This multi-panel session seeks to investigate the creation, projection, reception, negotiation, contestation, and transformation of Ottoman identity over the long history of the empire's existence. The Ottoman Empire offers the rare opportunity to trace the transformations of identity from the pre-modern to the early-modern and then to the modern era. Identity is a slippery concept that must be determined empirically on a case by case basis and is anything but static. As a polyglot and incredibly heterogeneous empire, the concept of being Ottoman experienced many changes and adaptations. The purpose of this multi-panel session is to trace the development, transformations, and expansion of Ottoman identity not only from a central imperial perspective and ideological projection, but also to see how this identity was adopted, adapted, rejected, and contested by subjects, rivals, allies, and foes alike in the Ottoman sphere of influence.
Panel I traces the emergence and transformation of being Ottoman out of the pastoral-nomadic principalities of 13th century Beylik Anatolia to a burgeoning empire during the 15th century. Together these papers use the existing limited sources creatively to present the complex development of Ottoman identity as it competed with powerful rivals in diverse areas. Paper 1 begins with post-Byzantine Anatolia analyzing examples of elites giving food to explore the layers of the social hierarchy, thus providing clues for identity not based on state affiliation or geography. Paper 2 looks at ethnic identities in relation to geography on the Anatolian frontier and how they evolved as the frontiers moved due to conquest. Paper 3 traces the development of a Turcophone identity in Medieval Anatolia especially focusing on the Karaman beylik’s attempts to contest Ottoman hegemony. Paper 4 analyzes the earliest comprehensive 15th century Ottoman historical writings. After 1470 historians represent a Turk or Turkmen origin for the Ottoman dynasty. Paper 5 analyzes the rivalry between the Ottomans and the Mamluks for legitimacy. As the ruling elite of both empires were Turkish speaking and Sunni, establishing Ottoman superiority was difficult in face of Mamluk control of the Holy Places. Paper 6 analyzes the identity formation of the Genoese colony of Pera, which was incorporated into the empire after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. As a group the papers reveal that an Ottoman identity was created by interaction with the Ottomans’ many rivals in Anatolia and the Balkans during these centuries.
-
Dr. Sara Nur Yildiz
(Presenter Panel I, 13-15th c.)
While it has become a well-accepted premise that medieval identity was a social construct determined in a large part by cultural distinctions, the question remains, given the sparse source base, how Muslims of medieval Anatolia constructed their political and cultural identities. This paper begins by addressing the question as to what can be culled from the existing source base in regard to self-identification and political and cultural allegiances. It will identify sources touching upon questions of identity generated by Turcophone Anatolian Muslim groups prior to the establishment of Ottoman domination, as well as sources for Turcophone Anatolian Muslims whose identities were shaped through interaction with Ottomans.
Secondly this paper will discuss various aspects of identity formation of the so-called “beylik” period of Medieval Anatolia, ranging from the construction of Mongols as the infidel “other” to the use of the term “Ehl-i Rum,” a designation for scholars of Turcophone Anatolian origins educated in the Islamic heartland of Egypt and Syria. Ottoman attempts to appropriate renowned fourteenth-century Muslim Anatolians will be discussed, as well as the shaping of local Anatolian identities in resistance to Ottoman political and cultural hegemony. Particular focus will be made on the highly polemical and contested territory of Karamanid identity as reflected in ?ikari’s History of the Karamanids and the Ottoman historical writing tradition.
-
Dr. Nicolas Trepanier
Identity is a matter of layers. Obviously, any notion of Ottoman identity could be born only after the Ottoman state came into existence. But what about the period that preceded Ottoman rule over Anatolia? While ethnic and religious affiliations played a major part in situating any individual in society, the effects of a fairly rigid socio-economic hierarchy cannot be ignored. Yet in the absence of archival material (such as cadastral surveys and court records), this layer remains difficult for historians to investigate through traditional means.
This paper proposes an alternative method to break down the social hierarchy as it was perceived and internalized by post-Byzantine Anatolians, using those scenes in contemporary narrative sources that depict individuals or groups offering and receiving food as charity. Some of its conclusions are quite obvious: the political elite, for example, is always depicted as giving, whereas the poor are always on the receiving end of such food exchanges. Much more interesting, however, is a closer examination of the modalities of this food transfer: Who, for example, is depicted as giving as an individual, and who appears to band together in order to offer charity? And where do the “religious professional”, from the dervish to the imam, stand in this respect? The resulting picture offers insight into a layer of identity that was at once deeply internalized and largely removed from any reference to state institutions or geographical borders.
