Autonomous Enclaves in Islamic States:

T e mltks, S oy urgh als, Yurdlulc- O c alplilps, M Ahkan e - Mukdto'a s andAwqdf

HelL iNelcxBilkent University

In Islamic states, there existed a special kind of sultanic land grant (tamllk, temltk),bestowing absolute and hereditary immunities vis-h-vis the administration, making ita virtually autonomous enclave within the territory of the state. Such enclaves, origi-nally in the form of private properties (milAmulUmilIk; pI. amlal</emldk) were con-verted in most cases to pious foundations (waqf/vaqf/valcf, pI. awqaf/erkdfl. When-ever they proliferated, it led to the loss of the state control of a large amount of theirsources of revenue and in some cases, to an actual decentralization, even to a politi-cal dissolution. That was what happened in the Abbasid, Seljukid, Ilkhanid andOttoman empires under the temltk-soyurghal and mAhkdne-mulcdta'a systems. Ener-getic sultans such as 'Imdd al-Dln ZangT (1127-1146), Ghdzdn Mal.rmDd, (1295-1304) and Mel.rmed the Conqueror (1444-1446,, I45I-1481) attempted with more orless success to abrogate such mukdta'as, miilks and vaqfs and return them to the con-trol of the state treasury.

Ilkhanid and Ottoman soyurghals and temlikndmes or miilkndmes guaranteed ab-solute proprietorship, total exemptions and immunities on land revenue and peasantlabor within the borders of a well-defined area, freed from the control of the stateand its agents. The usual formulary was as follows:

I (the Sultan) bestow and grant [the area defined below] in full proprietorship [to theperson involvedl with this imperial diploma of temltk I order that from now on, theIand within the identified borders be his properry in an absolute sense (milk-i malri),including the land, with its cultivated and uncultivated (mezdri') parts of it and withhills, forests and sffeams as well as all legal titles and appurtenances including thetaxes, dues such as yava, Icagkun, beytil'l-m.A.I, mdl-i ghd'ib, mdl-i mefl<ild, hardgftharAj) (of land), resm-i ciirmii cinAyet, bddthavL, nyydrdl, in sum, all kinds of Ser'i(shar't) and dffi ('ufr) taxes and dues. Let all these be his absolute property for himand for his descendants, direct or indirect, completely and absolutely free as crossedout from the state tax registers and freed from the interference of the state agents (minkilIli'l-viicfih serbest mefrfrz ul-l<alem ve mal.c;i| al-lcadem)...; he is entitled to own all

AUToUoMOUS ENCLAVES IN IsInvTc STATES 113

these in all forms of proprietorship, so that if he wishes to sell or make a donation orput in pawn or make a charitable va!<f, he is free to do so.l

In 1653, Ali Qavuq of Sofya gave the definition of mdlikdne as follows: "Some ofthe sultans granted (tevcth ve temltk) mdlikdnes to those of merit at the Porte, includ-ing tribal chieftains and provincial notables, in recognition of their services andqualifications. Since these have in their hands milIkndme diplomas from our sultanand earlier sultans, [what they have in their possession] can be considered their in-herited property (millk-i mevrfrs). Either they keep it in their possession as theirproperty and their heirs inherit it, or if they want, they can sell, donate or make avakf out of it. At any rate, they keep it in their possession as long as their progeny.survive or until a sultanic order abrogates its quality of miilk."2 All cases consideredin this definition are to be found in the inspection surveys (tafurtr defterl). The lastreservation about the right of the sultan to abrogate the mdlikdne was derived fromthe mtrt nature of all lands in Ottoman territory.

The phrase mefrfiz'ul-l.calem ve maktfr' al-kadem rn Ottoman temltk grants, piousfoundations and mulcdtra'a (tax farm) diplomas, was originally borrowed from theearlier Arabo-Persian bureaucratic terminology, in which it was sometimes renderedas marfu' al-qalamva maqtu' al-qada*.3 Th,e formulary was added most of the timewith the explanatory phrase of serbestiyet iizere or ber vech-i serbestiyet, emphasiz-ing the autonomous character of the land bestowed vis-i-vis the governors and localstate agents.a Such land grants, which established fiscal and administrative autono-

mous enclaves, created important social and political developments in Middle East-ern states.

In Iran, under the Ilkhanids and successor states, the specific type of documentgranting such an absolute autolomy was usually known as a soyurghal (suyurghal)

and rarely as a yarlTgh (yarl$).t While the term yarllgh has the more general mean-

ing of imperial order,' soyurghals always involved full exemption and immunity

For texts of Ottoman temltlcndmes and miillcnd,mes see FeRIotlw Atpreo 1275/1858, vol.1, pp.61G-8; vol 2, pp. 359, 36-373; a collection of state papers, MiinSe'dr, BritishLibrary, Turkish MS 9503 , ff.2-38, reproduces 3 | temltbtdmes from the middle of the

sixteenth century; Wtrrsr 1982 gives an analysis of several temltk-va&A; ttte TUrk-islim Eserleri Mtizesi in Istanbul holds several original temltkndmes, for s;ample, a

temltlcndme for the sister of Murdt III dated 976/1568 (no. 2402) and another one forRtistem Pa.$a dated 974/1566 (no. 2398); Tahrtr Defters provide a number of abridgedtemltkndmes, see for instance BeRxaN and MEniQLi 1988; definition of mdlikhne andtemltk are given by Sofyah Ali Qavu$, see SEntocLU 1992, pp. 49, 66,98-9.SnnroGlu 1992, pp. 68-71.The earliest Ottoman document of this kind was rendered in Persian: UzrwQan$ntL94L:1,pp. 211-88.

4 BanraN 1943,Index: serbest, serbestiyet, serbestt, serbestlik; sancak begs and subasnwere prohibited from pursuing fugitives in the serbest territories of miilks and vakfs.

5 For yarttgh and soyurghal see DosRrrn 1967, vol. 1, pp. 153-8, 351-3; tn yarllghs ofToktami'sh Khan: "biznin soyurghal bolub" (see GntcOREV 1844, pp. 337-a0).

2J

114 Her-ir- iNalcrc

from administrative control, state taxes and services. Soyurghals came under mu'dfiva musallamr: exemption and immunity documents in the Persian chanceryterminology. Generally speaking, a soyurghal was a ltukm (sultanic order) in theform of a barat or manshur: a diploma establishing certain privileges in favor of a

person or group, ordering third parties to comply. It was delivered directly into thehands of the beneficiary of the privileges. Sometimes, the sultanic privileges in-volved not specifically land, but only a personal immunity, in which case the docu-ment was called a tarhanlt&. For instance, one diploma of immunities for a merchantissued by the Crimean Khan Hajji Giray (144I?-1466) reads: "Bu yarhghm tuta-turgan Engiiriilii Maltmfid o{lu Yaltydga suyfirghdl bolup tarkhdn bolsun tidimiz,kayda tilarsci barsun" ["For Yallyf,, son of Mahmiid of Ankara, who holds thisyarhgh, we ordered that he become soyurghal, thus a tarkhdn, free to visit any place

[in the territories of the Khanate."].6V. Minorsky, I. P. Petrushevskii, W. Hinz, G. Doerfer, M. Tabdtaba'T, J. Aubin

and M. E. Subtelny give the definition of the soyurghal (suyurghal), specifying itsgeneral characteristics: the land was granted in heredity forever with fulI and abso-lute proprietorship as well as immunity from all obligations to the state.T These com-prehensive characteristics distinguish it from all other kinds of land grants andexemptions.s

In Ottoman chancery terminology, the term temltkndme was the precise equiva-lent of the soyurghal. The successor states of the Ilkhanids in Iran, Azerbaijan and

Laq as well as the Timurids continued the Ilkhanid formulary in soyurghals,instructing the state agents thus: "qalam va qadam kash\da ddrand va bitikjT dar-naydmand va gumashtagdn-i Tshan dar anja madkhal na-kunand'e and "az takalTf-idwan mu'df va musallam va marfu' al-qalam danista."lo

The Persian phrase, sometimes contracted into "maffi' al-qalam va maqtu'al-qadam," was employed exclusively in this type of document by bureaucrats inIran, Turkestan, the Dasht-i Qipchaq and Asia Minor.

Forms of Exemption and Immunity in Islamic States

In Islamic states, the ruler often used his prerogative to grant exemptions and

immunities (mu'afiydt, musallamiyat, serbestiyet, istiqlal) to individuals or groups in

6 For tarkhan see DopRren 1967, "tarhan," vol. 2, pp.46C_474; for Hajjl Giray's tarkhan-hk diploma, see Kuner L940, Document V, dated 1453; compare: Shdh Ism6'Il's tar-khanltk barat dated 12 Safar 922117 March 1516: "musallam va merfu''bashad;" see also

Hntz 7952, p.218, for a tarkhan diploma for a merchant: "musallam va marfu' al-qalam.7 For these authors' works, see Bibliography.8 For other kinds of diplomas of exemption from Iran, see NaxtunvRNl I9fuL97t, tafwtz

documents, voI. 2, pp. 227-255.9 Roevmn 1952, fol. 18b @ersian facs.); p.82 (German trans.); and p. 168 (discussion).

