||Changing Perceptions of the Ottoman Empire: The Early Centuries
These debates have been intelligently analyzed in Kafadar's Between
Two Worlds, whose own commentary on early sources engages them with
literary sophistication. By no means impartial in this debate, Kafadar breathes
new life into the ghazi thesis, amending it in subtle and complex ways.^**
Until recently, there has been little progress in uncovering what stakes
actually underlay the historiographical debates of the later fifteenth century
(other than the oft-cited discontent of frontiersmen displaced by the normative
practices of state building). The Ottomans did not begin to write their own
histories in earnest until a century and a half after the alleged exploits of
Osman and his followers in the early 1300s. Moreover, early Ottoman
historiography is (purposefully) tendentious, its inspiration being variously
panegyric, political, or didactic. The basic project of reconstructing
reliable chronologies and thus reliable historical contexts turns out not
to be so simple. Drawing on Greek, Persian, Arabic, Italian, and other
languages as well as Turkish, Colin Imber painstakingly constructed a
chronological account in The Ottoman Empire 1300-1481. Stephen Reinert's
'From Ni§ to Kosovo Polje' also demonstrates the linguistic capacity
necessary for such reconstructions."
Others have made notable contributions to the study of early Ottoman
society and culture. Speros Vryonis' magisterial study of cultural integration
and displacement demonstrated, among other things, that the Ottoman
enterprise could not be understood without a grasp of the Byzantine and
Anatolian Seljuk past. Claude Cahen's Pre-Ottoman Turkey is a valuable
source in this regard, particularly because of the author's rich understanding of
Irano-Islamic practices upon which the Seljuks drew. Recent creative work
PERCEPTIONS OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 19
has been accomplished by what I will call 'the Cretan school', by which I mean
the conferences and publications initiated by Elizabeth Zachariadou at the
Institute for Mediterranean Studies at the University of Rethymnon in Crete.
The first volume in particular - The Ottoman Emirate (1300-1389) - is
useful in bringing to light a recent spate of scholarship offering new
information, new interpretations of old information, and new ideas.^*
To comment editorially on this new work: it suggests a need to challenge
conventional chronology, namely, the focus on 1299 as 'the beginning of
the Ottomans'. The thrust of The Ottoman Emirate, for example, is that the
fourteenth century is 'Ottoman' only in its representation as such in later
Ottoman tradition. As a number of contributors to this volume suggest, modem
historians have tended to adopt this reverse teleology uncritically in their
preoccupation with searching for 'the origins' of an empire rather than framing
the emirate in its own temporal context. Narrating Ottoman origins as a kind of
miraculous virgin birth, as much current work continues to do, obscures the
fascinating and fluid world of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and even fifteenth
centuries. As a consequence, the multiple organic connections of the nascent
Ottoman enterprise with Seljuks, Mamluks, Byzantines, Venetians, Genoese,
Mongols, and even Catalan mercenaries are overlooked. For example, Kate
Fleet's European and Islamic Trade in the Early Ottoman State: The Merchants
of Genoa and Turkey not only demonstrates the density and intimacy of trade
in the Mediterranean but also argues that the Genoese contributed to the
'early development and success' of the Ottoman state. Conversely, it is
important not to overlook the complexity of early Ottoman history writing:
Kafadar has spoken eloquently to this tension in Between Two Worlds, and
inalcik has suggested a methodology for not throwing the baby (confirmable
fact) out with the bathwater ('early folk traditions and later elite
5M/ Ceneris Preoccupations
To a greater or lesser extent, almost all historians of the early Ottoman period
have been influenced by the Turkish nationalist historiographic project that
began in earnest in the 1930s. Basically, the nationalist narrative privileges
the 'ascendancy' of a Turkish state during a 300-year period of (militarily)
vigorous upswing until it was corrupted following the reign of Suleyman.
Islam plays a negligible role in this narrative (except as a 'holy war' spark for
conquest), as do the contributions of non-Turkish players. As for the pathology
of corruption embraced by scholars worldwide, it is no doubt familiar:
obscurantist mullahs, world-denying ecstatics, aggressive women and their
eunuch allies, unnatural sex, bribery, factionalism, and general disenlightenment
- all leading to military enervation.
