|
|
Tendencies of Centralisation and De-Centralisation in Central Asia I Presented by Prof. Dr. Erol
Mutlu
Mutlu: Hello from Turkey. Today our advisor guest is Prof. Dr. Ýsenbike Togan, faculty member at the Middle East Technical University from department of history.In program that we make a research vovage into Turkish history and culture every week for an hour. Our guest is Dr. Nurten Kilic, faculty member of Uludag University, department history. Welcome. We have known Prof. Ýsenbike Togan, because she joined us in many programs. Let you introduce yourself? Kilic: I graduated from the Middle East University, Department of History. Then I took my master degree as a result of my study on Central Asia from Uludag University. Then I took my Ph.d about 16th century Uzbek political culture from Ankara University. During this study, I went to Özbekistan for one year between the years 1995-1996. I made necessary archive research there. When I returned, I went to USA with TUBA scholarship for one year. I studied for my Ph.d in the University of Harward. Now I am a faculty member of The Uludag Technical University. Mutlu: Thank you. The subject of this program will be based on what we talked about in our last program, and will develop from that, centralisation and de-centralisation. We talked about the centralisation in Ottoman. For this time, we will go to east where many Turks live and talk about centralisation in Central Asia. If you want, you will make an introduction. Togan: It became more meaningful to look how we perceive de-centralisation. When we examine from Ottoman perspective, de-centralisation seems as a movement against centralisation. Whereas when we look into Central Asia in the 16th century, de-centralisation that was not against the centre was against the growing stronger of centre of demanding shave and it was also multi-centred movement. There were not such elements like more than one centre, more than one inheritor of throne, division of country among the inheritors in Ottoman history. These facts slowly turned to impossibilities for Ottoman from formation period. There were no big problems about these facts and also there were no conflicts for these reasons. We should examine the subject of division of country that is called as ülüþ in Central Asia from perspective of de-centralisation. The main point of difference is that. Mutlu: Can we summarise in this way? There is only one sovereign and one inheritor. Togan: the preservation of this uniqueness was made a law in the Conquer code’s of law. Later that, the biggest brother became an inheritor of throne called as the principle of ekberiyet in 17th century was determined who was the prince. If Conquer by sending Beyazit to one place, Cem to other, Korkut to another thought who would win the struggle, be a sultan; he wouldn’t make such an article of law. The first step in the centralisation in Ottoman was the single inheritor of throne. Mutlu: It may be through as an element that presents the disintegration. Togan: Of course, but more than one person could exist all together in Central Asia. Mutlu: Is this first place among the equals? This is reminding Magna Carta. Kilic: It may be compare with English model, but we should not discuss that here. The political culture was not centralised in the history of Central Asia. So it didn’t create a mechanism necessary for centralisaiton. Mutlu: Can geographical structure be effective? Kilic: There was a great effect on both the nomadic tradition and steppe of political culture. Elements of tribe and inheritance were also important. Togan: If one dies, whole children become inheritors of this person now in Turkey. While what Ottoman did didn’t give this right to children. What Central Asia did was to accept this right. Mutlu: It is said that let it not be misunderstood. Families come to blows because of inheritance. Kilic: Inheritance doesn’t always cause struggle. They solved by institutionalisation. Although so many inheritors exist, there aren’t too many conflicts. Inheritance includes not only mother, father and children but also uncles, nephews, and any others within the broad frame. If we give Seybani Khan as an example, land was divided in the council. It was talked about which region would be given to which sultan. Who became an owner of this divided land continued the right over this land. Who divide that land was the biggest member of the family had a control over possession neither politically nor economically. Consequently, the khans of Buhara and Semerkant represented the centre, but different centres emerged as a result of that division. Mutlu: How is this division that is accepted by all people made? Is it based on same rules or whether it is based on culture? Kilic: When they did this division, they said that they did according to their law in the resources. This is not written but they did within its frame. On the other hand, there are some criteria for this division. All members of the family joined the conquest. Who didn’t this conquest came when the formation of state was completed. Who became more active in this formation took more part. For example, sons of Seybani Khan had more possession than uncles of that khan who might joint the conquest of the land. There were some criteria. After a period, the divided land was shared within the family. Then it was balanced as a result of sharing within the family. The one who posses something coveted others’ position. When this happened, the owner of the other possession opposed that. Mutlu: Which time and geography, do we talk about on now? Kilic: I studied on Seybani Uzbek Khan and their political culture in 16th century, so I gave my examples from that time. Maveraünnehir between Amu Derya and Siri Derya, partially the region of Harezim and some parts of Horasan region were included in their geography that is nearly today’s Uzbekistan. Herat and Belh are outside of borders now, but they were included in that period. Togan: These examples