10 Roer',mn 1952, fol. 33a (Persian facs.); p. 78 (German trans.); and p. 168 (discussion).

AuToxoMoUS ENCLAVES N ISIAVTC STATES

return for services rendered to the state, or simply as a royal favor. Ordinarily, suchimmunities consisted of exemption from certain taxes and/or obligations. Taxexemptions and immunities were also extended to sayyids, naqTbs, shaykhs ofzaviyas and'ulama', including Christian monks, to obtain spiritual support for the

reigning sultan.tt Under the Seljuks and the Mongols in Iran, autonomous governorsheld some of the provinces through diplomas from the ruler.ttTh" situation actuallyconsisted of a fiscal arrangement known as the muqatra'a (tax-farm), with theprovincial viceroy collecting the taxes in his own name and sending the ruler an

agreed amount of cash every year (saliyana). Since taxes were to be collected, inturn, through local notables under contract (iaman), they too, claimed autonomy intheir own districts.13 This situation of the muqdya'a Ln Mongol Iran during the thir-teenth century closely resembles eighteenth-century Ottoman conditions (see be-

low).It is to be emphasized that in Islamic jurisprudence, tamltk was legally different

from iqlA', !u'ma,, Tjar, musdqdt and muzara'a. In the case of tamlTk, the land as-

sumed the full qualities of a mulk, i.e., the proprietor could sell, donate, pawn ormake a vaqf out of it. These points were always made expressly clear in the docu-ment of a tamltk. Claude Cahen demonstrates how the early iqlA' evolved into iqtd'tamllk as a different category from iqla' istightaL to 'I-ad al-Dln, a historian of the

twelfth century, talks about it as a novelty introduced, right or wrong, by NiZdmal-Mulk, the Seljuk vrzrer of Malikshdh (1072-1092), who brought about "the divi-sion of the regions of the empire among the military as iqld's" where each of them

collected a pre-determined revenue.tt Cuh"n discusses a new development in the

evolution of the iqla' in the eleventh century, when a whole region was bestowed as

a grant of autonomy to a tribal chieftain, Turkish or Kurdish, in Anatolia (compare

yurdlulc in the Ti.irkmen fTurcoman] states and the Ottoman state of the fifteenthcentury). This may originally have been connected with the practice of repartition ofthe pasturelands among the tribes or members of the dynasty as yurd (Turkish) ornutug (Mongol) in the Eurasian steppe khanates. Such autonomous enclaves, Cahen

asserts, were also call ed iqla' in Islamic sources, the term thus gaining the general

connotation of appanage: areas that were held for life or were heritable with certainautonomy vis-dr-vis the state. The Seljuk experience led to a partitioning of the

For examples see the dipiomas for Jalal al-DTn Hamaddnl (NeruuevANl 1964,-77,pp.279-82); for Shaykh Kamdl al-Dr-n Maradl (NaxruevaNt- l96dfit, pp. 276-7); forthe dervishes of the zdviya of Shihab al-D-rn Qalandar (NarruevANl 1964-71, pp.278-79); for Shaykh Zlhid's family (Mwonsrv 1954); for Shaykh Dard'I (Topkapt Sarayt

Mtizesi ArSivi Klavuz4 Istanbul 1938, document XVI (13 Ramaddn 857ll7 Sept. 1453).

For Atabegs in the Seljuk empire, see Eoneu 1927; Sevnn and Mrnqir 1995; forMongols, see LevrnroN 1987 .

LeNreroN 1987, pp. 100-5.See CIUEN 1953.'IMAD ar-DN el-Igreuarvl 1318/i900, p. 55; ed. Houtsma 1889, p. 58.

115

11

T2

t3t415

116 lJ l T TT l\1 A f aff,-fIAI-I.L -|.1\AI-\-II\

imperial territory among the members of the dynasty, who were supported bypowerful atabegs. The Ottomans, following this tradition, experienced the sameperil in their classical period (1300-1600) when crown princes were appointed as

provincial governors. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Cahen observes, iqfa'sevolved into large hereditary mulk appanages encompassing even cities. However,Cahen concludes that the system of iqlA', even in its later evolved forms, never gaverise "i. la formation d'une v6ritable classe hdr6ditaire."16

The iq[a'-i tamIIkT can be interpreted as a soyurghal tn a diploma of SultanRustam to Qulb al-Drn Naqib.tt In the sultanates of 'Imdd al-Dln ZangT (1L27-LI46)and Ntr al-DTn (1193-12II),large iqla's were declared hereditary mulks in order toassrue the support of their possessors, but ZangT prohibited ordinary soldiers fromappropriating mulks in addition to their military iqtd's, believing that this wouldharm the local population and state finances.tt When we examine more closely thedecentralization process of the Islamic empires through the systems of tamltk,soyurghal, yurdlulc-ocakltk and mdlik6.ne-mul.<.dya'a, it becomes evident that thespread of these practices led to the financial ruin of central governments and some-times to their final dissolution. Among other extraordinary measures, the Ottomanfinance department had to collect even the surplus revenue of the vakfs throughoutthe empire, frequently imposed extraordinary levies ('avariilavdnz) on the popula-tions of rich urban centers, and resorted to compulsory loans. Finally, the Ottomanmdlikdne-mukhya'a system resulted in a decentrahzed empire with the rise of theprovincial a'ydns in the eighteenth century (see below).

In the Ottoman Empire, the exemption from extraordinary levies called avdnz('avaril) was the most common practice applied to the tax-paying subjects (re'dy6,

ra'aya) in return for their work in the mines, or for such services as guarding moun-tain passes (derbend, derbendci/derbentgi) or supplying the palase or army withcertain goods. Such a legal status of mu'ifiyet (exemption) was established by a spe-

cial diploma of the sultan or formulation in the law books ([canfinn6.mes). A yarl$temltkndme given by Me[rmed the Conqueror or Bayezid II to a member of the

ilIema ('ulama') class upon his retirement informed all local agents that he was ex-

empted from all kinds of avd.rte imposition. Throughout the empire, subjects enJoy-

ing such an immunity made up quite a large group known as mu'6f ve miisellemre'dyL.le On the other hand, the maktz'system in Ottoman financial practice - the

practice of communities paying taxes in a lump sum - was a kind of privilege thatsometimes led to actual autonomy. The Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Cyprus was

given the responsibility of collecting the poll tax of the Greek population and

Cemx 1953, p. 50.For Sultan Rustam's iqpa'-i tamltkr to Shd.h Qubad al-Dln Muhammad al-Naqr-b, see

Apsu,qn 1973.Carrex 1953, pp. 44-5.See BenreN 1943, index: MuAf, Mudfiyet; iNarcrx 1959.

t6t7

18

I9

AuroNoMous Er{cLAVES rN Islaurc STATES L17

delivering it as a lump sum to the Ottoman treasury. In principle, public employees(asker), including illema, were exempted from all kinds of taxes including theextraordinary levies (avdnz). Sometimes, the whole population of a city or fortifiedtown was given exemption from taxation to ensure their loyalty. They were usuallyexpected to join the soldiers in the town's defense. For example, Kruye/AkEahisar inAlbania, in the fifteenth century, and Sarajevo, in the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies, enjoyed such privileges. In 1530, the re'dyd, men of religion and askertwho were exempt from avdnz levies in the province of Anadolu numbered 79,I05households, while there were 377 .459 subject to avdnz.zo

Under the tapu system, the Ottoman state also recognized certain guarantees andimmunities for the ordinary peasant population by forbidding the local military tosubject them to forced labor (angarya). Stipulations to this end were formulated indetail in the general and provincial (sancak) law books and their implementationwas the responsibility of the local law courts.tt Such immunities for the peasantrywere designed ultimately to protect the peasant's labor and to ensure his productivecapacity, which was of vital import for the rural subsistence economy and statetaxation.

Also, the capitulatory immunities granted to the subjects of friendly Christian na-

tions can be regarded as part of the mu'dfiyel system." A capitulation was consid-ered as a special favor to a friendly country and its clauses had a preemptive force inthe face of other Ottoman laws. The subjects of o'the most favored nations" enjoyedspecial conditions in their trading in the Ottoman Empire. In the earlier Turkish-Mongol states, tarkhanltk, that is the guarantees and privileges recogntzed for mer-chants, can be compared with capitulatory privileges.'3 The Ottoman state found itnecessary to maintain its trade with Europe, identifying friendly states in Christen-dom through the grant of these capitulatory immunities.

One of the most important areas of the immunity system in Islamic states ap-

peared in the policy to convert abandoned or wastelands into actual agriculturalland. The practice was called ifuya' al-mawdt, or Senlendirme in Ottoman terminol-ogy. Introduced into Islamic law in the earliest times, iltya' al-mawdr resulted in the

recognition of full proprietary rights (mulkiyya) for someone who undertook such"land revivification" when improvement was actually introduced. However, in the

Ottoman Empire, the ruler's special diploma or temltkndme was needed for such aprivilege, since all arable lands were considered in principle mtrt: under the state's

20 438 numarah Muhasebe-i Vildyet-i Anadolu Defteri (937/1530), Baqbakanhk DevletArgivleri Genel Miidiirliigii Yayrnlan 13, Ankara 1993, Texts 2, 3.

21 See iNarcrr Lgg7, vol. 1-, pp. tO:-+3; Hnrir ixelctr, "Kandn" and "I.(dnlnname," EP4, (1978), pp. 556b-566b.

22 See G. Barn et al., "Imtiydzait," EP 3, Q97I),pp. 1178b-95b; esp. inalcrk, "Imttydzdt.ii.-The Ottoman Empire," Ef 3, Q971), pp. LI79-89.

23 See Doenren 1967, "Tarhan," pp.467-75.

118 HeIL INeI-Cx

dominium eminenr.'o It was under this principle that Mehmed the Conqueror wasable to confiscate for the treasury a large amount of previously granted landedproperties (milIk) and endowed (rakfl lands, or impose some military service onthem. The legal status of a great number of land holdings was thus "abrogated"(nasih).2'The confiscated lands were distributed among the soldiery as timars.

