Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:28:41.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Tekke of Haci Bektaş: Social Position and Economic Activities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Suraiya Faroqhi
Suraiya Faroqhi
Affiliation:
Middle East technical University, Ankara, Turkey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Throughout the Ottoman period, dervishes and their convents have played an important part in both towns and countryside. Yet they have not received the attention that their importance merits, and the religious aspect of their activities has attracted more interest than the social. In the latter area, one of the pioneer works has been ömer Lutfi Barkan's study of the role of dervishes and their convents in the settlement of Anatolia and Rumelia, and the presen, t article was inspired by it. Barkan's emphasis was on how these convents, usually called tekkes and zaviyes, served as the nuclei around which future villages formed. It was pointed out how the dervishes guarded passes and caravan routes, introduced new crops and propagated more highly specialized agriculture.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 1976 , pp. 183 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 183 note 1 Barkan, Ömer Lutfi, ‘Osmanli Imparatorluân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu olarak Vakiflar ve Temlikier I, Istilâ Devirlerinin Kolonizatör Türk Dervislleri ve Zâviyeler’, Vakiflar Dergisi, vol. 2 (1942), pp. 279–353.Google Scholar

page 183 note 2 Menâkib-t Haci Bektaş-t Veiî ‘Vilâyet-Nâme’, ed. Gölpinarli, Abdülbâki (Istanbul, 1958), p. 91.Google Scholar

page 184 note 1 I am indebted to Mr Ibrahim H. Konyali, Istanbul, for help on this and other matters. See also Kunter, Halim Baki, ‘Kitabelerimiz’, Vakiflar Dergisi, vol. 2 (1942), p. 432.Google Scholar

page 184 note 2 See article, ‘Murad I’, in Islam Ansiklopedisi (henceforth referred to as IA); Taeschner, Franz, “War Murad I Grozmeister oder mitglied des achibundes?” Oriens, 6 (1953), 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 184 note 3 Information kindly furnished by Dr ömür Bakirer, Faculty of Architecture, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.Google Scholar

page 184 note 4 Archive of the Tapu Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara (henceforth abbreviated TK) no. 564, p. 74b. I am much indebted to Mr Mehmet Önder and his staff for the kindness and patience they showed me while conducting this research. Published by Uzluk, Feridun Nâfiz, Fatih Devrinde Karaman Eyâleti Vakiflari Fihristi (Ankara, 1958), pp. 57–8.Google Scholar

page 184 note 5 The figures are written in siyakat.Google Scholar

page 184 note 6 Vilâyet-Nâme, p. 92.Google Scholar

page 184 note 7 TK no. 565, p. 177 a/b.Google Scholar

page 184 note 8 TK no. 584, p. 80 b.Google Scholar

page 185 note 1 IA, article ‘Dulkadir’.Google Scholar

page 185 note 2 So far, there is no reliable edition of the many inscriptions in the dergâh and the village itself. Mr Ali S¨mer and Mr Abdullah Taşelen, of the museum in Hacibektaş, were extremely helpful in locating them. See also Tarim, Cevat Hakki, Kirşehir Tarihi Üzerinde Araştirmalar (Kirşehir, 1938), pp. 183–7.Google Scholar

page 185 note 3 See Gürses, Remzi, Haczbektşa Rehberi (Ankara, n.d.), p. 44.Google Scholar

page 185 note 4 Sohrweide, Hanna, ‘Der Sieg der Safaviden in Persien und seine Rückwirkungen auf die Schiiten Anatoliens im 16. Jahrhundert’, Der Islam, vol. 41 (1965), pp. 95–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 186 note 1 Akdağ, Mustafa, Celâiâ Isyanlari (1550–1603), Ankara Üniversitesi Dil Tarih ve Cogˇrafya Fakültesi Yaymlan, no. 114. (Ankara, 1963), p. 119.Google Scholar

page 186 note 2 Pakalin, Mehmed Zeki, Osmanli Tarih Deyirnleri ve Terimieri Sözlügˇü (4 vols., Istanbul, 1954), vol. III, p. 92.Google Scholar

page 187 note 1 Babinger, Franz, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte des Geschlechtes der Malqoč-Oghlus’, in Aufsätze und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Südosteuropa's und der Levante (München,1962), vol. 1, pp. 355–369.Google Scholar

page 187 note 2 The only further evidence that connects a member of the Malkoçgˇlu family with the tekke dates from the nineteenth century: in 1229/1813–14 (or possibly 1227/1812) a Malkoçzade was mentioned in a document (Museum, Hacibektaş) concerning a dispute about certain villages pertaining to the dervish community. He was not given any official title, but since his associates were the incumbent of a large military fief (zaim) and a former commander, it is likely that Malkoçgˇlu had a similar position, as well as some sort of property rights in the area. About this connection with the main branch of the family nothing is known.Google Scholar