20 MEDITERRANEAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
The project of constructing an Ottoman past that was palatable to the
aspirations of the new republic is understandable, particularly in the face of
self-aggrandizing European distortions of the dynamics of the early Ottoman
entity. But Koprlilu's emphasis on the self-sufficiency of Ottoman evolution -
the presence in Anatolia of everything the Ottomans needed for success - had
the effect of launching a historiography that imposed on the Ottomans a
sui generis identity that is still with us. The result has been a narrative that is
largely the story of a uniquely 'different' polity - one fuelled by ghazi
jihadism, ruled by an army of slaves, and financed through a system of military
fiefs. It is also a narrative whose dominant motif is conquest. In other words,
our subject acquired a kind of home-grown exoticism, as opposed to the exotic
fabrications of European observers. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that
scholars for so long bought into burlesque representations of corruption once
the age of conquest came to an (inevitable) end.
In an early draft of this essay I began by asserting that the most striking
absence in the twentieth-century historiography of the 'early centuries' was a
narrative framework that integrated the Ottoman Empire into world history or
even a regional history of the Mediterranean and the Near East, broadly defined.
Such a framework did exist in the 1930s debate outlined above; it enabled the
eminent Europeanist William Langer to co-author, as a young scholar in 1932,
'The Rise of the Ottoman Turks and Its Historical Background'. One might
have expected that the Braudelian moment would further energize comparative
history, but, as noted above, the new accessibility of vast archival riches kept
attention fixed on internal historical preoccupations and created a momentum
towards local social history. Recently that trend has been reversing itself. I am
not sure whether we as historians of the early-modern Middle East are of our
own volition locating ourselves in a broader historical framework or whether
the growing interest in world history is causing our non-Middle East colleagues
to pull us out of our own preoccupations. What follows is merely brief mention
of recent work in the area of supra-boundary contacts.™
The most vibrant area of research that aims at creating connections beyond
Ottoman borders has been the Mediterranean. The very title of Andrew Hess'
The Forgotten Frontier: A History of the Sixteenth-Century Ibero-African
Frontier suggests the degree to which what we now like to call 'contact'
studies languished during the middle decades of the century. In recent years,
Daniel Goffman has been a leading figure in making connections outside the
empire. In part the choice of the port city of Izmir as the subject of his first
book directed his attention to the Mediterranean and Europe, a subject
elaborated in his later Britons in the Ottoman Empire, 1642-1660. Palmira
Brummett's Ottoman Seapower and Levantine Diplomacy in the Age of
Discovery studied Ottoman economic expansion in relation not only to
Mediterranean dynamics but also to developments in Iran. In A Shared World:
PERCEPTIONS OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 21
Christians and Muslims in the Early Modern Mediterranean, Molly
Greene focused on Crete, arguing that the island's experiences of Venetian
and then Ottoman rule were not all that dissimilar in that rivalry and
contact among Latin Christians, Orthodox Christians, and Mushms was
nothing new in the Mediterranean. Contacts in the later fifteenth century have
been brought alive by Nicolas Vatin in his work on Ottoman relations with
the Knights of Rhodes and with various European rulers over the affair of the
renegade prince Cem Sultan.^'
Other boundary regions have not been neglected. The relations of the
Ottomans with the Portuguese in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean have
been studied by Salih Ozbaran, while Bekir Kutukoglu and Jean-Louis
Bacque-Grammont have written about relations between the Ottomans and the
Safavids. The Crimean Tatar Khanate and the Black Sea region in general are
treated in the work of Alan Fisher and Victor Ostapchuk, and Ottoman
relations with Poland have been explored by Dariusz Kolodziejczyk. Hungary
under the Ottomans and its role as a frontier between central Europe
and the Ottoman domain is probably second only to the Mediterranean frontier
in the attention that has been devoted to it by scholars such as Gustav Bayerle,
Geza David, Pal Fodor, and Gabor Agoston.'^
In several of these works, a more fiexible approach to the whole notion of
boundary appears to be taking hold. Indeed, it can be argued that Ottoman
boundaries - both cultural and political - were distinctly porous until
the middle of the sixteenth century and never fully hardened thereafter.
Until the mid-sixteenth century, the legitimating discourse of the dynasty as
well as the empire's literary and artistic forms evolved in dialogue with global
styles and paradigms. Specifically, the profound influence of Persianate
cultural, political, and educational paradigms on twelfth-through-sixteenthcentury
Anatolia has yet to be fully acknowledged. The same can be said of the
long association with Byzantium and the intimacy of its influence following
the conquest of Constantinople, and also of the competitive/cooperative
associations with Italian city-states, particularly Venice. The global nature of
the sixteenth century was more or less acknowledged in the late 1980s in
the French, British, and US catalogue publications and collected volumes
issued around the travelling exhibition of Ottoman artefacts under the rubric of
'the age of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent'."