In fact, this was not a novelty. We see a similar decision in 1489 made by SultanYa'qflb (1478-1490) of the Aqquyunlu dynasty, when he ordered the abolition ofsuyurghalat tn Fdrs and lraq. Earlier, on a visit to Isfahan after his accession to thethrone, Ya'qiib had granted"in'amat va suyfirghalat" to sayyids,'ulama' and "poorpeople." However, in 904/1498 he appointed QadT Safi al-Dr-n 'Isa to undertake a

radical reform in the provinces of Fdrs and Iraq by confiscating (mawquJ) for thesultan's treasury all of the suyurghalat there, which were considered as having beenintroduced contrary to the Islamic Shan'a. John Woods sees this as related to thefact that the native Iranian bureaucracy got the upper hand in Ya'q[b's last years

with the rise of Qadi'Isd to power (I48r.2u Those injured by Qadi'Isd's action

24 See INnlctr 1997, vol. 1, pp. 103-26.25 Hetl-iNarcx, "Mehmed II.," ie I (1957), p.533; recently Ozvr- 1999 argues that "the

freeholds, the main target of the said reform, were 'revenue-holdings' not land-holdings.Second, it shows that the reform brought no fundamental change in the existing revenueholding system, let alone in the land relations, which remained entirely outside the scopeof the reform." Melrmed II's attempt, insofar as reflected in north-central Anatolia,"brought ... no more than a somewhat superficial reform." First, documents referred to inthis paper clearly demonstrate that the temltk-soyurghal system changed the state-controlled lands into private properties. Otherwise, it was not possible to convert themrnto valcf. The revenue-holding is only the consequence of this basic fact. However, it istrue that the proprietor (mdlik) simply tapped the traditionaliy established revenuewithout engaging himself in the acfual production process. The state's claim in sharingrevenue onmiilk lands is based on the assumption that the re'Ayd, the actual producers,were "the state's subjects." Ozel did not see the sultanic orcier about the "abrogation(nasih)" in the Karaman Evkaf Defteri from the time of this sultan. Ozel's sweepingconclusions and warnings are based on the special conditions prevailing in the Amasyaregion. Metrmed I (1402-21) restored the unify of the Ottoman empire thanks to thefaithful support of the Tiirkmen beys of the region (see Halit- INelctK, "Mehemmed I,"EI" 6, (1991), pp. 973-78); for a detailed and still valid discussion, see BnnxaN 1932-39.

26 "Bukdvulan ba-farman-i Humdyun ba-janib-i mamalik-i 'Iraq va Fars ravdngardantdand ki jaml'-i suyurghaldt, hashvl va harjl, dnr dn mamdlik mawkilf bdshand valcast-rd fuIst na-dahand n umand-yi d:dn har marz va sahat-ra 'arz va masahatkunand," KlrLrNJr 1992, pp.351, 364, see also pp.365, 367-8; Wooos L999, p.LMinterprets suyurghdlat as "fiscal and administrative immunities on specific areas grantedto influential civilian dignitaries many of whom were members of the religiousintelligentsia." The word mawquf (mevkfifl as a fi.nancial term meant "to take for thetreasury all kind of sources of revenue for which there was no assignee." In the Ottomansituation, a state agent (mevlcufafcl) pursued and seized such non-appropriated revenuefor the central treasury (see Banrax 1943, Index mevlcuf, mevlcufatcl). For the recurrentstruggle for power of the native Iranian bureaucrats against the Turkish and Mongol

AUToNoMoUS ENCLAVES IN IsI-auIc STATES TT9

were mainly shaykhs and'ulama'who relied for their subsistence on suyurghatat.Since state agents (umana') were to go and measure (l.tarz va misdhat) the lands,obviously the suyurghalat rncluded land grants. Various soyurghal barats now inotu possession involved shaykhs and 'ulnmd' , and such land grants were usuallyconverted to family or zaviya vaqfs. "Thousands of land plots were measured andentered in the state registers."27 JohnWoods is right to observe that the reform "alsoclosed down TSny public charities spreading further discontent among the urbanlower classes."tt Sultun Ya'qub's abrogation of the soyurghal grants and "centraliz-ing policy" can be compared with Mehmed the ConquerorJ s nasih (abrogation) ofemldk ve evkdf in I476. While Qadi 'fs5's motivation allegedly was to restore theSharl'a, Sultan Mel.rmed declared that his intention was to recover conquered (thusoriginally mtr) lands for the treasury. KhunjT added that "helpless poor people ofFars" called on influential 'ulamd', principally Ab[ 'Abdull6h Muhammad Dav6nl,to intervene. "As an act of protest he removed his white turban" against this tyr-unny." Because of such risks of abrogation, privileges were conflrmed in the temltkor soyurghal documents in categorical terms, such as "given for eternity (suyurghal-i sarmadr."to They did not need to be ratified at every change of reign, and recordswere to be striken altogether from the state:registers (mafruz al-qalam).

The Soyurghal System

In the states founded by the Turkish and Mongol dynasties in lran, Azerbaijan, Cen-tral Asia and the Dasht (the Eurasian steppe region), the temhkn1me type of landgrant was called soyurghal (suyurghal or rarely soyurghamish). The Mongol wordsuyurghal, derled from Turkish suyurgha et suyurka, meaning 'to favor' or 'tomake a special kind of grant,'is widely used in Turkish dialects, including Uighurand Qrpchaq. Most probably, it was through Uighur secretaries in the service of theMongol khans that the word was introduced to the Iranian official language.3l

As a technical term, good descriptions of the soyurghal are given by the Frenchtraveler J. Chardin and the Orientalist L. Langlds.32 Langlds describe s a soyurghal as

designating "aussi un fief h6r6ditaire dans une famille, conc6dd e perp6tuit6 par lesouverain et consdquemment ahdn€ de la couronn e."33 Chardin defines these types

military lords and its implications, see in particular the works of J. Aunw and M.SusrErNv. The finance experts representing the central revenue department got the upperhand in times of crisis, sometimes overshadowing the military governors and actingindependently; for a discussion of the situation in Asia Minor see et-AesenAyl 1944.

27 Kntl\r1992, pp. 367-8.28 Wooos 1999, p. 145.29 Woops 1999, p. 145.30 Wooos 1999, p. 145.31 For a detailed analysis of the term32 Dopnrns. 1967 , vol. 1 , p. 352.33 Donnrun L967 , vol. 1 , p.352.

"soyurghal," see Doenmn 7967, vol" 1, pp. 3514.

120 I I A T TY IIY A Y A'Y'rL.r\LlL ll\AL\-II\

of royal grants as "benefices hdrdditaires qu'on appelle ziurgal qui sont dans lesfamilles des gens d'6glise,6minentes et illustres, d'une g€ndration d I'autre."'o Be-sides the land temltks,, an amount of cash from a state source of revenue could begranted forever "in way of soyurghal."

As a specific term, the soyurghal is different from a yarlTgh (yarh{). A typicalUighur term, the word "yarlTgh" signifies any royal order or diploma (farman, hukrn,barat, kilAb-i sul1anfi." Sinc" a soyurghal,too, is a royal edict, it is sometimes sim-ply called a"yarh{" rn the Ilkhanid chancery "altun tamghah yarhgh" and in $ajjiGiray's Tarkhanltk Yarltgh "Altun nishdnhgh ve aI tamghahgh yarhgh."36 Asoyurghal ts also referred to as nishan-i lawqT' and 'arifa.

It is believed that the soyurghal system was introduced to Iran under the Seljuks,modifying the extant Islamic iqlA' system. Under the soyurghal system, militaryservice was not necessadly involved for the beneficiary. Under the Abbasids, /arn/Tk,

the granting of agricultural land (qalT'a) in full proprietorship to grandees, was awell-known practice prior to the coming of the Seljuks. al-MawardT (974-1058)specified a krnd of iqta'given in full proprietorship (iqtA' tamlTk). Iqta' khdss,landgranted to the members of the dynasty or to gteat amlrs, was a type of iqla' underthe absolute control of its recipient. The earher idrarat, by which the sources ofrevenue were reserved for the member of the religious institution, continued underthe soyurghal system. For this rve have considerable documentary evidence. Underthe Seljuk sultans of Anatolia, the practice of granting taml1k to personages was

widely followed on such occasions as the military success of a coilrmander or moreoften, to gain the support of influential notables for the state at the time of accessionto the throne. Some texts of Seljuk tamlTknamas have reached us. One was atamltknama grven to the Seljuk prince Rukn al-Dln Qilich Arsldn referring to thetamltk of Albasaru, a village in the province of Akgehfu.37 It was bestowed in pureproprietorship (ba-mulkiyat, malikana).He could sell it or donate it as avaqf, and noone, neither amTrs nor the sultan's agents (nuvvab), could interfere. The so-calledtamllknama dated 65611258 of Sultan 'Izz aI-DIn Kay-Kd'[s II to Am-Ir Asad al-D1n'AII38 was given in the form of a simple sale. Asad al-DTn purchased the village ofIlarsldn in the region of Amasya from the sultan for three hundred gold coins. Thepurchase included the whole region with all its lands, fields, hills, streams, gardens,

etc. In fact, the property. was comparable to the Ottoman temltk or to estates seen inroyal property grants in the West. Actually, the mulk grant was given in the legalform of a shar'l purchase, which made it more secure (because its proprietor couldsell, donate, put it in pawn or create a vaqlf out of it).

34 Dosnrtn 1967, vol. 1,p.352.35 Doenrun 1967, vol" 4, pp. 153-8, "yarlig."36 A. Mrler OzyercN 1996, p. i45.37 See TunaN 1958, pp. 1G-l 1 ,32-3.38 TIrneN 1955.

