Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
www.elsevier.com/locate/jhg
Internal migrations in sixteenth century Anatolia
Osman Gümüşçü
Department of Geography, University of Ankara, Sihhiye, Ankara 06100, Turkey
Abstract
It is generally believed that during the classical period of the Ottoman Empire, the Anatolian population was
rather static. However, when 16th century tax registers are scrutinized it becomes obvious that the real situation
was very different. According to these registers, there were still many people in Anatolia who migrated from rural
to urban, from rural to rural, and from urban to urban areas. Especially the peasant farmers took part in the
migrations from rural areas to the big cities. During the Classical Period, the Ottoman Empire experienced some
deterioration in its economic, political and social conditions. In addition, the expansion of the agricultural lands
failed to match the rapid increase in population. There was a rapid division of the agricultural land as well; and as a
result of this, the increase of agricultural production lagged behind the population growth. Due to the above
mentioned reasons, peasants abandoned their lands and moved to the cities. Beginning in the 1550s, migration
increased steadily, and provoked by the Celali (Djelali) Rebellions, reached its peak at the end of the century. This
study, which deals with migrations, migration patterns, and some socio-economic characteristics of migrants in
16th century Ottoman society, has been prepared by choosing only the data related to migrations from the data
available in the tahrir defters and by evaluating this data.
q 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Introduction
Migration can be defined as people leaving their places of settlement and moving to live elsewhere,
either for a short period of time or permanently. Components such as movement, place, distance, time,
and permanence are part of the definition of migration.1 Migration, however, is not only a social, legal,
and economic process; it is also embedded in cultural activity.2 Due to the difficulties in obtaining data,
migration is the most difficult subject to study among the key demographic processes.3 Migrations,
which have various influences on social life, can be divided into three principal categories: voluntary,
compulsory, and unconscious migration. Voluntary migrations are further divided into two sub-groups:
internal –international migration, and permanent– temporary migration.4 Additionally, migration can be
divided into four groups according to the route of the population movement: migration from rural to
E-mail address: [email protected] (O. Gümüşçü).
0305-7488/$ - see front matter q 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2003.08.021
232
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
urban, from rural to rural, from urban to rural, and finally, from urban to urban areas.5 Consequently,
various classifications of migration have been made by researchers from different disciplines of study.
Historical internal migration research has been hampered run-on by two obstacles. The first is the
prevalent belief that pre-industrial societies are by definition relatively static; in other words, that there
was no migration to study. The second obstacle arises from the nature of the sources.6 In particular,
consideration of its characteristics and the volume of the population that takes part in the movement,
migration is an important phenomenon which has multi-dimensional impacts on the economic and social
structure of society. Therefore, for many years a great number of social scientists have been interested in
migration, and the subject is thoroughly researched. Recent research on historic migration and mobility
have concentrated on the character, fields, and routes of migration.7 In recent years, many social scientists
have made internal migration in the Ottoman Empire the subject of their studies.8 However, the scholars
who made use of Ottoman archives while working on migration during the 18th century seem to have
neglected migration in earlier centuries.9 Although there may have been many other reasons, the most
important factor in this neglect is that the information on migration in the tahrir defters (land surveying
and tax registers),10 which are the basic source of information on a variety of subjects concerning the
population of earlier Ottoman periods, is not as systematic and certain as on other subject matters.
A great many of provincial surveys were carried out in the 16th century to improve the efficiency of
tax collection. Called the tahrir defters, the survey registers counted all households, and included
information on the names of the heads of the families, agricultural production, and tax rates within each
administrative unit.11 The tahrir defters are written documents of all males eligible for taxation, listed
under their fathers’ names and living in a sub-province’s cities, towns, villages, mezraa (seasonal
dwellings used for agricultural purposes) and any other forms of settlement. In fact, three types of tahrir
defters were prepared at the same time: mufassal (detailed) defters, icmal (summarative) defters and
evkaf/vakıf defters (those of charitable organisations). The tahrir defters—in which the taxes of the
entire settled and nomadic population’s agricultural, livestock, industrial and service sectors are
recorded—are such an important source for historical geographers that they deserve separate, broadscaled scholarly investigation.
As Butlin has pointed out, data concerning population, taxes, land proprietorship, land usage, and land
possession of administrative units are the best sources for historical geographers to use in reconstructing
the past of a country. From the above mentioned data, the censuses taken in the past are amongst the
most important sources for research on historical geography.12 These censuses were taken in order to
determine the number and status of the tax-paying subjects, and the subjects liable to taxes were
registered in the tahrir defters. For this reason, the tahrir defters can be regarded as the primary source of
information about the population in 16th century Ottoman lands.
The tahrir defters are of great importance yet they do not give as much information on migration as
some other subjects. That is, while performing their duties, land surveyors were not concerned
sufficiently with migrants. This neglect seems to be related to the land surveying system used in the
Empire, as well as to the lack of knowledge, attention, and care on surveyors’ part. In the 16th century, at
times when migration was limited and when population movements did not cross large areas, migration
(except deportations and the movements of Turkish nomads) may have been disregarded, and therefore,
not recorded in the registers. Up to now, migration has not been mentioned much in the studies based on
the tahrir defters.
An examination of the long history of the Ottoman Empire reveals all kinds of migration classified in
this paper. Besides voluntary migrations and the movements of the nomadic tribes, compulsory
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
233
migrations occurred as well. This kind of migration had various reasons, and was carried out under
different names such as ‘deportation’ (sürgün)13 or ‘displacement’ (göçürme)14 at different places and
periods. Exiles and nomadic movements were so widespread that they may require another research
project, thus, they are not included in this study. For this reason, only voluntary internal migrations in
Anatolia are the focus of this study. As it was not possible to scan all of the approximately 1850 tahrir
defters15 from 16th century Anatolia, the method of sampling has been adopted, and representative
samples have been chosen to support the study. While determining the representative samples this
researcher made use of the studies conducted by previous scholars, as well as a limited number of tahrir
defters. Great care was taken to represent different regions of Anatolia in the study. Therefore, the
generalizations made in this study, although they may not perfectly represent the whole of Anatolia, can
be regarded as introductory or preliminary ones for future studies on migration.
Ottoman society can be divided into three main groups: peasants, nomads, and town-dwellers. All
three groups were allowed to move freely within the boundaries of the state, as long as they observed the
existing laws. However, there were times when this freedom was abused and people moved illegally.
Attempts to restrict this mobility with legislative regulations had a negative influence on the military,
legal, administrative, and especially on the economic structure of society. Beginning in the 15th and 16th
centuries, provincial law codes (Sancak Kanunnames) and almost all the later law codes included
restrictive rules about population movements. However, mobility could not be controlled, and continued
during succeeding periods, though at different intervals and in different ways.