The Question of Decline: More Work to be Done
The challenge to the paradigm of 300 years of Ottoman rise followed by
300 years of decline - with the late sixteenth century as the turning point - was
one of the biggest shifts to occur towards the end of the twentieth century.
Metin Kunt was among the first to propose a vocabulary of transformation in
22 MEDITERRANEAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
The Sultan's Servants, After having mapped the 'rise' in The Ottoman Empire:
The Classical Age, one of the prime expositions of the rise-deeline model,
Halil inaleik somewhat modulated his views in 'Military and Fiseal
Transformation in the Ottoman Empire'; in his reeent long eontribution to
An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire he is sparing with the
vocabulary of deeline (of eourse, he foeuses primarily on the 'rise' period in this
piece, but the vocabulary of valorization is also less evident). Recently, the
seventeenth century has begun to be viewed on its own terms and in relation to
problems that were plaguing regions beyond the Middle East. Karen Barkey's
Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization argued
that the state's ability to manipulate 'bandit' peasants and pashas suggested
imperial strength rather than weakness. Darling's examination of the
developing financial bureaueraey begins only in 1560 and finds its natural
extension until 1660. Dror Ze'evi has remarked that, in Jerusalem, it is the
seventeenth century that is the clearest manifestation of 'the Ottoman way'.
In short, scholarship of the past 20 years has liberated the post-Slileymanie
period from the straitjaeket of deeline in which every new phenomenon was
seen as eorruption of pristine 'classical' institutions.^"
There are, in my opinion, two reasons why the dismantling of this paradigm
is unfinished business. The first is that we have not adequately addressed the
nature of change in the post-Suleymanic period, and the second that the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries have yet to be liberated from the straitjaeket of the 'rise'
framework. As for the first: my undergraduate students are not buying the story
of 'transformation' - it seems to them an apologist move, especially when they
look at the disaster-prone period from 1617 to 1656. In other words, we still do
not have a convincing or even coherent narrative of what the empire is doing or
becoming. In a widely read essay, Rifa'at Abou-el-Haj has addressed the
preoccupations of this period; more such efforts to come to grips with these
rocky times are needed. Perhaps the answer lies, at least in part, in comparative
history that can point to the difficulties many polities faced in this period.
The seventeenth century has come alive in cultural studies (at least in work in
progress) but less so in studies of governance or of local histories that might,
show a different story of stability or new syntheses. Barkey's study and
Hathaway's The Politics of Households are admirable examples of the kind of
work that is beginning to fill in the gap."
As for the second matter of unfinished business: golden-ageism has been
slow to recede from representations of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,
and even new works continue to treat the rise of the Ottoman polity
uncritically, as a narrative of imperial successes. This valorization of the
'heroic' age has not only ignored the costs of state-building but also rendered
this period inert, devoid of the dialectic of challenge and adaptation and
the possibility of a modernizing dynamic. In other words, there simply is not
PERCEPTIONS OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 23
enough tension in our study of the pre-1566 period. Part of the problem is the
inert paradigm of 'systems' - the timar, kapikulu, and miri land-tenure
systems - that has been taken to be the heart of the story. This paradigm,
which admittedly has a degree of truth (but only for a period of 150 years or
so), has been overschematized to the point that it has obscured the repertoire of
administrative solutions created in dialogue with local communities and the
flexibility that was a sine qua non of a polity that underwent continual
reformulation as it expanded simultaneously into both Europe and Asia. We
need to parse this period for its violence, for its failures, for the cost of
realigning elites and the stories of losers, and for the daily compromises that
grass-roots imperializing required ordinary citizens to make.
I close witb a thought or two about periodization. Because the Ottoman period
looms so large in the history of the Middle East and southeastern Europe, it is easy
to fall back on its 'start and end' dates to mark eras. Rejecting 1453 (the fall of
Constantinople) and 1798 (Bonaparte's invasion of Egypt) as Eurocentric eramarkers,
our field substituted 'authentic' local dating. Dating by dynasties often
makes sense in the case of Middle Eastem history, but it can also impose artificial
watersheds where continuities are more striking. This observation has been made
to good effect for the Ottoman end-point: for example, witb respect to confinuities
between the late Ottoman regime and Turkey, we have the work of Bernard
Lewis, Erik Zurcher, and now Michael Meeker, among others. If now we discard
reverse teleology regarding origins, we can do more justice to the global nature of
influences and contacts in the late medieval world and begin to think about a
regional chronology of eastem Mediterranean/western Asia. For tbe sake of
argument, the story might be cast as a broadly regional one, punctuated by
moments of organizational innovation principally due to imperial agency. Three
such moments were the reorganization of Anatolia by the Seljuks in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries, that of the eastem Mediterranean by the Ottomans
between 1453 and 1555, and the similar although less autonomous reorganization
by Ottoman elites and their successors between 1826 and, say, the 1930s. Each of
these reorganizations represents an adaptation to new territorial and cultural
dynamics and to new pattems of dominance and resistance. Each might arguably
be construed as a moment of modernization, with the periods in between being
seen as times during which the networks and hierarchies laid down during these
moments were fiexed to different degrees by local as well as central players.