AUToNoMoUS ENCLAVES IN IsuvIc STATES 12T

The iqta' system became joined under Turco-Mongol dynasties with the Turkishyurdlul<-oca!<Iflc (see below) and the Mongol nutug institutions. In Mongol feudalsociety, a noyan (noble lord) had full proprietary rights over a nutug: a fief withcommoners on it.3e It was heritable by his sons and he had full jurisdiction in itsterritory. In turn, the noyan gave his men portions of the pasturel and (qoruq) as

nutug. "Tarkhan" referred to a subject of the noyan who was freed from obligationsto him. In Ilkhanid Iran, each army unit called a buluk (bdlilk) had a hereditary iqla'.Over time, as a result of the partition of territory among princes who enjoyed exten-sive autonomy, the Great Khan's central authority was weakened and the empiredissolved. In the description of Ilkhanid state organrzation by al-'Umarf,4o accordingto Nizdm al-Dr-n al-layydr, the idrarat (soyurghal grants such as bulug (bullk) and

villages) were said to be numberless. The possessors of the idrarat, he added, heldthem as their :u.ue mulk, that is, they could sell it, or donate it, or turn it into a vaqf,

or they could spend the revenue for theu subsistence as long as they lived. In his

letter to his son Shihdb al-Dln, the Ilkhanid vrzrer Rasht-d al-Dln advised him toshow favors to the nobility by granting exemptions and immunities for their proper-ties.ar In his vaqfdocument, RashTd al-Drn tells us that the lands for his vaqf were

originally given to him through atamlTk (i.e., as a property in an absolute sense) and

subsequently reconfrmed (muqarrar) and made free from state control (musallam).

State taxes on these lands were bequeathed to him under the rubric of suyilrghamTsht

and idrar, and he was thus referring to Turco-Mongol and Islamic donation prac-

tices. It is important to distinguish between the large estates like Rashr-d al-DTn's that

were granted with full exemptions and the small land grants given to ordinary reli-gious people such as shaykhs of zdviyas. The soyurghal system was widely em-

ployed under the Timurids, as well as under the Qaraquyunlu and Aqquyunlu dynas-

ties in Iran and Central Asia. Rulers and pretenders to the throne often had to make

soyurghal grants to powerful people to ensure their support. This is certainly true forOttoman temltks, usually made to influential military or religious notables and

shaykhs in times of crisis . Soyurghal or temltk lands were usually converted to fam-

lly vaqft in both cases.

In the Dastur at-katib,o' u manual for state secretaries from the Jal6yirid period

(1340-1 4Ll) three categories of full immunity were described. As an example of the

first category , a "yarlTgh with gold tamgha" $tarltgh ba-altiln tamghQ) was given forthe dervishes of the convent (zaviya) of Shihab al-Dln Qalandar.ot The dervishes

asked for exemption from all obligations to the government (mutavajiihat-i dwanT)

for a plot of land (mazra'a) tn their possession. The document says:

39 Vr-eoMIRTSov l944,Index: "Nrttrtg," "Noyan," pp. 25f9.40 The Arabic text reproduced by Tocnx 1931, pp' 36,3940.41 See Rasstp nl-D-tN Teeln F nzt- Arus 1947 .

42 NexnraveNl L96dF1971, vol. 2, pp. 27 8-83.43 NexrueveNl 196+-1971, vol. 2,p.277.

122 Hnt-iI- INer-cx

It has to be excluded (mafruz) from the lands belonging to the government and be left[for the zaviya] with exemption and immuniry (mu'afi va musallamt) so that all theproducts and profits obtained by developing and tilling it be expended for the subsis-tence of the dervishes. The government agents in the area should issue absolutely nodocuments and no revenue transfers (ftavala)M should be made, no tax collectorsvisit, and all kinds of officiai orders and interference should be restrained and thename of the plot be striken out of the survey books of the province.as

The document also proclaims: "Be it known that this donation in favor of the at-tendants of the zdviya and the community of the qalandar dervishes and their com-pany is exempt and immune for eternity." An example of the second category ofimmunity documents rs a hukm for Shaykh Jaldl al-Dln Hamadf,nl, known as Quybal-Vaqt, who was said to enlighten his disciples and entertain travelers and the poorat his table. For his properties, immobile and mobile, the same kinds of immunitieswere granted to him. He was exempted from all official obligations includingzavayid,a6 'avdri2,47 and the like. A11 obligations on his properties were to bedropped from the taxation rolls and stricken from the survey book s (daftar).aB

An example of the third category was a hukmae stating the exemptions that thevillagers of Sa'Id-abad were to enjoy, since they served shor-payfo to the travelerswho traveled on the public route passing through the village. Since they performedthis service regularly, the sultan ordered that the state agents of the district ofMihrdnrDd should not bother them about taxes owed to the government such as

zavayid and 'avariL, or any other kind of imposition and service.In sum, three categories of people - dervishes living in a zaviya, a noted reli-

gious shaykh or 'dlim, and a group fulfilling a public service - were exempted fromthe state taxes (mutavajjihat va fuuquq-i d:anT) due on the land in their possession,its products and their mobile and immobile properties. These privileges were to be inforce for eternity, for them and their descendants. The beneficiaries of the exemp-tions included peasants, servants, attendants, sharecroppers and residents; in short,all those tied to the institution or the person enjoying the privilege.

44 See Heilr-iNeLcx, "Hawala," EP 3, Q971), pp. 283V285a.45 NarruAVANi- 1964,-197 1, vol. 2, p. 277 .

46 Ziyada (pl. zavdyid), was revenue left over after all expenses of avaqf were met. The go-vernment often collected such revenues for the state treasury; for discussion of theresistance to the Mamluk sultan's attempt to take the ziydda of vaqfs, see Lapmus 1967,pp. 135, 140.

41 'Avdriz referred to "extraor{inary government levies, in goods or cash, in unexpectedsituations;" for the application of this concept in the Ottoman Empire see Olten L.BARKaN, "Avtnz," iA2 (1944), pp. 13-19.

48 "masqat va marfl';" A. A.'Aflzdda's reading (p. 281) tanl'a shouldbe changed to layf'a(estate).

49 Nercravaxl L964-L971, vol. 2,pp. 282-3.50 shdr-pdyl, sewrce for horses.

AUTOxoMoUS ENCLAVES IN IsIeuIc STATES 123

Thevaqf barat or soyurghal of Sultan Uzun Hasan dated June 26, I4l1, given to themutavallT (trustee and administrator) of the zaviya of "Qutb al-Budald' vaal-Majztbr-n," Sulpn Baba 'Abd al-Rahmdn-i Shdilr,Sr is another typical soyurghalwith all the usual formularies. The reason for its bestowal, said Uzun f,Iasan, wasthat through this man's miraculous guidance, the Sultanrcalized all his wishes andavoided all the unfortunate situations that had threatened him. He considered himthe foundation of his sultanate. Its properties, consisting of the shops, land and vil-lages in Amid (Diyarbaku) and Mardin, and their surroundings that belonged to him"in full proprietorship" (mulkiyyat), were to be a vaqf and its.trust and administration(tawliyya) was bestowed upon Shaykh Kamdl al-Dln. The tax agents and tax farmers(mubashlran and'ummal) were not to interfere in them by trying to collect suchtaxes and impositions as "ikhrajat va khar_ajiydt va kusamat va tawjthat va taltqTqatva zavayid va 'avari| va taklffit-i dwanl."Sz In short, "they shall not include the vaqfland in the official registers or set foot in the territory of the vaqf' ("qalamva qadamkutah va knshTda dashta"). In addition to confirming immunities for the vaqf proper-ties of the shaykh, Uzun Hasan granted as a "soyurghal" (ba-rasm-i suyurghal) thevillage of Soganlu near Mardin to the zaviya.

In brief, the characteristics of the soyurghal can be summartzed as follows:1. Since the soyurghal was originally a barat (diploma) establishing a privilege

for a person or group, it ordered third persons to abide by its stipulations.2. A soyurghal usually granted exemptions and immunities to ensure the sup-

port of a military or spiritual leader.3. The grant was all-inclusive as far as the land, taxes and people on it were

concerned and it was absolute and perpetual.4. The subject of the grant was either a piece of land or simply immunities and

exemption from taxes. When land, a village, a farm or a mazra'a. was in question,the beneficiary would be given its full proprietorship. In addition, all the constituentelements of production, villagers, sharecroppers, residents, servicemen, etc. wouldenjoy the exemptions and immunities, so that the beneficiary of the soyurghal wasable to control its revenue independenttly from the state's control or the interferenceof its agents. The total and absolute character of the exemption was emphasizedbythe statement that "from now on no diploma shall be issued on that land, no order

5I Tiirk-isldm Eserleri Miizesi, istanbul, document 2200; Professor John E. Woods mostkindly allowed me to use his deciphered text.

52 For the identification of these taxes and impositions, see the soyurghals pUblished by V.Mwonsry, W. Hwz and J. Ausbr; tawjthat va tahqtqAl: 'dues allotted to the governmentagents visiting the place I khArijiydr: 'dues collected from outsiders using the land of azdviya' (in the Ottoman case, this was called hdriE ez defter); kusamdt: 'alms' (Stein-gass); zavayid: 'the revenue left over after all the expenses of the vaqf were met;'takltfat-i dwanl: 'extraordinary impositions by the government;' we interpret the expres-sion "soyurghal handbari' as a "soyurghai of benefaction;" for a fuller interpretation ofthis important document, see its forthcoming publication by J. Woops.

