining the physical geography is the suitability of the drawn
border to the topography. The bureaucracy paid maximum attention to this when
determining the boundary. However, the fundamental problem at this point is the
practices developed by state officials as a solution when natural elevations and
distinctive landforms cannot be found in the topography. In addition, another
18 Gümüşçü, ‘Siyasi Coğrafya Açısından Sınırlar ve Tarihi Süreç İçinde Türkiye’de Sınır Kavramı’,
96–97.
1 0
geographical method frequently used by bureaucracy is distance. It is an important
factor affecting the decision-making processes that the piece of land in dispute is closer
to which village. Human geography is determined by the mechanism of ehl-i vukuf
and the incompatibility of place names. The limits of bureaucratic information over
the local geography were expanded by applying to the local knowledge of the people
chosen as ehl-i vukuf. Another factor is the importance given to the harmony of local
place names by the bureaucracy. If the parties to the conflict cannot agree on certain
and fixed points on the land, this situation may threaten the sustainability of the
determined borderline. The socio-economic framework will be the last subtitle of the
first chapter. The Time Immemorial statement, population-land distribution balance,
and the concept of agricultural security will be examined as three basic components
of the socio-economic framework. In this section, we'll talk about how the villagers
and the bureaucracy used the idea of "Time Immemorial," how the balance between
population and land distribution affected how the bureaucracy made decisions, and
when the idea of "agricultural security" came up.
The second part of this thesis focuses on the conceptualization, analysis, and
explication of the context of the emergence of bureaucratic decision-making processes
through case studies. The bureaucratic mindset basically follows two different
methods. I will categorize the first as geo-administrative and the second as a localeconomic
framework. In the Geo-Administrative Framework, unique examples will
explain how the bureaucratic mind disregards the economic demands that are coming
from the locality. Local economic demands can be satisfied at the expense of
administrative and geographical concerns in the local economic framework. I
demonstrated that economic demands originating from the locals could sometimes be
satisfied. This thesis will attempt to describe how and in what situations these two
basic frameworks are applied to decision-making processes, focusing on a few
examples in order to provide further details. With these two very different frames of
reference, the thesis wants to show how hard it is to set boundaries at the village level.
1 1
CHAPTER 2
METHODS AND FACTORS USED IN DETERMINING VILLAGE
BOUNDARY
2.1 Introduction
This chapter will analyze different factors and methods used in determining village
boundaries. As a matter of fact, our primary focus will be on the agenda of central and
local bureaucracy and the legal framework of the central government due to the way
the archive documents were constructed. We will basically use three main categories
to analyze the perspective used in demarcation. The first is about administrative, the
second is about geographical, and the third is related to the socio-economic sphere.
These three basic categories summarize the attitude of republican statecraft on this
issue.
The legal framework is crucial in the administrative sphere because it forms the
administrative basis of demarcation. It sets out rules on how and in what form the state
will be organized on land. Two fundamental laws have determined the general
procedure. Provincial Administration Laws Nos. 4025 and 5442 have addressed legal
procedures and administrative hierarchy to resolve border disputes between
administrative units of different scales. In addition to Provincial Administration Laws,
Village Affairs Act No.442 was the first legal framework that properly tried to
institutionalize the border concept in the lowest administrative unit. Apart from these
primary acts, certain articles of Law No. 4081 on the Protection of Farmers' Goods,
Law No. 5618 on Land Distribution, Law No. 2644 on Land Registry, and finally, Law
No. 2613 on Cadastre and Land Registry were also referenced by decision-makers in
their reasoned decision texts. Additionally, the administrative practice of bureaucracy
has not neglected security issues. Security-focused statecraft was a key part of the
process of drawing the lines and coming to a final decision.
1 2
The second category of methods and factors used in demarcation is a geographical
approach. Authorized councils have strictly emphasized topographic and cartographic
acceptability. It is very apprehensible as the only way, theoretically, to prevent further
conflicts is to determine meaningful and reasonable borders for all parties to the
dispute. Bureaucracy, on the other hand, was willing to create subsistent divisions and
sub-divisions alongside the land it politically controls. So, due to these concerns,
suitability for the landscape was a central geographical framework in demarcation.
Considering the distance between the two villages and the disputed area was another
factor taken into consideration by the councils. Keeping the disputed land within the
border of the nearby village is a consensus formula that the provincial administrative
boards deem appropriate. Another geographical factor was the accurate identification
of place names claimed by disputed parties. It is also very understandable as the
claimant's assertion that the same area with different names may lead to inconsistent
and unreasonable border drawing. At that point, the concept of ehl-i vukuf came to the
aid of the authorized councils that were continuously in need of local knowledge to
grasp all the details of conflicts on the actual topography. Ehl-i vukuf can be described
as a neutral power whose local topographic information leads to an accurate decision
for an official delegation on the field.
The socio-economic framework is the third and last analytical category used in the
demarcation process. Final decisions on border disputes do not always ignore disputed
villagers' social and economic realities. It was a matter of fact, not only valid for the
peasantry but also for the well-being of the national economy, which was based on
agrarian output on a large scale. The distribution of natural resources between two or
more villages was generally based on the idea of commoning. In other words,
authorized councils were sensitive at the point of opening a vital natural resource to
common usage. The concept of time immemorial was repeatedly elaborated to build a
historical basis for sharing resources fairly. One of the socio-economic criteria used in
determining which village border the disputed land will be on is the animal and human
population of the village; that is, the demographic realities of the disputed parts. The
concept of agricultural safety is another crucial socio-economic framework.
Bureaucracy has pointed out the importance of agricultural output in an economical
manner. Protracted disputes over the landscape typically have the potential to decrease
1 3
productivity in agricultural production. So, the demarcation process had to include the
concept of agricultural security.
2.2 Administrative Framework
As pointed out above, the backbone of the administrative perspective is the legal
framework. This study dealt with 267 village border disputes from 1943 to 1960; all
archive documents were produced based on the Provincial Administration Laws
numbered 4025 and 5442.19 According to these laws, changing the borders of
provinces, districts, villages, or towns is done with the decision of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs and the approval of the President, after the opinions of the
administrative committee and general assemblies of the relevant provinces are
received.20 Provincial Administration law is a crucial starting point for grasping the
raison d’étre and internal logic of archival sources used in this thesis.
The Village Affairs Act No.442 was also fundamental as it was the first attempt to
regulate border arrangements among villages. For applicability in every corner of a
new republic, its language is evident and understandable.21 Articles No. 1 and No. 2
have basically defined what the village is. According to this definition, a village is a
settlement with a population of fewer than two thousand. People who have common
goods such as mosques, schools, pastures, and coppices and live in collective or
scattered houses form a village with vineyards, gardens, and fields. From Article No.3
to No.7, every step of the demarcation process was explained in detail. The
demarcation process was as follows; as soon as this law came into force, each village's
border was written on paper by the council of elders. Borderlines that cannot be
reconciled with the neighboring village are indicated. The borderline records approved
by the administrative councils are recorded in the land registry, and a copy is given to
the village council of elders. For the borders that cannot be agreed upon between the
19 Law No. 4025, published in the Resmi Gazete on 15.05.1941, is the amended version of the Provincial
Administration Law No. 1426 that issued in the Resmi Gazete on 05.05.1929. Law No.5442 that is still
in effect was also issued in Resmi Gazete on 18.06.1949. Since the archive sources cover the years
between 1943-1960, the main legal reference point of this study is the laws numbered 4025 and 5442.
20 ‘Provincial Administration Law’, 4025 § (1941), sec. 1.
21 TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi 2. Dönem 6. Cilt 110. Birleşim (24.2.1340) : 301, retrieved from
https://www5.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanaklar/TUTANAK/TBMM/d02/c006/tbmm02006110.pdf
1 4
two villages, the administrative council conducts an investigation and determines the
border according to the fifth article and sends a certified copy to both villages. In the
works related to the village borders, this final decision has official validity in state
offices and courts.22
Articles No. 4, 5, and 6 were the most frequently referenced parts of the law by İdare
Heyetleri (Boards of Directors) in conflicts.23 Article 4 defines methods and factors
used in drawing borders with seven sub-sections24 The third and the fifth sub-sections
were especially directive for boards of directors. In almost every case, provincial
administrative boards have tried to fix boundaries according to geographically specific
points on the landscape (3rd sub-section of article No.4). On the other hand, every
reasoned decision document includes the phrase "the rights of the parties within the
borders of each other are reserved" (5th sub-section of article No.4)
The fifth article is about how the demarcation process will work in case of
disagreement.25 The critical point here is granting the village assembly the right to
22 Village Affairs Act, art. 3.
23 The term “Boards of Directors” were also referred to as “Central Committees” or “Authorized
Boards” in different archive documents. For this reason, it will be used hereafter as it is expressed in
each archive document.
24 The first paragraph envisages that all fields, vineyards, gardens, meadows, olive groves, acorns,
coppices, and commoners, which have been counted as a village for a long time, remain within the
border. The second paragraph warns that in mountainous and forested areas, the scattered houses, fields,
and pastures are connected to the nearest village piece by piece, but these should be excluded from the
border, but the name of each should be written under the border paper. The third and the most referenced
one dictates that As far as possible, the boundary should cross streams, hills, roads, or other unchanging
marked places, and these places must be recorded in the local dialect. The fourth carries out that if it is
not possible to cross the border of a village through streams, hills, roads, or other unchanging marked
places, then the border should be made as straight as possible. Large stones should be erected to mark
the border. The fifth dictates that the scattered fields, vineyards, orchards of some people from a village
should be shown on the border of the other village, not on the border of the village where the owner is
located. The sixth stimulates that the border of one village does not necessarily have to merge with the
border of the other village. Suppose there are vacant lands, mountains, forests and plateaus between the
borders of the two villages, which have not been considered the property of any village in the past. In
that case, they should be left outside the border.
25 In order to draw the borders between disputed villages, two village councils of elders gather together
and work to settle the matter among themselves. If they cannot come to an agreement, the board of
directors conducts an investigation and draws the border directly within six months and this becomes
final decision. It cannot be changed for five years. The council of elders may apply after five years to
enlarge or reduce the border upon the need to arise. If the enlargement or reduction of this border does
not harm another village, the border is drawn by the decision of the provincial or district administrative
councils…
1 5
apply the re-bordering process to enlarge the village border in case of substantial
problems within a demarcated area. However, there are two essential prerequisites.
The first is that five years must have passed since the previously drawn border line.
The second is that the requested new borderline must not harm the living space of
another village.26
The sixth article articulates the distribution of shared resources.27 It is undeniable that
this article was designed to promote the equal use of natural resources, even if the
concept of property was referenced. The expression of being the property of a village
was not used in exclusive practice. It is elaborated in an inclusive method for the
common good of the peasantry. This part of the Act has emphasized that the bordering
process cannot be used in a way that cuts off the customary rights of the peasantry to
the use of natural resources. Regarding the article, one can assume that the Act bears
a resemblance to moral economy principles.
It is very illustrative to see the practical reflections of the Act through sample border
dispute documents. For instance, Çatak village of Çankırı province and Muratlı,
Okluk, Balcı, and Gözlük villages of Kastamonu province had a disagreement in 1956
since Çatak village was connected to Çankırı during the border drawing. This
administrative division led to a dispute on sharing the plateau, pasture, forest, and
coppice they used to share without a problem. The committee sent by the Ministry of
Interior investigated disputed areas and stated that the region is very scattered and
covered with forests. In their reasoned decision, the committee called for the 3rd
paragraph of the 4th article by stating that the previously determined border, the Çatak
river, cannot be evaluated as a natural borderline as the houses and agricultural lands
of the villages in question are spreading on both sides of this stream. It is obligatory to
26For a brief discussion on the legal loopholes created by Article 5, see. Ertuğrul Süer, ‘Köy Kanununun
Pürüzleri’, Türk İdare Dergisi, İçişleri Bakanlığı, Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı 21, No. 203 (1950):
31–37.
27 If the common areas such as water, water, spring and coppices, which are common between several
villages, are within the borders of a village, they are the property of that village, but other villages also
benefit from it as before. If such common places are not within the borders of a village, they are the
joint property of the villages benefiting from them, and these rights are written on the border papers of
each village, and they protect them and make use of them as before.
1 6
pass through the points of the borderline that can separate the disputed village lands
from each other as much as possible according to the provisions of the village law.28
Another dispute was between the Meskan-i Herdif village of Bingöl and the Civarik
village of Tunceli in 1960.29 The border drawn earlier by the authorized boards in 1955
was deemed invalid by state councils (Devlet Şurası) because the boards did not make
the necessary investigations, and a new delegation was sent from the center. According
to the audit and reasoned decision written by the new board, if the old decree was
applied, the roads between Meskan-i Herdif village and its hamlet were cut. In
addition, the ancient plateaus, fields, and irrigation areas of this village remained
within the borders of Tunceli. The situation constituted a clear violation of the 4th
article of the Village Affairs Act. Moreover, this border was also not a natural border
line. The latter council demolished the former council's decision concerning the 4th
article of the Act in favor of Meskan-i Herdif village.30
It is apt to state another example when the case happened in 1946 between the Göçeri
village of Konya and Yukarı Dinek village of Isparta. The dispute was on a 350-decare
plot of land on the border of Göçeri village. The Provincial Administrative Board of
Konya established its argument on a decree dated back to 1234, and a court decision
was taken against Yukarı Dinek village in the case of prohibition of intervention in
1950. On the other hand, the Board of Isparta states that this edict cannot be read in its
entirety and will not have legal value since it belongs to a time before the publication
of the Village Act. Additionally, by claiming that the borderline proposed by the Board
of Konya is not suitable for topography, Isparta gave specific reference to the 3rd
paragraph of the 4th article of the Act. Besides, the Board of Isparta wanted to include
the land in question within its borders by referring to the fact that the borders can be
28 Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi, Bakanlıklar Arası Tayin Daire Başkanlığı [30.11.1/258.27.3],
30.05.1956. In archive references, hereafter, the Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi will be abbreviated
as BCA and Bakanlıklar Arası Tayin Daire Başkanlığı will be abbreviated as BATDB.
29 The names of the mentioned villages have been changed. As stated in the document, the new name
of Meskan-i Herdif village was Çalıkağıl and the name of Civerik village was Sarıyayla. For the study
that deals with the change of village names as a result of the population engineering policy of the
republic, see. Kerem Öktem, ‘The Nation’s Imprint: Demographic Engineering and the Change of
Toponymes in Republican Turkey’, European Journal of Turkish Studies. Social Sciences on
Contemporary Turkey, No. 7 (23 September 2008), https://doi.org/10.4000/ejts.2243.
30 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/283.20.14] , 24.11.1960
1 7
enlarged or reduced depending on local needs according to the Act. (2nd paragraph of
the 5th article). Upon the investigation, the board of directors stated that there is no
legal obstacle for some lands to remain within the borders of each other (5th paragraph
of 4th article) and that there is no need to change the de facto border that has been used
for forty years.31 As it can be seen, the argument that the provincial administrative
board has built on the Village Act can be refuted by the board of directors by referring
to the different articles of the same Act in consideration of the regional conditions. The
same situation can be seen in another example.
In 1953, a disagreement arose over the place called Karadayı locality, between the
Düger village of Kayseri and the Kalaba village of Kırşehir. The incident was
evaluated as a border dispute by the Central Committee. The Kayseri administrative
board reported that they have a border document issued in accordance with the Village
Act and also registered in the land registry, but the village of Kalaba could not submit
such a document. Besides, the Board of Kayseri asserted that the Kalaba villagers'
possessions in the disputed area are not a sufficient reason to change the border. (5th
paragraph of the 4th article) The administrative board of Kırşehir, on the other hand,
only requested a border that corresponded to their former property and possession
rights. The board of Kırşehir did not use any legal arguments other than this request.
Upon investigating the landscape, the board of directors decided to draw a new
borderline in favor of the Kalaba village. In the reasoned decision, the committee
highlighted the complexity of property relations in the Karadayı locality and also that
most of the land in the area in question is in the hands of the villagers of Kalaba. It is
clearly seen that the central committee evaluated the case concerning the 1st paragraph
of the 5th article while the board of Kayseri was appealing the 5th paragraph of the same
article. 32
Giving reference to the violation of the Village Act was a general attitude among
provincial administrative boards for getting approval from the boards of directors. For
legal compliance, both villages must approve borders for legal validity. In a land
dispute between Bozhüyük village of Sivas and Armutalan, Söğütdere villages of
31 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/187.36.10] , 14.10.1946
32 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/236.5.16], 24.02.1953.
1 8
Maraş in 1948, the claim of the Maraş Administrative Board was based on a previously
drawn border record and a court order based on it. In response to the claim of the
Maraş, the Board of Sivas established its claim on the invalidity of previous border
records drawn without the approval of both sides by using the phrase "violation of the
spirit of the law." In addition, concerning the 5th article, the board of Sivas argued that
if the border is not re-arranged, the Bozüyük villager's living space will shrink because
of their arable land and a significant amount of meadows are within the border of the
opposite side. Consequently, the boards of directors decided on a line against the
border registration and court order that the province of Maraş had unlawfully obtained,
showing that it accepted the argument of the provincial board of Sivas owing to the
difficult economic conditions of Bozuyük villagers'.33
As we mentioned above, the 6th article of the Act was designed to sustain an equal
distribution of limited natural resources. To illustrate, during the demarcation process
between Burdur's Yeşilova and Denizli's Bademli village in 1945, the central
committee stipulated that the animals of Bademli village would benefit from water
even though it leaves the waterhole within the borders of Yeşilova village.34
There are differing opinions on how adequate the Village Affairs Act is in settling
border disputes. For example, Çetin claims that the border disputes that caused fights
and unrest between villages for centuries were resolved as a result of the Act; to
strengthen this argument, she depended on the fact that the borders of 14,988 villages
were drawn based on the Act in 1933.35 The number of villages in the republican
regime in 1935 was 34,87636. When we compare the total number of villages with the
number of villages whose borders are drawn, this corresponds to a serious ratio at first
glance. On the other hand, Tortop, in his article written in 1967 on the reorganization
of administration in the villages, gives exact figures on the situation at the village
33 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/197.8.20], 17.03.1948.
34 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/177.24.16], 29.08.1945.
35 Kadri Kemal, ‘Cumhuriyetten Evvel ve Sonra Köylerimiz’, Ülkü II, No. 10 (II. Teşrin 1933) : 340-
342 quoted in Türkan Çetı̇n, ‘Cumhuriyetin İlk Yıllarında Köy Sorununa Bakış: Köy Kanununun
Çıkarılması’, Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi 2, No. 4 (1 June 1994): 42.
36 A. Şeref Gözübüyük, Türkiye’de Mahalli İdareler (Ankara: Türkiye ve Orta Doğu Amme İdaresi
Enstitüsü Yayınları, 1967), 75.
1 9
borders to highlight the deficiencies in the enforcement of the Act. The borders of
32594 villages out of 34813 were determined. The border of 1314 villages has not
been drawn yet, and 905 villages have not been drawn since they are in dispute. Thus,
the number of villages whose borders could not be determined is 2219.37 However, it
is critical to keep in mind that drawing the borderline does not necessarily mean
settling the disputes. As illustrated in the examples above, after the borders were
determined, each village was able to request a new border to be drawn with different
claims by citing the second paragraph of Article 5th of the Act.38
After the legal regulations that are taken as the basis in the disputes, we can move on
to the references to other legal regulations. One of them is Law No.4081 on the
Protection of Farmers' Properties. This law aimed to protect agricultural products,
which are the vital and economic support of the peasant household, from possible
threats. It would be essential to look at how provincial administrative boards and
central committees use the law. The disagreement between the Yahşiler village of
Denizli and the Eymir village of Aydın arose from the desire to expand the previously
drawn borders of the village of Yahşiler to the contrary of the village of Eymir.
According to the claim of Aydın province, the reason for their desire to expand is that
they want to benefit from the oak trees, which are the property of their village based
on title deeds. If this request is accepted, the border will pass very close to their village
houses, and there will be no access to the pasture. Since the road they will use to reach
the pasture will be within the other village land, they will have to violate law No. 4081.