The status of the reaya (the tax-paying subjects of the Ottoman Empire), the basic element of Ottoman
society, was determined by certain rules. Regardless of one’s origins, being an Ottoman subject meant
on the one hand, preserving one’s own language, religious belief, cultural, social and ethnic identity; on
the other hand, it required paying taxes to the state, accepting its sovereignty, rendering the required
services, and when necessary, yielding to state intervention.16 The reaya, Muslim or non-Muslim, were
treated on equal terms according to Ottoman official ideology. In the eyes of the Sultan, every subject
who paid his taxes and yielded to state authority had theoretically the same rights. Established within this
structure, the Ottoman economic system did not allow mobility without apparent necessity. Movements
from one place to another were controlled and were possible only under strict rules; the aim of these
restrictions was to avert a drop in productivity, a decrease in the tax returns, and a fall in the number of
soldiers.17
A person recorded as a period peasant in possession of a farm of defined size could not escape his
registered status and its attendant obligations without penalty. As a rule he could not abandon the
cultivation of his land, go to town and acquire the status of a townsman. Every year the reaya had to pay
resm-i çift (a land tax) for the peasant farm allocated to him and had to give one-tenth of all farm
products to the sipahi (the central government’s local tax collector). Since all agricultural land belonged
to the state (miri), a peasant could not lend, sell or divide the land among his heirs. Moreover, a peasant
was not allowed to let his land lie fallow for more than three years without a particular reason, and could
not pursue any profession except farming.18 If the peasant abandoned his land and migrated to another
part of the country, he had to pay a tax called the ‘farm breaking’ tax (çift bozan akçesi).19 Even if we
suppose that there are no data concerning migration in the tahrir defters, the statement concerning farm
abandonment in the Sanjak law code is enough to prove the existence of migration in 16th century
Anatolia. Thus, the aim of this study is, first, to render meaningful the migrations already confirmed in
the code of laws, the kanunnanme, by using the data available in the tahrir defters20; second, to
determine the magnitude of the migrations by employing numerical information; third, to point out
234
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
the routes of migration by making use of information related to the places preferred by migrants; and
finally, to determine the social and economic characteristics of the migrants.
Migration data in the tahrir defters
Two kinds of information about migration can be found in the tahrir defters: direct and indirect.
Indirect information includes the names of settlements, the names of city quarters, personal and family
names, and finally, nicknames. In the tahrir defters, one can find terms such as Antalyalı, Kayserilü,
Erzincanlı, Kırımi, Balıkesiri written beside the names of the persons recorded there, indicating the
places from which these people came. (The suffixes -lı, -li, -lu, -lü, -ı, and -i mean native of, born in, or of
a place, for example Kırımi means the Crimean, that is, coming from the Crimea). In addition to these
terms, adjectives such as ‘travelling’ (seyyah, yolcu), ‘poor’ ( fakir), ‘destitute’ (garib) and ‘lost’
(gaib),21 together with the notes written alongside some persons’ names can be considered among the
direct information with which tahrir defters provide us, and which prove the existence of migration.
The toponymic data22 in the tahrir defters can be considered to provide indirect information on
migration. These data are of great importance and have permanent nature. Sometimes migrants named
their new places of settlement after the places from which they had come, and this is a good example of
toponymic data. Especially when migrants settled down in a city, they often gave the new quarters they
established the names of the places they had abandoned. For instance, the fact that there were quarters
named Koçhisar, Ürgüb, Erzurum, and Tiflisi in Ankara (in 1601)23; Karamani in Bolu (in 1530)24;
Çermük, Kemahlu Baba (Sheikh from Kemah), Gürci Palanı (Georgian Saddle) and Baba Acem (Persian
Sheikh) in Malatya (in 1560)25; Gürci (Georgian) in Kayseri (in 1584)26; and Nig˘de, Larende, and
Aksaray in Sultaniye (Karapınar) (in 1584),27 suggest migration. Apart from the cities, migration to
villages and mezraa was also a frequent event. The presence of village names like Saruhanlı,
Germiyanlı, Geredeli, Menteşelü in Rumelia, the Ottoman term for its provinces in Europe,28 is a typical
example of the rural settling of migrants (Fig. 1).
In addition to this, as previously stated, the fine imposed on peasants abandoning their farms (çiftbozan akçesi), which was defined in the law codes added to some tahrir defters, may be an important
evidence for the existence of internal mobility in 16th century Anatolia. As mentioned, the farm breaker
tax was primarily imposed so as to prevent the reaya from abandoning their homes and lands, and thus,
from migrating.29 In a law code prepared during the reign of Mehmed the Conqueror (1451– 1481), and
in a surviving copy dated 1487, it is written that the farm breaker tax is 50 akçe (or akça)30 (a silver coin,
the chief unit of account in the Ottoman Empire). In the law codes issued during the reign of Suleyman
the Magnificent (1520– 1566), the farm breaker tax seems to have increased to 75 akçe31; by 1605, in
less than 40 years, the tax appears to have increased five times compared to the first amount. It is
recorded in a law code of the sub-province (sancak or sanjak) Syrmia during the reign of Murad III
(1574– 1595) that a farm breaker tax of 80 akçe was collected from the poor, and 120 akçe from the
wealthy.32 In another law code from the reign of Selim III (1566–1574) it is recorded that in previous
years, the farm breaker tax was 75 akçe, but, because most of the reaya had abandoned their lands and
moved to other places where they occupied themselves with crafts and trade, the tax revenues of the
lands they had quitted decreased. In order to prevent such a decrease in the tax revenues of the state,
those Syrmians in possession of a çift/çiftlik were required to pay 300 akçe (çiftlik ¼ an area of land
varying between 60 and 150 dönüms, 1 dönüm ¼ 940 m2), those having half a çift were to pay 150 akçe;
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
235
Fig. 1. Anatolia and its surroundings in the sixteenth century.
and those with less than half a çift were to pay 75 akçe as a farm breaker tax.33 These amounts varied, of
course, from sub-province to sub-province. The first document proving that the Syrmian farm breaker
tax was raised to 300 akçe is dated 1605; but, other documents could be found to demonstrate that it
happened before this date. Even though tax rates differed in different sub-provinces, and even though the
increase may have been influenced by devaluation and inflationary pressures,34 the fact that the farm
breaker tax increased from 50 to 300 akçe within 120 years, shows that the main reason for such an
increase was to curb the reayas’ rising rate of migration.
In addition to the data mentioned so far, tahrir defters also contain direct information about migration,
which is the prime subject of this study. Sometimes the registrars in charge of surveying recorded the
places from which migrants had come or where they moved to live according to their degree of
knowledge and interest. Extra explanations such as der şehr (meaning that the person is in the city), der
Konya (meaning that the person is in Konya), der Aksaray, an I˙çil amede, an Eskiil amede (meaning that
the person had come from I˙çil or Eskiil), Haymana (meaning that the person was a nomad but settled
down), Gaib (meaning lost) and Perakendegan-ı Adana (meaning dispersed from Adana) found in the
tahrir defters can be regarded as information indicating migration. In addition to these notes written
above or beside personal names there are some explanations indicating that taxes should be paid in their
new places of settlement or in the places they had left.35 Such notes sometimes name and define the
places from which migrants had come. In 1536 in the city of Ayıntab (Gaziantep), explanations such as
Behisnili (coming from Besni), Bireciklü (coming from Birecik), Kastamoni (coming from Kastamonu),
Kayserilü (coming from Kayseri), Kerküklü (coming from Kirkuk), Acem (Persian) and Şamlu
236
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
(coming from Damascus or Syria)36 written by the names of the migrants indicate their journeys’ starting
point. Consequently, it is possible to evaluate all this information as data confirming the existence of
migration in 16th century Ottoman society.
Reasons for migration
Recent research on migration has revealed that physical, economic and, socio-political factors were
usually the reasons for population movement.37 These factors can also be classified as pull-factors and
push-factors. Economic opportunities and the promise of religious and political liberty are powerful
pull-factors and it can be said that pull-factors attract people to new destinations. Push-factors, on the
other hand, include anything that makes people leave their homes and seek a better life elsewhere.
Starvation, political and religious persecution, and other disagreeable circumstances are powerful pushfactors.38 Although the reasons for migration differ slightly or greatly, depending on the period and the
region, still, it is possible to say that same pull- and push-factors were influential in 16th century
Ottoman society.