124 Hnlil Inelcx

for the transfer of revenue from it be sent (havalatD, no tax collector (muhasgil) wlllbe dispatched to it," and that it is to be considered "free from qalam (bureaucraticprocessing) and qadam (interference by government agents), its entry in the officialregisters being sfruck out." The exempted sources of revenue are either mentioned ingeneral terms ("mal va mutavajjihat va huquq-i d:anT va vujuhat") or sometimesitemized.s3

Ottoman Temlik and Va[<f Practices

In the classical period (1453-1600), when the central government's authority was infull swing, the Ottoman temltkndme system was charactenzed by a certain kind ofinspection (teftt$ over temltks and valcfs in the provinces. Thus periodically, the gov-ernment discovered through the tahrtr or a comprehensive surveying systemwhether or not the temliks and vakfs were established originally by a sultanic di-ploma and reconfirmed by successive sultans with mukarrernA.mes.to Through thisinspection, the immunity of many miilks and valcfs was abolished and the land re-turned to mtrt state control. Mehmed the Conqueror, who needed more and moretimariot cavalry for his unending campaigns, demanded that those in possession ofmilIk land provide an auxiliary soldier called eSkinci or eSkiinci. Examining thetafurtr, the survey books of the period, we come across hundreds of miilk and val.cf

units either converted entirely into mtrt,, or required, for continued possession, tosupply an eSkinci. A great number of milIks and vakfs that were originally miilk ortemltk lost their titles and immunities through the process of nasih.tt The fotlowingsultanic order of 1 Ramadan BgLlIT December 1476 specified the rules for theConqueror's revolutionary abrogation procedure:

The possessors of a miilk, of which the buildings (mosques, zdviya, etc.) are stillstanding and whose status as avalcf was reconfirmed by the late Ibrahim Beg of Kara-man, will be left with their possessions. As for emlak properties, their possessors shall

retain the right to receive the sole proprietor tithe (mklikfrne 'oSr). If such propertiesconsist of real estate, such as a village or piece of land (mezra'a), thet proprietorsmust send an auxiliary soldier (eskinci) to the army.56

In general, under the maqtil' al-qadam rule, no local security official was permittedto enter or pursue wrongdoers in temltk and vakf lands. However, in Ottoman

53 SeethesoyurghalofJalalal-DlnHamadlnrinNexruavaNl 196+71,vol.2,pp.280-1.54 For the Ottoman surveying system, see iNel-crc 1997.55 According to Tunsrx BEc 1986, p. 22, who was personally involved in the inspection

operation, twenly thousand, or at least two thousand miilkor valcf villages andmezra'awere confiscated for the state treasury; also see BanxaN 1932-L939.

56 Fatih Devrinde Karaman Eydleti Vaktflaru Fihristi, with the facsimile of the text, datedEvvel-i Ramadan, 881 H. [18 December 1476), Ankara: Vakrflar Umumi MudUrlug[,1958; for Ottomanvaffi see in particular BARKAN and Mnniqr.i 1988, Gtrig: "Sosyal veEkonomik Yonleriyle Vakrflar," pp. 1.2144.

AUTOruOMOUS ENCLAVES N IsIauIc STATES 125

practice, every culprit caught, whether rn temltk or vakf territory or somewhere else,was to be brought to the kAdls law court for trial. No separate jurisdiction wasrecognized for temltk possessors. However, since the temltk and vakf enclavesprovided various immunities for those people living on them, the peasants of thestate-controlled mtrt lands sought refuge in those enclaves. Their possessors

encoruaged them to do so, hoping to co-vert their marginal lands into cultivated ones,despite government efforts to stop this."

Awqaf (EvkA0s8

Autonomous institutions based on vakf charters, such as mosques , medreses(madrasas) and zaviyes (zaviyas.), as well as individuals such as the men of religion,'ulamd'and shaykhs, enjoyed fuIl independence. In the diploma of the mtiderris(mudarris) of the Niramiya madrasa in Baghdad, given to Fakhr al-Dln Mulrammadal-$illl, it was emphasizedthat all his activities were to be free from interference bythird persons.se The diploma given to NiTdm al-Dr-n Ardabill for the shaykhdom ofthe Khanaqah-i GhazanT orders that the attendants of the khanaqdh, including itsmiltevelli (mutavallT),, shall recognLze him as their shaykh.60 Such sultanic berdts dtd,

not impose any special conditions, except for the faithful observance of the condi-tions of the original valcf charter (vaffiye).

Those given a temltkndme usually turned the property into a val.cf, which thus en-joys a further consolidation, under a religious sanction. Thus, the administrator'sauthority over a vakf was that of an overseer (nLar).In principle, the institutionsbased on a vakf and its head and attendants were independent. The valcf founder usu-

ally designates his son a milteveIIi (mutavallT), or trustee responsible for the manage-ment of the ,okf who kept, as a rule, ten percent of the vakf revenue. This kind of,akf is called evlddlrk, evlddtye, or zurriye vakf to distinguish it from regular "truevakf' (valcf-i hakkD.The evhdltl< vakf,comparable to the real temllk enclaves, was

frequently encountered in the Ottoman Empire. Generally speaking, valcfs enjoyedall the privileges and immunities of a temltk However, under the Ottomans, the state

systematically recorded and periodically inspected then.61

From the beginning of the Ottoman state, pious foundations were responsible forcreating the nuclei of many villages and towns. The city of Bursa, the first Ottomancapital, was developed through pious endowments and grew over time into a

flourishing religious and commercial center. Edirne, the second capital of the Otto-mans in Rumelia, was also created as a typical Ottoman city through pious

See the sultanic temlikrtdmes in MunSe 'dr, British Library, MS 9503.For valcf rn general, see Hir-rai Erruoi 1997; Vnrrn-an Gnxr,r MUotrnlucu 1986;KavaoGI-u n.d. (ca. 1913-1977).See NaxruaveNl 1964-197 6, vol. 2, pp. 2L7-2I.NnxnrevANl 1 9 64- t97 6, v ol. 2, pp. 217 -21 ; 23 1-5 .

On Ottoman evl<kf, see in particular BenKaN's works in the Bibliography.

5758

59606L

r26 Haril ixar-cm

foundations. Istanbul rose as an Ottoman-Islamic city through the ,okf institution.62Most pious foundations in the Ottoman Empire were originally based on sultanictemltk grants to individuals, who in turn converted them rnto vaffi.

According to O. t-. Barkan's research,63 the percentage of mi)Iks and,vaffi in thehome provinces of the Ottoman Empire, compared to the total revenue of each ofthese provinces were as follows:

Location PercentIn Rumelia (the Balkans) 6

The provinces of Anadolu, Karaman,ZUlkadriye and Rum (Asia Minor mostlywest of the Krzrlrrmak River)

t7

Diyarbakrr (southeast Asia Minor) 6

Figure l: Miilks and va$fs in the home provinces of the Ottoman Empire

Since Ottoman sultans could not abolish legally established pre-Ottoman valcfs rnAnatolia, the percentage in that region was considerably higher.

The Y urdlu[<-Ocakhh Sy stem

The Ottoman yurdluft-ocakltk system granted a leader, usually a tribal chieftain,autonomy in return for providing certain services to the government, such as bring-ing auxiliary troops to imperial campaigns. This autonomy consisted of enjoying therights of hereditary chieftainship, including collecting dues ffom the members of thetribe. A typical example of the yurdluk-ocakhft system was to be found among cer-tain Kurdish tribal chieftains in Southeastern Anatolia. Some villages of tribal originelsewhere enjoyed the privilege of collecting their taxes and delivering them to the

state treasury. The ocak or ocaklrft also designated, as a financial practLce, a directpayment from a local source of revenue to a military group, usually in a distant for-tress.

A similar autonomous status was given to the tribes of the Albanian highland as

well as to Eflak (Vlach) nomadic groups. The Aqquyunlus and the Ottomans bothgranted autonomy to the Kurdish begs in Eastern Anatolia (see below) under thesoyurghal system, which typified the most radical form of immunity.

Under the Turkmen states in eastern Asia Minor, the Kurdish begs eryoyedautonomy as witnessed in a soyurghal glen on 29 March 1498 by the AqquyunluSultan Qdsim (1498-1502) to Isfandiydr Bik, recognizing the Ulkd-yi ESiI as his

62 See INalcx 1990, Bamax and Ayvenoi 1970.63 BenreN and MEniqli 1988, Giri^1, p. 121.

AUToNoMOUS ENCLAVES IN ISIaUTC STATES r27

ocak (hereditary autonomous appanage).60 Isfandiydr Bik is mentioned in the

soyurghal as amtr-i a'zam, having "al-amdrat va at-ltukumat va al-ayalal."65 Hewas allowed to collect for himself all the government taxation (mal u jihat vatamamT-yi fuuquq-i divaniyya) of the region (ulka, illke) and, since he was "mu'df va

musallam," the state agents were to recognrze him as tarkhan and not interfere in hisulka, which was designated "maffi' al-qalam va maqtu' al-qadam."66 The privilegewas considered valid forever. The soyurghal given to Isfandiydr Bik is of specialinterest, recognizing the region of Egil as fully autonomous under a native heredi-tary Kurdish brg.Isfandiyar belonged to the Kurdish Bulduqdnl-Marddsl clan thatcontrolled the town of Egil and the eight fortresses in its region. The daughter of hisgrandfather Dawlatshdh had become the wife of Sultan Uzun flasan.6t Whil" fighring against the Shah's Tiirkmens (Qi:zt:Ibash/Kalboil following the battle ofChdldirdn ( 15 14) under the leadership of Sultan Selim and Jamshr-d Marddsr,Isfandiyar took the important fortress of Palu on the Murad Su, on a major passage

controlling the seasonal transhumance of the Turkmen and Kurdish tribes betweenal-Jazha and the Bingdl pasturelands.68 Under the Ottomans, the Egil sancak was

recogruzed as an ocakltk: r.e., hereditary in the hands of the Marddsl family.In his Seltmshdhndme,6e IdrTs gave a detailed description of how, in the winter of

1515, the Sultan sent him from Amasya to the Kurdish begs with fethndmes (letters

announcing victory) and sultanic diplomas (berdts), inviting them to recognize his

overlordship and fight against the Krzrlbag army of the Safavids. Idrls asserted thatthose Sunni Kurdish begs, who were enemies of the Krzrlbaq Ttirkmens in Shah

Isma'rl's service, readily followed the Ottoman Sultan's call. Idrls received, in the

name of the sultan, the religiously sanctioned allegiance (b"y'at) of "the Kurdishbegs in the region from Urumiya to Malatya, Diyarbakrr and Damascus."To Th"tribal organLzation and the sultan's grant of autonomy in terms of "mafrilz'l-l.calem

ve maktu'l-lcadem" to the Kurdish begs facilitated the whole of eastern Anatoliacoming under Ottoman rule in 1515. Once the tribal beg recognized the sultan's au-

thority, his whole tribe and area came under Ottoman sovereignty. Kurds foughtfiercely for the Ottoman sultan and put an end to the Ti.irkmen Krzrlbag resistance inthe winter of 1515-1516, with the only protracted fighting occurring in the

Diyarbaku region. Under the Ottomans, nine Kurdish hilkumers (later eight) existed

64 See Mwonsrv L937-L939; For Uzun Hasan's conquest of Kurdish regions, see Woops1999, pp. 110-11; TnrnaNI 1993, val.2, pp. 5414. In Uzun Hasan's anny, the militaryforce under the Kurdish begs numbered 640: DeveNI l33L/1913, p. 303.