are from the beginning of 16th century. Is there a possibility to explain this division in more detail? What are the other criteria what you have said before? We have found this criteria strange from Ottoman point of view. Kilic: The administrator lineage of Uzbek Khan came from Cengiz Khan lineage. Consequently, they were accepted as khan. Law was also important element of the political culture in that period. Sharing was made with this frame of this law. Khan didn’t have actual authority. He was a president of council. Hutbe was read in the name his name, and money might be pressed in the name of him. After the sharing, there was no conflict among other princes and other members of family. The one who became a new khan was elected after the death of khan. All khans from the beginning of 1500s to 1560-1570s were elected. Sometimes some people who had more actual power, more land and joined more conquest but was not old enough wanted to be a khan. Mutlu: Could he be elected? Kilic: No he couldn’t be elected. The title like “virtual khan” was given to him, called as “kalkan”. He didn’t have a symbolic authority but actual authority. Mutlu: Two different authorities, symbolic and actual emerged separately. Symbolic and actual authorities were collected in same hand in our tradition. How do we one revolve the symbolic authority to someone else, while he has an actual power? Kilic: there are many interesting examples in sources. We can give an example from Ubeydullah Khan. He got hold of both Semerkant and Buhara, so he was actually powerful. The khan had died after a period. The people of Buhara wanted to make Ubeydullah khan. Yet other sultan wanted to make Köþküncü Prince, the oldest member of the family, khan. In some periods, some khans left this position as result of their own decisions. They wanted to be interested with Sufism more then with worldly issues. Togan: Like Murat II, he also left. Later he must have returned. We can see such events up to Conquer in our history. There was no possibility after his period both by individually and institutionally. Mutlu: After some period, rules were institutionalised and there was no void. Togan: The unification
of Byzantium tradition, Persian tradition and Central tradition and Central
Kilic: Usually they were small in number. Sometimes it was given to who had charismatic personality or was a second oldest member of the family to avoid problems about sharing. Sometimes the title of khan was given the one who would be a future-in-khan. It had such function. Mutlu: One of the meanings of khan is one who is consulted. Kilic: The person balanced the situation without using actual power. Mutlu: What is the organisation in the case of threat from outside? Threats from outsides are the factors that direct to centralisation. Kilic: May be, the weakest point of the system is that. There was a peaceful situation up to 16th-17th centuries. There was no need for regular army and also no need for it. The khans, who were next to the region in where Safevis and Kazakhs attacked, resisted. Other sultans didn’t send soldier to that region. Yet when the centred empire started to powerful with regular army in later period, there was an emergence of situation that wasn’t favour of their situation because of absence of defense mechanism. Togan: Do you evaluate Nadir Shah in some way? He also came from Persian at the 18th century. Who came from not only from North but also from West became effective in same way. There was an interesting dimension in that. There were also some problems emerged within these peaceful policies inside related with outside world. Mutlu: In that case, it is necessity that “peace in country, peace in world”, to continue such a formation. Kilic: National borders are based on national state. There was no understanding of such a centralised state, so there was no need to enlarge the borders of the empire in that time. Mutlu: I asked that question to emphasise the necessity of using today’s concepts. Is that similar to federation or confederation? Kilic: Such a multi-centred formation centres is not neither too dependent nor independent to each other. So calling that system as a federation is seem false. Mutlu: Was that partiality reflected in culture, language, and life style? Kilic: Of course, reflected. Every region in Uzbekistan had features that were special to each region. Buhara was different than Semerkant and Harezim. Mutlu: What types of differences can be determined? Kilic: There was a nomadic Uzbek lineage in 16th century. They came from region that is called Kazakhistan and they were called as Kipcaks. The differences could be emerged where that lineages settled down. The differences became clear between who settled life was more powerful and who settled down next to steppe and nomadic life. The political life of each region had differences inside that region. The policy of khan who dominated Buhara might had more centralised tendencies then the politics of khan who dominated Taþkent. There were not so many ethnic differences but there was variation. The differences could be observed before 16th century. These regions were the centres of different political formations in the different parts of history and different elements were united. That was increased in 16th century. Togan: What is the meaning of being Cengiz? How do we one behave as being Cengiz? How do one not behave? There was a weakness against outside factors, but they realised that. So they married from outside. By this way, they tried to from an alliance. They formed and alliance with Kazakh khans. There were intermarriages with Eastern Çagatays from Eastern Turkistan and Baburs. When conjuncture started to change as a result of enlargement of Russian Empire, the intermarriages disappeared. Mutlu: Does the whom married a girl threat more? Togan: There was no threat for the places in which Cengizs, Kazakhs, and East Turkistans live that I talked about. To become a part of alliance