Zamanda geriye doğru yolculuk yapmanın en kısa yolu tarih okumaktır

Tendencies of Centralisation and De-Centralisation in Central Asia II

Presented by Prof. Dr. Erol Mutlu
Guests: Assoc. Prof. Dr. İsenbike Togan and Dr. Nurten Kilic

Mutlu: Hello from Turkey. Today our advisor guest is Prof. Dr. İsenbike 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 will continue where we left our last program.

Togan: We talked about the beginning of the tendency of centralisation. We also talked about the centralisation in 17th –18th centuries. The first centralisation in Central Asia was in 18th century. There was a period of centralisation from time to time or less centralised period in the history of Central Asia. For example, Persian style of administration was more centralised before came of Gokturks to the west in 6th or 7th centuries. Under the domination of West Gokturks, there were multi-centred and de-centralised administrations. We can talk about Yabgu who was the position of second khan. There was a centralised tendency in the period of Samanis. We have known that especially judgements and foundations were under the state administration in Samani’s period. The army in Samanis meant that professionals whose jobs were to fight in return for money formed. Society was divided into civil and military. Samanis were collapsed at the end of 900s. The construction of multi-centred structure started with the conquest of Buhara by Karahans between 990- 1200s. May be the best criterion of this structure was that there was no possibility of the between civil and military. The lineage and beys were both military and civil. We can call artisans as the members of civil society. After the centralised administration of Samanis where was the distinction between civil and military, we can observe that there were many sultans who had power and coined the money in the names of themselves in their own cities at the period of Karahans. They were based on some clans, so they threat that clans well to provide a unification of them. There were no possibilities to make realise this unity with pressure. If they didn’t want this sultan, sultan had been changed. For this reason there was a formation of advisor council among beys who supported khan. The famous war, Katvan, emerged as a result of such discontent. We should interpret the period in 1200s as a period of break, because it was different comparison with oldest time. The Empire of Cengiz Khan was not a local power in this era, it was emerged as a big empire that controlled the wide area of east part both Europe and Asia. There was a big mixture politically in this big empire; so many people had to change their places. When we reached to 1300s, the era of Timur, there was no such mixture that caused to unification of people had found their places. There were also local beys, but Timur didn’t appropriate whole policies of Cengiz Khan, although he was also from Cengizs especially about the trade policy. We can see this policy change partially in his policies towards clans. We can interpret as a centralisation period both the period of Timur, and period of Seybani Khan or the period from 18th century up to now. If you want, we can talk about the centralisation in the period of Timur, then by giving some examples from de-centralisation we can pass to 18th century. So tendencies showed continuity from 18th century up to now for 300 years. What was the shape of centralisation in the period of Timur?

Kilic: In Timur period, there was a sharing which we had seen in Uzbek Practice but it was under the control or within the limited area. On the one hand Timur gave land to his sons, on the other hand he controlled them. They didn’t behave autonomously in that region. Although Beys had some authority, it was too limited. It is hard to accept his period as a totally centralised one like Ottomans.

Togan: When we talked about Ottoman system with Mr. Ergenc, we explained its centralisation with the role of dynasty and bureaucracy that spread the central culture into local region and system of kul. We saw that Kul System in Ottoman was used for training of both officers of bureaucracy and their wives.

Kilic: There was no system of Kul in the period of Timur. There was also no distinction between military and civil within the society opposed to Ottoman case; the military power mainly based on clans.  When we compare their dependency to Timur with Janissaries to sultan, their dependency was so limited. Beys were still important components in there.

Togan: Last program, we have talked about the big differences in their style of marriage. The existence or non-existence of kul system was seen as the second of main difference. So this system made centralisation more powerful in Ottoman system. If it didn’t exist in centralisation period in Timur’s era, which system did exist?

Kilic: There was no institutionalised system with reference to centralisation. There was a system based on individual, was based on Timur. After his death, the beginning of de-centralisation and the emergence of some local authorities were related to that. The balance among different centres were formed was based on Timur and also he controlled them. The control were disappeared after his death, there was no element of balance up to Seybani period. Seybani provided with different mechanisms that what Timur did without controlling balance.  The following period of Timur was called as throne confusion. All of these might be result of division of inheritance. The division in Timur might not be a fair enough, the rights of everybody were not protected and inheritance was divided vertical.

Togan: What do you mean by vertical division that means including sons while excluding uncles from inheritance?

Kilic: The horizontal division was started in the period of Timur’s sons.  The uncles and nephews were taken into consideration. In that time, so many centres had emerged. The beys as a local element started to be a powerful in same period. May be Timur might controlled the sects and ulemas up to some level. After his period, they also started to gain power. The economic limitations were also disappeared. There were some attempts for centralisation in the era of Ulug Bey. At the end of 15th century, period of Huseyin Baykara, there were also some tendencies for centralisation but also some reactions to this direction. Some parts of society didn’t want centralisation after Timur. The local part that included Turks and Mongol beys’ origins of nomadic, ulema, merchants and sects reacted to be a powerful of centre. The attempts in between were unsuccessful.  Why people accepted Seybanis because of their policy of sharing. There was an interesting example about that. Bahadir saw himself as Timur in Semerkant. In his dream, Seybani Khan came to Semerkant and surrounded the city. People of the city elected Seybani Khan. He talked with them by talking about his ancestors and emphasising his tradition of sharing. So people of the city accepted him as a khan.  We saw that the people were not favour of centralisation.  The establishment of Seybani’s political culture can be explained the non-existence of such opposition of centralisation. I think that their long domination period can be explained in such manner.

Togan: Can you give examples from relationships of Seybani Khan with other beys?