65 Mn{oRSKY 1937-1939, p. 929.66 MnqoRSKY 1937-1939, p. 930.67 Wooos 1999, pp. 18G7.68 See BanraN 1943,p. l4l.69 Bndsi 2001 , pp.23947; Kntq 1997, see Index: "Kiird," "Kurd," "Ktirdistan."70 Bndsi 2001 , pp. 237;24V246.

r28 Helil INnr-cm

in the sixteenth century.tt The Kurdish hi)kumers (areas enjoying autonomous status)enjoyed a kind of autonomy comparable to the areas under the temltkndme regime.According to diplomas given by Selim I (15L2-I520), they enjoyed autonomy underthe same formula of "mafruz'l-kalem ve maktu'I-1.<ndem." In 1609, 'Ayni 'Ali addedhis interpretation, saying: "all sources of revenue were left in their possessi on."77

Because the hiikumet's "taxes were not entered in the imperial registers and there isno Ottoman state agent present, all the area is reserved (tahsis) to them." The num-ber of hereditary hilkumels rose from eight to eleven between the sixteenth and theeighteenth centuries. Around 1610 they were: Egil, Hazzo, Iezkeh (Djizre), Tercil,Genci, Palu, Bitlis, Mihrivan and 'Amadiye, while the yurdlulc-ocalcl{< sancaks(Ottoman sancaks under their hereditary Kurdish begs) were Qermik, Kulb,Aggakale, Dasini and Mihran).73

The Ottoman MAlikAne-MukAta' a Sy stem

The long disastrous war of 1683-1699 led to radical changes in Ottoman provincialadministration. As a result of the bankruptcy of the state treasury during this period,the state had to accept the demands for extra guarantees made by the tax-farmers(milItezims, '6mils). One of the fateful decisions was to introduce the mdlikdne sys-

tem into the iltizdm (tax farming) system . Mukdfa'as (registered state tax units) nowwere farmed out under contracts for life, and in later years, even hereditarily, so thatthe farmed-out region became a quasi-property (mdlikdn").'o Here is the statementof the sultanic order introducing the mdlikdne system:

Similar to the mulcdla'as given as mdlikkne Ln my well-protected temtory in the afore-

said island (Crete), the farmed out mukhla'as are to remain in the possession of theirpossessors as long as they live. It is appropriate under the present conditions that the

mukhla'as shall be possessed on the basis of serbestiyet rale. Serbestiyet requires thatlocal authorities such as governors, kadis and miltesellirns shall never interfere (in the

adninistration of the region) and abide by the mdlikkne conditions laid down for-merly.

The formula "mafrfrz'l-kalem ve maktfi'I-lcadem" was also employed in the

mAlikdn e - mukfrt a'c contracts.

71 Kntq 1997, pp. 158-165.72 'AvN-i 'At-t 128017863, p. 30.73 GOvuxq 1969, Kn-rq 1991 .

7 4 For rhe mdlil<hne-mukhta 'a systemreads the phrase mak!fr' ul-kndemcorrect explanation for the formuia.

see ixarcrc 1977; GSNQ 2000 119751, p. 143; GenE

in the temltks as "malctfi'il'l-ktdem" and offers no

AUTOxOMoUS ENCLAVES IN IsI-nuTc STATES 129

Bibliography

Ansrmn, IRaJ. "FarmEnI az Sultdn Rustam-i Aq-quyunhJ." Barrast-ha-yi tar*hT 8

(1352 h.sh./l973), pp. 209-18 (5 plates).AHMED, FenlptrN. Mecmua-i milnSedt is-Seldttn.2 vols. Istanbul: n.p. , I2751L858.AQsana'I, KARIM AL-DIN MnsuUo (f1.723113231). Musamarat al-akhbar. Ed.

Osman Turan. Milsdmeret iil-ahbdr: Mo{ollar hmantnda Tilrkiye SelEuklulartTarihi. Ankara: TUrk Tarih Kurumu Bastmevl L944.

ANoNvvtous. Ta'rTkh-i Qizilbashdn. Ed. M-lr Hdshim Mulraddig. Tehran: Behnam,l36L h.sh./1982.

Asnad va Nama-ha-yi TartkhT. Ed. 'Alt Mu'ayyad Sabitf. Tehran: Tahuri, 1346h.sh./1967 .

AUBN, JnaN. "Archives persanes commentdes." In Mdlanges Louis Massignon.Damascus: Institut Frangais de Damas 1956, vol. 1,pp. 12347.

AUBN, Jgex. "Un soyurghal Qara-Qoyunlu concernant le buliik de Bawdn6t-Hardt-Marwast (Archives persanes commentdes 3)." In Documents fro* Islamic Chan-ceries. Ed. S. M. Stern. Oxford: B. Cassirer, 1965, pp. 159-:70.

'AYN-I 'AI I. Kavantn-t At-i 'Osmdn der foiitd;a-i Mezdmtn-i Defter-i Dtvdn. istan-bul: Tagvir-i Efker Gazetehanesi, 128011863.

BADI', MUNTnJAB AL-DIN. 'Atabat al-kntaba. Tehran: Shirkat-i Sah6ml-yi Chdp,1329 h.sh/1950.

BAER, G. et aI."Imttyazat." nf E, (1971), pp. 1178b-1195b.BecnoAnl, BegA' AL-DN. al-Tavassul ila al-tarassul. Ed. A. Bahmanyar. Tehran:

Shirkat-i Sahdml-yi Chap, 1315 h.sh./l937 .

BALTA, Evnxcelrn. Les vakifs de Serris et de sa r,lgion, Xrf et XVf si\cles.Athens: Centre de recherches ndo-hell6niques, 1995.

BenreN, OunRLtrrFi. "Avdnz;'Avarr2,." iA 2 (1944), pp. l3-I9.Benxex, OMeR LCrn. "Milikane-Divani Sisremi." TH|TM II (1932-1939),

pp. 1 19-84.BanraN, OurR LIm. XV ve XVI'inci astrlarda Osmanh imparatorlu{unda Zirat

Ekonominin Hukukt ve Malt Esaslan. Vol. I: Kanfinlar. Istanbul: BiirhaneddinMatbaast 1943.

Banrex, OMER LCrFi. "Osmanh imparatorlu$unda bir iskdn ve Kolonizasyon Me-todu olarak Vakrflar ve Temlikler." VD II (1942), pp.279-386.

BanraN, OMER LOrn. "Osmanh imparatorlu[unda Toprak Valaflanmn iOari MaliMuhtariyeti Meselesi." THTD I (1941), pp. IL-25.

Benrex, Our,R LCrrFi. "Tiirk-islAm Toprak Hukuku Tatbikatrrun Osmanh impara-torlufiunda aldrgr $ekiller: Miilk Topraklar ve Sultanlann Temlik Hakkr." HukukFakilltesi Mecmuan (194L), pp. L57 -7 6.

Bnnrex, OvtpR LCTTFI and Emvsn Meniqli (eds.). Hiidavendigdr Livast TahrirDefterleri. Ankara: Ttirk Tarih Kurumu, 1988.

BenraN, OueR LOrFi and E. H. AyvERDi. istanbul Vaktflart Tahrlr Defteri. Istan-

bul: Baha Matbaast. 1970.

130 HelL iNercx

Banxr,s, JOHN R. An Introduction to the Religious Foundations in the Ottoman Em-pire. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986.

BelotcEANU, N. "Recherches sur la r6forme foncidre de Mehmed II." Acta Histo-rica 4 ( 1965), pp. 27 -39 .

BBI-DIcEANU-STEINHERR, I., 'Fiscalit€ et formes de possession de la terre arabledans I'Anatolie Ottomane." JESHO 19 (1976), pp. 233-313,

Binlisi, ionis. SelimSahndme. Turkish trans. by Hicabi Krrlangrg, Ankara: T. C.Ktilttir B akanh $r, 200I .

Bnuntr,ssEN, M. M. vAN. Agha, Scheich und Staat: Politik und Gesellschoft Kur-distans. Berlin: Edition Parabolis, 1989.

BUSSe, HenmEnr. Untersuchungen zur Islamischen Kanzleiwesen an Hand Ttirk-menischer und Safawidischer Urkunden. Cairo: Kommissionsverlag SirovicBookshop, 1959.

BussE, HEnrsenr. "Persische Diplomatik in lJberlick: Ergebnisse und Probleme."Der Islam 37 (1961), pp. 2A245.

CAueN, Cleupn. "L'6volution de l'rqtA'de IXb au XIIId siecles." Annales ESC 8(1953), pp.25-52.