was provided by intermarriage. China and Russia could be forming an alliance by this way. There were intermarriages with Byzantium, Sirbs in Ottomans. There was no importance in intermarriages among different religions in Ottomans. In old time, when Gokturks and Uygurs reached the agreement with China, Chinese princes came as a spouse. In that period, the allionces were formed within Cengizs family. Many members of the Hohenzoller family became kings of different countries in Europe. Although they became kings of Spain, Portugal or Italy, they were married from different countries yet they were actually married within the same family. The alliances were formed within the Cengizs in here, hot outside of this lineage. For being Cengizs provided the possibility to form alliances in this world and also it prevented the decision in hurry. No hurry movement for centralisation and being referee were important for this period. There was no such issue in the period of Cengiz Khan. As being Cengiz possessed the country. Were there anybody other then Cengizs who was profited this system? Kilic: There were lineages and beys of the lineage. The legitimaiton of Cengizs was only possible with the support of beys. So they also took a share from division. There were many different types of endowment. One was soyurgal. Ikta and tuyul were another types of endowmnet. This application continued from 16th century to 18th century that great land was given as a soyurgan. It could be inherited from father to son. Than it turned to private property. The bey who took this soyurgan settled in these areas. Sometime, he became an owner of authority in these areas like members of Cengiz’s lineage. Except him, there was local public. The integration with them should also provided. There were representatives of this local people. There were also ulema that didn’t have defined borders including sects, merchants. All of these were partners of both power and economy from different level. Foundations were also widespread in that time. That also meant sharing of both political authority and economic sources, because foundations were out of central control. It could be understood as a part of sharing tradition and political order. System because of non- centralised one didn’t control the cultural and social structures of society too much, so these elements had a role in social life. These were five or six partners that were linages and beys in both dynasty and nomadic and ulema that was originated settled families and the sects. May be dynasty and beys were offical partners, but others were unofficial partners. Mutlu: How could be an explanatory to explain the immaturity of the centrifugal in such a place where there are so many elements? Togan: Who was the mother of monarch was also important in the determination of who would be the monarch in future. Because of that we have said that there was a difference in the sharing of the country between Ottomans and Uzbeks. We also talked about Soyurgals that were also part of sharing. The right of usage of land was given rather then land itself, in Ottoman timar system. There was a parallelism between these two, but width was different. The big difference was in marriage. In Ottomans, who was the mother of sultan was not important but how was trained was important. Training of people had a special important which family people belonged. When we talked with Mr. Ergenc about Ottoman system, both bureaucracy and dynasty that had learned and thought central culture were same. Who were married with whom? What was the role of cariye? Was it the same culture of palace and culture of beys what we talked about Seybanis in 16th century, before that the period of Timur? Kilic: From this point of view, Ottomans were quite different. Both the mothers and wives of sultan should be members of noble families in Central Asia. Mutlu: Could women participate the public life? Kilic: Of course. There was no such an institutionalised harem like Ottomans. Because women were members of noble family, they had relatives. Women didn’t take culture only from harem. She also brought family culture. It was quite different than Ottomans. Women also transmitted to her own culture to her child, so there was no homogeneous culture. Togan: We transferred the palace into locality with the bureaucrats who were married with cikmas. When the birth of child came near in Crimea Khan, the linages came from Caucasia. They waited fro a birth then, they took child and went. They raised child according to their customs. Then they brought this child to the palace when he was twelve or thirteen. This transferred locality into palace. According to one narrative, Giray that was the name of Crimea Khan come from the lineage of Giray who trained the princes. This tradition was found among Circassions. You take the child of another family and raise him/her. Today we have learned to love only our mother and father in our culture. When there was an order of clans, not only mother or father but also whole clans, the components of outside affects the perception of culture. You said that women brought their own culture, which elements were brought by women? Kilic: There were women who were from the same lineages of Kazakh sultans in that time. Kazakhs had still some nomadic tradition. There was no disconnection with this nomadic tradition because of continuation of relations with women’s relatives. Togan: We have known
that uncles were also important. Babür also talked about uncles. Uncles were
also important. Uncles were from East Turkistan that they used Mongolian
language. At the same time, Turkish used because of existence of Khan of East
Turkistan. The relation with uncle was explained in detail in Babürname. When
girls came from Germiyanoglu as a bride, they also brought their chef cooks with
together. The girl from Germiyan Beys was given to Yildirim Beyazit. There was a
chief cook in the wedding crowd, according to what Asik Pasazade and Nesri said.