Previous research on the reasons for migration in Ottoman society, a subject which is very complex,39
shows the causes of migration to be as follows: the weakness of the central government and its inability
to rule the Empire; financial difficulties; the undesirable practices of government officials; the burden of
heavy taxes on the subjects; the increasing rate of unemployment; lack of sufficient arable land;
epidemics and natural disasters; wars and military expenditures; insufficient public works and public
services; and finally, the state policy of forcibly settling nomadic tribes.40 Beginning in 1571 and during
the last decades of the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire experienced a financial crisis, and this crisis
was one of the greatest reasons for the increase in migration towards the end of the century. İnalcık
claims that the traditional Ottoman military and monetary system collapsed due to such factors as the
increase in population, the negative effects of Europe’s new military technology and abundant silver
reserves, and the long lasting Ottoman-Habsburg and Ottoman-Safavid wars.41 In summary, as
Ravenstein’s study and various studies on migration show, of all the reasons listed in this study,
economic factors have the greatest influence on migration.42
When all studies on migration in the Ottoman Society are taken into consideration, it becomes
obvious that all those factors emphasized as leading to migration converge on the same point: that is, the
deterioration in the economic structure of the state weakened state authority. Consequently, both the
government and its subjects suffered from this weakness. In order to avoid the detrimental effects of
these problems, people sought solutions most suitable for themselves. When the state was faced with
currency devaluation or a financial crisis in general, new and heavier taxes were imposed to overcome
the crisis. Government officials took bribes and expensive presents and, while trying to avoid difficulties,
abused their duties. Tradesmen and craftsmen took to adulteration, stored their goods and then sold them
at higher prices. The unemployed resorted to banditry and robbery. The peasant farmers, who made up
the majority of the Ottoman population and who were, in fact, affected the most by economic
circumstances abandoned their lands, and moved to cities (where charities looked after the poor in a
more substantial manner) or to other rural regions where they hoped to earn a better livelihood.
Therefore it is possible to say that the basic reasons for migration were economic, and that people
tried to escape the pressure which developed in connection with economic difficulties. In other words,
most of the migrants abandoned their lands to better their circumstances.43 However, the reasons why
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
237
the peasants, the greatest part of the Ottoman population, were in economic straits should be understood
as well. The most important problem which deeply influenced the economic structure of the state was the
agrarian system, of which the peasants were a part.
One of the most important push-factors for migration in the rural areas was the fact that people had to
live in places where the land was not suitable for cultivation. In many law codes it is declared that the
land was rocky and consequently that agricultural work could not be carried out. In the law codes of I˙çil,
Erzurum, Bitlis, Georgia, Alexandria, Lesbos, Chios, and Khania44 the rocky nature of the land,
restricted agricultural possibilities, as well as insufficient agricultural production and the unproductiveness of the lands are mentioned. In addition to these agricultural limitations, plagues, famines,
earthquakes,45 and other natural disasters46 were important push-factors for the rural population which
was to move.
Also, in the 16th century Anatolia’s agricultural sector experienced a degree of change not felt before.
Cook, who researched this change, arrived at striking results about the relation between population and
production. Cook’s study showed that in the areas of Anatolia studied there was an imbalance between
the increase in population and the extension of the arable lands. Relying on the data in the tahrir defters,
Cook found that when the population increased, the arable lands expanded as well. However, the
increase in population was greater than the extension of the arable lands. Moreover, he discovered that
the lands which the peasants cultivated were divided into smaller and smaller parts, and that the unity of
the traditional agricultural unit, the çift, could not be preserved. Consequently, considering the high
prices of arable fields, the increase in the number of the landless peasants, and the increase in migration,
Cook came to the only possible conclusion: ‘The increase in population was greater than the expansion
of the arable lands’. In order to make his thesis more substantial, Cook calculated the ratio of population
growth to arable land extension (number of çifts) between 1475 and 1575, and as a result, discovered that
when the index of 10 was taken as a base (for 1475), the population increased to 17 whereas the number
of çifts increased only to 12. Furthermore, he found that the average amount of land held by peasant
families decreased from half a çift to a quarter of a çift at the end of the period.47
Identical circumstances in Larende (Karaman) district ( ¼ Kaza) reinforce Cook’s findings. In the
years 1500– 1584 the number of tax-paying male adults ( ¼ nefer) in the district increased 230% in the
villages, and 292% in the city. But, the number of the çift-holding farmers in the villages decreased
293%. While the number of those in possession of nim çift (half a çift) increased only 7%, that of the
bennak (married peasants in possession of less than half a çift) increased 786%, and that of the caba
(landless married peasants) increased 1431%. In other words, while in 1500 the number of the complete
çifts in the district of Larende was 905—that is, there were 905 peasant families in possession of a farm
extending between 60 and 150 dönums—84 years later, this number had fallen to 309 çifts. The number
of the peasants holding half a çift increased slightly from 2232 to 2370; the number of bennak increased
from 482 to 3796, and that of the caba increased from 308 to 4406.48 If the notes entered alongside or
above the names of the peasants in the registers, which prove that the lands were actually acquired and
cultivated together with a father, brothers, or some other persons, are taken into consideration, then, it
becomes clear that the insufficiency of land was far greater than bare numbers reveal.49
In the district of Larende the number of nefers increased 2.6 times within 84 years, and as a
result there was one-third decrease in the number of the çift-holding nefers, and consequently, a
one-third decrease in the number of çiftliks. Per capita agricultural production and the number of
sheep per nefer, decreased one-third as well. From all these facts, it can be deduced that the lands
in the villages were broken up, even though according to the law, farm units were never to be
238
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
divided.50 Additionally, agricultural output per head, the number of the sheep, and consequently,
animal production decreased. As in other regions of the country, economic conditions in the
villages of Larende worsened. Land divisions, population growth, and the fact that agricultural
production could not meet the rapid increase in population were contributing factors. Complete çifts
were divided into nim çifts, the nim çifts into smaller pieces, and as a result, bennaks were
rendered landless peasants. The increase in the number of landless unmarried peasants, mücerred,
inevitably led to migration. Of the 132 persons who migrated from the villages of the district, only
two persons were çiftlik holders; 110 of them possessed less than half a çift and 20 of them had no
land at all. The data above51 shows that most of the peasants who migrated were suffering financial
difficulty because they either had no land to cultivate or the land they had was insufficient to feed
them. Therefore, these people had nothing to lose in leaving their rural settlement behind.
The economic activities in the cities meant new opportunities for the peasant population who
abandoned their villages. The larger and the more developed the cities were, the more migrants
they attracted. Istanbul, Bursa, Edirne, Kayseri, Ankara, Konya, Amid (Diyarbakır), Tokat, Ruha
(Şanlıurfa), Ayıntab (Gaziantep), Amasya, Sivas, Kastamonu, Larende (Karaman), Nig˘de, Aksaray,
Manisa, Maraş (Kahramanmaraş) were some of the large, prominent cities in 16th century Anatolia
in terms of their population, the goods produced there, and public services they offered.52 These
cities had administrative functions as well. With their huge market places and bazaars of various
sizes, with their religious and educational institutions, with their law courts, security and easy
transportation opportunities these cities were the main attraction for migrants. Braudel, in his
research on migration, pointed out that in the 16th century there was no city which did not accept
migrants coming from the rural areas and who were ready to do any job.53
The variety of jobs and professions in big cities, as well as the opportunities provided to migrants
made them attractive destinations. For instance, in 1564 Amid had 80 quarters and 6572 nefers, 3717 of
whom were working in 174 kinds of jobs and professions.54 Similarly, in 1531 in Manisa there were 87
persons recorded as working in 36 different jobs. Professions and jobs must have not been recorded with
great care in 1575 because, according to the registers, there were 35 persons working in 21 different jobs
in Manisa, and some of these jobs were not mentioned in the 1531 records.55 In 1536, 225 out of 1856
nefers were recorded as working in 82 different jobs and professions in Ayıntab.56 The fact that there
were so many kinds of jobs and professions in the cities, even though they did not pay much, meant job
opportunities for migrants. The high number of urban charities offering poor households assistance also
attracted rural migrants. Finally, Ottoman law codes openly stated that ‘the farm breaker tax is not taken
from the city residents’,57 which meant that rural peasants could move freely and comfortably to urban
areas. Together with the reasons mentioned before, this statement in the Ottoman law codes made the
peasants want to leave their rural settlements and become townsmen.