CEZAR, Yevuz. "18. ve 19. yizyrllarda Osmanh Tagrasrnda Olugan Yeni Mali Sek-t6rtin Mahiyet ve Btiyiikltisii Uzerine." Toplum ve Ekonomi 9 (1996), pp. 89-144.

CEZAR, Y nvttz. Osmanh Mdliyesinde Bunaltm ve De{iSim Donemi. Istanbul: AlanYayrncrhk, 1986.

CHARotrt, JoHN. Voyages. Ed. L. Langlds. 10 vols. Paris: Le Normant, 1811.DARI-brc, L. Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy. Tax Collection and Financial Ad-

ministration in the Onoman Empire, I56L1660.Leiden: E. J. Brill, L996.Devaxl, JelAt- AL-DI-N MurleuMAD. "'Arhndma," Millt Tetebbu'lar Mecmuast II

(1 33 Il 1913), pp. 27 3-305.DEI.[Ny, J. "Un soyurgal du Timuride Sahruh en dcriture mongole." JA245/3 (1957),

pp.25346.DOERFER, G., Tiirkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. 3 vols.

Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1963-1967.EDHEM, Haril. Dilvel-i Isldmiye Tarihi.Istanbul: Milli Matbaa, 1927.Fl^Zr AILAH, RasHIn AL-DIN Taels. Mukatabat-i RashtdT. Ed. M. Shafi. Lahore:

University of the Punj ab, 1947 .

Fr,xptB, L. Die Siyaqat-Schrift in der Tilrkischen Finanzverwaltung. Budapest:Akad6miai Kiad6, 1955.

FEKEIE,, L. Einfiihrung in die persische Palciographie, l0l persische Dokumente.Ed. G. Hazat. Budapest: Akad6miai Kiad6, 1977 .

Fnecxe,R, BERT G. Repertorium persischer Herrscherurkunden. Publizierte Origi-nalurkunden (bis 1848). Freiburg: Klaus SchwnzYerlag, 1980.

AUTONOMOUS ENCLAVES IN IsIauIc STATES 131

GeNq, MErnuer. "Osmanh Maliyesinde Mdlikdne Sistemi." In Tiirkiye Iktisat TarihiSemineri, Metinler-Tartrymalar,8-10 Haziran 1973. Eds. Osman Okyar and U.Nalbanto[Iu. Ankara: Hacettepe Universitesi Yayrnlan, I97 5, pp. 23I-96; re-printed in Mehmet Geng. Osmanh imparatorlu{unda Devlet ve Ekonomi. istan-bul: Otuken, 2000, pp. 99-152.

GOvrrNg, NEJAT. "Diyarbekir Beylerbeyili$inin ilk idari Taksimau)' |UEFZD XXIII(1969), pp.2313.

GOmNq, NEJAT. "imAd es-SerAvi ve eseri: Cami'u'l-Hisdb"" |UEFTD 20 (1965),pp.73-86.

GOnrxq, NEJAI. "Yurtluk-Ocakhk Deyimleri Haklanda."'In Prof. Dr. Bekir Kil-tiiko{lu'na Arma{an, Istanbul: Edebiyat Faktiltesi Basrmevi, I99L, pp. 269-77.

GzucoRnv, B. "Yarlikh Toktamisha i Saadet-Gerf,y." Zapiski Odeskago Ob-shchesna Istorii i Drevnostei I (1844),, pp. 337 46.

HarooN, JoFrN" The State and the Tributary Mode of Production. London; NewYork: Verso, 1993.

Hinti Eltxoi, O. ithAf ill-AhlAf fi Ahkdm-il Evkdf. Istanbul: Matbaa-yi Amire,130611889; new ed. Ankara: Vakrfler Genel MiidtirlUg[ Yayrnlaru L977.

HNZ, WerumR. "Das Rechnungswesen orientalischer Reichsfinanzdmter im Mit-telalter." Der Islam XXIX (1950), pp. I-29.

HNZ, Wnrrgr,n. "Das Steuerwesen Ostanatoliens im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert."ZDMG 100 (1950), pp.177-201.

HINlz, Wnt-rsnt. Die Resalci-ye Falcikiyya des 'Abdollah lbn Mohammad lbn Kiyaal-Mdzandaranr. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, L962.

HI}{Z, Wurrm,n. "ZweL Steuerbefreiungs-urkunden." In Documenta IslamicaInedita. Ed. J.W. Ftick. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, L952, pp.2lI-20.

HORST, Hnnrgenr. Die Staatsverwaltung der Grosse$uqen und H1raaniahs (1038-123I ). Eine Untersuchung nach Urkundenformularen der Zeit. Wiesbaden:Franz Steiner Verlag, L964.

'ItvtAo AL-DIN AL-I$FAHANL KitAb Ta'rrkh Dawlat al-Saljuq. Misr: Matba'at al-Maws[ ' AL L3 1 8/ 1 900. .

iNar-ctr, Herir. "Mehmed II." ie I (1957), pp. 506-535.iNeI-cx, HetL. "Osmanhlarda Raiyyet Rtis0mu )' Belleten 23 (1959), pp. 575{10.iNelcx, Harir. "flawala.''' EIz 3 Q971), pp. 283b4.85a.iNalctl<, HeriL. "Imtiydzat. ii.-The Ottoman Empire," EiL 3, (1971), pp. LIT}-1}.iNelctK, HaliL. "Centr ahzatron and Dec entahzation in Ottoman Administration."

In Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic History. Eds. T. Naff and R. Owen.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press , t9'77 , pp.27-52.

iualcx, Haril . "Kdnfn )' Eiz 4 0975), pp. 556b-562a.ixercx, HelL. "Kdnfinndme." nP q Og78), pp. 562a-566b.iNelcx, HaLL. "Istanbul: An Islamic City." /1S (1990), pp. I-23.ixarcx, HaLiL . An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire. Vol. 1.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , L997 .

KayaOGLU, istvtEt. "Vakrflar Bibliyografyast." VD XI (n.d.; between ca. L973-1977), pp.365-76.

1,32 HelL INelcx

Kntg, Onuex. 18. yiizyilm ilk yansmda Osmanh Devleti'nin idari taksimati. Elazr$:$ark Pazarlama, 1997 .

KttLNli, Fpil-x-t-AH. Ta'rTkh-i 'alam-ora-yi Amtnr. Ed. John E. Woods. London:Royal Asiatic Society, 1992.

KHU'I, $,o,sex. Ghunyat al-katib va munyat al-tralib. Ed. Adnan S. Erzi. Ankara:Ankara Universitesi itahiyat Fakiilres i, L963.

KOvtrteN, M. A. Briyiik Selguklu imparatorlu{u Tarihi. 2 vols. Ankara: Ttirk TarihKwumu B asrmevi, 1984-1 989.

KURAT, A. N. Topkapt Sarayt Miizesi ArSivindeki Altm Ordu, Krtm ve TiirkistanHanlartna ait Yarlrk ve Bitikler. Istanbul: Burhaneddin Matbaasr, 1940.

LaMeroN, A.K.S. I-andlord and Peasant in Persia, A Study of l-and Tenure andInnd Revenue Administration. London; Oxford: Oxford University Press,1953.

LAMBTON, A.K.S. "Mongol Fiscal Administration in Iran." StIsI LXV (L987),pp.97-124.

LnNaeroN, A.K.S. "Two Safavid Soyurghals." BSOAS 14 (1952), pp. 44-54.Lepnus, IRA M. Muslim Cities in the l-ater Middle East. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press , L967 .

Lorrr,cAARD, FReoE,. Islamic Taxation in the Classic Period. Copenhagen: Branner& Korch, 1950.

M,q.ssE,, H. "Ordonance rendue par le prince Ilkhanien Ahmad Jalair en faveur duSheikh Sadr-od-Din (1305-1392);' JA 230 (1938), pp. 465-8.

MevH,qwI, MugeuMAD. Dastur-i DabTrT. Ed. Adnan Sadik Erzi. Ankara: TtirkTarih Kurumu Basrmevl 1962.

MnqonsKY, V. "The Aq-Qoyunlu and Land Reforms;' BSOAS 17 (1955), pp. 5G-73.MnqonsKY, V. "A Civil and Military Review in Fars." BSOAS 10 (1939-1940),

pp. 141-78.MntonsKY, V. "A Mongol Decree of 720/1320 to the Family of Shaykh Zahid."

BSOAS L6 (1954), pp. 515-27.MbioRSKv, V. "A Soyurghal of Qdsim b. Jahdng-n Aq-qoyunlu (903-t498)."

BSOAS 9 (1939),pp. 927-60.MnqoRSKv, V. Tadhkirat al-Muluk, A Manuel of Safawid Administration (circa

LI37 /17 25). London: Lvzac, 1943MurarcHIEVA, Vgnn. Agrarian Relations in the Onoman Empire in the I5'' and

l6'h Centuries. Boulder; New York: East European Monographs, 1988.

MnronsKY, V. Le vakif, un aspect de la structure socio-1conomique de I'empireOttoman, X\f -XWf ss. Sofia: Jusautor, 1981.

NnnpouR, M. Die beiden persischen Leitfriden des Falak ala-ye TabrTzr iiber das

staatliche Rechnungswesen im 14. Jahrhundert Gdttingen: n.p., 1973.

NerurnvANl, MuH.ttutMED IBN HINDUsHAH, Dastur al-katib fi n'yrn al-maratib.Vol. 2.F,d. A. A. 'Nrzada. Moscow:Izdatelstvo "Nauka,:' 1964-L97I.

NAVA'I, 'ABD AL-HusAyN. Asnad va Mukatabat-i Tar1khT-yi lran. 3'd edition.Tehran: Shirkat-i Intishdrat-i 'IlmI v4 Farhangl, 1370 h.sh.lL99L.