Yildirim Beyazit wanted to stay from chief. If look this source, this event
seems to happen only in Germiyanoglu. While Cengiz Khan married with nephew of
the Org Khan women came with her chief. This tradition contiuned. For example,
when women from local people of Kastomonu married with Ottoman bureaucrats she
also brought chief from her hometown. When cariye came to palace, they also
wanted to teach her own meal tradition to palace for avoiding forgetting her
culture. Actually culture was thought in palace is good. When we examine the
poets of Hurrrem Sultan, we will see how this culture is learned in detail. We
can examine history from what are wanted from women. What did they want to
whether an adaptation of culture or continuation of what she had learned from
their father’s house? Are the differences between public culture and culture of
dynasty in 16th century between these two sides?
Mutlu: What could we say when we compare these two systems according to position in both political and social system? As I have understood there was no value of women in Otttoman? Togan: On the contrary. Which culture women adopted created the differences. Otherwise, the role of women in Ottoman was so important. I will give an example from Gevser Sad. She was a life of Sahruh and a daughter-in-law of Timur. When she gave birth to child who was known as Ulug Bey in Herat. It was given to wife of Timur, Bibi Hanim who knowed tradition well. We are from generation that used to raise our own children and we saw that as our own right. It was possible only giving birth to male child. Women came to more powerful position on the other side. We can’t talk about if she was more powerful or not in Uzbekistan, it was important which culture women in through her life adopted. If women themselves abnegated from their own culture, there was a suitable situation to live with their own culture. Mutlu: It emerged from the closeness of cultures, didn’t it? Togan: It is like that from one point. On the other hand, there was no cultural or ethnic conflict in Ottoman past or there was no application of pressure on culture. My mother was Crimea and my father was Baskurt. He ate meat of horse, but mom didn’t. My mother said that meat of horse had not been cut in healthy conditions. My father said that you should give up Crimea and he laughed. They didn’t interfere each other. Each of them had their own tradition. What happened in our culture was the same in the culture of Uzbekistan in the same time. Mutlu: We saw the differences in culture. There are so many elements live together. Togan: There are people who speak Persian or Turkish. There are also people who forgot the Mongalian language. Kilic: There were the differences in culture when we look to society. There was also flexibility when we look at the political life. The role of women was important in the formation of de-centralised political culture based on sharing and was not centralised one. Mutlu: There was no one formation from point of both cultural and political life. Different cultures existed together without problems. Kilic: It was not always too far away from conflict. Togan: There was a permission a conflict among younger. When prices struggled but one was Ulug Khan, he should give up his sword and he should be a referee. There could be an objection to referee, but that created dynamism. Mutlu: Which direction was this dynamism provided for the evolution of society? Kilic: It is important for the continuation of differences in society and in order to provide the regularity of society by its own. Mutlu: Was there the emergence of the tendency of centralisation? Togan: Probably it was started in 18th century. Mutlu: We should talk about the causes of centralisation. Next program, we will make a transition to centralisation. Kilic: When the centralisation was manifested, there was a disappearance of khans from lineage of Cengiz. Beys who were not from that lineage had became superior. Before that, there were too many centres among them a co-ordination and integration. Now there was a conflict among them, among Hiva and Taskent and other regions. People became more conservative and there was a decrease in differences with the de-centralisation. Emir and beys started to base on special groups from society. The tensions were increased in this period Mutlu: Was it started with the extinction of khan from lineage of Cengiz? Togan: There was no extinction but apart of this lineage. Sect of Naksibendi started to take a role. We can’t say that it ends when it emerged. Mutlu: Thank for your participation. We will continue to talk about this issue. pc12.soc.metu.edu.tr (18 June 2000, Ankara) |