'Modem', in other words, is a relative, not an absolute,
1. For their heip with coverage and bibliography, I thank Suraiya Faroqhi, Jane Hathaway,
Heath Lowry, Amy Singer, and Madeline Zilfi.
24 MEDITERRANEAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
2. Important work on military history includes Vemon Parry and M.A. Yapp (eds.), War,
Technology, and Society in the Middle East (London and New York, 1975), and, more
recently, Caroline Finkel, The Administration of Warfare: The Ottoman Military Campaigns
in Hungary, 1593-1606 (Vienna, 1988), and Rhoads Murphey, Ottoman Warfare
(New Brunswick, NJ, 1999). See also Gabor Agoston, 'Ottoman Warfare in Europe,
1453-1826', in J. Black (ed.), European Warfare, 1453-1815 (Basingstoke and New York,
3. Patrick Balfour Kinross, Tlw Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire
(New York, 1977); Andrew Wheatcroft, The Ottomans (London, 1993); Jason Goodwin,
Lords of the Horizons: A History of the Ottoman Empire (London, 1998); Philip Mansel,
Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924 (London, 1995); John Ereely, Inside
the Seraglio: Private Lives of the Sultans in Istanbul (London and New York, 1999); Godfrey
Goodwin, The Private World of Ottoman Women (London, 1997).
4. Bernard Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe (New York, 1982).
5. Robert Mantran (ed.), Histoire de I 'empire ottoman (Paris, 1989); Daniel Goffman, The Ottoman
Empire and Early Modem Europe (Cambridge, 2002); Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire,
1300-1650: The Structure of Power (New York, 2002); Caroline Finkel, Osman's Dream:
The story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1923 (London, Forthcoming).
6. Rhoads Murphey, 'Suleyman I and the Conquest of Hungary: Ottoman Manifest Destiny or
a Delayed Reaction to Charles V's Universalist Vision', Journal of Early Modem History,
5 (2001), pp. 197-221; Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the
Making of the Modem World Economy (Princeton, 2000); R. Bin Wong, China Transformed:
Historical Change and the Limits of European Experience (Ithaca, NY, 1997).
1. Fernand Braudel, La Mediterranee et le monde mediterraneen a t'epoque de Philippe II
(Paris, 1949); Jon Mandaville, 'The Ottoman Court Records of Syria and Jordan', Joumal of
the American Oriental Society, 86 (1966), pp.311-19.
8. Amy Singer, Palestinian Peasants and Ottoman Officials: Rural Administration around
Sixteenth-Century Jerusalem (Cambridge, 1994); Huri islamoglu-inan. State and Peasant in
the Ottoman Empire: Agrarian Power Relations and Rural Economic Development in
Ottoman Anatolia during the Sixteenth Century (Leiden and New York, 1994).
9. Ismail Hakki Uzun^arsili, Osmanli Tarihi, 4 vols. (Ankara, 1947-73); Osmanlt Devletinin
ilmiye Te^kilati (Ankara, 1965); Halil inalcik, Hicri835 tarihli suret-i defter-i sancak-i Amavid •
(Ankara, 1954); 'Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 16(X)-I7OO',
Archivum Ottomanicum, 6 (1980), pp.283-337; Omer Lutfi Barkan, SUleymaniye Cami ve
Imareti Insaati (1550-1557) (Ankara, 1972); Nicoara Beldiceanu and Irene Beldiceanu-
Steinherr, Recherches sur la province de Qaraman au XVIe siecle: Etudes et actes (Leiden,
1968); Stanford J. Shaw, The Financial and Administrative Organization of Ottoman Egypt,
1517-1798 (Princeton, NJ, 1962); Nikolai Todorov, The Balkan City 1400-1900 (Seattle, WA,
1983); Mubahat S. Kutukoglu, Osmanli Belgelerinin Dili (Diptomatik) (Istanbul, 1994).
10. Heath W. Lowry, Studies in Defterotogy: Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth
Centuries (Istanbul, 1992).