Pattern and process of migration
Considering that the farm breaker tax was first imposed during the reign of Mehmed the Conqueror, it
can easily be deduced that in Ottoman society migration was a phenomenon occurring from at least that
point onward. The farm breaker statement, which first appeared in the law codes of Mehmed the
Conqueror, and which, in fact, confirms the existence of migration during this period, was renewed in all
the following law codes. Apart from the law codes, there is not much information on migration in
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
239
the first tahrir defters. However, beginning in the mid-16th century, and especially in the documents
towards the end of the century, many migration cases were registered.
One of the regions of 16th century Anatolia where internal migration was frequently experienced was
Hüdavendigar (Bursa) sub-province. In a tahrir defter dated 1574, migrants who had come from
Rumelia and Anatolia, and who settled down in Bursa or other towns of the sub-province, are mentioned.
For example in Kapluca, a town in the Bursa district, 13 hanes (khana or households) which had come
from Kütahya, Beypazarı, Menteşe, Karaman, Manavgat, Balıkesir, Edremit, Tavşanlı and Timurcu, and
who settled in the town are recorded. Considering that the total number of households in Kapluca was
107, the proportion of the migrants is notable. In a quarter of Bursa named Simaviyan, there were 73
households, 35 of which were non-Muslim, and 20 households of migrants coming from Morea, Euboea,
Athens, Ioannia, Salonica, Larissa, Komotini, Lesbos, Alasoia, and Edirne. In addition, the tahrir defters
report that some of the villages of Hüdavendigar sub-province were thoroughly abandoned, and as a
result, were ruined. For instance, while in 1574 Marmaracık was a deserted village in the district of
Yenişehir, in 1648 after the settlement of 51 Armenian nefers (adult males) it regained village status.58
In another region of Anatolia, in Larende, which was a town situated between the Konya Plain and the
Taurus Mountains, the scale of migration was very significant, especially when the time period is
considered. In 1584 there were 2048 nefers registered as living in Larende, and 115 nefers had taken part
in population movements. In other words, 115 nefers had migrated either to or from Larende. Out of
those incoming 115 nefers, 108 came from the villages of I˙çil sub-province, five from Silifke (I˙çil) and
one from Eskiil (Konya). In contrast to the migrants who moved to live in Larende, only one person
migrated from there to Istanbul. Circumstances in the rural areas were somewhat different. From the 184
villages in the district of Larende, 216 persons (1.6% of the total population) living in 74 different
villages were involved in population movement; 75 of those persons came from I˙çil sub-province and
settled in 28 different villages. The town of Larende received migrants from the villages attached to the
administrative district of Larende as well. Forty-six of these villages sent 122 nefers to Larende, six
nefers to Konya and four nefers to Istanbul. Obviously, Larende was not only a place that attracted
migrants, but was at the same time one that sent migrants to other regions.59
Before 1584 no migration was recorded in the tahrir defters of I˙çil, a sub-province on the southern
coast of Anatolia; however, beginning in 1584 and towards the end of the century, migration began to
appear in the registers. The sub-province of I˙çil consisted of eight districts: Ermenek, Anamur, Gülnar,
Selendi, Karataş, Mut, Sinanlı, and Silifke. According to the registers of 1584, migrants from all of these
districts had moved, though the number of the migrants differed. For example, in Ermenek there were 14
households and one mücerred or bachelor who migrated from a village of the district to another village
of the same district, and 10 households and one mücerred who moved from the villages of the district to
the town of Ermenek. Additionally, eight households and one mücerred from another district moved
to live in the villages of Ermenek, and 34 households and four mücerreds from these villages migrated to
another district. There were 388 households and 345 mücerreds who took part in the population
movements among the districts of Anamur, Gülnar, and Selendi; 42 households and 37 mücerreds
coming from another sub-province settled in these villages; in turn, those who migrated from the villages
of these districts and settled in another sub-province totaled 465 households and 314 mücerreds.
For instance, 70 households and 38 mücerreds moved between the villages named Sinanlı and Mut, and
84 households and 37 mücerreds came to live in these two towns from other places.
However, 108 households and 26 mücerreds migrated from Sinanlı and Mut to other places. In Silifke
there were 94 households and 105 mücerreds who moved from one village of the district to another while
240
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
49 households and 40 mücerreds settled in Silifke’s villages. The number of those who left their villages
for other places totaled 201 households and 104 mücerreds.
Migration in the sub-province of I˙çil was as follows: there were 574 households and 493
mücerreds who migrated among the villages of the districts; 277 households and 149 mücerreds who
moved from other sub-provinces to the villages, and 1052 households and 552 mücerreds who, in
turn, migrated from these villages to other (unspecified) places. There were 28,003 households in total
in I˙çil sub-province; the fact that 1828 of them moved, means that 7% of the households migrated.
The total sum of mücerreds was 29,033; the fact that 1203 of them migrated, means that 4% of the
mücerreds in the sub-province migrated elsewhere from there. It is not difficult to deduce from the
above that population movement in this sub-province was rather high, and that landless and unmarried
peasants, mücerreds, made up a great part of the migrants. An examination of the routes of migration
reveals that, first, there was a large amount of migration among the villages of I˙çil district; second,
there were corresponding migrations either from the villages of the district to places outside the subprovince, or just the opposite, from outside the sub-province to these villages or towns of the district.
I˙çil received migrants especially from the neighbouring sub-provinces, and in turn sent migrants to
surrounding areas such as Larende, Aladag˘, Tarsus, Adana, Konya, Menteşe, Eskiil, Ereg˘li, Turgud,
and Aksaray.60 It is obvious that in I˙çil, population movement took place in both directions, to I˙çil
and from I˙çil, which supports Ravenstein’s observation that ‘each migration produces a movement in
the opposite direction’.61
Migrants in pre-industrial England usually moved short distances, but this was by no means a
consistent pattern. For example, between 1588 and 1699, Lancashire received migrants from long
distances, but between 1700 and 1840, the pattern, of migrate were more restricted geographically.62 A
slightly different observation can be made about internal migration in 16th century Anatolia, namely,
that short- and long-distance migration occurred simultaneously. For example, migrants who had settled
in Ayıntab by 1536, had come from both remote and neighbouring areas. In 1536 Ayıntab had 1856
nefers, 147 of whom migrated either from neighbouring regions such as Birecik, Darende, Elbistan,
Ergani, Malatya, and Maraş, or from rather remote places such as Erzincan, Harput, Karaman,
Kastamonu, Kayseri, Persia, Kirkuk, and Damascus. The fact that there were no migration records in the
registers of the later 16th century does not mean that there was no migration, but rather, that the
registrars neglected their duties.