page 187 note 3 Vilâyet-Nâme, p. 134,Google Scholar and letter from the author referring to Āli, Künh ül-ahbar, Istanbul Üniversite Kütüphanesi T.Y. 5959, pp. 16b, and 353a/b. There also existed a governor of Karaman called Murad, but his vakifs were located in Konya and Antalya. See Konyali, Ibrahim Hakki, Abideleri ye Kitabeleri ile Konya Tarihi (Konya, 1964), pp. 692–6.Google Scholar

page 188 note 1 Başvekâlet Arşivi, Istanbul (henceforth cited as BA): Tapu Tahrir no. 455, p. 631 a/b.Google Scholar

page 188 note 2 TK no. 139 (Kirşehir), no. 131 (Aksaray), no. 136 (Kayseri), no. 584 (vakif defteri of Karaman). It seems that the tahrirs were the original compilations, and the vakif lists were derived from them. One such vakif list is appended to the tahrir of Kirşehir. A probable sequence can be established by checking the figures given for the revenue of Bayindir, vicinity of Eyübeli, sancak of Aksaray. In all three lists (Kirşehir, Aksaray, Karaman Evkaf Defteri) this amounts to 560 akçes, but the Aksaray tahrir gives the component figures as well. A mistake was made in adding; since the wrong result appears in all three defters, the Aksaray tahrir is most probably the source. In some cases, however additional checking seems to have taken place: the mezraa of Kaysarviran was omitted in the Aksaray tahrir but included in the two vakif surveys.Google Scholar

page 189 note 1 See Barkan, Ömer, ‘Türk-Islâm Toprak Hukuku Tatbikatinin Osmanli Imparatorlugˇunda aldigˇi Sekiller I, Mâlikâne-divânî sistemi’, Türk Hukuk ve Iktisat Tarihi Mecmuasi, vol. 2 (1932–1939), pp. 118–84.Google Scholar

page 189 note 2 For further details about taxes paid by peasant cultivators see Inalcik, Halil, ‘Osmanlilarda Raiyet Rüsumu’, Belleten, vol. 23 pp. 575–608.Google Scholar

page 190 note 1 Tarim, Cevat Hakki, Kirşehir Tarihi Üzerinde Araştirmalar (Kirşehir, 1938), vol. 1, 86. For information about Muhterem Hatun's descendants see TK no. 139, p. 280a and BA, Cevdet Evkaf no. 10261 and 21008.Google Scholar

page 191 note 1 The most interesting figure among the ‘descendants’ of Haci Bektaş in the late sixteenth century is Bektaş Efendi, son of Mahmud, who is probably identical with a şeyh of the same name and patronym whose mausoleum can still be visited in the village of Hacibektaş. The date in the inscription over the door is 1012/1603–4, and in the same text Bektaş Efendi is mentioned as deceased. According to Gölpinarli, Abdülbâki [Alevî-Bektaşî Nefesleri, (Istanbul, 1963), p. 11], certain poems commonly attributed to Haci Bektaş are probably the work of a homonymous descendant of his, a certain Bektaş b. Yusuf Bali (died 1580); Bektaş b. Mahmud seems to be another possibility.Google Scholar

page 191 note 2 Âlî, Künh ül-Ahbar, Istanbul Üniversitesi Kütüphanesi, T.Y. 5959, p. 16b. The tahrir lists a person named Iskender Çelebi, but there he is considered to be the son of Hüdadad, and not the grandson, as Âlî has it.Google Scholar

page 191 note 3M Barkan, ‘Kolonizatör Dervişleri’, pp. 339–40.Google Scholar

page 191 note 4 Barkan, Ömer Lütfi and Ayverdi, Ekrem Hakki, Istanbul Vakiflari Tahrir Defteri, Istanbul Fetih Cemiyeti Istanbul Enstitüsü, no. 61 (Istanbul, 1970), p. 153.Google Scholar

page 192 note 1 I am obliged to the staff of the Tapu ve Kadastro Arşivi for pointing out this reference to me: TK no. 558, p. 136a.Google Scholar

page 192 note 2 Today there is no administrative unit nor settlement by that name. Even in the sixteenth century it seems to have been the name of an area rather than of a specific settlement. The name still appears in early nineteenth-century documents, but no longer in the earliest yearbooks published in the republican period. Older natives of the region have not been able to identify it either.Google Scholar

page 192 note 3 We do not know who donated the Kayseri village (malikâne of Seydi Balim). It is not included in the Evkaf Defteri of 906/1500–1 (TK no. 565).Google Scholar

page 193 note 1 Barkan-Ayverdi, pp. 204–6. It was also called the tekke of Seyh Mahmud after its first head.Google Scholar

page 193 note 2 Barkan-Ayverdi, pp. 345–7.Google Scholar

page 193 note 3 Ibid. pp. 367–72.