Omr, O. "Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II's 'Land Reform' Revisited." JESHO,42-Z (1999), pp.22646.

AUToxoMOUS ENCLAVES N ISIevIc STATES

Ozyr,rciN, A. Mr,I-Br. AItm Ordu, Krrtm ve Kazan Sahastna Ait Yarl* ve BitikilerinDil ve Uslffp incelemesi. Ankara: Ttirk Dil Kurumu Yayrnlan, 1996.

PnrRusgEVSKII, I.P. "K istorii instituta soyurgala." Sovetskoe Vostokovedenie 6

(1949), pp.22746.PnrRusuBVSKII, I.P. Kishavarzt va Munasabat-i ara27 dar lran-i 'Ahd-i Mughul.

Persian trans. Karlm Kishavarz. 2 vols. Tehran: Chapkhdna-yi Ddnishgdh,, 1344h.sh./1965.

QunnsHI, A.I. Fiscal System of Islam. Lahore: Institute of Islamic Culture, 1978.Ror,urn, HANS RongRr . Stuatschreiben der Timuridenzeit: Das Saraf-namri des

'Abdallah Marwarld in kritischer Auswertung. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, L952.RoEugn, HANS Rongnr. "Das ttirkmenische Intermezzo: Persische Geschichte zwi-

schen Mongolen und Safawiden." Archciologische Mitteilungen aus lran IX(197 6), pp. 263-97 .

SaHiu-ioGLU, HelL. "ikinci Keykdviis'tin bir MiilknAmesi." VD VIII (1969),pp. 57-65 (plates and notes).

Ss,RtoGtu, M. "Osmanh Imparatorlu$u'nda XV. ve XVI. yiizyrllarda girigilenToprak Reformlan ve Sonuglan." Belgelerle Tiirk Tarihi Dergisi 35 (L992),pp.68-71.

Sr,vttvt, ALi, AND EnpoGex MEnqil. Selguklu Devletleri Tarihi. Ankara: Turk TarihKurumu, L995.

Sofuah Ati QavuS Kanunndmesi. Ed. M. Sertofilu. Istanbul: Marmara Universitesi,1992.

SounwgIDE, HANNA. "Der Sieg der $afaviden in Persien und seine Ri.ickwirkungenauf die Schiiten Anatoliens im 16. Jahrhundert." Der Islam 4I (1965), pp.95-223.

SnULER, B. Die Mongolen in lran: Polittk, Verwaltung und Kultur der llkhanzeit,1 220-1 3 5 0. Letpzig: I .C. Hinrichs,, 1939 .

SugrEI-I.fy, M.E. "socioeconomic Bases of Cultural Patronage under the LaterTimurids;' IJMES,, 2014 (1988), pp. 482-93.

SusrEl-l.fy, M.E. "A Timurid Educational and Charitable Foundation." JAOS ILIII(1991), pp. 38-61.

Sucpsra, A. "Bedeutung und Entwicklung des Begriffes A'ydn im Osmanischen

Reich." Stidost-Forschungen 25 (L966),, pp. 45-73 .

Suissre, A. "Die MalikAne (Lebensllngliche Pacht der Staatsgtiter im Osmani-schen Reich)Avlalikdne (Osmanh imparatorlu$unda miri topraklartn yagam boyutasarruf Hakkr)." In Ord. Prof. 0.f. Barkan'a ArmaEon,Istanbul: istanbul Uni-versitesi iktisat Faktiltesi, 1985, pp. 273-82.

SUurR, F. "Bozulus Hakkrnda." AUOfCVO 7 Q949),pp. 29-60.TneATeBA'I, H. MunARRISI. F armanha-yi Turkmanan- Qaraquyunlu v a Aqquyunlu.

Qum: Chapkhdna-yi flikmat, t973.

TneAtABA'I, H. MuoenRISI. "Haft farman-i digar az p-adishdhdn-i Turkmdn." Bar-rasTha-yi tarTkhT 79 (Tehran, 1345-1357), pp. 85-126.

Ttr{RANI, ABfr Barn. Kitab-i Diyarbakriyya. 2 vols. Eds. Necdti Lugal and Faruk

Stimer. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Bastmevi, L993.

133

134 Helil INercm

TocAx, Z. YnriDi. "Mogollar Devrinde Anadolu'nun Iktisadi Yaziyetr." TH|TM I(1931), pp. 142.

Topxepl SeRevl MuzEsi. Topkapr Sarayr Miizesi ArSivi Ktlavuzu. Istanbul: DevletBasrmevi, 1938.

TsvrrrovA, Btsrna. "Sur certaines r6formes du r6gime foncidre de Mehmed II."JESHO 6 (1963), pp. 104-20.

TtrNA, Osuex Nsoru. "Osmanhcada Mogolca Odung Kelimeler." TM XVII (L972),pp.209-250. (On the soyurghal, see esp. pp.239-240).

TURAN, Osuex. "Selguk devri vakfiyeleri I. $emseddin Altun-Aba, vakfiyyesi vehayatr." Belleten XI (1947), pp. 191-235; plates XXXII-)OVI.

TURAN, Osunx. "Selguk devri vakfiyeleri III. Celdleddin Karatay, vakrflarr ve vak-fiyeleri." Belleten XIT ( 1948), pp. 17-17 I; plates XI-XXXVI.

TURAN, Osuex. "II. Izzeddin Kaykavus'a Ait bir Temlikndme." In 60. Do{um YtItMiinasebetiyle Zeki Velidi Togan'a Armagan. Symbolae in honorem Z. V. Togan.Istanbul: Maarif Basrmevi, 1955, pp. 157-60.

TURAN, OsuaN. "ikta; ikta'." ie StZ (1950), pp. 9a9-959.TURAN, OsNaAN. "Selguk devri vakfiyeleri II. Mi.ibd.rizeddin Er-Toku$ ve vakfiyesi."

Belleten XI (1947), pp. 415429 (plates LXI-LXXVD.TURAN, Osuax. Tiirkiye SelEuklulan Hakkmda Resmt Vesikalar. Ankara: Turk

Tarih Kurumu Basrmevi, 1958.Tunstrx BBc. Torih-i Ebiifuth (The History of Mehmed the Conqueror). Eds. Halil

inalcrk and Rhoads Murphey. Chicago-Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1986.

Uzuxqan$il-I, i.H. "Gazi Orhan Bey Vakfiyest." Belleten L9 (1941), pp. 277-88.UzlrNqen$Ll, L]H. Osmanh Devleti Tegkililtma MedhaL lstanbul: Maarif matbaasr,

194r.Verrn-en GnNBI MUoUnluGu. I. Vakrf $urast,, Ankaro, 3-5 Araltk 1985, Tebli{Ier,

Tartrymalar ve Komisyon raporlan. Ankara: Vakrflar Genel Mtidtirltigi.i, 1986.

VlannalRTsov, Y. Le r,lgime social des Mongols. French trans. M. Carsow. Paris:A. Maisonneuve, 1948. Turkish trans.: A. inan. Mo{ollarm igtimat TeSkildn.Ankara: Ttirk Tarih Kurumu Basrmevi, 1960.

Wrrrer, P. 'Zu einigen frtihosmanischen Urkunden." In I-a formation de l'empireOttoman Ed. V. L. M6nage. London: Variorum Prints, L982.

Wooos, J. E. The Aqquyunlu: Clan, Confederation, Empire. Revised and expandededition. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1999.

Wooos, J. E. "Turco-Iranica I." "rNES 38 (L979), pp. I-9.WooDS, J. E. "Turco-kanica II." JNES 43 (1984), pp. 33I-7.

Contents

Abbreviations . .

Figures, maps, and plates

JuonH PrerrreR & SsolEs A. QutxNIntroduction....

The Mongol World Empire

PETER JecrsoNWorld-Conquest and Local Accommodation: Threat and

Blandishment in Mongol Diplomacy

DpvrN DrWeEss'Stuck in the Throat of ChingTz Khdn:' Envisioning the Mongoi Conquests

in Some Sufi Accounts from the 14h to 17h Centuries

isENnix-e TocaNThe Qongrat in History . . . .

Zsri VBI-ioi Tocets, trans. GRRy LenERReferences to Economic and Culn-rral Life in Anatolia in the

Letters of RashTd al-Drn

H.q,lir- iNalcrxAutonomous Enclaves in Islamic States: Temltks, Soyurghals, Yurdluft'-

O c akhlSs, M dlikfrne - M u(hy a' as and Aw qaf

Cuanlgs MrLvlLleThe Early Persian Historiography of Anatolia . . .

Juong PFEIFFER

Ahmad Tegi.ider's Second Letter to Qala'un (682/1283)

The Age of Timur

R. D. }vICCFIESNEY

A Note on the Life and Works of Ibn Arabshdh

EUI MANOOn the Persian Original Vdlidiyya of Khvaja Afrdr

1X

vi

Klll

z3

61Bibiiografische Information Der Deutschen Bibliotliek'Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen

Nationalbibliografie; detaiilierte bibliografische Daten sind im lnternetijber http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek:Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche

Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the

internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.e-mail: cip @dbf.ddb.de

For further information about our publishing program consuit ourwebsite http ://w ww.harrassowitz-verlag.de

O Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2006This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright.Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permissionof the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This appliesparticularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storageand processing in electronic systems.Printed on permanent/durable paper.

Printing and binding: Memminger MedienCentrum AGPrinted in Germany

ISBN 3-447-05278-3 after 1.1.2001: 918-3-44'7-05278-8

84

L12

135

161

205

250

History and Historiographyof Post-Mongol CentraL Asia

and the Middle EastStudies in Honor of John E,. Woods

Edited byJudith Pfeiffer and Sholeh A. Quinn

in Collaboration with Ernest Tucker

2006

Harrassowitz Verlas . Wiesbaden%t