In the face of this claim, the central bureaucracy accepted the claim of Eymir village
and determined the border, taking into account the further consequences of the
violation of the law.39 It is illustrative that the central board did not remain indifferent
to the reference to this law by the local administrative board.
37 Nuri Tortop, ‘İdarenin Yeniden Düzenlenmesi Açısından Belediyeler ve Özel İdareler’, Türk İdare
Dergisi, İçişleri Bakanlığı, Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı 38, No. 307 (1967): 146.
38 For a study that tries to determine the problems caused by the re-drawing request made on the basis
of the 5th article of the Law, see Süer, ‘Köy Kanununun Pürüzleri’, 31–37. Süer claims that the absence
of any regulations or instructions regarding such an important law can be seen as a reason for the
frequent use of the 5th article.
39 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/241.33.19], 11.11.1953.
2 0
It was also crucial for decision-makers to settle the dispute by referencing this law in
cases where there was intricate terrain, and decision-making was not easy. The
disagreement between the Uluağaç and Yeniköy villages of Niğde in 1955 is a clear
example of this situation. With the border drawn in 1949, some fields on the Uluağaç
side were given to Yeniköy, and the pastures between the fields were opened to the
everyday use of the two villages. In the examination, it was determined that the pasture
areas in the region were turned into agricultural land over time. The Provincial
Administrative Board rejected the request for a new border drawing since it is not
possible for Uluağaç villagers to bring their animals into the area turned into
agricultural land of Yeniköy villagers, according to Law No. 4081. The law was used
to protect the existing situation in complex terrain.40
In another dispute that happened in the same year between the Pınarbaşı and Gökçalı
villages of Çanakkale, the law No.4081 was evaluated as a safety valve. The dispute
arose from the possession of the land around the Derviş Pasha farm. The two village
borders were not adjacent, and other villages were in between. Gökçalı village
descended to the Menderes Stream to water their animals by obtaining permission
from the villages in between because they rented a part of the Derviş Pasha farmland
and bought a part of the Pınarbaşı village. In this case, the Gökçalı villagers wanted
their borders to be extended to the Menderes Stream. However, the same was not true
for Pınarbaşı villagers because they also rented land across the stream. Due to the land
they had previously sold to the Gökçalı villagers, the use and property rights on the
land had become complicated. In this case, the Provincial Administrative Board could
not determine a border that would protect the rights of both parties equally. The only
way out of this complex situation was to open the Menderes Stream for the use of both
villages and to state that the provisions of Law No. 4081 would work if any damage
occurred on the lands of either side.41
Another dispute that referred to this law arose in 1956 between the Mesudiye and
Ballıkaya villages of Bursa. Mesudiye villagers bought a meadow in 1945 for 22,000
liras. This meadow is also an area that Ballıkaya villagers use during the summer
40 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.10.18], 25.03.1955.
41 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.08.04], 25.02.1955.
2 1
months by renting it. When the land changed hands, they were deprived of this right.
According to law number 4081, they were punished for using the land of another
village. The central committee stated that grazing on the land that is the property of
Mesudiye village is subject to punishment, and the law cannot be violated, and banned
Ballıkaya village from this land and approved the border in favor of Mesudiye
village.42
What the last three examples have in common is the complexity of ownership and
usufruct rights on the disputed lands. The only legal basis of the bureaucracy in solving
this complexity is the provisions of the law numbered 4081. Considering all this, we
can claim that this law had profound importance within the administrative framework
of the demarcation process.
In addition to the disputes that arose from complex ownership and usufruct rights, they
have also resorted to different legal frameworks in some disputes involving pasture
and forest areas. In pasture disputes, the central government used Law No. 5618. In
forest disputes, it used the Forest Law, Land Registry Law No. 2664, and Cadastre
Law No. 2613.
Law No. 5618 is a law that brings additional articles to Law No. 4753, Getting Farmer
to be Landowner. The third additional article of this law covers the details of how the
land-sharing will be carried out in pasture disputes.43 The main point here is that in
some border disputes arising from pasture sharing, the central bureaucracy does not
evaluate the problem as a reason for border disputes and legitimizes the situation by
referring to this law. Thus, when a suitable border could not be drawn for the local
resource problem, the central committee transferred the issue to the other competent
authority (Ministry of Agriculture) and chose to draw an administrative border. This
42 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/261.44.16], 12.10.1956.
43 In the regions where this law is applied, the needs of pasture are calculated according to the norms
prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and accepted by the Council of Ministers by taking into account
the agricultural and economic conditions of the villages, towns and cities, animal assets and future
developments in this direction, after the cultural lands such as fields, vineyards and gardens are
separated, . These places are limited and documented with a report by issuing sketches and maps
according to the specified needs.
2 2
situation can be seen as a method the authorized boards use when deciding on complex
natural resource-sharing disputes.
For example, the border dispute in 1959 between Berhal in Artvin and Dutha in Rize
arose from the right to use the pasture between the two villages. The villagers of Berhal
could not find a place to graze their animals because the pasture they had been using
for a long time was within the border of Dutha village. Dutha villagers stated that they
used to give Berhal villagers the right to use this pasture for two months for a certain
fee, but this was no longer possible with the increasing animal population. Although
the Central Commission accepted that the Berhal villagers would be in a difficult
situation, it affirmed the existing border by declaring that this situation could not be
seen as a border dispute and should be resolved according to Law No. 5618.44 A similar
conflict arose in 1958 between twelve different villages in Ankara and nine different
villages in Bolu. In 1953, provincial administrative boards wanted to determine a
border that would resolve the pasture dispute. However, the central committee stated
that the issue in question was the provincial border, and such a border could not be
drawn according to pasture sharing, and this should be done according to law No.
5618.45
The last disagreement that exemplifies the approach of the central committees is
between the villages of Eğneş and Kocapınar in Burdur. If the border determined in
1933 is changed, the cultivated lands of Eğneş village will remain within Kocapınar.
This was not considered a possible solution. The remaining controversial area is the
pasture. The commission sent from the center stated that it is not within its authority
to draw borders concerning pastures and pointed to law No. 5618 and the boards
responsible for it and did not change the border.46
As we have seen in the examples above, when border demarcation failed to solve the
resource-sharing problems on the land, administrative boundaries were drawn by
providing legitimacy on different legal grounds. The same situation was true when
44 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/276.15.02], 12.05.1959.
45 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/269.13.15], 03.05.1958.
46 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/261.43.15], 12.10.1956.
2 3
conflicts arose over forests. In these cases, the central committees justified their
decisions again by referencing different legal frameworks. We can assume that the
exclusionary decision-making attitude is the basis of the purpose of legitimation. To
evaluate this argument, it will be helpful to look at the following examples.
The border dispute between Yenice and Eğdemir villages of Kütahya in 1955 resulted
from the usage right of Ardıç Plateau at the summit of Eğriboz Mountain. Eğdemir
village cleared the area for agriculture and banned the Yenice villagers who were
dwelling very close to this area. The central committee stated that no village had
anything to do with this place because this land was partly covered with forests. For
this reason, the area was seen as the property of the state treasury and had to be under
the control of the state.47 The committee based this claim on Article 16 of the Land
Registry Law No. 264448 and Article 25 of the Implementation Regulation of the
Cadastre Law No. 2613.49 These articles strictly forbade the use of forest land as a
pasture or farmland. The example above is also a reflection of this purpose.
Forest law was also used in the same direction, apart from these legal frameworks. In
1956, the conflict between the Esenceli village of Istanbul and the villages of
Kervansaray and Bıçkıdere was an example of the use of forest law. The villagers of
Kervansaray and Bıçkıdere experienced difficulties because the land they bought from
the villagers of Esenceli was still within the borders of Esenceli. Although they
claimed that this land should remain within their borders, according to the central
committee, this land is subject to the forest law as it also includes the forest area, and
these demands could not be considered appropriate, and the demarcation request was
47 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/249.07.02], 25.02.1955.
48 “Except for those allowed in special laws, fields cannot be opened from and private buildings cannot
be built in forests, groves and coppices belonging to the State, municipalities and villages. Even in
private forests, the field cannot be opened unless permission is obtained from the ministry to which it
belongs.”
49 “…For the registration of the places that have been reconstructed from the privately owned land of
the state, the conditions are as follows:
1- Confirmation by the administrative board that there is no objection to the assignment of that place.
2- Absence of forests, groves and similar places
3- It is obligatory for the developers to be Turkish citizens…” Tapu Kadastro Mevzuatı : Kanunlar,
Tüzükler (Ankara: Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 1979), 86.
2 4
rejected. The disputed area was also excluded from the borders of both villages due to
its forest character.50
In another example from 1955, the cause of the border dispute was a forested area.
However, the distance of this land to the villages, its topographic condition, and the
experts' statements showed that the disputed area belonged to the village of
Göynükören. However, the central committee decided that since this land had the
characteristics of a forest, it was forbidden for both villages to cut wood, collect
bushes, bring their animals into the region, and open agricultural land from this area,
according to Articles 2551 and 4252 of the Forestry Law. It was reminded that the
protection of this region was given to two village councils of elders. So, the
demarcation process was carried out without concerning the claims of both villages.
References to Land Registry Law and Forest Law were used to nullify villagers' claims
on disputed land. According to the relevant provisions of these laws, the use of forest
land was under strict control. The commissions sent from the center were sensitive to
such lands and clearly stated this in their reasoned decisions. It would not be wrong to
consider different legal frameworks as the legal and legitimate grounds for the
exclusionary policies of the central bureaucracy in rural areas. At the same time, it
should be added that in regions with problems in resource sharing, an approach that
only deals with the issue from an administrative point of view give us clues about how
the state apparatus sees the concept of border. Such an administrative framework has
illustrated itself not only in natural resource distribution but also in the perception of
security in a locality.
50 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/259.28.18], 30.05.1956.
51 “It is forbidden to re-settle within the state forests and to construct all kinds of buildings and barns,
to make places for the shelter of animals, and to re-open fields, other than those related to the operation
and preservation of the forests by the State.
For all kinds of buildings and installations to be made for public health, safety and benefit in forests,
and for buildings and installations to be built by those who will process forest revenues.
It is necessary to get permission from the agriculture ministry.”
52 “With the permission of the General Directorate of Forestry, animals are allowed to be brought and
grazed on the pastures in the state forests, according to the plans to be approved by the forest engineers
and the chief forest engineers.”
2 5
The security concern of the bureaucracy in local disputes manifests itself in two
primary ways. The first was the concern of the state's internal security organization to
dominate the geographical area. Second, it was undesirable to leave land disputes in a
way that could lead to more significant confusion in the future. It seemed to be a
problem that immense turmoil burdened the internal security organization.
The conflict between Martanis and Alakan villages of Şatak district of Van province
and Mezrea village of Beytüşşebap district of Hakkari province occurred in 1943 was
a clear example of the first concern: the domination of the geographical landscape
through security organizations. Although no details were given about the reason for
the disagreement, one statement in the reasoned decision stands out: "A gendarmerie
station was built on the edge of Şabur Stream in Şatak district, and the villages in the
area were kept under constant surveillance." For this reason, the border was drawn
with the concern of ensuring safety and order.53
Another disagreement, which was decided with the same kind of security perception,
occurred in 1959 between Berhal village of Artvin and Dutha village of Rize. It has
been mentioned above that in this case, and the decision was made under Law No.
5618. In addition to that, the perception of security at the drawn border is also
mentioned. It has been stated that if the decision is made according to the topography,
it will cause some weaknesses in terms of security. For example, in order for the
Yusufeli Gendarme to carry out its duties in the disputed plateau region, it is necessary
to cross the Altiparmak mountains. It is challenging to realize this because it will be
time-consuming and tiring for the gendarmerie to cross this mountain. This situation
may cause delays in case of a possible need and prevent taking immediate measures
when faced with an undesirable security situation. According to the reasoned decision,
the border was tried to be drawn most appropriately in terms of the maneuverability of
the gendarmerie.54 These two examples illustrate to us that the ability of the
gendarmerie to keep the region under control was an essential factor in determining
the border.
53 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/160.08.14], 27.04.1943
54 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/276.15.02], 12.05.1959.
2 6
The dispute between Sivas's Darıseki and Ekrek villages in 1953 was an excellent
example of the second dimension of security concerns. In the text of the reasoned
decision, the bureaucracy stated that if the disputed land were not given to Darıseki,
this village would not be able to survive economically, whereas if the land was given
to Darısekiye, it would cause controversy among Ekrek villagers. Therefore, if the
specified border was accepted, it was imperative to take robust security measures until
calm was established. The bureaucracy's attitude was clearly in favor of security
concerns. It was inevitable that the decided borderline would be to the detriment of
one of the two villages. In this case, the provincial administration was informed that
necessary security measures must be taken until the conflicts that would arise in this
situation were to be prevented.55
In 1953, the dispute between the Kurukol village of Giresun and the center and Bozad
villages of the Suşehri district of Sivas was resolved by accounting for this security
concern. If a decision is made as to the two provincial administrative boards' demands,
the lands of the villages will be taken from them and given to the other side, and the
conflict will continue more fiercely. The only thing to do to end this violent situation
was to leave the land under the control of each village within the borders of their
village.56 As can be seen in the last two examples, it was a way of bureaucracy to set
up a situation that would not cause security problems in the future while drawing the
border. If the security problem can't be avoided, warning the local government and
security forces is another way to deal with it during the demarcation process.
2.3 Geographical Framework
In the first part of this chapter, we tried to analyze the administrative framework of the
bordering process. The administrative perspective of state agencies resembled the
geographical conditions of local areas. The most important way to establish an
effective administrative system is to dominate the geography. The borderlines must be
in harmony with the regional topography to achieve this. In addition to the
topographical suitability for controlling geography, human geography is also an
55 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/239.22.05], 30.07.1953.
56 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/237.12.04], 30.04.1953.
2 7
essential building block. By human geography, we mean the long-standing
relationship of local people with their natural environment. The relationship of the
administrative border with the topography was not sufficient on its own. For the
functionality of this border to be compatible with the internal relationship established
by the local people with the topography. The geographical perspective in the
demarcation process includes topography as a material reality and the social
relationship that local people establish with their geography. In this part of the thesis,
while topographic suitability and the concept of distance are evaluated as the physical
aspect of the geographical factor, the inconsistency of local names and the concept of
ehl-i vukuf (expert witness) is also considered as the human aspect of the geographical
factor.
Article 4 of the Village Act indicates that the border between two villages must pass
through certain geographical points. This is precisely what we mean by topographic
suitability. If there were no such natural points on the land, the boundary line had to
be drawn as straight as possible, and the stones had to be shown vertically. Although
there were some exceptions in almost all of the cases we examined, topographic
suitability emerged as one of the most critical factors in the decision-making process.
In addition, we will try to evaluate the concept of suitability to topography by referring
to three different situations with the examples we will examine. The first is the
artificial straight line, created when the boundary could not cross a fixed point on the
land. Secondly, we will examine how bureaucracy handles it in difficult-to-demarcate
areas like lakes and streams. Third, we will see the attitude of the bureaucracy when
local demands oppose the concept of topographic suitability.
As we stated above, the artificial straight borderline was a method used when it was
not possible to draw a topographically suitable line between villages. Tools were used
to mark specific points, such as piles or concrete, to establish a demarcation line
without conflict. The dispute between the Bakırca and Uzunhacı villages of Tekirdag,
which was concluded in 1953, has not been clarified for a long time with the mutual
claims of the two sides. Since there are no suitable topographic points on the land, the
parties had to refer to a flour factory in the region as a triangulation station on the land.
2 8
The central committee declared that the only way to draw a boundary on this flat and
smooth land is to erect a boundary stone in a straight line.57
Another aspect of the dispute between Beşköy in Kayseri and Til village in Nevşehir,
settled in 1958, can be informative. Pasture, which was left for the common use
between the two villages, had been turned into arable land by the inhabitants of the
two villages. The border line put forward by the Nevşehir provincial councils was
rejected because the people of Beşköy would leave the lands they have the right to use
on the opposite side of the border, which would cause serious problems in the future.
On the other hand, according to the explanation of the bureaucracy, no geographical
recesses and protrusions will create a natural border between the two villages. For this
reason, the border between the two villages was determined as a straight line between
two fixed points and through the fields. In this situation, where the geographical line
is unclear, passing the border line through the fields was not seen as a problem because
this was the only solution that bureaucracy could offer.58
The most difficult areas to create borders with stakes are regions such as rivers and
lakes. Lakes can periodically ebb and flow, complicating claims on arable land in the
region. Also, since these movements were difficult to track, the inhabitants of the area
might try to create terrain in their favor by playing with the boundary lines previously
determined with stakes. The same is true for streams. Stream beds can change over
time, and erosion and deposition can change the quality of agricultural land, which can
cause border disputes.
The resolution of the conflict between the Susuz village of Konya and the village of
Arvana in 1933 was an excellent example of this situation. The land on the shore of
Suğla lake is flat and fertile. During the backwater periods, the villagers cultivated this
land, causing border disputes.
57 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/242.39.12], 22.12.1953.
58 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/270.14.02], 03.05.1958.
2 9
Figure 1. Satellite View of Susuz and Arvana Vıllages
The border drawn in 1933 led to conflict again in 1955. The border marked by stakes
on the flat land is being disrupted by the villagers' relocation of these stakes to their
advantage. In the examination of the central committee, it was stated that the flat
structure of the land would cause conflict in the future, and the only way to end the
conflict was to show the borderline with concrete piles.59
59 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/251.16.05], 30.04.1955.
3 0
Figure 2. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Susuz and Arvana Villages (taken from BCA BATDB
[30.11.1/251.16.05], 30.04.1955. p.6)
This was not the only dispute over Suğla lake. Akkise village, Orta, and Aşağı
Karaviran villages in the region also applied to the ministry due to the same
disagreement. Although the border was determined with concrete piles in 1935, these
piles were destroyed by flooding, and when the water receded, the villagers changed
places of these stones against each other, disrupting the border.
3 1
Figure 3. Satellite View of Akkise and Orta-Aşağı Karaören Villages
The Central Committee considered that the border should remain the same and that the
places of the border stones mentioned in the previous decision should be marked on
the sketch by a technical officer, and the stones should be placed accordingly.60
Looking at the pictures presented for the two examples, the flatness of the land around
the lake can be seen. This situation has led to border disputes with seasonal movements
of lake water. For the solution, the method of erecting boundary stones that will show
a fixed border on flat land has been applied. Another cause of conflict, as reflected in
1959, is the change of the stream bed. Land disputes exist between two villages in
Çorum Province, where the Kızılırmak is determined as the borderline due to river bed
displacement in different years. Kızılırmak occasionally left sand and gravel on the
right and left shores, causing the defined border to become fluid. It did not seem
possible to resolve the dispute geographically because it was impossible to avoid this
situation. The villagers applied to the court for a possible solution. The bureaucracy
has drawn a boundary with some fixed points since the court dealing with the case
must have at least a defined boundary as a basis for its inspection.61
60 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/251.16.06], 30.04.1955.
61 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/277.21.01], 03.05.1958.
3 2
As illustrated in the three different cases above, the natural activities and the efforts of
the local people to turn these activities into an advantage for themselves remind us of
the fluidity of the borders at these points since the fluidity of the border concept both
damages the economic and social balance of the region and prevents the bureaucracy's
desire to create fixed and unchanging borders as required by the administrative
understanding. Decision-makers cannot be expected to accept the concept of fluid
boundaries. Instead, the bureaucracy tried to set boundaries with stone stakes and
stabilize the boundary line to some extent.
The last situation we will discuss before moving on to the concept of distance was the
attitude of the bureaucracy when evidence-based local claims contradicted the
topographic plane. The dispute that occurred between Misakça and Gebeçınar villages
of Balıkesir in 1951 can serve as an example of this situation. It has been claimed that
most of the lands remained within the borders of Gönen county after the Misakça
village, which was previously a part of Gönen county, was taken to the borders of
Bandırma county. Gönen village has documented this claim with land registry records.