11. Michael Cook, Population Pressure in Rural Anatolia, 1450-1600 (London and New York,
1972); I. Metin Kunt, The Sultan's Servants: The Transformation of Ottoman Provincial
Government (New York, 1983); Linda Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy: Tax
Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire, 1560-1660 (Leiden and New
York, 1996); §evket Pamuk, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge, 2000);
Nelly Hanna, Making Big Money in 1600: The Life and Times of Ismail Ibn Taqiyya, Egyptian
Merchant (Syracuse, NY, 1998); Gilles Veinstein, 'L'hivemage en campagne, talon d'Achille
du systeme militaire ottoman classique: A propos des sipahi ie. Roumelie en 1559-1560 ',
Studia Islamica, 68 (1983), pp.109-48; idem, 'Une communaute ottomane; Les Juifs d
'Avlonya (Valona) dans la deuxieme moitie du XVIe siecle ', in Etat et societe dans I'empire
ottoman, XVIe-XVlIIe siecles: La terre, la guerre, les communautes (Aldershot, 1994);
Suraiya Faroqhi, Towns and Townsmen of Anatolia: Trade, Crafts, and Food Production in an
Urban Setting, 1520-1650 (Cambridge, 1984); Pilgrims and Sultans: The Hajj under the
Ottomans, 1517-1693 (London, 1994); Andre Raymond, 'Les grands waqfs et 1 'organisation
PERCEPTIONS OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 25
de 1 'espace urbain a Alep et au Caire a I'epoque ottomane (XVIe-XVIIe siecles)'. Bulletin
d'Etudes Orientates, 31(1979), pp. 113-28; idem, Grandes villes ambes a I 'epoque ottomane
(Paris, 1985); Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Egypt's Adjustment to Ottoman Rule: Institutions.
Waqf, and Architecture in Cairo (16th and 17th Centuries) (Leiden, New York, and Koln,
1994); Jane Hathaway, The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt: The Rise of the
Qazdaglis (Cambridge, 1997); Leslie Peirce, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in
the Ottoman Empire (London and New York, 1993).
12. Omer Liitfi Barkan, XV ve XVImci Asirlarda Osmanli Imparatorlugunda Zirai Ekonominin
Hukuki ve Mali E.iaslari. I: Kanunlar (Istanbul, 1943). Ottoman kanunnames have been more
reeently studied by Ahmet Akgunduz, Osmanh Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri, 9 vols.
13. Ronald Jennings, 'Kadi, Court, and Legal Procedure in 17th C. Ottoman Kayseri', Studia
Islamica, 48 (1978), pp. 133-72; idem, 'Limitations of the Judicial Powers of the Kadi in
17th C. Ottoman Kayseri', Studia Islamica, 50 (1979), pp.l5l-84; Ozer Ergen?, 'Osmanli
Klasik Donemindeki "Ejraf ve A'yan' Uzerine Bazi Bilgiler', Osmanli Ara§tirmalari,
3 (1982), pp.105-13; idem, 'Osmanli §ehirlerindeki Yonetim Kurumlannm Niteligi
Uzerinde Bazi Du§uncelcr', in VIII. TUrk Tarhi Kongresi Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler
(Ankara, 1981); Amnon Cohen, Jewish Life under Islam: Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century
(Cambridge, 1984); Haim Gerber, Economy and Society in an Ottoman City: Bursa.
1600-1700 (Jerusalem, 1988); Judith Tucker, Women in Nineteenth-Century Egypt
14. Dror Ze'evi, An Ottoman Century: The District of Jerusalem in the 1600s (Albany, NY,
1996); Rossitsa Gradeva, 'Orthodox Christians in the Kadi Courts; The Practice of the Sofia
Sheriat Court, Seventeenth Century', Islamic Law and Society, 4 (1997), pp.37-69; Yvonne
Seng, 'Standing at the Gates of Justice: Women in the Law Courts of Early Sixteenth-Century
Uskudar, Istanbul', in S. Hirsch and M. Lazarus-Black (eds.). Contested States: Law.
Hegemony and Resistance (New York, 1994), pp. 184-206; i§ik Tamdogan-Abel, 'Les Han,
ou l'etranger dans la ville ottomane', in F. Georgeon and P. Dumont (eds.), Vivre dans
Vempire ottoman: Sociahilites et relations intercommunautaires (XVIIIe-XXe siecles)
(Paris, 1997); Madeline Zilfi (ed.). Women in the Ottoman Empire: Middle Eastem Women in
the Early Modem Era (Leiden and New York, 1997); Amira Sonbol (ed.). Women, the
Family, and Divorce Laws in Islamic History (Syracuse, NY, 1996); Gavin Hambly (ed.).