-
Dr. Cihan Yuksel
So far, modern historiography has constructed the relationship between the Ottomans and the Mamluks through the lens of wars and conflicts. Yet this relationship went beyond a mere military conflict. In fact, it presents a neglected phase of Ottoman identity formation. The concomitant existence of two leading Sunni Muslim powers not only offered the people living in these territories new opportunities, but also led them to question their allegiances. That both Ottoman and Mamluk ruling classes primarily spoke Turkish further complicated the situation. A so-far unstudied Ottoman prisoner’s letter sent from a Mamluk prison in 1486 suggests that the existence of Sunni Muslim and Turkish-speaking Mamluk sultans, whose legitimacy was solidly based upon their roles as the protectors of Holy Shrines, shaped the manner by which the Ottoman sovereigns presented themselves to the audience in Mamluk lands, particularly during the decades between the 1480s and 1512 – a period when the Ottoman administration was particularly invested in the formulation of an imperial identity.
In the meantime, the careers of two fifteenth-century prominent scholars, Molla Gürani and Molla Arab, who never severed their previous ties with Mamluk institutions and regime despite building successful careers in Ottoman learning institutions and legal system, yields unexpected insights about the dilemmas of the people caught between two loyalties and about the continuing strength of the Mamluk regime’s image in the Ottoman territories. These individuals not only served as agents of Mamluk influence in Ottoman lands, but also contested the newly formulated claims of superiority vis-à-vis the Mamluk sultans. The evidence suggests that despite the remarkable Ottoman growth and territorial expansion it was not easy for the Ottomans to counter the Mamluk legitimacy and ideological superiority.
-
Ms. Özden Mercan
From the Genoese to the Perots: the Genoese Community in Pera after 1453
Genoese presence in Pera had a long history. In return for the support the Genoese gave to the Byzantines against the Venetians, the Byzantine emperor gave Pera to this community and through time the Genoese established a semi-autonomous rule there. Although the conquest of Constantinople changed the status of the Genoese community, some of the families continued to stay in Pera. In 1453 immediately after his conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II granted an ahidname to the Genoese community in Pera. In this imperial decree, he granted the district some legal privileges, exempt its Genoese inhabitants from all extraordinary taxes and forced conversion, and concede them the freedom to trade and travel in Ottoman domains. In return the Genoese would have to give up their weapons, quiet their church bells and permanent inhabitants were supposed to pay a head-tax. Through such an agreement the Genoese were allowed to live under the Ottoman rule with some security and according to their own laws and religious practices.
By analyzing the Genoese notarial documents and Ottoman registers, this paper discusses the status of Genoese community and the way it defined its identity under the Ottoman rule. It is important to examine how the Genoese community handled co-existing with a society of differing faith, language and culture. Moreover, the analysis of the process of accommodation and adaptation of the Genoese community to the Ottoman society and ideology gives an idea about the position of a non-Muslim community and its definition of identity under an imperial Islamic rule.
-
Dr. Murat Menguc
When the Ottomans turn türk
During the first century of their Empire, Ottomans didn’t write history books about themselves, and if they did, they didn’t care to preserve them. From Murad II’s reign onwards, there emerged an interest in writing about the Ottoman past, and the earliest comprehensive Ottoman histories were composed around 1450’s. During the second half of the fifteenth century, historians worked hard to tailor a coherent past for the Ottomans. They debated many issues, such as the chronology of the events, genealogy of the dynasty, how Ertu?rul or Osman received the leadership of gaza, and how they dreamed of a glorious future for their people.
This paper will examine the works of the late fifteenth century Ottoman historians and how they used the terms türk and türkmen. It will argue that throughout the fifteenth century, the Turkic origins of the Ottomans were mostly implied and marginalized. However, after 1470’s, historians grew comfortable with using the terms türk and türkmen in their references to the Ottoman dynasty, and started to point at the Turkic origins of the Ottomans. This shift in Ottoman historical consciousness and identity coincided with other major changes in Ottoman society’s perception of itself. This paper will argue that the late fifteenth century historians who transformed the unwritten memory of the Empire into history books, who constructed the first blue prints of what later became the official Ottoman history, and who legitimized the Ottoman sovereignty, also strived to represent them as türk and türkmen, which was not necessarily how the dynasty saw itself.