Kayseri, one of the greatest cities in Central Anatolia, was remarkable not only for the migrants it
received from various places (these migrants named the quarters they established in the manner
mentioned before), but for the considerable number of non-Muslim migrants it attracted as well.
According to Jennings, the Shirkyan (Şarkiyan) community, which came from the East, and the Sisyan
(Sisiyan) community, which came from Sis (Kozan), both of which were registered in Kayseri, consisted
of Armenian and Greek migrants who joined the non-Muslim population of the city.63
In 1584, circumstances in Aksaray, another sub-province in Central Anatolia, were no different.
Aksaray sub-province consisted of five districts; and 240 nefers from the 70 villages of the central
district, 129 nefers from the 145 villages of Eyyubili district, 56 nefers from the 36 villages of
Hasandag˘ı district, 57 nefers from the 40 villages of Bekir district, and 29 nefers from the villages of
Koçhisar district (whose population consisted mainly of nomads) took part in population movements.
The migrating population moved first to Aksaray, and then to Istanbul, Kayseri, Nig˘de, Larende,
Ankara, Ereg˘li, Eskiil, and Ürgüp. In turn, some migrants moved from I˙çil sub-province and settled in
Aksaray.64
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
241
In the central district of Aksaray sub-province, which had 3857 nefers in its villages, 143 nefers of
those who took part in population movement migrated from the villages of the district to Aksaray city;
two persons moved to live in Istanbul and four persons coming from I˙çil sub-province on the southern
border settled in Kurdini village. Together with the 12 persons registered as perakendegan-ı Adana (i.e.
persons dispersed from Adana) and the 79 persons registered as haymana (settled nomads), the migrants
totaled 240, which is equivalent to 6% of the rural population. The land ownership status of 67 of the
migrants is undefined, 55 were caba (landless), and 58 of them were mücerreds. When the population of
all the districts, (except Aksaray town and the nomadic tribes), is included, the total rural population of
Aksaray sub-province was 22,520 persons. The fact that 541 of them took part in population movements,
means that 2% of the rural population migrated. Since 199 out of 541 migrants were bennak, 127 of them
were caba, and 30 were mücerred, it can be said that migrants were mainly persons who had difficulty in
sustaining a livelihood. In other words, 84% of the migrants had either no land at all, or possessed land
amounting to less than half a çift. And when we take into consideration those whose land ownership
status is unknown, and who were most likely no better off than the rest of the migrants, it becomes clear
that migrants mainly migrated to better their economic conditions (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Migration in the Karaman Province and its surroundings in sixteenth century.
242
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
In line with what Ravenstein proposed as the rules of migration, during this period migrants in
Anatolia, and especially those who moved from the villages, preferred neighbouring areas. However,
there were some migrants who moved to distant places, too, and particularly to Istanbul, the capital of
the Empire, and a city which for many reasons was a destination for migrants.65 When the small number
of migrants moving from every part of the vast empire is calculated, it is not difficult to estimate that the
number of the migrants who settled in Istanbul was rather high. Istanbul, with an estimated population of
400,000– 500,000 (or 80,000 households) in the early 16th century and one of 700,000 in the late 16th
century, was a giant city for that time period.66 Migrations to Istanbul must have increased at an early
date, for in 1567 the government issued a law demanding that migrants who had come from Anatolia and
Rumelia and settled in Istanbul should be sent back to their previous settlements.67 The fact that laws
including the same statement were frequently passed in the following periods,68 and especially in the
18th century, shows that Istanbul was one of the permanent and the most important migration
destinations.
Towards the end of the 16th century, survey registrars openly recorded events closely linked with
migration, which proves that migrations were occurring during this period. Apart from the above
mentioned areas of migration, in the tahrir defters of Ankara, and Nig˘de sub-provinces and many other
tahrir defters, data about those involved in migration exists. Moreover, when it is considered that in
some sub-provinces migrants may not have been recorded at all, or if they were recorded, some may
have been omitted, then it is probable that the number of actual migrants was greater than reflected in the
registers.
As reflected in the documents, migrants during this period were not great in number. In addition to
this, the fact that although migration was forbidden by law, nothing could be done, or was done to send
back the migrants, shows that population movement did not reach the scale of proceeding periods. In
other words, migration during the 16th century disturbed neither the state officials nor the public.
However, since the reasons for migration were not addressed, migration increased steadily during the
17th century, and in the course of time reached such a point that nothing could prevent it.
When the subject of internal migration is evaluated, consideration should also be given to those who
were deported into lands conquered in later periods, such as Trabzon and Cyprus. The area of Trabzon,
conquered by Ottoman rulers in 1461, was one of the regions subject to a systematic influx of deportees
due to the central government’s Turkification policies. In Trabzon’s 1486 tahrir defter, 252 households
are reported as having arrived from various parts of Anatolia, and especially from closer regions such as
Niksar, Amasya, Çorum and Samsun via deportation. In this year, records of voluntary migrants who
moved alongside the deportees also exist. For instance, in the same tahrir defter, 56 Muslims households
are recorded as having moved to Azablar quarter ‘of their own will.’ Similarly, more than 20,000 persons
who lived in Karaman, Rum, and Zulkadriye provinces of Anatolia in 1572 were deported to Cyprus.
These 20,000 included unemployed persons, persons working as farm labourers, and peasants with either
no land or unsufficient land to cultivate.69 Many families who lived in rural Anatolia and who were in
economic difficulties were also forced to migrate to Cyprus. Some other peasants were able to delay their
migration thanks to the deportation of their neighbours. Consequently, deportations, which were
undertaken for more or less the same reasons as voluntary migrations, became one of the factors which
determined the nature and amount of voluntary internal migration.
Migrations in 16th century Ottoman society, and especially those from rural to urban areas, were
somewhat different from the migrations which occur today in Turkey. For example, migrants who settled
in Larende in 1584, unlike the ‘ghetto dwellers’ of today, were not predisposed to gather in the same
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
243
parts of the city; quite the contrary, they dispersed to 27 of the city’s 38 quarters. As the awarid (Avarız)
tax was collected from each village and quarter as a whole, migrants were usually welcome, because the
newcomers meant partners for the residents of these quarters or villages to share the tax burden.70
Because they were generally welcomed, incoming migrants tended to spread out and settle in all quarters
of a city.71
As stated before, if different tahrir defters from different regions of Anatolia are examined, a great
deal of data of the same nature can be obtained. Even the documents examined in this study show that the
Ottoman peasants, contrary to common belief, were rather mobile.72 The documents show that apart
from administrative officials, military personnel, religious men, tradesmen, and nomads, whose
professions required them to move, the remaining 16th century Anatolian population was quite mobile,
too, and seems similar to the mobile population of 14th century England.73
Results of migration
Ottoman subjects, who were already in great distress due to the economic and social pressures
mentioned above, also faced a series of rebellions which began in 1570 and lasted many years. The first
rebellions were called Suhte revolts (the uprising of the students of madrasas, Islamic higher education
institutions) and were followed by the Celali Rebellions, whose effects were felt from 1590 onwards.74
The most destructive of peasant migrations, in fact, occurred between 1593 and 1610, during the Celali
depredations in Anatolia, and were called the ‘great flight’.75 Some researchers attribute different dates
to the Celali Rebellions; but, this does not change the well-known fact that during them many villages in
Anatolia were reportedly ruined, and peasants had to abandon their lands and migrate to the cities or
other places where they felt safer.76
Migration had already started in the second half of the 16th century, but since its causes were not
addressed, it gradually increased in scale. As a result of the migrations, which were further provoked by
the Celali Rebellions, agricultural production and the tax revenues of the state decreased, and public
order deteriorated both in the abandoned villages and in the cities, whose population had increased.77
Especially towards the end of the 16th century, as a result of the rebellions and migrations, which are
registered in the tahrir defters as well, the number and distribution of abandoned and ruined villages
must have increased. One of the greatest scholars of the 17th century, Katib Çelebi, wrote the following
on this subject: ‘The author of this book wandered twelve years in the Ottoman State, beginning in 1635.