But, even though the title deed supported the prosecution's claim, the central
committee refused to accept the border line that Misakca Village wanted. This was
because there was a fixed borderline, like Gönen Stream, that could not be moved.62
The bureaucracy legitimized its decision by stating that this borderline has an
administrative meaning and does not affect the property and usufructuary rights. This
basis of legitimacy is, in fact, a clear indication that the process of differentiation has
different meanings for bureaucrats and peasants. In almost all the reasoned decisions,
the bureaucracy used the expression of the rights of the parties within the borders of
each other. According to this statement, the state saw the concept of the border as a
kind of space organization and the institutionalization of the state apparatuses on land.
On the other hand, local people thought of the border concept as obtaining the right to
use natural resources. Köksal expressed this situation in the article on border disputes
in İdare Dergisi as follows:
29 years since the implementation of the Village Law, 23 after the implementation of
the Municipal Law, and 25 years since the implementation of the Provincial
Administration and the Provincial Administration Law that changed it, the citizens
have not been convinced that the determination of the border is an administrative act,
62 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/224.25.08], 23.06.1951.
3 3
that an existing right cannot be canceled or a new one cannot be created. Over the
years, borders have not been drawn, and conflicts have not been eliminated.63
Another case in which the attitude of the bureaucracy on this issue can be seen very
clearly emerged between the villages of Rize and Artvin and came to a solution in
1956. This dispute was over which province the disputed plateaus would stay in. The
Artvin provincial board accepted that the borderline suggested by the Board of Rize
was fully compatible with the geographical conditions but declared that they had a
court order dated 1324 that gave them the right to use the highlands and that if the
border were not drawn accordingly, they would be in a challenging situation and the
conflict would prolong. In its reasoned decision, the central committee rejected this
allegation with the following statements :
It is necessary to pass the border through points that always remain constant, do not
change, and never give rise to conflicts. In the disputed area, nature has drawn such a
border by itself. As a result, the peaks of the hills there constitute the perfect border,
depending on the condition of the land. The decisions of the authorized boards of Rize
province have almost adopted this borderline. The decisions of other boards, on the
other hand, aim to include certain highlands within their borders and, as a result,
demand that the border be passed through points that can change and always give rise
to conflicts.64
This form of expression provides a perfect example of the bureaucracy's handling of
geographical concerns in border drawing. The reference that nature draws the ideal
boundary by itself provides a full explanation of it from the perspective of actual
geography. Additionally, another interesting point is this: while the villages of Artvin
had a court decision dating back to the Ottoman period, the bureaucracy preferred to
ignore it for the sake of geographical concerns. It's easy to see why this happened
since, as was said in the last sentence, the main goal of the central committee was to
stop future fights.
The concept of distance was also another material aspect of the geographical
framework. The concept of distance can be thought of as the principle of drawing the
border by considering which village center the disputed land is closer to. It is not
surprising that this concept is referenced in many of the examples examined in this
thesis. It is not surprising that this concept is referenced in many of the examples
63 Köksal, ‘Memlekette Sınır İhtilafları’, 46.
64 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/261.43.18], 12.10.1956.
3 4
examined in this thesis. To begin by giving a basic example, the dispute concluded in
1954 between Denizli's Bulgaz village and Afyon's Ağvancık, Kocagöl and Örencik
villages can be examined. According to the report of the two provincial administrative
boards, the disputed area was on land 7-8 hours away from Bulgaz, half an hour from
Ağvancık and 1.5 hours from Kocagöl. The Central Committee evaluated 3 different
lines as possible borders. However, the concept of distance was used while stating that
one of them could not be a suitable line. This line would include the disputed land
within the border of Bulgaz village. The land in question is at a distance of 35-40 km
from the village of Bulgaz but a distance of a maximum of 7 km and a minimum of 2
km from the villages of Afyon. This possible borderline would suppress the needs of
Afyon villages and might cause a possible conflict in the future. For this reason, this
line was found inappropriate by the central committee. In this example, although the
importance given to the concept of distance is clearly seen, the difference in the
method of describing the distance draws attention. While the provincial administrative
boards calculated the distance over time, the central committee calculated it over the
metric system, which is a more scientific approach.65
Another dispute that was decided with this factor in mind was between Hasikli village
in Elazığ and Rostuşağı village in Malatya. The two mentioned villages were located
on both sides of the Euphrates river. The island of Rast and Bük in the middle of the
river was the basis of the dispute.
65 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/243.02.12], 16.01.1954.
3 5
Figure 4. Historical Satellite View of Rast and Bük Island
According to the decision of the qadi court dated 1266(1849/1850), the provincial
administrative board of Elazığ claimed that the island belonged to them. The Central
Committee has considered this situation while making its decision, but the main
reference point in the reasoned decision was the concept of distance, as illustrated in
the sketch.
3 6
Figure 5. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Hasikli and Rostuşağı Villages (taken from BCA BATDB
[30.11.1/236.05.18], 24.02.1953. p.9)
The island in question was 1330-1820 meters away from the Malatya coast, while it
was 230-540 meters away from the Elazığ coast. In addition, although the depth of the
Euphrates was 1-4 meters in Elazığ, this depth reached 10-15 meters on the side of
Malatya. All measurements related to distance and depth were also clearly expressed
in the sketch. While Rostuşağı villagers maintained contact with the island by boat,
which might create a very dangerous situation when the river level rose, Hasikli
villagers could reach the island both as animals and on foot in all seasons. For these
reasons, it was deemed appropriate to keep the said island within the provincial borders
of Elazığ.66
In addition to physical geography, human geography was also an important factor for
decision-makers. Suppose we need to explain the term human geography in the context
of this thesis. In that case, we are covering the relationship of local people with the
topography around them and how the bureaucratic apparatus uses it. The relationship
66 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/236.05.18], 24.02.1953.
3 7
of the villagers with the topographical structures can be read through the local region
names and inconsistencies among them. An ideal boundary definition had to use place
names agreed upon by everyone in the area. If the same regions are named differently
by the parties to the conflict, the demarcation line drawn will be open to discussion in
any way, and conflicts cannot be avoided.
For this reason, an official committee that cannot describe the local topography in
terms of the language agreed by the local people and the villagers who cannot agree
on naming these topographic structures can seriously disrupt the border determination
mechanism. To give an abstract example, if one village calls the area on the land an A
hill and the other village calls it a B hill, the borderline to be drawn concerning this
hill will mean the continuation of the disagreements for both sides. Official delegations
paid maximum attention to such name inconsistencies while drawing borders. This
situation was mentioned in the 1956 report of the Joint Committee, which examined
the conflict between Gökçekuyu and Çamlıca villages of Konya province in the region.
The names of the places shown as fixed points in the border records previously
prepared by both villages were different. For example, two villages showed the
Akyol67 location as two different roads. The two villages defined the Çadalaz Tomb
as different tombs in separate districts. The places they defined as hills were two
different elevations. Many elevations in this region could be referred to as hills.
Although the names of the barns were mentioned in the border document, many of
these barns were lost or in ruins. Procedurally, as the committee noted, it was
necessary to draw borders according to the places specified as fixed points in these
border records. However, this was not considered possible due to the said conflicts.
Under these conditions, officials had to redraw the previously documented boundary
line.68 The committee had taken great care to prevent this situation, as it was aware of
the possible disagreements that the border was drawn without resolving the name and
location inconsistencies it would cause in the future.
We mentioned that when there was no agreement among the provincial administrative
boards, the delegation sent from the center made a detailed examination of the region
67 “White Road” in Turkish
68 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/264.09.06], 15.03.1957.
3 8
and decided. The most important organ that assisted the central bureaucracy in this
review process is the Ehl-i Vukuf. Ehl-i Vukuf can be defined as third parties whose
special or technical knowledge is consulted in any legal dispute and cases requiring
proof. It is generally considered equivalent to an expert witness in the Turkish legal
system. However, the concept of Ehl-i Vukuf and the concept of witnessing are
different things. The Witness does not offer any assessment when describing an event
as s/he saw it. Ehl-i viukuf, on the other hand, makes a special examination and
evaluation with the knowledge they have about the situation, without the need to
witness the event.69
The concept of Ehl-i vukuf mentioned in the archive documents we examined did not
fully comply with this definition. Ehl-i vukuf, in the demarcation process, was a group
of people who dwelt in the conflict zone and had the basic knowledge to evaluate the
geography and the claims of the parties. They did not have any specialization or
technical knowledge on the issue. Because they know the area in dispute, they should
be considered a group capable of verifying the claims made by the parties for guiding
the bureaucracy. To determine a well-grounded boundary line, it was inevitable to
consult the people who lived in the region and had a grasp of the past and present
situation of the conflict zones. In this respect, we are talking about a concept that was
a mixture of witness and ehl-i vukuf, as defined above. We can consider the concept
of ehl-i vukuf as the main source of the central bureaucracy's knowledge of local
geography. Therefore, it constitutes another most important factor of the human
geography framework. People who were considered to be ehl-i vukuf can generally be
considered a verification mechanism of the local claims.
In the dispute between Kastamonu's Yukarıarslanlı village and İmranlar village in
1957, the mixed committee sent from the province examined the area of conflict.
Although the delegation tried to agree by bringing together the two village elders and
the ehl-i vukufs, they were unsuccessful. The delegation took over the management of
the meeting and listened to the ehl-i vukufs chosen by both villages. Ehl-i vukufs were
asked one by one about the names of the disputed places in the land, how the border
line was used in the past, and how the empty lands in between were used. Considering
69 Ali Şafak, ‘Ehl-i Vukuf’, in İslam Ansiklopedisi (Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı), 531–32.
3 9
the answers, a sketch showing the mentioned places in the field was created. As seen
in the example, the mixed committee provided the detailed local information needed
to resolve the issue through the ehl-i vukufs. In this sense, it would not be wrong to
evaluate the ehl-i vukuf as the local hand of the bureaucracy.
Another critical point in this example is that the birth dates of ehl-i vukufs were
mentioned. The ages of the people consulted when examining the dispute ranged from
47 to 57. In another dispute in Kocaeli province, the experts' ages vary between 53 and
62.70 Based on this information, it can be argued that the people chosen as Ehl-i were
in the middle-aged group. When we consider criteria such as recognizing local
geography and the reliability of their statements in terms of mental health, it makes
sense why this age group was consulted.
As a result, geographical factors were another important factor that the central
bureaucracy relied on for border determination. So that the drawn borders do not cause
conflicts again in the future, the elements that we have categorized in terms of both
physical and human geography have been taken into account. While topographic
suitability and the concept of distance represented the physical geography, the
elimination of local name mismatches and the ehl-i vukuf institution also constituted
the human part of the geographical framework.
2.4 Socio-Economic Framework
Administrative and Geographical frameworks were two different perspectives
underlying the demarcation process. Understanding this process will not be possible
without a final addition to this. Although the dominant attitude of the bureaucracy in
resolving border disputes was to act on administrative and geographical concerns, it
should be kept in mind that these border disputes arose from conflicts over regional
natural resources. The methods of the bureaucracy, which had to answer such
problems, had led to the formation of this last framework.
This section will discuss using the socio-economic framework with three different
subheadings. First, we will discuss how the bureaucracy realized the distribution of
70 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/264.14.11], 13.04.1957.
4 0
natural resources in the local area and the basic emphasis is placed on the concept of
"time immemorial." Secondly, we will look at how the bureaucracy considered both
the animal and human populations of the villages as a factor. Finally, we will examine
the issue of agricultural safety, which took legal form with the farmer protection law.
When all these categories are considered together, it will be revealed that the resolution
of border disputes had not only an administrative and geographical but also a social
and economic aspect.
It will be necessary to recall the discussion above that the demarcation was an
administrative procedure, which did not mean determining local resource allocation.
However, nearly all disagreements arose from the desire to include these critical
resources within its borders. It was a frequently stated situation in village assemblies,
central committees or provincial administrative boards that these natural resources
were subject to the use of their villages from time immemorial. The decisions of the
bureaucratic committees, which examined the disputed regions to draw the final
border, were based on the concern not to put disputed villages in a difficult situation
while taking these allegations seriously. Although the expression time immemorial
was used as a special claim by local councils, the central bureaucracy was able to
transform the same expression into the legitimacy mechanism of its decisions that
encouraged resource sharing. Accordingly, deciding on the common use of critical
resources was a widespread phenomenon to end the disputes over the villagers' natural
livelihoods.
The method of the central bureaucracy in making the natural resources available for
the common use of the parties was of two types. In the first, the disputed parties acted
with the aim of reconciliation, while in the second, the bureaucracy came to the same
conclusion as a coercive force. According to the reasoned decision of 1955, which
dealt with the dispute between Kabaca village of Ankara and Kacık village of Bolu,
the water source remained within the border of Kabaca. Kabaca villagers have
accepted that the animals of Kacik villagers could benefit from this source when the
water is abundant. When the water was scarce, the villagers of Kacik agreed not to let
their animals into the other side in order not to cause arguments.71 The conflict between
71 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/252.26.13], 26.08.1955.
4 1
the villages of Tokat's Artova and Turhal counties in 1948 was also resolved by
consensus on the distribution of resources. The places these villages used to have
access to, such as pastures, wetlands and coppices in the region, have been open to
common use from time immemorial, regardless of the borderline.72 The last example
in which the resource allocation was made by consensus among the villages was
between Halkapınarı of Balıkesir and Demirtaş of Manisa in 1949. What makes this
example interesting is that the intervention that brought the two villages to
reconciliation came from the deputy governor of Balıkesir. The villagers of Halkapınar
demanded a new border line, claiming that the area where they watered and grazed
their animals was within the borders of Demirtaş. With the consent of the Demirtaş
villagers, the central committee suggested that this area be open to common use; thus,
the border would not be changed. Still, because the villagers of Halkapınar did not
accept this situation, an agreement could not be reached. At this very point, Balikesir
deputy governor Nami Unal met with the villagers of Halkapınar and suggested that
they accept the proposal of the central committee. Having accepted this proposal, the
Halkapınar council of elders revised their claims. They have accepted the proposed
situation to continue the relationship between the two villages based on goodwill from
time immemorial. Demirtaş villagers, using the same emphasis on goodwill, stated that
they accepted the offer exactly.73 Even with the intervention of the deputy governor,
the conflict has changed shape. However, the expression of “a long-standing goodwill
relationship between the two villages” was remarkable and a perfect example of
reconciliation between disputed villagers on natural resource sharing. In the three
different examples we have mentioned, it is seen that reconciliation between villages
was used as a method for resource sharing, although it was achieved in various ways.
The resource allocation problem encountered in the border drawing could not always
be resolved by consensus between the two villages. In these cases, it was possible to
observe the coercive power of bureaucracy. This situation can be analyzed through
two different disagreements. The border dispute between Azapbaşlı and Kürkçü
villages of Yozgat in 1955 was over the land used as a pasture in the Akçaalan locality.
72 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.11.09], 25.03.1955.
73 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.08.03], 25.02.1955.
4 2
In the reasoned decision, it was stated that this land was a forest area from time
immemorial and that the main purpose of the two villages was to appropriate this land
and open a field for agricultural purposes. In this case, the land was not included in the
borders of the two villages and opened to the common use of both sides for grazing
their livestock, and it was also aimed to protect the forests in question.74
Another similar example was the dispute that occurred in 1956 between six villages of
Tokat and five villages of Ordu. The villagers of both sides wanted the land consisting
of pastures, wetlands, highlands, and coppices to remain within the boundaries of their
village. The common feature of all these villages was that their only source of
livelihood was animal husbandry, as they lacked agricultural lands. All these demands
posed a serious problem in border drawing. While the central bureaucracy was drawing
borders according to the topographical situation, it has openly stated that it would not
cause any change in the use of these lands that have been used jointly from time
immemorial.75 In these two examples, it is seen that the disputed parties had always
applied the concept of time immemorial while claiming that the disputed lands should
remain within their borders. However, by referring to the same concept, the provincial
administrative boards decided that the disputed regions should not belong to one of
the parties but be used as common areas. Although it was provided in two different
ways, the bureaucracy has prioritized the common use of natural resources to avoid
socio-economic problems in the demarcation process. This situation has been a
determining element of the socio-economic framework of the bureaucracy. Both
peasants and bureaucrats also elaborated on the expression time immemorial as a
crucial part of this element.
Although the common use of resources was an important paradigm, the correct
establishment of the relationship between the local population and natural resources
was another important factor. Bureaucratic cadres knew the importance of striking a
balance between natural resources and the local population. For this reason, they tried
to keep this balance in the border drawing process. The way the bureaucracy strokes
this balance can be seen in three different examples. The first example is between the
74 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/258.25.14], 21.04.1956.
75 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/263.06.15], 27.02.1957.
4 3
villages of Pıtırelli and Pazarköy of Çanakkale. In this dispute, which was settled in
1952, the villagers of Pıtırelli supported some of their claims regarding the population
issue. Accordingly, they reported that their village had a population of 557 and 1872
animals.
In contrast, Pazarköy had a population of 199 and 910 animals, and it was unfair for
the other village to claim rights in the disputed area. However, as a result of the
examination, these figures were expressed differently by the bureaucracy. According
to what was stated in the reasoned decision, Pıtırelli village had a population of 441
and 1986 animals, while Pazarköy was 187 and the number of animals they had was
976. As can be seen, there was a slight difference in population data, but this difference
was not enough to change the overall picture. It is unclear where the bureaucracy
obtained this data in the reasoned decision. However, this data was not obtained
unilaterally from the village that made a claim. Based on the population data, the joint
committee considered the need for the disputed area and decided to favor the Pıtırelli
villagers.76 The population was also the determining factor in the pasture dispute
settled in 1955 between the Paspala and Sazara villages of Kırklareli. The population
of Paspala village is 641, and the total animal population is 4102. The population of
Sazara village is 950, and the animal population is 3677. In this example, the
bureaucracy noted that the demographic data was derived from the 1950 census.
Animal numbers are the results of the animal censuses in 1951 and 1952. Unlike the
example of Çanakkale, the number of animals was divided into two cattle and sheep.
While this example is more information regarding the source and detail of the
population data, the decision makers' approach to the issue was the same.
By emphasizing the Paspala village's need for pasture, the pasture of the opposite
village was opened to the use of Paspala villagers.77 In addition to making decisions
by considering demographic data, the land and pastures owned by the villagers could
also be another factor guiding the bureaucracy. These factors were also considered in
the boundary drawing process in 1955 between the Bozköy and Horozgedigi villages
of İzmir. According to the information in the reasoned decision, while Bozköy had
76 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/231.15.20], 07.07.1952.
77 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.12.01], 26.03.1955.
4 4
9000 decares of arable land, 406 inhabitants, 87 households and 2500 decares of
pasture, Horozgedigi village had 2000 decares of arable land, 160 inhabitants, 32
households and 647 decares of pastures. Decision-makers claimed that when these
numbers were carefully examined, it could be seen how precisely the borderline should
be drawn. These numbers, which were very close to each other in proportion,
constituted the most important factor affecting the bureaucracy regarding sensitivity
and attention. The border was drawn with this situation in mind.78 As seen in these
examples, population, number of animals, arable land and pastures were among the
data taken into account in the border determination process. From these data, the
decision-makers could have an idea about the needs of the villages. Most importantly,
they analyzed the socio-economic balance between the two villages and reflected this
in their decision-making processes. In the light of these data, the importance of the
concept of the population within the socio-economic framework is obvious.
In addition to population and resource distribution, the concept of agricultural safety
was one of the factors taken into account in the border drawing process in some
examples. The basis of the concept of agricultural security has been tried to be drawn
with the law numbered 4081, which we have discussed under the title of the
administrative framework above. It is possible to see how the legislature handled this
concept when the preamble part, which explains in detail why the law was needed, is
taken into account. According to the preamble, the country was more vulnerable to
agricultural damage than others since its agricultural lands were large, open fields and
scattered. It has emerged from experience that it was impossible to prevent this
situation only with the control of the gendarmerie. It was envisaged to protect crops,
which were the only source of livelihood for the villagers, by establishing a Murakaba
Meclisleri (Local Agricultural Safety Councils), which was formed by the villagers,
along with veterinarians, agriculturalists, and police officers, operating under the
leadership of the largest civil servant of the province. The region's villagers would also
meet the financial allocation needed by this structure. Although it was necessary to
avoid placing a new burden on the peasants, they had to make a relatively slight
financial sacrifice to avoid harm. With these sacrifices, agricultural safety would have
78 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/252.23.09], 07.07.1955.