page 193 note 4 Ibid. pp. 427 ff.

page 193 note 5 Ibid. pp. 366–9.

page 193 note 6 The larger of the two mosques in the compound was only built in the middle of the nineteenth century, when the tekke was in the hands of the Nakşbendis.Google Scholar

page 194 note 1 TK no. 584 and TK no. 104 give lists of the tekke's possessions.Google Scholar

page 194 note 2 Because of its location I was unable to see it in person, and the rendition in Gürses, Hacibektaş, p. 15, is rather less than reliable.Google Scholar

page 194 note 3 Gürses, Hacibektaş, p. 30.Google Scholar

page 195 note 1 Ibid. p. 40. It is not clear from what source the list of dede babas reproduced there has been taken. In the museum, no such list is known.Google Scholar

page 195 note 2 Çelebi, Kâtip, Cihannüma (Istanbul, 1145/1732).Google Scholar

page 195 note 3 I am indebted to the personnel of the Başvekâlet Arşivi for the help given to me when consulting these materials.Google Scholar

page 195 note 4 BA Cevdet Evkaf nos. 6662, 6449 and 859.Google Scholar

page 195 note 5 BA Cevdet Evkaf no. 6850.Google Scholar

page 196 note 1 It is, possible that the dergâh was surreptitiously trying to attain recognition of its extended claims.Google Scholar

page 196 note 2 BA Cevdet Evkaf no. 18673.Google Scholar

page 197 note 1 See Akdaaˇ, Celâlî Isyanlari, pp. 250–7.Google Scholar

page 197 note 2 BA Cevdet Evkaf no. 11795.Google Scholar

page 197 note 3 Ibid. nos. 23695, 886, 31650.

page 198 note 1 BA Cevdet Evkaf nos. 22568 and 17919. The Çelebi family claimed both malikâne and divanî shares, but the central administration insisted that they were entitled to the malikâne only.Google Scholar

page 198 note 2 BA Cevdet Evkaf no. 32879.Google Scholar

page 198 note 3 I have not been able to locate this han in the modern village.Google Scholar

page 198 note 4 This is the only instance in which the dede baba was found mentioned in an official document.Google Scholar

page 198 note 5 BA Cevdet Evkaf no. 6683.Google Scholar

page 198 note 6 Ibid. no. 19357.

page 199 note 1 Ibid. r.o. 11767.

page 199 note 2 Until recently kept in the Kirşehir Turizm Dernegˇi, where I was able to consult them through the kindness of Mr Haşmet Uzbilek. They have now been transferred to the museum in Hacibektaş.Google Scholar

page 199 note 3 It has not been possible to locate this Evkaf defteri. The identity of the mufassal tahrir with the tahrir of 1584 is extremely likely since the figures for taxes demanded and number of families resident tally.Google Scholar

page 200 note 1 Found in the Caca Bey medrese in Kirşehir.Google Scholar

page 200 note 2 This place was called Inpinari or Almpinari. According to the 1584 survey there were several places by this name in the sancak of Kirşehir.Google Scholar

page 201 note 1 [Efendi, Mehmed Esad], Üss-i Zafer (Istanbul, 1293/1876), pp. 199–212.Google Scholar

page 202 note 1 BA Cevdet Evkaf nos. 23489 and 1294.Google Scholar

page 203 note 1 These did not exist at the end of the sixteenth century, for there is no reference to them in the tahrir of Niğde (TK no. 135). The only list that survives was compiled in the early twentieth century.Google Scholar

page 204 note 1 Cuinet, Vital, La Turquie d'Asie, Géographie administrative, Statistique descriptive et raisonée de chaque province de l'Asie Mineure (4 vols., Paris, 1892), vol. I, pp. 340–3.Google Scholar

page 204 note 2 Mordtmann, Andreas D., Anatolien, Skizzen und Reisebriefe aims Kleinasien (1859–1859), ed. Babinger, Franz (Hannover, 1925).Google Scholar

page 205 note 1 Gürses, Hacibektaş, pp. 18, 84–5, 89–90.Google Scholar

page 205 note 2 According to BA Cevdet Evkaf no. 10776, Said Efendi, when appointed şeyh in 1250/1834–5, received a travel grant, but he does not seem to have been a Bektashi.Google Scholar

page 205 note 3 Copy received through the courtesy of the Museum in Hacibektaş (date: 1299/1881–2).Google Scholar

page 205 note 4 I dönüm: 939.3 m2.Google Scholar

page 205 note 5 Found in the Caca Bey Medrese in Kişrehir and today kept in the Hacibektaş museum.Google Scholar

page 206 note 1 Probably identical with vakifs in the Nevşehir area mentioned in BA Cevdet Evkâf no. 1294.Google Scholar

page 206 note 2 Copy preserved in the registers of the Vakiflar Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara.Google Scholar