Most of the villages he saw or visited were in ruins’. In order to emphasize that this was a well-known
fact among the public he added, ‘A rumour that the rural areas were completely destroyed within twenty
years’ time is circulating’.78
Conclusion
In conclusion, Anatolia’s population during the 16th century was rather mobile, even when forced
deportations and the movement of nomadic tribes are excluded. The period of general crisis experienced
by the Ottoman Empire brought about many other problems. The fact that population growth was greater
than the expansion of the arable lands led to the division of agricultural fields, and consequently, to an
increase in the number of landless peasants. As a result, peasants who had difficulties in earning their
244
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
livelihood migrated to towns and cities, where they expected to obtain jobs more easily. The great revolts
in Anatolia broke out at the same time as the migrations. These revolts and migrations had more or less
the same causes; and consequently, the number of the migrants swelled, especially at the beginning of
the 17th century.
Migration in Anatolia in the 16th century can be divided into three groups with respect to their routes:
migrations from rural to urban areas, from rural to rural areas, and finally, from urban to urban areas.
Different from the migration patterns identified in Friesland,79 migration from urban to rural areas did
not occur in Anatolia during this period, or if it did, it was not registered in the tahrir defters. The number
of the migrants at the beginning of the 16th century is insignificant. However, beginning in the second
half of the century, migration increased approximately 3 –5%, though this percentage varied in the
different regions of the Empire. The greater part of the migrating population moved from rural to urban
areas during this period, and mainly preferred to settle in the neighbouring towns. However, many
migrants moved to distant great cities, particularly to Istanbul. Those who took part in the population
movements were mainly rural subjects, people who had difficulty in sustaining a livelihood in the
country. In other words, among the migrants there were persons holding less than half a çift, peasants
with no land to cultivate, and finally, poor and unmarried peasants. Thus, even in this short paper, as it
has been possible to show that migration was widespread in 16th century Anatolia for primarily
economic reasons.
Acknowledgements
The author of this paper would like to thank the following individuals: the Kuyud-ı Kadime archivists
for their assistance; his colleagues, the professors in the Department of Geography (at Ankara
University), who offered many helpful insights and suggestions during the development of the study;
Hamide Albayrak, who translated the text into English, and Assoc. Prof. Dr Neşe Özden, Prof. Dr
Mehmet Öz and Jeannette Squires Okur, who enriched and verified the translation of the text into
English. All the remaining errors are the author’s alone.
Notes
1. C. Whynne-Hammond, Elements of Human Geography, London, 1987, 57 –62.
2. D. Postles, Migration and mobility in a less mature economy: English internal migration, c. 1200– 1350, Social History 25
(2000) 299.
3. Y.Z. Özcan, İçgöçün Tanımı ve Verileri ile İlgili Bazı Sorular, Türkiye’de I˙çgöç Konferansları (1998) 78.
4. C. Whynne-Hammond, Elements of Human Geography, London, 1987, 58.
5. E. Tümertekin, Internal Migrations in Turkey, Istanbul, 1968, 35.
6. A. McCants, Internal migration in Friesland, 1750– 1805, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 22 (1992) 388.
7. D. Postles, Migration and mobility in a less mature economy: English internal migration, c. 1200– 1350, Social History 25
(2000) 285.
8. Most of the studies on this subject are concerned with Republican Period migrations. Studies on migration during the
Ottoman Period usually deal with migrations in the 18th century and the years afterwards and with migrations from regions
outside Anatolia to Anatolia. For bibliography on the subject, see: J. McCarthy, Age, family, and migration in nineteenth
century Black Sea provinces of the Ottoman Empire, International Journal of Middle East Studies 10 (1979) 309– 323; D.
Panzac, La population de l’Empire Ottoman et de ses marges du XVe au XIXe siècle: bibliographie (1941 –80) et bilan
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
245
provisoire, Revue de l’accident musulmane et de la Méditerranée 31 (1981) 119– 137; G. Eren (Eds), Osmanlı, vol. IV,
Ankara, 1999, 605– 702; I. Güler XVIII, Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nnde Nüfus Hareketleri Olarak İç Göçler, Edebiyat
Fakültesi Dergisi 36 (2000) 155– 212.
There is not much research in Turkey on migration in the 16th century, but, it must be pointed out that some studies have
been carried out abroad on this subject. The important point to be remembered here is that in the Ottoman documents
relating to the Balkans and lands beyond them, for example Hungary, the names of the people living in the region were
written in the registers together with their surnames so, if these surnames are taken as a starting point, studying the region’s
migration patterns becomes much easier. For an example, see: G. David, 16. Yüzyılda Simontornya Sancag˘ı, Istanbul,
1999, 68 –73; The research carried out by H. Arslan on this subject is based solely on the data in the Mühimme Defters, and
for this reason is different from our study. See: H. Arslan, 16 Yüzyıl Osmanlı Toplumunda Yönetim, Nüfus, I˙skan, Göç ve
Sürgün, Istanbul, 2001.
For information on tahrir defters, their characteristics and terminology, see: H. İnalcık, The Ottoman State: economy and
society, 1300– 1600, in: H. İnalcık, D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300– 1914,
London, 1994, 132– 139; Also see: S. Faroqhi, Approaching Ottoman History: An Introduction to the Sources, Cambridge,
1999, 97 – 101.
For information on the importance of the tahrir defters for historical geography, see: M. Elibüyük, Türkiye’nin Tarihi
Coğrafyası Bakımından Önemli Bir Kaynak: Mufassal Defterler, Cog˘rafya Araştırmaları Dergisi 2 (1990) 11 – 42; O.
Gümüşçü, Osmanlı Mufassal Tahrir Defterlerinin Türkiye’nin Tarihi Coğrafyası Bakımından Önemi, XIII, Türk Tarih
Kongresi III/III (2002) 1321– 1337.
R.A. Butlin, Historical Geography, Through the Gates of Space and Time, London, 1993, 73 – 87.
For information on the deportations in the Ottoman Empire, see: Ö.L. Barkan, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskan ve
Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler, I˙.Ü. I˙ktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 11 (1950) 524– 569; Ö.L. Barkan and Osmanlı
İmparatorluğunda Bir İskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler, I˙.Ü. I˙ktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 13 (1952)
56 – 78; Ö.L. Barkan, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler, I˙.Ü. I˙ktisat
Fakültesi Mecmuası 15 (1954) 209– 237; H. Arslan, 16 Yüzyıl Osmanlı Toplumunda Yönetim, Nüfus, I˙skan, Göç ve
Sürgün, Istanbul, 2001, 317– 346.
N. Atsız, Aşıkpaşaog˘lu Tarihi, Ankara, 1992, 142– 150; İ. Erünsal, Müneccimbaşı Tarihi, Istanbul, 1979, 336– 341.
H. İnalcık, 438 Numaralı Muhasebe-i Vilayet-i Anadolu Defteri, Giriş (937/1530), Ankara, 1993, 1.
A.Y. Ocak, Osmanlı Toplumunda Zındıklar ve Mülhidler, Istanbul, 1998, 91.