4 5
been ensured, and the possible damage to the villagers would have been covered
immediately.79 During the border drawing process, agricultural safety was used to
prevent each other's agricultural products from being damaged if the conflict between
the two villages continued. It was stated that the most important condition for ensuring
agricultural safety is to draw the border to prevent conflict between villages.
In the reasoned decision of the dispute between the villages of Pıtırelli and Pazarköy,
which we discussed in the context of the importance given to demographic concerns,
this intention of the bureaucracy is visible. One of the reasons why the disputed land
was left within the borders of Pıtırelli village was that the people of Pazarköy were
willing to water their animals from the land in question. However, the mixed
committee assumed that this would require animals to pass through agricultural land,
further exacerbating the longstanding conflict between the two villages regarding
agricultural safety.80 The border drawing process between the villages of Kahrat and
İlkkurşun in İzmir in 1953 also explains this attitude of the bureaucracy. Since there
was no topographically decisive border line between the two villages, it was not
considered possible by the mixed committee to draw a border that would eliminate the
conflict. In these circumstances, it was stated that the only solution was the cooperation
of the local agricultural safety councils of both villages to try to protect the agricultural
products from harm (mezruatın zarardan vikayelerine çalışılması).81 In the first
example, since there was a suitable border line, the mixed board accepted this line for
the sake of agricultural safety. In the second case, where the appropriate border line
could not be found, it determined the border by emphasizing the importance of
cooperation among Local Agricultural Safety Councils.
The power of the local committees established to ensure agricultural safety can directly
affect the decision-maker's approach to the demarcation. The difference created by the
power of these committees can be seen in the demand for redrawing the border
between the Turgutlu and Hasanbeyli villages of Manisa in 1954. The valuable
79 Çiftçi Mallarının Korunması Hakkında Kanun Layihası ve Ziraat, Dahiliye ve Adliye Encümeni
Mazbataları (1/409), Başvekalet Kararlar Dairesi Müdürlüğü (6/2152) 13.05.1940 :1-2
80 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/231.15.20], 07.07.1952.
81 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/251.16.10], 30.04.1955.
4 6
agricultural land, most of which belongs to the Turgutlu village, was left within the
borders of Hasanbeyli village in 1930. Turgutlu villagers stated that agricultural
security could not be ensured. They were in a very difficult situation both in summer
and winter since the land they mostly owned was within the border of the opposite
village. Although they applied to Hasanbeyli village and conveyed their complaints,
they could not get a response to solving the problem. In this case, they filed a complaint
about the reallocation of the border, and the mixed board reviewed the situation in the
region. How the mixed board describes the disputed land was substantial: The disputed
area is fully owned and still cultivated cotton, wheat, barley etc. It consists of partly
arable fields and partly vineyards. Due to the sprouting ability of the plants in the soil,
it offers a fertile and extremely productive appearance.82 As can be seen in the
expression, the disputed land was an extremely valuable field in terms of agricultural
output. The village within which this valuable land should remain was expressed in
the reasoned decision as follows:
It has been understood that due to the weak protection of Hamzabeyli village, the land
could not be fully protected as claimed, causing complaints from the landowners
during summer and winter. It was deemed appropriate to hand over the arable land to
the local safety council of the Turgutlu farmers, which have guard buildings reinforced
with telephone connections, are managed by regular and well-organized staff and are
functional enough to set an example for other districts in the region in terms of
agricultural security.83
The well-equipped infrastructure of the regional agricultural safety board of Turgutlu
village provided a valid reason for bureaucracy to determine at which border the land
in need of such protection will remain. Although the fact that a large part of the land
in question belonged to the village of Turgutlu was one of the criteria mentioned by
the bureaucracy, it is seen that the main criterion was the infrastructural power of the
local safety board. It can be argued that the main purpose of the bureaucratic attitude
that prioritized agricultural safety was the concern for economic development in
disputed regions. From this point of view, it was understandable that the concept of
agricultural safety came to the fore as another strong factor in border determination.
82 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/247.31.17], 28.10.1954. p.4
83 Ibid, pp.4-5.
4 7
2.5 Conclusion
In this section, the methods and factors that the administrative boards in charge of
determining the borders in the regions of disagreement use were examined in detail.
These methods and factors were categorized under three main groups: administrative,
geographical, and socio-economic. The most important element that determined the
administrative framework was the legislative activities that regulated the provincial
and village administrations of the young republic. In addition to this main framework,
the bureaucracy also referred to the laws regulating the use of village land and farming
activities. The regional response to legislative activities has formed geographical
methods and factors. The suitability of the borderline to the topography, the distance
of the villages to the disputed regions, the harmony in local toponomy, and the ehl-i
vukuf mechanism as a local information source were the main elements that made up
the geographical framework. The bureaucratic committees, which had to make
decisions with administrative and geographical concerns, did not ignore the local
socio-economic relations. Deciding on the common use of critical natural resources in
the conflict regions, the demographic situation between the regions, and finally, the
concept of agricultural safety was among the important factors that formed the socioeconomic
area. When all these methods and factors are considered together, it can be
understood that the border drawing process was multi-layered and complex. In
addition, although it was the ideal and abstract form of the border concept envisaged
by central legislative activities, it can be asserted that the concept of the border in local
practices was far from an idealized one and had to be reconciled with the harsh realities
at the local level. During the demarcation process, it became clear that the bureaucratic
cadres were trying to figure out how to fit the different local needs into the legal and
administrative framework.
4 8
CHAPTER 3
STATE AS AN AGENT OF GEO-ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER VIS A VIS AS
AN AGENT OF SEEKING LOCAL ECONOMIC BALANCE
3.1 Introduction
One of the main arguments of this thesis is that the concept of administrative border
disputes is a problematic approach. The disputes between two or more neighboring
villages mainly arose over the sharing of pasture, highland, winter quarters, wetlands
and sometimes forest lands. Such natural resources form the basis of the subsistence
economy of the villagers. In other words, the availability, adequacy, and ease of access
to these resources is the most important factor determining the rural population's socioeconomic
balance. It is seen that almost all of the 300 border determination reports
that were reflected in the archives between 1943-1960 resulted from the problems in
sharing such natural resources of great economic value. However, these conflicts were
evaluated by the state apparatus in the context of the administrative border dispute and
resolved within the framework of the laws regulating this area. From a bureaucratic
perspective, although it is obvious that the borders determined as a result of these
disagreements are administrative, it can be easily understood from the peasants'
perspective that the request is not for determining the administrative border but for fair
regulations of resource sharing practice. This section will focus on the decisionmaking
practices of the bureaucratic apparatus. These practices will be evaluated in
two sub-categories. The first is the Geo-Administrative perspective. The second is the
Local-Economic perspective. It is necessary to define these two general frameworks
separately. The geo-administrative perspective, ignoring the villagers' demand for
resource sharing, describes the decisions made according to the topographic structure
of the land. Such decisions are purely geographical, thus reminiscent of James C.
Scott's concept of the "tunnel vision of the modern state-making," taking into account
administrative concerns.
4 9
On the other hand, the Local-Economic perspective aims to resolve conflicts through
fair resource allocation. In doing so, it is a perspective that can afford to waive the
administrative and geographical context. All the archival sources examined easily fit
into one of these two categories in terms of bureaucratic decision mechanisms.
However, it should be clearly stated that the Geo-Administrative perspective has been
referenced much more intensively by the decision-makers in the field than the Local-
Economic perspective.
Table 1. References Pointed by Bureaucracy in Demarcation Process Between Villages ( created by
MAXQDA software)
This situation becomes clearer when we look at the statistical data obtained from the
qualitative study conducted on 265 different border detection reports. The reasoned
decisions produced by the central committees that examined the regional disputes, the
language they used and the references they made were coded separately to yield the
data that can be seen on the chart above. The reference given by the bureaucracy to the
legal frameworks we mentioned in detail in the first section was at the level of 9
5 0
percent. It should be noted that to obtain a meaningful data set, references to the
Provincial Administration Law, which have to be mentioned in all reasoned decisions
due to the legal format of the document, were not coded. The reference to official
records held by the villagers or obtained by the bureaucracy from different state
institutions constitutes 9.9 percent. While the bureaucracy's reference to local
economic situations constitutes 26.8 percent, references to Administrative and
Geographical terminology reach a significant rate of 54.3 percent.
As we said above, this situation can be seen as a result of the government's desire to
turn local problems with sharing resources into administrative border disputes.
However, claiming that the border line was determined only for administrative and
geographical concerns would be an approach that is far from understanding the issue.
Therefore, although the vast majority was geo-administrative practice, this section's
main purpose is to share examples of local-economic practice as well. It would be
helpful to clarify that each of the conflicts and resolutions narrated in this chapter is
only illustrative examples of the many similar approaches encountered in archival
research.
3.2 Geo-Administrative Practice of Statecraft
James C. Scott, in his most famous book, in which he deals with the power of planning
and implementation representing the modern state, presents a similar framework that
we have constructed as geo-administrative practices. The expressions he used while
analyzing the relationship between state and nature are as follows:
Certain forms of knowledge and control require a narrowing of vision. The great
advantage of such tunnel vision is that it brings into sharp focus certain limited aspects
of an otherwise far more complex and un wieldy reality. This very simplification, in
turn, makes the phenome non at the center of the field of vision more legible and hence
more susceptible to careful measurement and calculation. Combined with similar
observations, an overall, aggregate, synoptic view of a selective reality is achieved,
making possible a high degree of schematic knowledge, control, and manipulation.84
Tunnel vision, elaborated by Scott, is a kind of bureaucratic tool that simplifies the
complex structures at the local level when viewed through the glasses of the state. At
84 James C. Scott, Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have
Failed, 0 edition (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1998), 11.
5 1
this point, the administrative structure must reflect the perspective it has developed on
issues that are difficult to solve, such as natural resource sharing. It is very difficult for
the central state structure to provide instant, detailed, and permanent solutions to local
problems in the wide geography it has to manage in the context of the state's
infrastructural capacity. The only way to get around this problem is to put all of these
problems into one place and look at the subject from this angle.
At this point, the administrative structure must reflect the perspective it has developed
on issues that are difficult to solve, such as natural resource sharing. It is very difficult
for the central state structure to provide instant, detailed, and permanent solutions to
local problems in the wide geography it has to manage in the context of the state's
infrastructural capacity. The only way to get around this problem is to put all of these
problems into one place and look at the subject from this angle. It should be noted that
each of the disputes over important local livelihood elements, which constitute the
subject of this thesis, had different backgrounds, contextually, spatially, historically,
and even culturally. Considering the nature of the disputes that arose simultaneously
by different parties over different resources in different regions, it can be understood
how complex and difficult it was to deal with the regional reality. In the early
republican period, when the limits of the state's technological tools to manage space,
especially the weak cadastral power, are taken into account, it becomes easy to
understand the difficulties experienced in examining such complex and numerous
disputes. As Scott points out, the simplification method was an inevitable way for the
Republican state structure to make the local problem more legible. A good example of
this simplification method is that the all-natural resource-sharing disputes we have
examined were taken out of their real context and handled in the context of
administrative border disputes. This simplifying bureaucratic mechanism manifested
the foundation for geo-administrative practice.
Although there are variations within the examples that can be seen below, most of
them result from disagreements in sharing natural resources such as pastures and
highlands, which are common areas. The central bureaucratic apparatus, which makes
decisions based on geo-administrative practice, had built legitimacy on two different
legal bases. The first was that such natural resource sharing is not within their mandate
and jurisdiction. The central committees stated that their duties were only limited to
5 2
determining administrative boundaries and that a solution should be sought through
the courts for the right to use the natural resource in dispute. The second legal basis
was the statement that the rights of the two parties within the borders of the other party
are reserved. A subtext reading of this statement reveals the attitude of the bureaucratic
structure that declared it could not solve the resource-sharing problem. The
bureaucracy, which cannot achieve the ideal result in resource sharing, protects the
rights of both parties with a legal expression. Still, the expression used while doing
this indicates an extremely abstract and ambiguous right. In cases where the border
change request could create the same problem for the other party, the existing situation
could be justified using the status quo concept. And finally, in cases where the state
regulates its economic area through activities such as tourism, the claim of the
peasants' right to use could be nullified by geo-administrative practice. Keeping all
these in mind as the main framework, we can start to evaluate the conflicts.
The reason for the border dispute between the Taşköprü village of Bursa province and
the Karapürçek village of Balıkesir province, which was decided in 1951, was to whom
the pasture would belong. The claims of the authorized boards of the two provinces
did not make reconciliation possible. Balıkesir Administrative Board demanded that
the pasture, called Sığır Çayırı, either be opened for everyday use or connected to the
Balıkesir district of Taşköprü village. On the other hand, the Bursa Administrative
Board declared that this pasture, which is the life source of Taşköprü village, should
be given to the people of Taşköprü so that both the pasture and the border conflict
would come to an end. The Joint Committee, which examined the situation in the
region, declared that it was outside of its jurisdiction to decide on the pasture dispute.
However, due to the examination, the Board accepted that the conflict was in a position
to cause undesirable events between the two villages. The delegation stated that it was
impossible to reach an agreement that would satisfy both parties regarding the pasture's
ownership. As a result, the topographically appropriate borderline has been determined
by using the expression of reserving the property and usufruct rights of the parties that
would remain within the borders of the other party. The mixed board did not hesitate
to use two different arguments as soon as it could not come up with a suitable solution
to the local claim. The first of these arguments was lack of authorization, and the
5 3
second was that the right of ownership and usufruct on the opposite border was
reserved.85
The conflict between the provinces of Erzincan and Gümüşhane in 1951 is another
example of the geo-administrative practice. This example was on a plateau used by
many villages at certain times and with complex property and usage rights. Erzincan
and Gümüşhane provincial administrative boards aimed to base all these complex
property relations and border claims on official records. While the Erzincan
administrative board showed that there was no need to change the existing border, the
Gümüşhane board demanded that the part of the said plateau on the Erzincan slope of
the Sipikor Mountains should be given to the Erzincan villages and the pieces on the
Gümüşhane side to the Gümüşhane villages. The general assembly, which examined
the dispute, stated that this plateau had always been within the borders of Erzincan and
that the situation was evident in the land registry and tax records. The assembly also
stated that if the borderline demanded by Gümüşhane is accepted, the same difficulties
will arise for the villages of Erzincan. It was also said that there was no reason to
change the way things are now under these conditions.
85 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/224.21.13], 31.05.1951
5 4
Figure 6. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Villages of Erzincan and Gümüşhane Provinces (taken
from BCA BATDB [30.11.1/228.44.6], 26.12.1951 p.4)
However, as can be understood from the simple sketch, the general assembly decided
to determine another borderline rather than seek a solution to the two sides' demands.
This drawn border consists entirely of a line following the peaks of the Sipikor
Mountains. This mountain range line was shown shaded in the sketch. In this example,
where the complex property and usufruct rights of many villages were in question, the
attitude of the general assembly was not to change the status quo. It is clear that
whatever the historical claims and economic demands of the two sides, whatever the
natural line that automatically appeared in the minds of the bureaucratic staff, was
accepted as the administrative line and also justified with a critical phrase such as
"status quo."86
86 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/228.44.6], 26.12.1951
5 5
Another dispute occurred between the Garipçe village of Antalya and the Ürgütlü
village of Burdur on meadows. 1338 was the oldest date on which the claims of the
two provinces were based. Considering that the border was determined in 1953, it can
be concluded that the conflict continued for at least thirty years. According to the
Antalya administrative board, the disputed meadow was transferred to the state
treasury from Dimitraki in 1338. In the border drawings made in 1932 and 1937, this
land was shown within the border of Garipçe village. The Burdur administrative board,
on the other hand, stated that the land mentioned by Antalya was not the meadow in
question, but another arable land, and the incompatibility in the acreage of the
mentioned areas was evidence of this. The borderline put forward by both
administrative boards had no legal value since the opposite village had not approved
it. In its examination of the disputed area, the central committee determined that the
places claimed by the two sides as fixed points did not have the characteristics of fixed
points but had features that can change over time and are uncertain. Examples of this
situation were that a strong person could easily replace the stone suggested by Garipçe
village as a fixed point or that the tree indicated by Ürkütlü village could no longer be
detected in that region.
5 6
Figure 7. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Garipçe and Ürgütlü Villages ( taken from BCA BATDB
[30.11.1/241.33.18],13.11.1953 p.4 )
After examining the official records and listening to the statements of the Ehl-i Vukufs,
the central committee, which could not identify a clear borderline, determined the
border as the line following the Aykırtça stream. This line divides the disputed
meadow precisely in the middle following, as illustrated in the sample sketch. It seems
that we are faced with a staff that drew the borderline topographically instead of
responding to the claims of the two sides and determining the meadow's belonging. A
resource-sharing dispute was converted to an administrative boundary issue and
resolved accordingly. However, the reasoned decision did not include any statement
regarding the natural resource dispute's resolution or future.87
87 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/241.33.18],13.11.1953
5 7
Another example that emerged from the natural resource sharing dispute and was
decided by reducing the administrative border issue is the arable land between the
Köseler village of Ankara and the Dümrek village of Eskişehir. Although the Ankara
provincial administrative board claimed that they did not see any reason to change the
border line drawn in 1928, the Eskişehir provincial administrative board reported that
the 1928 border was not qualified to meet the current needs of the Dümrek villagers.
It had been suggested that the increase in animal and human populations and the fact
that the current borderline passes very close to their villages were the reasons for this.
Köseler village council of elders stated that they were aware of the scarcity of arable
land owned by Dümrek villagers and that they made their living by the share-cropping
method and indicated that they were willing to revise the borderline in favor of
Dümrek villagers slightly. Despite this, the villagers of Dümrek did not accept this
well-intentioned request by demanding more land, and an agreement could not be
reached. The decision given as a result of the central committee review was interesting.
Figure 8. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Köseler and Dümrek Villages (taken from BCA BATDB
[30.11.1/247.31.5],28.10.1954 p.6)
5 8
Although the claims and demands of the two villages were dealt with in detail in the
reasoned decision, the border was determined as another line apart from the needs of
both villages. As for a reason for this, it was stated that the boundaries of the two
provinces should follow the field's unchanging, natural, and geographical roughness.
As seen in the sketch, the border was determined by following the streamline on the
surface. Although the said line left even the titled land of Köseler village at the border
of the opposite village, the classical bureaucratic expression "the property right of the
land within the opposite borders is reserved" was used as the necessary legitimation
strategy to eliminate this problematic situation. In this example, it can be seen that
although the bureaucracy listened to the claims of both sides in detail and noted them
down, they chose not to include these demands and claims in the decision-making
process for the sake of drawing a geo-administrative border.88
The geo-administrative mentioned above decision-making practice of the bureaucracy
was manifested not only in disputes over pasture, plateau and meadow but also in
disputes over forests. The border dispute, which has been going on for years between
six villages in the province of Tokat and 5 villages in the province of Ordu, was
resolved in 1957 by the authorized committee. The border line demanded by the
administrative boards of the two provinces was specified in detail, and it was stated
that an agreement could not be reached. The disputed boundary line was approximately
25km long and thus required a survey of very rough terrain in detail. The committee
determined that the main reason for the problem was the desire to include the pasture,
wetland, and forest lands that the surrounding villages had used together for a long
time within their borders. Finding these demands understandable since the villages of
the parties make their living from animal husbandry, the committee stated that this
border will play an administrative role and that the two sides will continue to benefit
from the lands they have used jointly for a long time.