Women in the Medieval Islamic World: Power, Patronage, Piety (New York, 1998); Najwa
Al-Qattan, 'Dhimmis in the Muslim Court: Legal Autonomy and Religious Discrimination',
International Journal of Middle East Studies, 31 (1999), pp.429-44.
15. Dror Ze'evi, 'The Use of Shari'^a Court Records as a Source for Middle Eastem Social
History: A Reappraisal', Islamic Law and Society, 5 (1998), pp.35-56.
16. Cornell H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian
Mustafa AU (1593-1606) (Princeton, 1986); Franz Babinger, Mehmed der Eroberer und
seine Zeit: WeltenstUrmer einer Zeitenwende (Munich, 1953).
17. E.J.W. Gibb, A History of Ottoman Poetry, 6 vols. (London, 1900-1907); Walter Andrews,
Poetry's Voice, Society's Song (Seattle, WA, 1985); Victoria R. Holbrooke, The Unreadable
Shores of Love: Turkish Modemity and Mystic Romance (Austin, TX, 1994); Kemal Silay,
An Anthology of Turkish Literature (Bloomington, IN, 1996); Wolfram Eberhard and Pertev
Naili Boratav, Typen tUrkischer Volksmarchen (Wiesbaden, 1953); Ilhan Ba§g6z, Turkish
Folklore and Oral Literature: Selected Essays (Bloomington, IN, 1998); Andreas Tietze, The
Lingua Franca in the Levant: Turkish Nautical Terms of Italian and Greek Origin (Urbana,
IL, 1958) (with Henry and Renee Kahane); idem, Worterhuch der Griechischen, Slavischen.
Arabischen. und Persischen Lehnworter im Anatolischen Tiirkisch (Istanbul, 1999).
18. Friedrich Giese, Die altosmanischen Anonymen Chroniken (Breslau, 1922); Franz Babinger,
Die friihosmanischen JahrbUcher des Vrudsch (Hannover, 1925); Franz Taeschner, Die
altosmanische Chronikdes A^iqpagazade (Leipzig, 1929); V.L. Menage, Neshri's History of
the Ottomans: The Sources and the Development of the Text (London and New York, 1964);
Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State (Berkeley and
Los Angeles, 1995).
26 MEDITERRANEAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
19. Christine Woodhull, Talikizade's §ehname-i Humayun (Berlin, 1983); Gabi Piterberg, 'Speech
Acts and Written Texts: A Reading of a Seventeenth-century Ottoman Historiographic Episode',
Poetics Today, 14 (1993), pp.387-418; Lewis V. Thomas, A Study ofNaima, ed. N. Itzkowitz
(New York, 1972); Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire.
20. Coletnan Barks, with John Moyne, Whoever Brought Me Here Will Have to Take Me Home
(London, 1998); William Chittick, The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teaching of Rumi
(Albany, NY, 1983); Mehmet Fuad Kopriilu, TUrk Edebiyatmda Ilk Mutasavviflar
(Istanbul, 1919); Robert Dankoff and Gary Leiser (trans.). Early Mystics in Turkish
Literature (London, forthcoming); Abdiilbaki Golpmarli, Atevi-Bekta^i Nefesleri (Istanbul,
1963); F.W. Hasluck, Christianity and Islam under the Sultans (Oxford, 1929); John
Kingsley Birge, The Bektashi Order of Dervishes (London and Hartford, 1937); Irene
Melikoff, Destan d'Umur Pacha (Dustumame-i Enveri) (Paris, 1954); idem, Hadji Bektach,
un mythe et ses avatars: Genese et evolution du Soufisme populaire en Turquie (Leiden,
1998); Michael Winter, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt: Studies in the Writings
ofAbdAl-Wahhab Al-Sharani (New Brunswick, NJ, 1982); Ahmet Ya§ar Ocak, Osmanli
Toplumunda Zindiklar ve Mulhidler (Istanbul, 1998); Ahmet Karamustafa, God's
Unruly Servants: Dervish Groups in the Islamic Later Middle Period, 1200—1550 (Salt
Lake City, UT, 1994).
21. Some valuable work has been done on this subject: Hanna Sohrweide, 'Der Sieg der
Safawiden in Persien und seine Ruckwirkungen auf die Schiiten Anatoliens im 16.