H. Arslan, 16 Yüzyıl Osmanlı Toplumunda Yönetim, Nüfus, I˙skan, Göç ve Sürgün, Istanbul, 2001, 185– 202.
M.A. Ünal, XVI. Yüzyılda Çemişgezek Sancag˘ı, Ankara, 1999, 88; H. İnalcık, The Ottoman State: economy and society,
1300– 1600, in: H. İnalcık and D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300 –1914,
London, 1994, 135.
Ö.L. Barkan, XV. ve XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı I˙mparatorlug˘u’nda Zirai Ekonominin Hukuki ve Mali Esasları I, Istanbul,
1943, for Trabzon sub-province, see: 58 – 60, for Yeniil sub-province, see: 79, for Diyarbekir Province, see: 132, for Mosul
sub-province, see: 174, for Vize sub-province, see: 234, for Silistre sub-province, see: 273 and 288, for Syrmia subprovince, see: 312.
For data on migration in the 16th century the tahrir defters in the Kuyud-ı Kadime Archives (hereafter TK) in the Ankara
Registration and Cadastre Head Office were used; for Larende, see: TK 104, TK 113, and TK 584; for Aksaray, see: TK
131; for Amid, see: TK 155; for Niğde; see: TK 135, for Ankara, see: TK 132; for Aydın, see: TK 129.
F. Emecen, Sosyal Tarih Kaynağı Olarak Osmanlı Tahrir Defterleri, Tarih ve Sosyoloji Semineri (1991) 154; H. Özdeğer,
Onaltıncı Asırda Ayıntab Livası, Istanbul, 1988, 115– 116.
For information on the use of toponymic data in migration studies, see: D. Postles, Migration and mobility in a less mature
economy: English internal migration, c. 1200– 1350, Social History 25 (2000) 287– 292; R.H. Stoddard, B.W. Blouet and
D.J. Wishart, Human Geography, New Jersey, 1986, 59 – 61.
Department of the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives in Istanbul (hereafter TT) 438, 337– 339. Ö. Ergenç, Osmanlı Klasik
Dönemi Kent Tarihçilig˘ine Katkı XVI. Yüzyılda Ankara ve Konya, Ankara, 1995, 29 –31.
TT 438, 420.
TK 142, 7 – 16, and TT 387, 886– 890.
TT 387, 199– 200, and also see: R.C. Jennings, Urban population in Anatolia in the sixteenth century: a study of Kayseri,
Karaman, Amasya, Trabzon and Erzurum, International Journal of Middle East Studies 7 (1976) 27 – 34.
246
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
27. O. Gümüşçü, Tarihi Cog˘rafya Açısından Bir Araştırma: XVI. Yüzyıl Larende (Karaman) Kazasında Yerleşme ve Nüfus,
Ankara, 2001, 189.
28. H. Arslan, 16 Yüzyıl Osmanlı Toplumunda Yönetim, Nüfus, I˙skan, Göç ve Sürgün, Istanbul, 2001, 182– 184; For
information about this process in the 15th century, see: H. Selçuk, Rumeli’ye Yapılan I˙skanlar Neticesinde Kurulan Yeni
Yerleşim Yerleri, 1432– 1481. H.C. Güzel, K. Çiçek and S. Koca (Eds), Türkler, Türkler, vol. IX, Ankara, 2002, 177– 186.
29. In his later study, H. İnalcık points out that the ease with which peasants moved from one place to another caused enactment
of the farm breaker law. For example, see: H. İnalcık, An overview of the Otoman Empire, in: K. Çiçek (Ed.), The Great
Ottoman-Turkish Civilasition, vol. I, Ankara, 2000, 55.
30. A. Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri V/I, Istanbul, 1990, 351.
31. A. Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri V/I, Istanbul, 1990, VII, 233, see also 508.
32. Ö.L. Barkan, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler, I˙.Ü. I˙ktisat Fakültesi
Mecmuası 11 (1950) 312. To obtain an idea of the akçe’s value in the 16th century, keep in mind that 1 gold ducat was
worth 57 akçe in 1527, 59 akçe from 1560– 74, 60 akçe in 1583 and 120 akçe in 1584. See: H. İnalcık, The Ottoman State:
economy and society, 1300– 1600, in: H. İnalcık and D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman
Empire, 1300– 1914, London, 1994, 67; H. İnalcık, An overview of the Otoman Empire, in: K. Çiçek (Ed.), The Great
Ottoman-Turkish Civilasitionı, vol. I, Ankara, 2000, 83. It is also known that in 1560 one sheep was worth 70 – 80 akçe;
25.6 kg. of wheat was worth 10 – 12 akçe, an done worker’s daily earning totaled 5 – 6 akçe; See: M. Akdağ, Türkiye’nin
I˙ktisadi ve I˙çtimai Tarihi, vol. II, Istanbul, 1974, 437.
33. A. Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri V/I, Istanbul, 1990, VII, 330; A. Uysal, Zanaatkarlar Kanunu
(Kanunname-i Ehl-i Hıref), Ankara, 1982, 28.
34. For information on currency devaluation in 1584 as a result of financial crisis, see: H. İnalcık, The Ottoman State: economy
and society, 1300– 1600, in: H. İnalcık and D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire,
1300– 1914, London, 1994, 68, see also 100; S. Faroqhi, Crisis and change, 1590– 1699, in: H. İnalcık and D. Quataert
(Eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300– 1914, London, 1994, 433.
35. For example see, TK 131, 81 – 82, and TK 104, 147– 148.
36. H. Özdeğer, Onaltıncı Asırda Ayıntab Livası, Istanbul, 1988, 115– 116.
37. C. Whynne-Hammond, Elements of Human Geography, London, 1987, 60 –64.
38. E.F. Bergman, Human Geography Cultures, Connections, and Landscapes, New Jersey, 1995, 158.
39. For a successful formulation of the reasons for migration in the 18th century Ottoman Empire, see: I. Güler XVIII,
Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Nüfus Hareketleri Olarak İç Göçler, Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 36 (2000) 162– 184.
40. H. Arslan, 16 Yüzyıl Osmanlı Toplumunda Yönetim, Nüfus, I˙skan, Göç ve Sürgün, Istanbul, 2001, 207– 232; I. Güler
XVIII, Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Nüfus Hareketleri Olarak İç Göçler, Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 36 (2000) 162– 174.
41. H. İnalcık, An overview of the Otoman Empire, in: K. Çiçek (Ed.), The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilasition, vol. I, Ankara,
2000, 81 – 82.
42. For Ravenstein’s laws of migration, see: E.G. Ravenstein, The laws of migration, Journal of the Statistical Society 48
(1885) 167– 227; E.G. Ravenstein, The laws of migration, Journal of the Statistical Society 52 (1889) 214– 305; R.H.
Stoddard and B.W. Blouet, D.J. Wishart, Human Geography, New Jersey, 1986, 73 – 76.
43. For information on the migrants in England between 1200– 1350 who migrated to better their conditions, see: D. Postles,
Migration and mobility in a less mature economy: English internal migration, c. 1200– 1350, Social History 25 (2000) 286.
44. Ö.L. Barkan, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler, I˙.Ü. I˙ktisat Fakültesi
Mecmuası 11 (1950) 524– 569. for I˙çil, see: 52 – 53 and Mühimme Defters 27, 291, for Erzurum see: 72, for Bitlis see: 193,
for Georgia see: 197, for Alexandria see: 291, for Lesbos see: 333– 338, for Chios see: 346– 347, for Khania see: 353.