88 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/247.31.5],28.10.1954
5 9
Figure 9. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Villages of Ordu and Tokat Provinces (taken from BCA
BATDB [30.11.1/263.6.15], 27.02.1957 p.8)
As can be seen from the sketch, the line drawn on the summits of the hills in the region
was determined as the border, regardless of the economic claims of the opposite
villages. As a legitimacy mechanism, the emphasis on administrative borders and the
continuation of the former rights of the parties were put forward.89
Beyond all these examples, some very rare concerns could also be the defining element
of geo-administrative practice. With the law numbered 5614, it was decided to connect
89 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/263.6.15], 27.02.1957
6 0
the surroundings of Lake Abant to the province of Bolu and to transfer the regional
administration to the Special Provincial Administration of Bolu. The people of two
villages, administratively affiliated to the Mudurnu district but located very close to
the Abant region, had applied to the provincial administration, declaring their difficult
situation and demanding a border re-arrangement. They stated that they graze their
animals in the Abant highlands, obtain their subsistence wood from the forests in this
region, and spend most of the year residing in these highlands. The fact that the Abant
region was connected to the Bolu province due to tourism activities prevented the
villagers from accessing the natural resources in this region. As a solution, they
demanded that the region they used to be connected to the Mudurnu district maintain
their subsistence economy. Article 5 of Law No. 5614 states that agricultural
production and animal husbandry cannot be done in any way in the specified area.
For this reason, the only way for the villagers to access their natural resources was to
connect the claimed area to the Mudurnu district. However, the bureaucracy
unequivocally rejected this request, and no alternative solution was developed for the
villagers' situation in the reasoned decision. It has also been stated that no village or
person can benefit from the region mentioned above, and there is no land belonging to
any village in this region. It was also noted that this decision was taken in the name of
administrative and security concerns. Although it was impossible to determine to what
extent the villagers' claims were valid and accurate, the bureaucratic staff's clear
response was clearly against such a demand that could have a significant impact on
the village economy. This approach, which we try to put forward in this section and
call geo-administrative practice, emerges as a serious administrative behavior to
village border disputes.90
In another example where geo-administrative practice can be seen, although the joint
committee, which had previously examined the border dispute between the two
provinces between the Eski Ömerler village of Kayseri and the Yukarı Hasinli village
of Yozgat, reached an agreement, there were problems in the application of the agreed
border line to the land. The main reason for these problems was that the two villages
could not agree on the places used as a fixing point on the land; hence, they described
90 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/269.13.20],03.05.1958
6 1
the same places with different names. The first subject of dispute was the sharing of
pasture and arable land. With the separate mixed board sent to the site of disagreement,
both these resources were tried to be shared, and the problem of applying the first
drawn line to the land was solved. However, according to this committee, it was
impossible to determine a line that could definitively separate the pasture and arable
land.
On the other hand, it was possible to find a line suitable for an administrative border
in terms of topography. For this reason, it has been deemed appropriate to draw a
boundary line that will follow the peaks of the elevated points. In the written
explanation of the decision, it was said that the parties' rights to the fields and pastures
inside the other party's borders would be kept and that they could keep using these
resources as they had before.
Figure 10. The Sketch of Boundary Between Eski Ömerler and Yukarı Hasinli Villages (taken from BCA
BATDB [30.11.1/243.2.11], 16.1.1954 p.6 )
6 2
As seen in the sketch, a line has been identified starting from Nohutlu Hill and ending
at Tepekuyu. Although this line successfully followed the elevations, it did not offer
any solution to the pastures and lands that constitute the main reason for the conflict
between the two villages. In this example, it can be seen that the conflict arising from
the basic economic and vital needs of the villagers, such as pasture and arable land,
has been tried to be resolved by border lines drawn with a geo-administrative
perspective, without including any reference to the resolution of the main conflict.
While it is clear that there was a solution for the state apparatus, the bureaucracy turned
a blind eye to the economic problems of the peasantry.91
As a result, it is seen that the bureaucratic structure, which revealed the economic
reasons for the disagreements and put forward the claims of the two sides in the
reasoned decision, made decisions following geo-administrative practice during the
decision phase. As seen in the examples, this approach, which overshadows local
rights claims over the topographic plane, is important in showing how the tunnel vision
of the state apparatus came into force, especially where there were complex claims on
land use.
3.3 Local Economic Practice of Statecraft
As stated above, the disagreements were purely regional resource sharing. The
problem, drawn to the administrative border line, concealed the root cause of the
problems and formed the practice of decision making. However, although relatively
few, not all decision-making has primarily approached border disputes from a geoadministrative
perspective. The Local-Economic perspective was also gaining
importance in resolving local resource-sharing problems. As seen from the table, half
of the disputes resulted from pasture claims. Respectively, water resources, forest
areas, arable land, titled lands, and plateaus were also the types of resources in dispute.
91 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/243.2.11], 16.1.1954
6 3
Table 2. Types of Disputed Natural Resources (created by MAXQDA software)
This distribution in the examples of disputes examined was understandable in
geography, where animal husbandry occupied an extremely important place. Pasture
disputes are a common phenomenon since pasturelands cover one-third of the
country's total area.92 In their pioneering study on pasturelands, Arcak and İmsel
revealed how important and sensitive this issue was for the local people. Due to the
disputes over the pastures and other natural resources available for common use,
occasional armed fights and even murders could appear. The situation proves that such
conflicts are one of the main causes of security problems in rural areas.93 The practices
used in resolving conflicts that caused such serious problems naturally had to
compromise from an administrative-geographical perspective to achieve equilibrium
in the local economy.
As evident from the examples discussed below, in most cases, the central committees
reviewed the same file twice. There were three main reasons for this. The first was that
the boundary determined due to the disagreement between the parties could not be
truly applied to the land. The implementation problem was that local economic
92 Arcak and İmsel, Mer’a ve Yayla Davaları Köy Orta Malları Idari Sınır Anlaşmazlıkları, 2.
93 Arcak and İmsel, 3.
6 4
concerns were still in conflict. The second was the request for a re-determination of
the border since the first border drawn deteriorated the economic and social balance
of the people of one side of the village. The third is the result of the change in the
demographic structures of the villagers since the first border line was determined. The
common situation observed in the border lines drawn with a local-economic
perspective was that the conflict was not resolved in the first and revised in the second
review. In a way, the local-economic perspective was the revision mechanism of the
administrative-geographical perspective. As long as you keep this general structure in
mind, you can move on to the examples and continue the examination.
The border dispute between the Akköy village of Kayseri and the town of İncesu was
concluded in 1946 with the determination of a borderline with the consent of both
parties. However, after a short time, Akköy village applied to the authorities about the
dispute and asked for a new border allocation. The reason for this request by Akköy
villagers was the injustice they claimed to have encountered during the implementation
of the borderline on the ground. According to the allegations of Akköy villagers,
İncesu Municipality and Farmers' Property Protection Organization acted against the
rights of the Akköy villagers. They encroached on and damaged the lands around the
border owned and actively used by the Akköy people. In addition, they stated that the
animals brought to the Sultan lake, offered for joint use by the central committee, were
taken to the town of İncesu under the pretext of border conflict and fined. As stated in
the reasoned decision, border determination was requested once again due to the
prevention of such "extreme" situations. As a result of the investigation, the central
committee made an effort to determine a new borderline to eliminate these "unfair"
practices against one side. As a result, we are faced with a bureaucratic structure that
only examines such local economic and social demands and decides on the boundary
allocation. In this example, it can be inferred that no geographical or administrative
concerns were taken into account by the central bureaucracy. The bureaucrats, who
had defined the situation as extreme and unfair, did not hesitate to redefine the borders
to prevent this situation.94
94 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/215.22.19],5.7.1950
6 5
Although the primary purpose of bureaucratic cadres was to build lines that would not
cause conflict in the future, it is obvious that this has not been achieved in many cases.
We will analyze two different disputes that can be shown as examples of this situation.
The main point, similar to each other in these two examples, was that although the
dispute files were examined and decided by the authorized boards, the disagreements
continued and resurfaced approximately ten years later. Different delegations
examined once again the similar conflict between the same villages. It is noteworthy
that the concerns and methods of the bureaucracy in such recurrent cases had to be
much more solution-oriented regarding social and economic perspectives. The Central
Committees were eager to consider local demands by waiving the consulatudinary
geo-administrative practice to settle issues. The first example of this situation was the
long-standing conflict between 12 different villages in Ankara and 7 different villages
in Bolu. The first date this dispute was handled as a border conflict was in 1943.
Although there was no information on the cause of the disagreement in this first
reasoned decision, the statements of the two provincial boards regarding the
disagreement are remarkable. The central committee examined the land, estates, and
animals owned by the villages of both parties in the disputed area. It was noted that
while thinking about the proper solution, the committee evaluated the parties' needs,
property, and usufruct rights. It has also been stated that the decision was taken to
eliminate this bad situation that lasted for years, retaining the people of the two parties
from their work, causing them to wander in the courts and causing material and moral
damages that are difficult to overcome and to ensure that the villagers act as neighbors
within the framework of mutual love and respect. This form of expression illustrates
that decision-makers consider all the de facto and legal rights of the villagers on the
land. They also emphasize the ideal social relationship between the villagers and the
parties to the dispute. In addition, the bureaucratic language shows that the central
committee was aware of the burden on the villagers. However, we can infer from the
recurrent confrontation between the same villages in the same region in 1952 that this
intention and awareness of bureaucracy did not find a complete response among the
villagers. In the reasoned decision of 1952, it was stated that the cause of the
disagreement was the conflict in applying the borderline defined in 1943 on the land.
However, the bureaucratic discourse expressed how to solve the problem more clearly
this time. Accordingly, although it is possible to draw the border in the disputed region
6 6
following the perspective of topographical suitability, it has been clearly stated that
this geographical framework would not provide the pasture needs of the disputed
villages. Besides, if insisting on using the geographic framework, the villagers whose
disagreements had ended in the previous review would also conflict. For this reason,
a borderline considering the rights of property and usufruct of the villagers was
determined instead of an administrative line suitable for the geographical situation.
Since we did not encounter another dispute file between these villages until 1960, it
can be thought that this attitude, which takes local claims into account, worked
properly until the 60s.95
Another example where the geo-administrative bureaucratic practice was put aside,
and the problem was solved by deciding according to the social and economic situation
in the region was between Atçılar village and Yuksek, Kızıltepe and Örlemiş villages
of İzmir province. The dispute arose due to the encroachment of the villagers of
Yuksek, Kızıltepe and Örlemiş on the acorns, pastures, and lands owned by Atcilar
village with a title deed. Authorized boards reported that Atcilar village had less need
for pasture than the other three villages and that acorn trees should not only belong to
Atcilar village but should be available to other villages. They argued that it would be
right and just to open such trees for common use with other villages and give the
pastureland to three villages in distress. To legitimize this claim, the authorized
regional committee, which compared the population of Atcilar village with the other
three villages, declared that the population of the other villages was ten times higher
than that of Atcilar village. If the border line proposed by the authorized regional board
were accepted, the living conditions of the villages in question would be improved,
and the problem would be resolved. However, the ministry-appointed committee
stated that the ownership of the aforementioned trees and pasture to the village of
Atcılar had been proven with the title deed and that the property right, which is
protected by law, could not be violated. As a result, the border should be drawn
according to geographical criteria. Thus, the central committee drew a geoadministrative
boundary following the line through the peaks of hills by rejecting the
95 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/236.6.2], 24.02.1953
6 7
socially and economically-oriented claim of the provincial administrative board
because it was against the right of ownership proven by deed.96
Immediately after this decision was sent to the provincial council, the councils of
elders and headmen of the mentioned villages applied to the Ministry. They demanded
a re-examination of the situation by stating that their village was imprisoned in a
narrow area, and they could not find pasture to graze their animals, which is national
wealth. Their rights that they had been using for a hundred years were taken away from
them, and even their cemeteries were left on the opposite border. As a result of these
serious expressions, which were designed to gain consent for further elaboration, the
ministry accepted the re-examination and sent a delegation. This new central
committee made its decision by summarizing the social and economic structure of the
region in detail. In the reasoned decision, which briefly explained the geographical
situation, it was mentioned that the agricultural facilities are almost impossible owing
to the high mountainous landform. Therefore, animal husbandry and acorn trees are
very valuable economic sources for the local people. Water resources in the region are
very limited and subject to conflicts. In general, it has been stated that the region is
very poor in terms of natural riches and that the villagers have difficulty maintaining
their existence, and sometimes they have no choice but to leave. Explaining with
examples that the region is very poor in terms of natural resources, the reasoned
decision also noted that the ruins of Demirci and Kırışlı villages, which had left this
place before, are proof of this situation. The delegation resorted to various expressions
to explain the regional situation's difficulty. In the decision part, the boundary was
determined by pointing out the needs and close relevance of all elements of the
conflict. The interesiting point is that a romantic narration through Demirci and Kırışlı
villages is also included in the text of the decision. This form of expression is important
in terms of justification for the idea that the existence of the other villages in the region
may be endangered if local needs are not observed. As a result, the villagers, who
thought they had suffered a serious injustice due to the first decision, requested a reexamination.
At the end of this demand, villagers ensured that the injustice they
encountered was included in the reasoned decision in detail through the language of
96 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/224.25.6],23.06.1951
6 8
the bureaucracy as a form of expression. The provision of justice in the second
examination shows how effectively the villagers can play in the demarcation process,
expressing their needs, concerns, and solutions in an impressive and ideal way. As we
mentioned in the previous section, although the border-drawing process seems to be
only bureaucratic and administrative, the role played by the locals should not be
denied. It is important to consider this whole process as complex, multifaceted, and
variable.97
One of the most important situations we encountered in the border drawing process
was the bureaucracy's tendency to draw administrative and geographical borders in
disputes regarding pasture areas. The legal framework offers the statement that
resolving this situation is beyond their responsibility. However, the pasture dispute
between the Çeşmekolu village of Kırklareli and the Kumrular village constitutes a
contrary example to this situation. Although the issue was handled as an administrative
border dispute, the issue of resource sharing, such as pasture, which is the basis of
animal husbandry, has been tried to be resolved by considering the needs of both
parties. Although Çeşmekolu village claimed that there was no other land on which to
graze their 2,639 animals, Kumrular village, in response to this claim, argued that
Çeşmekolu village had its pasture but that this land had been converted into
agricultural land by themselves. According to the information received from the Office
of Foundations, the villagers of Çeşmekolu have been renting the pastures of the Gazi
Hasan Pasha foundation since 1341 (1923-24). This information proves the claim of
the villagers of Çeşmekolu. Although the District Governorship reported that
Kumrular village has 1200 decares of pasture, this figure did not reflect the truth.
According to the information given by the land registry officer in charge of measuring
the pasture between the two villages, there were 3610 decares of pasture between these
two villages. In other words, even if the demand of Çeşmekolu village is fulfilled,
approximately 1693 decares of pasture will remain on the border of Kumrular village
from this area. This was a very good and reasonable amount.
On the other hand, if the claim of the Kumrular village were accepted, the village of
Çeşmekolu would be complete without pastures. Their advanced livestock activities
97 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/234.29.10], 18.10.1952
6 9
would be severely damaged or even destroyed. Handling all these data without any
reference to geographical and administrative conditions, the central committee decided
a borderline only considering the needs of Çeşmekolu villagers and the economic
balance in the region.98
Another example of a similar approach can be seen in the dispute between Postallı and
Üskul village of Niğde province. From 15-20 years ago, the villagers of Uskul
transformed their pasture-like lands into agricultural lands, and they did not have
enough land. On the other hand, although the village of Postallı was more crowded, it
was also self-sufficient in terms of arable land and pasture. According to the Ehl-i
Vukufs, Postallı village was periodically leasing some of its lands to the nomads and
tribes in the region. The land where the dispute is in question was also in the region
that Postallı has rented out, and they want these areas to stay within its borders and not
be deprived of this rental income. In the light of these data, the Central Committee
decided to determine the border, taking into account the needs of Üskü village, without
having to give specific reference to geographical and administrative concerns.99
The dispute between Derecikviran village in Balıkesir province and Söğütcük village
in Manisa province is another example that was resolved by considering the
requirements of the regional economy instead of the understanding of natural and
topographical borders. Balıkesir administrative board stated that the border between
the two villages had been the Simav Stream from time immemorial, and this border
was also approved in the determination process in 1948. According to the agreement
made by the two sides, the animals of the two villages would not cross the other side
of the Simav Stream. Based on this agreement, Derecikviran villagers stated that they
prevented the animals of the opposite village. They even referred to the law numbered
5618, which the central bureaucracy frequently applied in the other disputes, and stated
that the conflict should be resolved concerning this law instead of demarcation.
Considering the claims of the Balikesir administrative board, it can be thought that
they satisfy the bureaucratic mind that makes decisions regarding administrative and
geographical conditions. However, Söğütcük village was able to eliminate this rational
98 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.13.15], 14.04.1955
99 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.8.2], 25.02.1955
7 0
and legal explanation by devising an argument in the context of their harsh economic
and social conditions. The villagers of Söğütcük stated that they were able to make use
of the disputed land. At the same time, it was connected to the province of Balıkesir,
and this land was suitable for common use, and they lost this right when their village
was connected to the province of Manisa and therefore demanded the change of the
border. The way the central committee evaluated the situation was exactly in the same
direction as the villagers of Söğütcük. Stating that the village of Söğütcük is located
on a very narrow land at the foot of the mountain due to its topographic structure, the
central committee emphasized that the land opposite the Simav Stream should
therefore be opened to the use of the villagers of Söğütcük. Otherwise, these villagers
would be in a very difficult situation, and they would face the danger of not being able
to continue their activities in the said narrow area. If the claim of Derecikviran, which
was legally, administratively and geographically perfect, were accepted, Söğütcük
village would have been cut off from the crucial land which was very valuable to them.
The bureaucracy, which did not find this situation appropriate, accepted a less
distinctive line from the perspective of geo-administrative statecraft instead of a
distinctive border line such as Simav Stream.
7 1
Figure 11. The Satellite View of Administrative Boundary Between Derecikviran and Söğütçük Villages
The decision rendered in the dispute is equivalent to the present border of Söğütçük
village and Derecikviran village, therefore Balıkesir and Manisa provinces. Looking
at the Bird's Eye map of the region makes the attitude of the bureaucracy more
understandable. Simav Stream is indicated in the image with a blue line, and a red line
indicates the administrative and two village borders. When we look carefully at the
bottom left of the image, it is understood that Söğütçük village was located in a narrow
area, and it was not possible to expand towards the south. I, III, IV and VI. points show
the intersections of the Simav stream and the border between two villages, while points
II and V show the areas that do not follow the Simav stream of the border and were
included in Söğütçük village. I, II and III form the land structure in the triangular
region. These points can easily be determined as a suitable area, even today, for
agriculture and animal husbandry activities. In almost all cases, the central
bureaucracy, which tends to consider the river in the region as the natural border line,
decided differently in this example and considered the social and economic needs of
Söğütçük village despite the geographical conditions.100
100 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/254.37.1], 5.11.1955
7 2
The pasture dispute between the Ergen village of Hozat district in Tunceli province
and Ulupınar and Erindek villages in Pertek district can be considered a good example
since it takes place in a geographical location with a different political connotation
than the examples we have examined so far. The pasture dispute in the region,
described by the official authorities as a controversial land that had to be controlled
ethnically, religiously and geographically since the Ottoman Empire, was naturally
handled in the context of the 1938 Dersim Incident. A pasture called Eşek Meydanı
was the subject of disagreement among the mentioned villages. The central committee
provided a brief and valuable historical perspective to investigate the work fully.
Before the 1938 Dersim Incident, the Ulupınar and Erindek villages belonged to the
Pilvenk tribe, while the people of Ergen Village pertained to the Abbas Uşak tribe. It
has been stated that these two tribes used the pasture and its surroundings from time
to time and that there was a continuous struggle between them on the issue of pasture
use. Before the Dersim Incident, Ergen villagers benefited more from this land, as the
Pilvenk tribe was a relatively less influential community under the pressure of the
Abbas Uşağı tribe. After the 1938 Incident, the pasture in question passed under the
domination of Ulupınar villagers. In 1939, a committee of officials representing the
Pertek and Hozat District Governors examined the region to end the conflict and
prepared a simple sketch that left the disputed pasture land to the Ulupınar villagers.