Jahrhundert', Der Islam, 41 (1965), pp.95-223; Colin Imber, 'The Persecution of the
Ottoman Shi^ites according to the MUhimme Defterieri, 1565-1585', Der Islam, 56 (1979),
pp.245-73; Fariba Zarinebaf-Shahr, 'Oizilbash Heresy and Rebellion in Ottoman Anatolia
during the Sixteenth Century', Anatolia Modema, 1 (1998), pp.1-15.
22. Uzun^arsili, Ilmiye Te§kilatr, Richard Repp, The Mufti of Istanbul: A Study in the
Development of the Ottoman Learned Hierarchy (London, 1986); Hans Georg Majer,
Vorstudien zur Geschichte der Ilmiye in osmanischen Reich (Munich, 1978); Madeline Zilfi,
'The Kadizadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul', Journal of Near
Eastern Studies, 45 (1986), pp.251-69; idem. The Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in
the Postclassical Age, 1600-1800 (Minneapolis, MN, 1988).
23. Baber Johansen, The Islamic Law of Tax and Rent (London, 1988); Colin Imber,
Ebu's-Su'ud: The Islamic Legal Tradition (Stanford, CA, 1997); Uriel Ueyd, Studies in Old
Ottoman Criminal Law, ed. V. Menage (Oxford, 1973); Haim Gerber, State, Society, and
Law in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative Perspective (Albany, NY, 1994).
24. Oktay Aslanapa, TUrk Sanati, 2 vols. (Istanbul, 1972-73); Nurhan Atasoy, Ibrahim Pa§a Sarayi
(Istanbul, 1972); Esin Atil, Levni and the SUmame: The Story of an Eighteenth-Century
Ottoman Festival (Istanbul, 1999); Esin Atil (ed.), Turkish Art (Washington, DC, 1980);
Aptullah Kuran, Ilk Devir Osmanli Mimarisinde Cami (Ankara, 1964); idem, Mimar Sinan
(Istanbul, 1986); Godfrey Goodwin, A History of Ottoman Architecture (Baltimore, 1971);
Gulru Necipoglu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth
and Sixteenth Centuries (New York and Cambridge, MA, 1991); idem. The Topkapi Scroll:
Geometry and Ornament in Islamic Architecture (Santa Monica, CA, 1995); Lucienne
Thys-§enocak, 'The Yeni Valide Mosque Complex of Eminonu, Istanbul (1597-1665):
Gender and Vision in Ottoman Architecture', in D.F. Ruggles (ed.). Women, Patronage, and
Self-Representation in Islamic Societies (Albany, NY, 2000); Tulay Artan, 'The Kadirga
Palace: An Architectural Reconstruction', Muqamas, 10 (1993), pp.201-11.
25. Filiz fagman and Nurhan Atasoy, Turkish Miniature Painting (Istanbul, 1974); Walter
Denny, The Ceramics of the Mosque of Riistem Pasha and the Environment of Change
(New York, 1977); idem. The Classical Tradition in Anatolian Carpets (Washington, DC,
2002); Howard Crane, Risale-i Mimariyye: An Early-Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Treatise
on Architecture (Leiden, 1987); Raymond, 'Les grands waqfs'; idem, Grandes villes arabes;
Behrens-Abouseif, Egypt's Adjustment to Ottoman Rule.
26. Herbert A. Gibbons, The Foundations of the Ottoman Empire: A History of the Osmanlis up
to the Death of Bayezid I (1300-1403) (New York, 1916); Mehmet Fuad Koprulu, Les
origines de I 'empire ottoman (Paris, 1935); Paul Wittek, The Rise of the Ottoman Empire
PERCEPTIONS OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 27
(London, 1938); Rudi Paul Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia
(Bloomington, IN, 1983); Kafadar, Between Two Worlds.
27. Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1481 (Istanbul, 1990); Stephen Reinert,
'From Ni§ to Kosovo Polje', in E. Zachariadou (ed.). The Ottoman Emirate (1300-1389)
28. Speros Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of
Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century (Berkeley, 1971); Claude
Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and
History c. 1071-1330, trans. J. Jones-Williams (London, 1968); Zachariadou (ed.).
The Ottoman Emirate, Kafadar, Between Two Worlds.
29. Kate Fleet, European and Islamic Trade in the Early Ottoman State: The Merchants of
Genoa and Turkey (Cambridge, 1999); Halil Inalcik, 'Osman Ghazi's Siege of Nicaea and
the Battle of Bapheus', in Zachariadou, The Ottoman Emirate, pp.77-99.
30. W.L. Langer and R.P. Blake, 'The Rise of the Ottoman Turks and its Historical Background',
American Historical Review, 37 (1932), pp.468-505.