45. S. Faroqhi, Approaching Ottoman History: An Introduction to the Sources, Cambridge, 1999, 441– 442.
46. For information on natural disasters in the Ottoman Lands, see:, in: E. Zachariadou (Ed.), Natural Disasters in the Ottoman
Empire, Crete, 1999.
47. M.A. Cook, Population Pressure in Rural Anatolia 1450– 1600, London, 1972, 30 – 82 and quoted from Cook in H. İnalcık,
The Ottoman State: economy and society, 1300– 1600, in: H. İnalcık and D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and Social
History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300– 1914, London, 1994, 30.
48. O. Gümüşçü, Osmanlı Mufassal Tahrir Defterlerinin Türkiye’nin Tarihi Coğrafyası Bakımından Önemi, XIII, Türk Tarih
Kongresi III/III (2002) 178– 188.
49. Such notes could be seen on every page of TK 104, TK 113, TT 615.
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
247
50. H. İnalcık, The Ottoman State: economy and society, 1300– 1600, in: H. İnalcık and D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and
Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300– 1914, London, 1994, 148– 149.
51. TK 104, 133– 169, TK 113, 170– 223, TK 615, 20 – 30.O. Gümüşçü, Osmanlı Mufassal Tahrir Defterlerinin Türkiye’nin
Tarihi Coğrafyası Bakımından Önemi, XIII, Türk Tarih Kongresi III/III (2002) 178– 191.
52. L. Erder and S. Faroqhi, The development of the Anatolian urban network during the sixteenth century, Journal of the
Economic and Social History of the Orient 23 (1980) 272– 295; S. Faroqhi, Taxation and urban activities in sixteenth
century Anatolia, International Journal of Turkish Studies 1 (1980) 39 – 42.
53. F. Braudel, II. Felipe Döneminde Akdeniz ve Akdeniz Dünyası I, Ankara, 1993, 405– 410.
54. TK 155, 1 – 55.
55. F. Emecen, XVI. Asırda Manisa Kazası, Ankara, 1989, 76 – 77.
56. H. Özdeğer, Onaltıncı Asırda Ayıntab Livası, Istanbul, 1988, 125– 126.
57. Ö.L. Barkan, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler, I˙.Ü. I˙ktisat Fakültesi
Mecmuası 11 (1950) 7.
58. Ö.L. Barkan and E. Meriçli, Hüdavendigar Livası Tahrir Defterleri I, Ankara, 1988, 8– 254.
59. For additional information on migrations in the district of Larende, see: O. Gümüşçü, Osmanlı Mufassal Tahrir
Defterlerinin Türkiye’nin Tarihi Coğrafyası Bakımından Önemi, XIII, Türk Tarih Kongresi III/III (2002) 178– 191.
It should be pointed out that since a number of migrations were mistakenly omitted in this work, the number of migrants
noted is fewer than its real number. The number is corrected in this article.
60. For more detailed information on migration in the sub-province of I˙çil, see: Ş. Çelik, Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilatında I˙çel
Sancag˘ı, 1500– 1584, unpublished PhD thesis, Istanbul University, 1994, 110– 163.
61. Similarly, in the areas, there were migrations in the 18th century Anatolia in the opposite directions, as well. See: I.
Güler XVIII, Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Nüfus Hareketleri Olarak İç Göçler, Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 36 (2000)
158– 159.
62. S. Nicholas and P.R. Shergold, Internal migration in England, 1818– 1839, Journal of Historical Geography 13
(1987) 157.
63. R.C. Jennings, Urban population in Anatolia in the sixteenth century: a study of Kayseri, Karaman, Amasya, Trabzon and
Erzurum, International Journal of Middle East Studies 7 (1976) 27 – 34.
64. TK 131, 15 – 192.
65. A. Refik, Onuncu Asr-ı Hicride I˙stanbul Hayatı, Ankara, 1987, 204– 206.
66. In his later study, H. İnalcık points out that the ease with which peasants moved from one place to another caused enactment
of the farm breaker law. For example, see: H. İnalcık, An overview of the Otoman Empire, in: K. Çiçek (Ed.), The Great
Ottoman-Turkish Civilasition, vol. I, Ankara, 2000, 49, see also 78.
67. H. Arslan, 16 Yüzyıl Osmanlı Toplumunda Yönetim, Nüfus, I˙skan, Göç ve Sürgün, Istanbul, 2001, 389.
68. For such laws, see:Y. Özkaya, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda XVIII. Yüzyılda Göç Sorunu, D.T.C.F Tarih Araştırmaları
Dergisi 25 (1982) 171– 211.
69. For further information on Trabzon see: H.W. Lowry, Trabzon Şehrinin I˙slamlaşması ve Türkleşmesi 1461–1583,
Istanbul, 1998, 2025; For – Cyprus, see: H. İnalcık, An overview of the Otoman Empire, in: K. Çiçek (Ed.), The Great
Ottoman-Turkish Civilasition, vol. I, London, 2000, 72, see also 82.
70. S. Faroqhi, Osmanlı’da Kentler ve Kentliler, Istanbul, 1993, 331.
71. O. Gümüşçü, Osmanlı Mufassal Tahrir Defterlerinin Türkiye’nin Tarihi Coğrafyası Bakımından Önemi, XIII, Türk Tarih
Kongresi III/III (2002) 182.
72. S. Faroqhi, Osmanlı’da Kentler ve Kentliler, Istanbul, 1993, 329.
73. R.H. Stoddard, B.W. Blouet, D.J. Wishart, Human Geography, New Jersey, 1986, 59.
74. S. Faroqhi, Osmanlı’da Kentler ve Kentliler, Istanbul, 1993, 415– 418. For two successful analyses of the Djelali
Rebellions, see: M. Akdağ, Celali I˙syanları, Ankara, 1963; W.J. Griswold, The Great Anatolian Rebellion, Berlin, 1983,
1591– 1611.
75. H. İnalcık, The Ottoman State: economy and society, 1300– 1600, in: H. İnalcık, D. Quatert (Eds), An Economic and Social
History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300– 1914, London, 1994, 165– 166.
76. Koçi Bey, one of the most famous writers of reform treatises in the 17th century, stated that many villages were in ruins
from 1595 onwards as a result of the Celali Rebellions and that nomadic tribes had done considerable harm to villages.
Although Koçi Bey’s narrative style contains some exaggerative elements, his observations can be regarded as reliable.
248
O. Gümüşçü / Journal of Historical Geography 30 (2004) 231–248
See: Y. Kurt, Koçi Bey Risalesi, Ankara, 1994, 64; H. İnalcık, An overview of the Otoman Empire, in: K. Çiçek (Ed.), The
Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilasitionı, vol. I, Ankara, 2000, 83. Katip Çelebi (Hadji Khalife) writes in his book Düsturu’lamel li-ıslahi’l-halel that because of the rebellions, people were in great distress and had to move to the cities, and that in
1652, the year he wrote his book, the areas surrounding Istanbul were full of migrants. Katip Çelebi’s observations may also
be regarded as reliable. See: K. Çelebi, Düsturu’l-amel li-ıslahi’l-halel, Ankara, 1982, 24.
77. For the results of the 18th century migrations, see: I. Güler XVIII, Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nnde Nüfus Hareketleri
Olarak İç Göçler, Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 36 (2000) 179– 192.
78. K. Çelebi, Düsturu’l-amel li-ıslahi’l-halel, Ankara, 1982, 24.
79. For migration patterns in Friesland, see: A. McCants, Internal migration in Friesland, 1750– 1805, Journal of
Interdisciplinary History 22 (1992) 393– 400.