The central committee, which arrived in the region in 1951, declared that this conflict
was not a newly-emerged situation and that it had been repeated on different dates
from previous years to this day, leading to severe conflicts. In the reasoned decision,
the border was determined by stating that it was deemed appropriate by the committee
to divide this pasture fairly for the two sides to benefit jointly. It can be understood
that the people of Ergen village, who were strong before the Dersim Incident,
dominated the use of pasture until the 1938 Incident. After this time, the pasture was
transferred to the Ulupınar people due to the loss of power of the Abbas Uşağı tribe.
One year after the Dersim Incident, the administrative committee that went to the
conflict zone registered the region in the name of the Ulupınar people. It can be roughly
assumed that one side (the Pilvenk tribe) was supported by the bureaucratic apparatus
of the nationalist statecraft against the other (Abbas Uşağı tribe). In the demarcation
7 3
investigation of 1951, this situation was tried to be settled by considering the common
interests of the two villages, probably after settling down the general political turmoil
in the region. Even if this archive record, which offers small clues about central and
local politics of the Republican period, has a lot to say with deeper research, when
considered within the context of this thesis, it will be enough to state that the
bureaucracy has acted only with the concern of making a fair natural resource
distribution instead of an administrative one.101
The reason for another conflict between Yeniköy and Nimetiye village in Kocaeli
province can be defined as expanding the border against the other party. Although the
border between the two villages was drawn in peace with the agreement of the
commissions in 1952, it turned into a conflict again as the Nimetiye villagers did not
recognize the border of the opposite village and opened land within the border of the
opposite village. Upon the Kocaeli provincial committee's application to the center for
a solution, the central committee examined the region on-site and listened to the
parties. According to the reasoned decision, which mentioned the historical
background of the two villages, the villagers of Yeniköy had migrated from Greece
thirty years ago and settled in this village. On the other hand, Nimetiye village was a
local and old village. Since the two villages were very close to each other, the situation
of acquiring land against the other side intensified the conflict. While the Nimetiye
villagers, who cultivated fields and built houses in a forest area of 5 square kilometers
within the borders of Yeniköy, wanted this area to remain within their borders, the
people of Yeniköy demanded that this situation be prevented. The central bureaucracy
accepted the legally unsuitable but de facto valid situation on the land. He also revealed
the basis of legitimacy by stating that the unrest between the two villages would not
end in any way if the disputed region were included within the Yeniköy border. The
bureaucracy, which flatly rejects the claims of forested areas and always states that the
forest is the state's property according to the law, had taken a different approach in this
example. It legitimized the intervention of the Nimetiye villagers in the forests within
the opposite village by violating the existing border line, opening agricultural lands
101 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/251.18.15], 31.05.1955
7 4
and building houses in these areas. The decision-makers reinforced the legitimacy
ground of this decision with the claim that the dispute would not have settled down
any other way. From a different perspective, it can be understood from this example
that compliance with the legal framework was not always observed to accept the
locally valid de facto property and usufruct regime. Another aspect that makes this
example interesting is the information about the background of the villages in conflict.
The emphasis on the fact that the people who make up the Yeniköyü village are Greek
immigrants, while the Nimetiye village is relatively old and consists of the region's
locals makes us think about whether this situation has an impact on the decisionmaking
process. Although the aspect of the decision that legitimizes the actual
economic situation on the land in favor of Nimetiye village makes this claim strong, it
does not seem possible to reach a precise statement. This situation is only important in
terms of illustrating that the archive document can be subjected to a different
reading.102
The border dispute in the Gökçekuyu and Çamlıca villages of Konya in 1956
constitutes an example of the administrative border drawn by considering the benefits
of both sides. According to the inspection report of the central committee, the borders
determined by the two villages did not coincide with each other due to the
inconsistency of the place names. For this reason, it was essential to draw a new
boundary. Two articles in the reasoned decision are particularly striking. The first is
that Gökçekuyu villagers had a water line built from Oluk Mountain to their village at
nearly 30000 liras. The Dereoluk spring, the source of this water, had been taken
within the borders of Gökçekuyu villages without leaving any room for dispute. The
second is that, on the Ömer Hacı plateau, the land that had the characteristics of pasture
was plowed by the villagers of Çamlıca a long time ago and opened for agricultural
activity. This land in question was left to Çamlıca villages. The reasoned decision
envisaged the sharing of these two natural resources to resolve the border conflict at
the expense of administrative concerns.
102 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/261.44.17], 12.10.1956
7 5
Figure 12. The Sketch of the Boundary Between Gökçekuyu and Çamlıca Villages of Konya Province
(taken from BCA BATDB [30.11.1/264.9.6], 15.3.1957 p.6)
As seen from the drawn sketch, although the geographical concern has not been
completely abandoned, the approach of following the peaks (hatt-ı bala) in the field
of the border lines has not been fully complied with. Although the reason for the
disagreement was stated in the reasoned decision about the incompatibility of place
names, the policy of leaving the built environment created by villagers' efforts to each
village also shows that the conflict may have arisen due to the problem in sharing of
these resources. This may be a kind of speculation. But it is inevitably certain that the
decision-makers once again went beyond just demarcating a border with an
administrative meaning and appointed a borderline required by the real practices of
these villagers.103
The conclusion from these examples is that the central bureaucracy had, in some cases,
evaluated the local claims fairly instead of always acting with an administrative and
geographical concern. While doing this, it can be understood from the visuals that it
had implemented some flexible boundary drawing processes, although it does not
completely waive the topographical perspective. When evaluated from these
103 BCA BATDB [30.11.1/264.9.6], 15.3.1957
7 6
perspectives, it is possible to think of the state apparatus as a conciliatory, complex
organization that can also take care of local concerns instead of putting forward a
structure that decides from its point of view with only top-down and coercive practices.
3.4 Conclusion
It is necessary to mention a study that confirms the approach in this section, which
includes findings on the dual nature of bureaucratic decision-making. In the study
carried out by a team of approximately thirty people under the management of Turhan
Feyzioğlu and Arif Payaslıoğlu in 1955, a questionnaire was sent to the governors and
district governors, who are the managers of administrative organizations of different
scales, with questions under different headings. The statistical data that emerged from
the examination of these questionnaires confirms the approach explained in this
section. It will be useful to look briefly at the distribution of the provincial and district
boundary changes according to dates and the reasons for these changes. According to
the survey results, there has been a visible increase in border changes since 1951 and
a clear increase since 1953.104
Table 3. The Distribution of Disputes by Dates (created by MAXQDA software)
104 Feyzioğlu and Payaslıoğlu, Kaza ve Vilayet İdaresi Üzerine Bir Araştırma, 32.
7 7
This data agrees with the statistical results of this study, as seen from the graph above.
The claim that more democratic local administrations, together with the Democratic
Party, take local rights claims more seriously has been expressed, albeit hesitantly.105
In addition, statistical data based on the responses of local administrators regarding the
reason for these border changes is also instructive. Accordingly, for geographical
reasons, 44.7%; administrative reasons, 14.3%; economic reasons, 11.6%;
demographic reasons, such as population growth, 6.2%; and finally, border changes
for which no reason was reported to correspond to a total of 23.2%.106 Geographical
and administrative reasons amounted to 59%, while demographic and economic
reasons remained at a low rate of 17.8%. This data, which was made from the answers
local administrators gave about why the boundaries changed, shows that the Geo-
Administrative practice is better than the Local-Economic perspective.
In this section, the decision-making process of the bureaucracy was discussed in
general terms. Each conflict had different causes, actors, and situations within itself.
These differences also affected those who managed the decision-making processes.
Although the legal framework imposes a utilitarian tunnel vision, bureaucratic devices
have tried to stretch this framework from time to time. Analyzing the decision-making
process of the bureaucratic structure can also uncover serious ideas about the early
republican state apparatus. As can be seen, this state apparatus has dealt with such
complex problems within legal frameworks and has primarily tended to draw
administrative-geographical boundaries. However, the bureaucracy knew natural
resource sharing was also a serious problem. For this reason, although the geoadministrative
perspective was generally preferred, it cannot be claimed that local
economic and social situations are completely ignored. At this point, we can say that
solving local economic problems was also seen as a kind of administrative mechanism,
but it was different from the spatial approach.
105 Feyzioğlu and Payaslıoğlu, 33.
106 Feyzioğlu and Payaslıoğlu, 35.
7 8
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
This thesis has attempted to examine the dimensions of the relationship between the
republican bureaucracy and the villagers by focusing on two different questions. It
aims initially to discover how the administrative demarcation process is affected by
various factors. These factors are mainly studied in three dimensions: administrative,
geographical, and socio-economic frameworks. The most fundamental element that
determines the administrative framework is the legal basis. The Village Law of 1924
and the Provincial Administration Law, amended at different times, form the basis of
the border determination processes. In addition, Law No. 4081 on the Protection of
Farmers' Goods, Law No. 5618 on Land Distribution, Law No. 2644 on Land Registry,
and finally, Law No. 2613 on Cadastre and Land Registry have also created the legal
framework that bureaucracy does not hesitate to refer to. Depending on the practical
use it is put to, this legal framework can take different forms.
In most cases, this is due to two fundamental reasons. The first problem is that the
legal sphere lacks a standard format. Another aspect relates to the utilitarian
perspective of decision-making mechanisms, where each example presents its own set
of specific dynamics. Another critical dimension of the administrative framework is
the security concerns of the state apparatus. Even though this worry isn't just about the
safety and security of the villagers, the ability of state law enforcement officers to
move around is a key part of drawing the border.
The geographical framework is an important indicator of the state's view of rural space.
The majority of the cases examined revealed that it was preferable to have the
borderlines follow the topographic plane. The reason is related to the nature of the
concept of a boundary. By its nature, the border is an abstract concept and can be
perceived differently for various subjects. As this thesis illustrates, the border
7 9
perception of the bureaucratic apparatus and the local people can seriously diverge.
While the border concept for bureaucracy becomes an administrative line, it takes the
form of natural resource sharing for villagers. The topographic concern allows the
reflection of the borderline, an abstract concept, onto a clear and concrete plane. As a
concrete indicator of the boundary line, boundary stones were erected in regions with
flat terrain. Topography is not the only determinant of the geographic framework.
Authorized bureaucratic committees can't have information about each village
regarding geographical, social, and economic aspects. The bureaucracy must deal with
every dispute from a single perspective, yet it is based on different actors,
backgrounds, and problems. The officials consult with people aware of the local
dynamics to become informed of all these differences, even if only superficially. The
institution of ehl-i vukuf is a meditating force at this point that encompasses the
integration of local knowledge with the central perspective. The bureaucracy deepens
its perspective on the locals through these people. In a state apparatus with low
cadastral capacity, where the border lines have to be expressed verbally with certain
points on the land, the harmony between the local colloquial names of these fixed
points is important. This job has been done by the ehl-i vukuf and has been evaluated
in a geographical context.
The Socio-Economic framework, on the other hand, is useful as it shows that the
bureaucracy can deal not only with administrative concerns but also with the real-life
problems of the peasants. The expression "time immemorial" is a form of expression
that is often used to strengthen the claims of the villagers. To prove that land or natural
resources belong to them, the villagers want to create a ground of legitimacy by stating
that they have been in use for a long time. When villagers lacked legal documentation
to support their claim to a piece of land, they turned to the term "time immemorial."
Bureaucratic cadres also often resorted to this form of expression. The bureaucracy's
historical references' objective was to preserve and legitimize the current socioeconomic
order. Otherwise, it would be necessary to allocate a new natural resource
use pattern in the conflict zone. This was not a process that the bureaucratic apparatus
would like to be the subject of. For a long time, central bureaucratic structures
considered it a risk to interfere with socio-economic structures in rural areas for a long
time and took their validity from tradition. Thus, the expression form, time immemorial
8 0
in the language of the peasants, turns into the status quo in the language of the
bureaucracy. Apart from that, there is also a tendency for both the bureaucracy and
the peasantry to refer to human and animal populations. Villagers raised demands
regarding the disputed area to understand the importance of establishing a population
and land balance. When making decisions, the bureaucracy also takes this balance into
account since an imbalance in local economic needs would keep the war going.
Agricultural safety is the last sub-topic discussed in the socio-economic framework.
The basic idea behind agricultural security is that the other party cannot exploit the
cultivated land of the first party. The bureaucracy does not wish to create a border that
threatens the agricultural yield. On the other hand, the villagers also demand a
borderline that will eliminate this danger to their only source of livelihood. All of these
factors have a direct impact on bureaucratic decision-making and peasant
maneuvering.
Considering the methods and factors used in determining village boundaries, it is
inevitable to get an idea of the complexity of the boundary-setting process. On the one
hand, the central bureaucracy, which tries to make decisions through an incompatible
and intertwined legal framework, stands out. On the other hand, some peasants pursued
their economic claims. These claims are sometimes made over property rights and
jointly-used natural resources. Considering the complex land ownership system in the
countryside, which the republican regime took over, it can be argued that the central
bureaucracy could not resolve all these complex property and land use disputes in the
local area. Each dispute case had different subjects, historical backgrounds, and issues.
Even within each dispute, there were serious deviations in these respects. The methods
developed by the administrative mechanisms to deal with this complex situation help
understand the perspective of the modern state apparatus, which James C. Scott defines
as tunnel vision. This point of view shows how to apply an abstract understanding of
boundaries and idealized rules to different situations in the real world.
Another question that this thesis seeks to answer is to what extent the bureaucracy
looks at the disputes over sharing local resources in the context of administrative and
local demands. This question is addressed in the second part of the thesis. In the first
approach, called the Geo-Administrative perspective, the decision-makers strictly
8 1
followed the topographical and legal framework, ignoring the vital demands of the
villagers. This approach is evident in virtually all the reports analyzed regarding border
determination. The Local-Economic perspective, on the contrary, describes situations
where decision-makers renounce the topographical and legal framework for the sake
of local demands. In the border determination reports we reviewed, decisions were
made primarily within the framework of the Geo-Administrative perspective. So, it's
clear that the Geo-Administrative framework is used most of the time by people who
make decisions.
When we examine the literature and legal framework on the subject, different
bureaucrats have stated clearly that an administrative border is not the limit of the
natural resource's right to use. Villagers have also been accused of being ignorant,
claiming they do not comprehend what is happening on the ground. The bureaucratic
cadres, which talk inside the legal framework, and the peasants, seeking to sustain their
subsistence economy, were clearly at odds. There is an allegation in archival sources
and literature that the villagers could not grasp the concept of administrative
boundaries. According to the bureaucratic mind, the villagers wrongly perceived the
issue through the lens of resource sharing. A major argument of this thesis centered
around critique made against this partnership formed between bureaucracy and
judiciary against village society. This argument is on the fallacy of the Administrative
Boundary Disputes conceptualization. Disputes between villages concerning limited
and high economic value lands such as pastures, summer and winter quarters and
forests were unrelated to the administrative sphere. Although the bureaucracy
attempted to resolve disputes by reducing them to the problem of administrative
boundary, the fundamental nature of these disagreements has not changed. The
cooperation between the bureaucracy and the judiciary has taken the resource-sharing
demands of the villagers out of their context and placed their evaluation within an
administrative framework to satisfy the state's desire to have its administrative map.
In addition to all these, this thesis confirms to a certain extent the claim in the literature
that the villagers were more visible in the political arena with the Democratic Party
administration. From 1951, the noticeable increase in the number of border
determination reports continued until 1960, although it lost momentum towards the
end. However, it should be clearly stated that there may be many other reasons for this
8 2
situation. These reasons are beyond the explanatory power of the archival documents
on which this study is based. On the other hand, although this thesis initially aimed to
obtain more detailed information on the subsistence economy of the peasantry and the
socio-cultural and socio-economic dimensions of the conflicts, this was not possible
due to the structural inadequacy of the archival documents. This situation is because
the archive documents deal with the demarcation task entirely in the administrative
dimension.
Most of the documents concerning the border disputes between the villages are kept
in the Archives of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre. However,
none of these records are available to researchers. One of the reasons for this is that
border disputes continue in the countryside. For this reason, these archival records can
only be accessed when requested by judicial authorities or chief officials of villages.
The absence of these records, which are closed to researchers with the argument of
violating the principle of property confidentiality, caused this study to be somewhat
incomplete. Undoubtedly, future studies on this subject will yield more holistic results
on border disputes in rural areas.
8 3
REFERENCES
a.Primary Sources
Archival Sources
Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı, Cumhuriyet Arşivi (Directorate of State Archives,
Republican Archives) (BCA)
Bakanlıklararası Tayin Daire Başkanlığı (Department of Interministerial
Appointment) (BATDB)
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/160.08.14], 27.04.1943
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/177.24.16], 29.08.1945.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/187.36.10], 14.10.1946
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/197.08.20], 17.03.1948.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/215.22.19], 05.07.1950
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/224.21.13], 31.05.1951
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/224.25.08], 23.06.1951.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/224.25.06], 23.06.1951
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/228.44.06], 26.12.1951
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/231.15.20], 07.07.1952.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/234.29.10], 18.10.1952
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/236.05.16], 24.02.1953.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/236.05.18], 24.02.1953.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/236.06.02], 24.02.1953
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/237.12.04], 30.04.1953.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/239.22.05], 30.07.1953.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/241.33.19], 11.11.1953.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/241.33.18], 13.11.1953
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/242.39.12], 22.12.1953.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/243.02.12], 16.01.1954.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/243.02.11], 16.01.1954
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/247.31.17], 28.10.1954.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/247.31.05], 28.10.1954
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/249.07.02], 25.02.1955.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.08.02], 25.02.1955
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.08.03], 25.02.1955.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.08.04], 25.02.1955.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.10.18], 25.03.1955.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.11.09], 25.03.1955.
8 4
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.12.01], 26.03.1955.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/250.13.15], 14.04.1955
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/251.16.05], 30.04.1955.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/251.16.06], 30.04.1955.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/251.16.10], 30.04.1955.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/251.18.15], 31.05.1955
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/252.23.09], 07.07.1955.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/252.26.13], 26.08.1955.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/254.37.01], 05.11.1955
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/258.25.14], 21.04.1956.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/258.27.03], 30.05.1956.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/259.28.18], 30.05.1956.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/261.44.16], 12.10.1956.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/261.43.15], 12.10.1956.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/261.43.18], 12.10.1956.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/261.44.17], 12.10.1956
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/263.06.15], 27.02.1957.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/264.09.06], 15.03.1957.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/264.14.11], 13.04.1957.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/269.13.15], 03.05.1958.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/270.14.02], 03.05.1958.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/277.21.01], 03.05.1958.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/269.13.20], 03.05.1958
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/276.15.02], 12.05.1959.
BCA BATDB [30.11.1/283.20.14] ,24.11.1960
Legislations
Provincial Administration Laws numbered 4025 and 5442.
Village Affairs Act No.442
Law No.4081 on the Protection of Farmers' Goods
Law No. 5618 on Land Distribution
Law No. 2644 on Land Registry
Law No.2613 on Cadastre and Land Registry
Çiftçi Mallarının Korunması Hakkında Kanun Layihası ve Ziraat, Dahiliye ve Adliye
Encümeni Mazbataları (1/409), Başvekalet Kararlar Dairesi Müdürlüğü (6/2152)
13.05.1940
TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi
TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi 2. Dönem 6. Cilt 110. Birleşim ( 24.2.1340)
8 5
b. Secondary sources
Arcak, Ali, and Tevfik İmsel. Mer’a ve Yayla Davaları Köy Orta Malları Idari Sınır
Anlaşmazlıkları. Ankara: Güneş Matbaası, 1970.
Aytaç, Fethi. ‘İdari Sınır Anlaşmazlıkları’. Türk İdare Dergisi, İçişleri Bakanlığı,
Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı 30, No. 260 (1959): 26–51.
Bakıcı, Sedat, and Şinasi Bayraktar. ‘Land Registry and Cadastre in Turkey’. General
Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre, 2006.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahU
KEwiw37jC_Ov3AhUKsKQKHcinD9QQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2F
wiki.unece.org%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F9798078%2FMr.Sedat%2520Baki
ci%2520LAND%2520REGISTRY%2520AND%2520CADASTRE%2520IN%2520
TURKEY.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1370359198228%26api
%3Dv2&usg=AOvVaw0VqKSvM8USe0-PeDoIaeeK.