31. Andrew Hess, The Forgotten Frontier: A History of the Sixteenth-Century lbero-African
Frontier (Chicago, 1978); Daniel Goffman, Izmir and the Levantine World, 1500-1650
(Seattle, WA, 1990); idem, Britons in the Ottoman Empire, 1642-1660 (Seattle, WA, 1998);
Palmira Brummett, Ottoman Seapower and Levantine Diplomacy in the Age of Discovery
(Albany, NY, 1994); Molly Greene, A Shared World: Christians and Muslims in the Early
Modern Mediterranean (Princeton, NJ, 2000); Nicolas Vatin, L'Ordre du Saint-Jean de
Jerusalem, I 'empire ottoman et la Mediterranee orientate entre les deux sieges de Rhodes,
1480-1522 (Paris, 1994); idem. Sultan Djem: Un prince ottoman dans I'Europe du XVe
siecte (Ankara, 1997).
32. Salih Ozbaran, 'The Ottoman Turks and the Portuguese in the Persian Gulf, 1534-1581',
Journal of Asian History, 6/1 (1972), pp.45-87; idem, 'Expansion in the Southern
Seas', in H. inalcik and C. Kafadar (eds.), Suleyman the SecondandHis Time (Istanbul, 1993),
pp.211-18; Bekir Kutukoglu, Osmanh-Iran Siyasi Munasebetteri (Istanbul, 1993); Jean-
Louis Bacque-Grammont, Les Ottomans, les Safavides et leurs voisins (Istanbul, 1986); idem,
'The Eastern Policy of Suleyman the Magnificent, 1520-1533', in inalcik and Kafadar
(eds.), suleyman the Second and His Time, pp.219-28; Alan Fisher, The Crimean Tatars
(Stanford, CA, 1978); Victor Ostapchuk, 'The Publication of Documents on the Crimean
Khanate in the Topkapi Sarayi: New Sources for the History of the Black Sea Basin', Harvard
Ukranian Studies, 6 (1982), pp.500-528; Darius Kolodziejczyk, Ottoman-Polish Relations
(15th-18th Century): An Annotated Edition of '^Ahdnames and Other Documents (Leiden and
Boston, 2000); Gustav Bayerle, Ottoman Diplomacy in Hungary: Letters from the Pashas of
Buda, 1590-1593 (Bloomington, IN, 1972); Geza David, 'Administration in Ottoman
Europe', in M. Kunt and C. Woodhull (eds.), SUleyman the Magnificent and His Age
(New York, 1995), pp.71-90; idem. Studies in Demographic and Administrative History of
Ottoman Hungary (Istanbul, 1997); Pal Fodor, In Quest of the Golden Apple: Imperial
Ideology, Politics, and Military Administration in the Ottoman Empire (Istanbul, 2000);
Agoston, 'Ottoman Warfare in Europe, 1453-1826'.
33. Esin Atil, The Age of Sultan SUleyman the Magnificent (Washington and New York, 1987);
J.M. Rogers and R.M. Ward, SUleyman the Magnificent (London, 1988); Marthe Bemus
Taylor e; al., Soliman le Magnifique (Paris, 1990).
34. Kunt, The Sultan's Servants; Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-
1600, trans. N. Itzkowitz and C. Imber (London, 1973); idem, 'Military and Fiscal
Transformation'; idem, 'The Ottoman State: Economy and Society, 1300-1600', in H. inalcik
with D. Quataert (eds.). An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914
(Cambridge, 1994), pp. i I-409; Karen Barkey, Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman
Route to State Centralization (Ithaca, NY, 1994); Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy;
Ze'evi, An Ottoman Century.
35. Rifa'at Abou-el-Haj, The Formation of the Modem State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to
Eighteenth Centuries (Albany, NY, 1991); Barkey, Bandits and Bureaucrats; Hathaway,
The Politics of Households.
28 MEDITERRANEAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
36. For other considerations of the periodization question, see Dror Ze'evi's essay in this issue
and Jane Hathaway, 'Problems of Periodization in Ottoman History: The Fifteenth through
the Eighteenth Centuries', Turkish Studies Association Bulletin, 20/2 (1996), pp.25-31;
Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modem Turkey (London and New York, 1964); Erik Jan
Zurcher, Turkey: A Modem History (London, 1993); Michael Meeker, A Nation of Empire:
The Ottoman Legacy of Turkish Modernity (Berkeley, 2002).
Önceki Sayfa (1/2)
[ Geri Dön ]
Copyright © Gönderen: Osmanlı Araştırmaları - (22439 okuma)