Çetı̇n, Türkan. ‘Cumhuriyetin İlk Yıllarında Köy Sorununa Bakış: Köy Kanununun
Çıkarılması’. Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi 2, No. 4 (1 June 1994): 0–
0.
Ceylan, Nuri Bilge. Once Upon a Time in Anatolia. NBC Film, Production 2006, 1000
Volt, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkkcEFFGEoI.
Corbin, Juliet, and Anselm Strauss. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, 2014.
Demir, O., B. Uzun, and M. Çete. ‘Turkish Cadastral System’. Survey Review 40, No.
307 (January 2008): 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1179/003962608X253484.
Feyzioğlu, Turhan, and Arif Payaslıoğlu. Kaza ve Vilayet İdaresi Üzerine Bir
Araştırma. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi, New York
8 6
University Graduate School of Public Administration and Social Service, 1957.
Gümüşçü, Osman. ‘Siyasi Coğrafya Açısından Sınırlar ve Tarihi Süreç İçinde Türkiye’de
Sınır Kavramı’. Bilig / Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 0, No. 52 *dublicate*-
12541 (2010): 79–104.
———. ‘The Concept of Village Boundary in Turkey From The Ottoman Times to The
Present’. Archivum Ottomanicum, No. 24 (2007): 37–60.
Karaömerlioğlu, Asım. Orada Bir Köy Var Uzakta: Erken Cumhuriyet Döneminde Köycü
Söylem. 5th ed. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2021.
Köksal, Sait. ‘Memlekette Sınır İhtilafları’. Türk İdare Dergisi, İçişleri Bakanlığı, Strateji
Geliştirme Başkanlığı 24, No. 225 (1953): 43–48.
Mann, Michael. ‘The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results’.
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie 25, No. 2
(November 1984): 185–213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600004239.
Öktem, Kerem. ‘The Nation’s Imprint: Demographic Engineering and the Change of
Toponymes in Republican Turkey’. European Journal of Turkish Studies. Social
Sciences on Contemporary Turkey, No. 7 (23 September 2008).
https://doi.org/10.4000/ejts.2243.
Pamuk, Şevket. Uneven Centuries. Princeton&Oxford: Prınceton University Press, 2018.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691166377/uneven-centuries.
Şafak, Ali. ‘Ehl-i Vukuf’. In İslam Ansiklopedisi, 10:531–32. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, n.d.
Scott, James C. Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition
Have Failed. 0 edition. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1998.
8 7
Silver, Christina, and Ann Lewins. Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Stepby-
Step Guide. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP: SAGE Publications
Ltd, 2014. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473906907.
Süer, Ertuğrul. ‘Köy Kanununun Pürüzleri’. Türk İdare Dergisi, İçişleri Bakanlığı,
Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı 21, No. 203 (1950): 31–37.
Tapu Kadastro Mevzuatı : Kanunlar, Tüzükler. Ankara: Tapu ve Kadastro Genel
Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 1979.
Tortop, Nuri. ‘İdarenin Yeniden Düzenlenmesi Açısından Belediyeler ve Özel
İdareler’. Türk İdare Dergisi, İçişleri Bakanlığı, Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı 38, No.
307 (1967).
Yalın, Reşit. ‘İdarede Sınır Meselesi’. Türk İdare Dergisi, İçişleri Bakanlığı, Strateji
Geliştirme Başkanlığı 26, No. 235 (1955): 62–76.
Yıldırmaz, Sinan. Türkiye’de Köylülüğün Sosyal Tarihi (1945-1960). İstanbul:
İletişim Yayınları, 2021.
8 8
APPENDICES
A. AN EXAMPLE OF ARCHIVAL SOURCES
An example of The Reasoned Decision on the demarcation process between Yahşiler
Village of Denizli Province and Seki, Eymir Villages of Aydın Province
Source: Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi (BCA) Bakanlıklararası Tayin Daire Başkanlığı (BTDB)
241-33-19, 11.11.1953. p.5
8 9
Source: Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi (BCA) Bakanlıklararası Tayin Daire Başkanlığı (BTDB)
241-33-19, 11.11.1953. p.6
9 0
Source: Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi (BCA) Bakanlıklararası Tayin Daire Başkanlığı (BTDB)
241-33-19, 11.11.1953. p.7
9 1
Source: Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivi (BCA) Bakanlıklararası Tayin Daire Başkanlığı (BTDB) 241-33-
19, 11.11.1953. p.8
9 2
B. TURKISH SUMMARY / TÜRKÇE ÖZET
Köylülük, 20. yüzyıldaki endüstriyel gelişmelerin dönüştürücü gücünü toplumdaki
diğer sınıflardan daha fazla hissetmiştir. Modernitenin geleneksel yapılar üzerindeki
etkileri daha çok köy düzeyinde kendini göstermiştir. Çin'den Rusya'ya, Latin
Amerika'dan Uzak Doğu'ya kadar siyasi sistemler köy hayatındaki bu değişimden
ciddi şekilde etkilenmiştir. Cumhuriyet rejiminin Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'ndan
devraldığı demografik yapıyı göz önünde bulundurarak bu küresel dönüşümün
Cumhuriyet yönetimini nasıl etkilediği bir başka soru olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır.
Köylülerin, toplam nüfusun %80'ini oluşturduğu bir demografik yapıda, devlet
aygıtının köye yönelik idari politikalarını inceleyerek bu durum daha net anlaşılabilir.
Cumhuriyet rejimi, 1924 yılında çıkardığı Köy Kanunu'ndan da anlaşılacağı üzere
köyün yapısı ve işleyişi gibi meselelere büyük önem vermiştir. Bu kanunun öncelik
verdiği konulardan biri de köy sınırlarının belirlenmesidir. Cumhuriyet yönetimi köy
hududu ihtilaflarına müdahale ederek devlet aygıtını, bir anlamda, kırsal mekanda
örgütlemeye çalışmıştır. Kanun, Cumhuriyetin kuruluşundan hemen sonra çıkarılmış
olmasına rağmen, devlet arşivlerinde sınır anlaşmazlıklarına ilişkin bulunan en eski
belge 1943 yılına aittir. Bu nedenle incelemeye 1940'lı yıllardan başlamak tercihten
öte materyal bir gereklilik halini almıştır. Bu araştırma Demokrat Parti iktidarının son
bulduğu 1960 yılına kadar olan dönemi kapsamaktadır.
1943-1960 yılları, çok partili siyasetin uygulanması açısından Cumhuriyet tarihinde
bir geçiş dönemi olarak kabul edilebilir. İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrası uluslararası
piyasada tarım ürünlerinin fiyatlarının artması ve Marshall Planı ile tarımda
makineleşmenin hızlanması kırsal alanlarda ekilebilir arazi talebini artırmıştır. Bu
talep sonucunda ortak kullanıma açık arazi ve doğal kaynaklar konusundaki
anlaşmazlıkların sayısı da ciddi bir artış göstermiştir. Tarımsal üretim üzerindeki
ekonomik baskı ile eş zamanlı olarak köylere yönelen demokratik siyaset biçimi,
köylüleri ve köy alanını popülist politikaların odak noktası haline getirdi. Bu tez, tam
da bu noktada, Cumhuriyet bürokrasisi ve köylüler arasındaki ilişkinin kırsal mekan
üzerindeki yansımasını incelemektedir. Bunu yaparken, ilk olarak bürokratik aygıtın
9 3
kırsal mekanı idari açıdan düzenlerken başvurduğu metot ve bu süreçlere etki eden
faktörler incelenmiştir. İkinci olarak ise, yerelden gelen ekonomik temelli doğal
kaynak ve arazi paylaşım taleplerine bürokratik aygıtın ne derece yanıt verebildiği
incelenmiştir.
Bu tezin araştırma sürecinde bir tür nitel araştırma tekniği olan Temellendirilmiş
Kuram kullanılmıştır. Arşiv kaynakları nispeten standart bir formatta olsa da, her
birinin sahip olduğu karmaşık ve farklı anlaşmazlık biçimleri göz önüne alındığında,
tümdengelimden ziyade tümevarımcı bir yaklaşım olan Temellendirilmiş Kuram’ın
neden tercih edilmesi gerektiği anlaşılabilir. Arşiv kaynaklarını önceden var olan
kavramsal bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirmek yerine, öncelikle kaynakların
derinlemesine incelenip çapraz okumalar yapılarak bir veri kümesinin oluşturulması
ve bu veri kümesine dayalı teorik bir çerçevenin geliştirilmesi Temellendirilmiş
Teori'nin ayırt edici bir özelliğidir. Bu nedenle Temellendirilmiş Kuram metodolojisi,
öncelikle eldeki verilerin sistematik analizini, analiz sürecinde karşılaşılan
kavramların kategorize edilmesini, bu kategoriler arasındaki ilişkilerin belirlenmesini
ve son olarak da ilgili kategorilerden oluşturulan bir açıklamayı öngörmektedir. İlgili
tüm bu analiz sürecine “Sürekli Karşılaştırmalı Yöntem” denir. Bu yönteme göre
araştırma materyali Açık, Eksen ve Seçiçi kodlama olmak üzere üç aşamalı bir
kodlama döngüsüne tabi tutulur. Bu üç aşamada gerçekleştirilen kodlama işlemi ile
elde edilen kod matrisleri rafine edilerek araştırılan konunun ana hatları belirlenir. Bu
tez, bilgisayar destekli nitel veri analizi için tasarlanmış bir yazılım programı olan
MAXQDA'yı kullanarak bu üçlü kodlama adımlarını 265 farklı arşiv belgesine
uygulamıştır. Bu sınıflandırma sürecinin bir diğer kritik aşaması, her bir arşiv kaynağı
için açıkça oluşturulan memolardır. Bu memolar, örneklerle ilgili kısa ve açıklayıcı
notlardan oluşur. Tüm kodlama sürecinden sonra elde edilen notların çapraz okunması,
bürokratik yaklaşımın kategorize edilmesinde metodolojinin bir diğer kritik noktasını
oluşturmuştur. Kod sisteminin iyileştirilmesi ve memolar arasında çapraz okumalar ile
temelde farklı iki bağlam ortaya çıkmıştır. Birincisi, köy sınırlarının belirlenmesinde
bürokrasinin kullandığı yöntem ve faktörlerdir. Bu yöntemler ve faktörler üç alt
başlığa ayrılmıştır: İdari, Coğrafi ve Sosyo-Ekonomik çerçeveler. İkincisi,
bürokrasinin karar alma mekanizmalarıdır. Bu mekanizmalar Geo-İdari ve Yerel-
Ekonomik perspektifler olarak ikiye ayrılmaktadır. Tüm bu üst ve alt başlıklar, tüm
arşiv kaynaklarının, daha fazla kategorik açılım gerektirmeden işlenebilmeleri
9 4
nedeniyle, Temellendirilmiş Teori metodolojisinin uygulanmasını kolaylaştıracak
şekilde incelendiğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca bu tezde kullanılan tüm istatistiksel
tablolar kodlama sisteminden elde edilen verilerdir.
Bu tez kapsamında incelenen sınır tayin raporları Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı
Cumhuriyet Arşivinde bulunan Başbakanlık kataloğuna bağlı Bakanlıklararası Tayin
Daire Başkanlığı fonunda yer almaktadır. Sözkonusu sınır tayin raporları, İçişleri
Bakanlığı'na bağlı İller İdaresi Genel Müdürlüğü tarafından hazırlanmıştır. İlk örneği
1943 yılına dayanan sınır tespit raporları 1983 yılına kadar takip edilmektedir. Bu tezin
kapsamını oluşturan 1943-1960 yılları arasında 598 adet köy sınır tespit raporu
bulunmaktadır. Nitel analize tabi tutulan rapor sayısı, bu raporlar arasında ön inceleme
yapılarak 265'e düşürülmüştür. Bu ön elemenin sebebi çoğu sınır belirleme raporunda
sınır anlaşmazlıklarının nedenleri ve bürokratik karar alma prosedürleri hakkında çok
az ya da hiç bilgi verilmiyor oluşudur. Bu raporlar nitel analize katkıda bulunmak için
gerekli içerikten yoksundur. Ancak nitel araştırma sürecine dahil edilen 265 sınır
belirleme raporu, köyler arasındaki sınır anlaşmazlıkları ve bürokratik sürece ışık tutan
mevcut ifadeler hakkında ayrıntılar içermektedir. İncelenen arşiv kayıtları, belge
formatı bakımından esas itibarıyla aynıdır. Gerekçeli Karar bölümünde sırasıyla
anlaşmazlığın tarihsel arka planı ve sebepleri, iki il yönetim kurulunun karşılıklı talep
ve iddiaları, çizilecek sınırın belirlenmesi için merkezden gönderilen karma kurulların
açıklamaları ve sabit topografik noktalardan geçen sınırı sözlü ifade biçimiyle tarıf
eden betimlemeler yer almaktadır. Her arşiv evrakının içinde sözkonusu sınırla birlikte
karşılıklı talepleri de gösteren basit bir kroki de yer almaktadır.
Cumhuriyet dönemi köyleri arasındaki sınır anlaşmazlıkları konusunda çok az çalışma
bulunmaktadır. Mevcut literatür kabaca iki kategoriye ayrılabilir. İlk kategori,
dönemin bürokratik kadrolarından özellikle kaymakamlar ve vali yardımcıları
tarafından Türk İdare Dergisi’ne yazılan yazılardır. Bürokratik literatürün bu
kategorisine, 50’li yıllarda yargı mensuplarınca köy orta malları üzerine yazılan bir
başka çalışma da dahil edilebilir. İkinci kategori ise deneyimsel perspektif yerine
bilimsel ve analitik niteliğe haiz çalışmalardan oluşmaktadır
Türk İdare Dergisi'nde yayınlanan birinci kategorideki makaleler, yerel bürokratik
kadroların idari süreçleri kendi aralarında tartıştıkları metinler olarak görülebilir. Bu
9 5
kaynaklar bilimsel değildir, bunun yerine idari bir bakış açısıyla yazılmıştır. Buna
rağmen, araştırmadan çok deneyime dayalı bu metinlerle eleştirel bir mesafe
kurulabilirse, sınır çatışmalarının çözümlenmesi için değerli bilgiler sağlarlar. Bu
literatürde, köyler arasındaki sınır anlaşmazlıklarının sebebinin temel olarak iki farklı
perspektifle değerlendirildiğini söylemek mümkündür. İlk perspektifi dönemin
ekonomik ve politik dönüşümlerine atıfta bulunan değerlendirmeler oluşturur. Buna
göre, II. Dünya Savaşı sonrası küresel ölçekte yaşanan tarımsal ürün fiyatlarındaki
artış ve Marshall Planı ile tarımda makineleşme sürecinin artmasıyla tarım arazilerine
olan talebin artması müşterek kullanım alanları olan arazilerin işgal edilmesi sonucunu
doğurmuştur. Yasalar arasındaki karmaşa, yereldeki bürokratik kadroların yetersizliği
ve devletin kadastral gücünün tam olarak inşa edilememiş olması gibi durumlar, devlet
aygıtının kırsal mekan üzerindeki kontrolünü etkin bir biçimde sağlayamamasına yol
açarak bu ekonomik ve politik dönüşümlerin yarattığı yerel anlaşmazlıklara yerinde
ve hızlı çözümler sunamamıştır. Bu ilk perspektifin, bürokratlarca devlet aygıtının
altyapısal iktidarına yaptığı bir eleştiri olarak görülmesi yanlış olmayacaktır.
Bürokratik yazındaki ikinci perspektif ise devlet aygıtını ve onun inşa ettiği yasal
çerçeve ve uygulamaları eleştirmek bir tarafa, köylüleri hedef tahtasına oturtarak
meseleyi anlamayı tercih etmiştir. Bu yaklaşıma göre köylüler, idari sınır kavramını
anlayamayacak kadar cahil, aynı zamanda bir metrelik lehte ya da aleyhte sınır
derinliğini ciddi bir kazanç ya da kayıp meselesi olarak değerlendirecek kadar
açgözlülerdir. Bu yaklaşım, idari sınır kavramının doğal kaynaklara erişim limiti
olmadığının köy toplumu tarafından idrak edilemediğini özellikle belirtir. İdare
Dergisi’nde var olan bu çalışmalara bir ek yapmak da yerinde olacaktır. Ali Arcak ve
Tevfik İmsel’in idari sınır anlaşmazlıkları üzerine yaptıkları çalışma, yargı
mensuplarının bu anlaşmazlık türüne olan yaklaşımlarına güçlü bir örnek oluşturur.
Yargı kararları örneklerine dayanan bu çalışma da, bu tezin iddiasının aksine, doğal
kaynak temelli paylaşım anlaşmazlıklarını, idari sınır anlaşmazlığı bağlamında
değerlendirmiş ve son derece hukuki bir anlatımla anlaşmazlıkların yasal zeminini
değerlendirmeyi öncelikli amaç edinmiştir. Bu çalışma, her ne kadar mera ve orta
malları anlaşmazlıklarına yoğunlaşsa da, sınır anlaşmazlıklarını idari niteliğe
indirgemekten öteye geçememiştir. Bu bahsedilen literatür bilimsellikten ziyade
mesleki deneyime dayanmakta ise de sunduğu perspektif, bürokratik kadroların sınır
9 6
anlaşmazlıkları hakkındaki düşünme biçimlerini ortaya koymak açısından yol
gösterici niteliktedir.
İkinci kategorideki literatür, mesleki deneyimden ziyade bilimsel araştırma
perspektifine sahip olsa da, sayıca çok yetersizdir. İlk çalışma, Ankara Üniversitesi
Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi’nde görevli 30’a yakın araştırmacı tarafından yürütülmüştür.
1955-57 yılları arasında yürütülen bu çalışma, valiler ve kaymakamlara yöneltilen
anketlerden elde edilen verilerle biçimlenmiştir. Köy sınır anlaşmazlıkları, bu
çalışmanın önemli alt başlıklarından birini oluşturmaktadır. Kamu görevlilerinin bu
anlaşmazlıklar konusunda verdikleri bilgiler sistematik hale getirilip çeşitli istatistikler
oluşturulmuştur. Bu veriler, tezin nitel araştırma yöntemiyle ulaştığı istatistiki verilerle
uyum içerisindedir ve bu açıdan bir nevi karşılaştırma zemini sunması sebebiyle
değerlidir. Bir diğer çalışma da Osman Gümüşçü’ye aittir. Görece daha yeni olan bu
çalışma, köy sınır anlaşmazlıklarını erken modern Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’ndan
Cumhuriyet’e kadar ele almaktadır. Sınır belirleme sürecinin, iki devlet yapısı için de
ne derece önemli olduğunu ortaya koyan bu çalışma, köy sınırı kavramının ve sınır
belirleme süreçlerinin iki farklı devlet aygıtında da benzer olduğundan hareketle, bir
sürekliliğe işaret ettiğini ortaya koyar. Öte yandan Gümüşçü'nün odak noktası ağırlıklı
olarak Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’ndaki pratiklerdir. Cumhuriyet dönemindeki
uygulamalara daha az yer vermekte ve betimsel yaklaşmaktadır. Özellikle Cumhuriyet
dönemi pratiklerine odaklanan bu tez, Gümüşçü’nün alanında tek olan çalışmasına
daha analitik bir perspektifle katkıda bulunmaya çalışmıştır.
Bu tezin ilk bölümü, köy sınırlarını belirleme sürecinde bürokrasi tarafından kullanılan
metot ve faktörleri İdari, Coğrafi ve Sosyo-Ekonomik alt başlıklarında incelemektedir.
İdari çerçeveyi oluşturan ana unsur Cumhuriyet dönemince üretilen yasal çerçevedir.
442 sayılı Köy Kanunu, 1924 yılında ortaya konmasıyla, devlet aygıtının kendisini
hukuki düzlemde inşa eder etmez kırsal alanı örgütleme çabasına giriştiğinin en açık
kanıtıdır. Bu kanun, temel olarak köyün tarifini yaparak başlamakta ve esas olarak köy
sınırlarını belirleme prosedürünü ortaya koymaktadır. Merkezden gönderilen tahkikat
komisyonlarının ve yerel il idare kurullarının sınır anlaşmazlıkları konusunda
ürettikleri argümanlar temel olarak bu yasal çerçeveye dayanmaktadır. Köy
sınırlarının mümkün olduğunca topografik düzleme uygun olması gerektiğini öngören
bu yasa, bir nevi devlet aygıtının coğrafi kaygılarının en net ifadesidir. Bunun dışında,
9 7
köy orta mallarının dağıtılma pratiğini de düzenlemeye çalışan kanunun en önemli
noktalarından birisi de dışlayıcı pratikler yerine köylülerin ortak kullanımına açık olan
alanlara erişimini koruyarak geçimlik ekonomiye verdiği önemdir. Her köyün
birbiriyle olan sınırlarının yasal geçerliliğe haiz olmasını, karşılıklı onay alma yani
uzlaşı şartına bağlayan bu yasa, yereldeki bu köklü anlaşmazlıkları çözme işini bir
bakıma köy toplumunun kendisine bırakmışsa da bunda başarılı olamadığı açıkça
ortadadır. Anlaşmazlıkların çözümlerinde referans verilen bir diğer yasal çerçeveyi
4025 ve 5442 sayılı Vilayet İdaresi Kanunları oluşturmaktadır. Bu kanunlar, esas
olarak köy sınırlarını düzenlemeseler de köy sınır anlaşmazlıklarının vilayet sınırlarını
ilgilendirdiği ölçülerde bürokrasinin referans vermesi gereken yasal çerçeveyi
oluştururlar. Bu iki ana yasal zemine ek olarak, 4081 sayılı Çiftçi Mallarını Koruma
Kanunu, 5618 sayılı Çiftçiyi Topraklandırma Kanununa ek Kanun, 2644 sayılı Tapu
Kanunu ve 2613 sayılı Kadastro ve Tapu Tahrir Kanunu bürokrasinin sınır belirleme
süreçlerinde kullandığı başka faktörleri oluştururlar. Burada vurgulanması gereken
esas nokta, bu yasal çerçevelerin, bürokrasinin doğal kaynakları köyler arasında adil
bir biçimde dağıtma şansı elde edemediğinde kendisine meşru zemin yaratma fırsatı
sunmalarıdır. Orman kanunları da bu bağlamda ormanlık arazi üzerindeki hak
taleplerinde aynı bürokratik saiklerle kullanılagelmiştir. İdeal bir doğal kaynak
dağılımı yapılamadığı örneklerde, merkezi heyetler görev ve sorumluluklarının vilayet
idaresi kanunu çerçevesinde belirlendiğini belirterek, bu yasal çerçevelere atıfta
bulunma yoluyla, sorunun çözümünü adli makamlara havale etmişlerdir. Yasal
zeminin kendi içerisinde barındırdığı çelişkilerden faydalanan bürokratik aygıt, bazı
karmaşık anlaşmazlık durumlarında esas sebepleri yüzeysel bir biçimde tarif etmiş ve
meseleleri idari sınır kavramına tahvil etmişlerdir. Bu yasal çerçeveler, karmaşık
mülkiyet ve intifa haklarının var olduğu örneklerde bürokratik kadroların hangi
metotları kullandıklarını anlamak açısından son derece yol göstericidir. İdari
çerçevenin bir diğer önemli unsuru güvenlik konseptine verilen referanstır. Bu referans
iki şekilde anlaşılabilir: doğrudan ve dolaylı güvenlik kaygısı. Doğrudan güvenlik
kaygısı, çizilen sınır hattının yerel coğrafyada kolluk güçlerinin manevra
kabiliyetlerini ne derece etkileyeceğini göz önüne almaktadır. Buna ek olarak, bölge
karakollarının civar köyleri kontrol altına alma gücünü kırmayacak sınır hatlarında
ısrar edildiği de gerekçeli kararlarda göze çarpmıştır. Artvin ve Hakkari illerindeki iki
farklı sınır anlaşmazlığında bu kaygıların açıkça belirtilmiş olması, devletin engebeli
9 8
ve merkeze uzak kırsal yerleşimler üzerindeki doğrudan güvenlik kaygısını ortaya
koymaktadır. Dolaylı güvenlik kaygısı da, doğal kaynaklar üzerinde adil paylaşımın
mümkün olamadığı örneklerde, merkezi heyetlerin gelecekte köyler arasındaki
muhtemel asayiş problemlerine dikkat çekmek ve önlem alınmasını sağlamak
amacıyla yaptığı uyarılara denk düşmektedir. Doğrudan güvenlik kaygısı politik bir
zemine işaret ederken, dolaylı güvenlik kaygısı yerel ekonomik zemine işaret
etmektedir. Yasal zeminlerin farklı örneklerde farklı amaçlarla kullanılması ve
güvenlik noktasında gösterilen hassasiyetin niteliği, idari çerçevenin temelini
oluşturur.
Coğrafi çerçeve metot ve faktörlerin ikinci alt başlığıdır. Coğrafi çerçevenin önemi,
köyler arasındaki sınır hatlarının uyum içerisinde olması yaklaşımının, devletin kırsal
mekanı domine etme ihtiyacından kaynaklanmaktadır. Coğrafi çerçeveyi iki alt
başlıkta incelemek mümkündür. İlki fiziksel ikincisi beşeri coğrafyadır. Fiziksel
coğrafya, sınır hatlarının topografik düzlemle uyum içerisinde olması çabasını
tanımlar. Yasal çerçeveyle sabit olan durum, köyler arasındaki sınırların yeryüzü
şekillerine göre belirlenmesi zorunluluğudur. Bürokratik mekanizma, topoğrafik
uyumluluğu birçok örnekte kaybetmemeye özen gösterse de bazı özel durumlarla
karşılaşması kaçınılmazdır. Anlaşmazlık bölgelerinin engebesiz ve dere, tepe gibi bazı
doğal ayırıcı coğrafi hatlardan yoksun olması bu durumun bir örneğidir. Bu gibi
hallerde, bürokratik kadrolar, yapay belirteçler kullanarak sınır hattını düz bir hat
şeklinde belirlemeyi uygun görmüşlerdir. Bunu yaparken yer değiştirilmesi zor olan
ağır sınır taşları ve sabit kazıklar kullanılmıştır. Ancak göl ve akarsu gibi, havzası ve
debisi mevsimsel periyotlarla değişebilen bölgelerde çizilen sınır hatları daha büyük
sorunlara yol açması sebebiyle üzerinde özenle durulan alanları oluştururlar. Bu tarz
alanlarda da yine mevsimsel olarak değişikliğe uğramayacak sabit noktalar belirlemek
bürokratik bir yöntem halini almıştır. Suğla gölü civarındaki örnekler bu gibi
durumlardaki bürokratik yaklaşımların güçlü bir örneğini oluşturması açısından
önemlidir. Fiziksel coğrafyayı kapsayan bir diğer metot ise mesafe kavramıdır.
Üzerinde uzlaşılamayan arazilerin aidiyetini tespit etmeye çalışan bürokratik kadrolar,
bu arazilerin iki köy merkezine olan uzaklıklarını bazen zaman (1,2 saat vb.) bazen
uzaklık (1,2 km vb.) ölçülerini kullanarak tespit etmeye çalışmış ve bu veriler
üzerinden sınır tespiti yapmaya çalışmışlardır. Bu sadece bürokratik kadroların
uyguladığı yöntem değil, aynı zamanda yerel il idare kurullarının iddialarını
9 9
güçlendirmek amacıyla başvurdukları bir veri türüdür. Devletin hegemonik gücünü
sağlayan sınır hattının topografik olması gerektiği açıktır. Bunun mümkün olamadığı
durumlarda, bürokratik mekanizmalar büyük ölçüde mekansal sabitlikleri yapay
olarak inşa etmek yoluyla problemi çözmeye çalışarak fiziksel coğrafya kategorisini
oluşturmuşlardır. Fiziki coğrafyanın yanı sıra beşerî coğrafya da karar vericiler için
önemli bir faktördü. Beşerî coğrafya terimi bu tez bağlamında, yerel halkın
çevrelerindeki topoğrafya ile ilişkisini ve bürokratik aygıtın bu duruma yaklaşımını
kapsamaktadır. Yer isimleri uyumsuzlukları ve ehl-i vukuf’un rolü beşerî coğrafyayı
belirleyen ana unsurlardır. Köylülerin topoğrafik yapılarla ilişkisi, yerel bölge adları
ve bunlar aralarındaki tutarsızlıklar üzerinden okunabilir. İdeal bir sınır tanımı,
bölgede yaşayan herkesin üzerinde anlaştığı yer adlarını kullanmak zorundadır. Aynı
coğrafi arızalara anlaşmazlığın tarafları tarafından farklı adlar verilirse, çizilen sınır
hattı her şekilde tartışmaya açık olacak ve çatışmaların önüne geçilemeyecekti. Bu
nedenle yerel topoğrafyayı yerel halk tarafından kabul edilen dil ile tanımlayamayan
resmi bir heyet ve bu topografik yapıların isimlendirilmesinde anlaşamayan köylüler
sınır belirleme mekanizmasını ciddi şekilde bozabileceklerdi. Soyut bir örnek vermek
gerekirse, bir köy arazi üzerindeki alana A tepesi, diğer köy aynı alana B tepesi
diyorsa, bu tepeden hareketle çizilecek sınır iki taraf için de anlaşmazlıkların devamı
anlamına gelecektir. Resmi heyetler, sınır çizerken bu tür isim tutarsızlıklarına azami
dikkat gösterdiler. İl idare kurulları arasında anlaşma zemini sağlanamayınca
merkezden gönderilen heyetin bölge hakkında detaylı bir inceleme yapıp karar
verdiğini belirtmiştik. Bu inceleme sürecinde merkezi bürokrasiye yardımcı olan en
önemli organ ehl-i vukuf'tur. Ehl-i vukuf, hukuki ihtilaflarda ve ispat gerektiren
durumlarda özel veya teknik bilgisi başvurulan üçüncü kişiler olarak tanımlanabilir.
Genel olarak Türk hukuk sisteminde bilirkişilik ile eşdeğer kabul edilmektedir. Ehl-i
vukuflar, anlaşmazlık yaşayan köylerde ikamet eden, yerel coğrafyanın geçmiş ve
bugünkü topoğrafik ve mülkiyet ilişkilerine hâkim olan orta yaş kişilerden
oluşmaktaydı. Bu kişiler, yerel coğrafyaya dair bilgiye sahip olmayan merkez idare
kurullarının yereldeki en önemli bilgi kaynağını oluştururlar. Ehl-i vukuflar bu açıdan
merkez heyetlerin yereldeki gözü olarak değerlendirilebilirler ve sınır hattı tespiti
sürecinde son derece etkilidirler. Bu açıdan düşünüldüğünde, beşerî coğrafya
ögelerine başvurulmadan çizilecek sınır hatlarının anlaşmazlıkları çözme noktasında
son derece zayıf kalacağı ve bu durumun da bürokratik yükü daha fazla artıracağı göz
10 0
önünde bulundurulmalıdır. Yerele dair kısıtlı bilgilerle tepeden inme bir biçimde
işletilecek karar mekanizmaları, beşerî coğrafyaya ait metotlar kullanılarak rafine
edilmekte ve yerel durumla uyumlu bir nihai karara varılmaktadır.
Sosyo-ekonomik çerçeve de sınır belirleme sürecinde bürokrasinin başvurduğu bir
diğer yöntemler bütünüdür. Bu çerçeve ise öteden beri kavramı, insan ve hayvan
nüfusu ve zirai asayiş olarak temelde üç alt başlık altında incelenmiştir. Öteden beri
kavramı ile hem bürokrasi hem köylülerin ifade etmek istediği şey, herhangi bir doğal
kaynağın kullanım hakkının hukuki olarak olmasa da fiili olarak bilinmeyen bir
geçmişe kadar dayandığıdır. Uzun bir geçmişi olan bu fiili hak, bugünkü talebin
meşruiyetini sağlamak açısından son derece önemlidir. Bürokratik aygıt da hem kendi
kararını meşrulaştırırken hem de hak taleplerini incelerken bu kavrama verilen
referansları göz önünde bulundurmaktan çekinmemiştir. Bu kavrama verilen
referanslar, genellikle adil bir biçimde dağıtılamayacak bir doğal kaynağa erişimi
kısıtlamamak amacını taşımıştır. Bu açıdan geçimlik ekonomi modelini bozmak
istemeyen devlet aygıtının varlığını göstermektedir. Buna ek olarak, hem il idare
kurulları hem de merkezi kurullar, sınır hattına dair argümanlarını kurarken, köylerin
sahip oldukları insan ve hayvan nüfusuna da özel önem vermişlerdir. Köyler arasında
anlaşmazlık konusu olan kaynakların dağıtımı esnasında, anlaşmazlığa taraf köyler
arasındaki nüfus ve doğal kaynak dengesinin gözetilmesi, arşiv belgelerinde sıkça
rastlanan bir durumdur. Son olarak zirai asayiş kavramından bahsetmek sosyoekonomik
çerçeveyi tamamlamak açısından faydalı olacaktır. 4081 sayılı Çiftçi
Mallarını Koruma Kanunu kapsamında geliştirilen bu ifade, tarımsal üretimi verimli
ve güçlü olan köylerin mahsullerini koruma kaygısıyla çizilen sınır hattını ifade eder.
Bazı köylerin tarım ürünlerini korumak amacıyla inşa ettikleri altyapı sistemleri ve
güvenlik ağları, diğer köylere göre daha gelişmiş olduğu anlaşmazlıklarda, verimlilik
açısından değerli topraklar bu köylerin sınırları içerisinde bırakılmaktadır. Zirai asayiş
kavramı, bürokrasinin ülkesel çapta ekonomik kaygılarını ifade eden bir kullanıma
sahiptir.
Tüm bu yöntem ve faktörler bir arada değerlendirildiğinde, sınır çizme sürecinin çok
katmanlı ve karmaşık bir süreç olduğu anlaşılabilir. Merkezi yasama faaliyetleri ile
öngörülen sınır kavramı ideal ve soyut bir anlayışa işaret eder. Yerel uygulamalarda
bu merkezi anlayışım katı ve karmaşık gerçeklerle uzlaştırılması gerektiği
10 1
söylenebilir. Bürokratik kadroların farklı yerel talepleri soyut yasal ve idari çerçeveyle
bütünleştirme çabası, sınır belirleme sürecinin ana temalarından birini
oluşturmaktadır.
Bu tezin ikinci bölümü, idari sınır uyuşmazlıkları kavramının sorunlu ve bürokratik
kadrolarca üretilmiş bir yaklaşım olduğunu iddia etmektedir. İki veya daha fazla
komşu köy arasındaki anlaşmazlıklar esas olarak mera, yayla, kışlaklar, sulak alanlar
ve bazen orman arazilerinin paylaşımı konusunda ortaya çıkmaktaydı. Bu tür doğal
kaynaklar, köylülerin geçim ekonomisinin temelini oluşturmaktadır. Başka bir deyişle,
bu kaynaklara ulaşılabilirlik, yeterlilik ve erişim kolaylığı kırsal nüfusun sosyoekonomik
dengesini belirleyen en önemli faktördür. 1943-1960 yılları arasında
arşivlere yansıyan 300 hudut tespit raporunun tamamına yakınının ekonomik değeri
yüksek bu tür doğal kaynakların paylaşımındaki sorunlardan kaynaklandığı açıkça
görülmektedir. Ancak bu çatışmalar devlet aygıtı tarafından idari sınır uyuşmazlığı
bağlamında değerlendirilmiş ve bu alanı düzenleyen yasalar çerçevesinde çözüme
kavuşturulmuştur. Bürokratik açıdan bakıldığında, bu anlaşmazlıklar sonucunda
belirlenen sınırların idari nitelikte olduğu aşikâr olsa da, köylüler açısından talebin
idari sınırın belirlenmesi değil, doğal kaynakların adil paylaşımı olduğu açıkça
görünmektedir. İkinci bölüm, bürokratik aygıtın karar verme mekanizmasına
odaklanmıştır. Bu mekanizmalar temel olarak iki alt kategoride değerlendirilmiştir.
Birincisi, Geo-İdari perspektifidir. İkincisi ise Yerel-Ekonomik bakış açısıdır. Bu iki
genel çerçeveyi ayrı ayrı tanımlamak gerekir. Geo-İdari bakış açısı, köylülerin kaynak
paylaşımı talebini göz ardı ederek, arazinin topografik yapısına göre alınan kararları
anlatır. Bu tür kararlar tamamen idari ve coğrafidir, dolayısıyla James C. Scott'ın
modern devleti tasvir ederken kullandığı “tünel vizyonu" kavramını anımsatır. Scott,
bu kavramla, yereldeki kompleks problemlere derinlemesine temas edemeyecek
devlet aygıtının meselelere kendi işine yarayacak dar bir perspektifle yaklaşmasını ve
kendi çözümünü üretmesini ifade eder. Yerel-Ekonomik perspektif ise sınır
çatışmalarını adil kaynak tahsisi yoluyla çözmeyi amaçlar. Bunu yaparken, idari ve
coğrafi bağlamdan feragat etmek zorunda olduğunun farkındadır. İncelenen tüm arşiv
kaynakları, bürokratik karar mekanizmaları açısından bu iki kategoriden birine
rahatlıkla uyum sağlamaktadır. Ancak, Geo-İdari perspektifin, sahadaki karar vericiler
tarafından Yerel-Ekonomik perspektiften çok daha yoğun bir şekilde kullanıldığı
açıkça belirtilmelidir. Yerel hak temelli anlaşmazlıkların bürokrasi eliyle idari sınır
10 2
anlaşmazlığı kavramına tahvil edilmesi, Geo-İdari perspektifin baskınlığını ortaya
koymakta ve bu tezin bir diğer ana argümanını oluşturmaktadır. Bürokrasi ve yasal
zemin arasındaki iş birliği, köylülerin kaynak paylaşımı taleplerini kendi
bağlamlarının dışına çıkarmış ve devletin kendi idari haritasına sahip olma arzusunu
tatmin etmek için değerlendirmelerini idari bir çerçeveye yerleştirmiştir.
Bütün bunlara ek olarak, bu tez, literatürün köylülerin Demokrat Parti yönetimi ile
siyasi arenada daha görünür oldukları iddiasını bir ölçüde doğrulamaktadır. 1951
yılından itibaren sınır tespit raporlarındaki gözle görülür artış, sonlara doğru ivme
kaybetmekle birlikte 1960 yılına kadar devam etmiştir. Ancak bu durumun başka
birçok nedeninin de olabileceği açıkça belirtilmelidir. Bu nedenler, bu çalışmanın
dayandığı arşiv belgelerinin açıklama gücünün ötesindedir. Öte yandan bu tez,
başlangıçta köylülüğün geçim ekonomisi ve çatışmaların sosyo-kültürel ve sosyoekonomik
boyutları hakkında daha ayrıntılı bilgi edinmeyi amaçlasa da arşiv
belgelerinin yapısal yetersizliği nedeniyle bu mümkün olmamıştır. Bu durum, arşiv
belgelerinin sınır tespit mekanizmasını tamamen idari boyutta ele almasından
kaynaklanmaktadır.
Köyler arasındaki sınır anlaşmazlıklarına ilişkin belgelerin büyük çoğunluğu Tapu ve
Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivlerinde saklanmaktadır. Ancak bu kayıtların hiçbiri
araştırmacıların kullanımına açık değildir. Bunun nedenlerinden biri, kırsal kesimde
sınır anlaşmazlıklarının hala devam ediyor olmasıdır. Bu nedenle bu arşiv kayıtlarına
ancak adli makamlar veya köy muhtarlarının talep etmeleri durumunda
ulaşılabilmektedir. Mülkiyetin gizliliği ilkesinin ihlali iddiasıyla araştırmacılara kapalı
olan bu kayıtlara erişilememesi, bu çalışmanın bir nevi eksik kalmasına neden
olmuştur. Bu konuda yapılacak çalışmaların kırsal alanlardaki sınır anlaşmazlıkları
konusunda daha bütüncül sonuçlar vereceğine şüphe yoktur.
10 3