Kilic: Most of the cities were not conquered but they joint by their own demand. Many beys participated. When these places were conquered, they also took a more part from sharing.

Togan: Did they take title, position or income?

Kilic: Most of the land was given to them.

Togan: How were they called?

Kilic: They were called a Bey of specific clans. There were some clans like, Mangit, Konrat, Kuscu, Durman, Nayman. The position of Beys who came from these clans was important figures. The position of them in ceremonies showed that.

Togan: What was the position in ceremony. As we have known from genealogical tree of Ebul Gazi Bahadir Khan, everybody has own position among Oguz clans.

Kilic: The Bey who seated the left side of the Khan was more important than who seated the right side. Usually beys, hodjas called as a “seyit” and people from ulema participated such ceremonies.

Togan: Is there any distinction between seat at behind or front in this ceremony?

Kilic: There were sources that explained in detail not in 16th century but in 17th century. The Ifani’s Muhmanname-i Buhara explained order of seat in detail yet there was a Bahrü-l  Asrar in where the order of seat was more important in 16th century.

Togan: Is there any narrative about the totems and symbols of beys in Bahrü-l Asrar? When the order of seat of beys were given in old Cengizname books, there was a narrative about the symbol of beys.

Kilic: It didn’t talk about, if I remembered wrongly.

Mutlu: What determines to seat next to khan? Is there a possibility to taken the place of bey that we think him as representative of political authority by sheikh of sect?  Or are there certain rules that bey must seat that place and sheikh of sect must seat there?

Kilic: No, there were no certain rules. It changed which clan was important clan in 16th century and 17th century. So, the beys who were members of those clans in 17th century were more important than others were.

Mutlu: Clans formed one part of political authority because they participated “sharing”. Sheikhs of sect were other components of it. Another components were merchants and ulema. The relation among them and sultan were symbolised by the order of seat as I have understood. There was a possibility of while one bey gained popularity and other started to lose.

Kilic: The order had a symbolic important but it wasn’t a hierarchical one.

Togan: Was it more fluent society? The personal relation was also important. There was no such an order of seat in Ottomans. The title of “bey” was a component of titles such as uc beyi, sancak beyi, and alay beyi. There was also beylerbeyi who was the bey of all beys. There was no special place for bey by being only bey in the presence of sultan. Abdülkadir Inan talked about the issue of position “orun” in one of his example.  Orun means “place” in old Mongolian Language. There was no place for beys in the order of place in Ottoman. The bey in Ottoman system was not a bey of tribe but was a title in the state order.  Whereas we gave examples from clans of Mangit, Konrat, Nuyman, Durman and Kuscu in17th  century, Mangit and Konrats then became khans in 18th century and 19th . Mangits became emir of Buhara. They never took the title of khan, but Konrats became khans in Hiva. So we can see the formation of beyliks that were formed by beys in this order of seat. Beyliks that were formed after the second half of the 19th century became  more centralised.  What was the relationship between sheikh of sect and dynasty in the period of Timur or Seybani Khan or 17th century?

Kilic: Usually, Khans or dynasty were dependent on sheikh. There were information about which sultan was dependent on which sheikh.

Togan: What types of sects were they?

Kilic: Usually they were Nakshibendis. In addition to it, Kubrevi and Yesevi were also widespread sects. One khan could be dependent on more then one sheikh at the same time or he could give foundations or properties to whole sheikh to sects. There were corresponds among them. Sheikh stayed dervish lodge. They also joined to dervish council.

Togan: What was the Dervish Lodge?

Kilic: Where disciples and sheikhs came together and talked about religious issues was called a dervish lodge. Sometimes sultan also joined these meetings. The sheikh of Kubrevi went to Mecca passing through Ottoman country. He had close relation with khan in Semerkant at 16th century.  He also met with the Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. They met alone because of the Law of Ottoman in that there was no right to enter council for sheikhs. When Kubrevi Sheikh reached to Kütahya he also met Beyazit the son of Suleiman Magnificent alone.

Togan: When he came to Anatolia, what differences did observe?

Kilic: He accepted that according to Law of Ottoman.

Togan: How did he perceive that? According to this law, why didn’t sheikhs and sultans join same council?

Kilic: It might be an effect of culture of centralisation. There was a special tradition of Central Asia before Conquer in Anatolia. Sheikhs and sultans met together. These groups started to  be controlled or to be externalised after the period of Conquer.

Togan: I wanted to ask whether there is a distinction between state and religion in this application of Ottoman?

Kilic: It could happen but they met at the end. In spite of the invitation of Magnificent, sheikh    firstly didn’t want to meet with him. Then he went to meet alone. Kubrevi wrote that  Suleiman had been affected  to him. On the other hand, the work of Kubrevi was  a type of menakibname that tried to show both the fame and authority   of sheikh.

Togan: When sheikh with his own viziers accepting him, he was accepted by the state of Ottoman. Yet when Magnificent met him alone, he was accepted as a kul. Such a distinction showed the difference between official and unofficial identities. I don’t see before such a distinction to people who came from abroad. When sheikhs were in their own council, they also represented another existence.  In our Suleiman period, the title of “kanuni” was given to who succeeded to unite the custom and the Moslem religious law and also to control of this religious law. Who unite military and science (ulema) became a dynasty. When we look  at the Cengizs Seybani Khan at the beginning of 16th century, he also controlled military of course. What was the relation between science (ulema) and dynasty? The role of dynasty was to unite these two or whether it was different.

Kilic: It had a different position. There was no authority of Khan over ulema. If it was necessary scientific community limited the authority of khan. There were some interesting examples of that. There was an argument about possession that was whether grandchild could take the inheritance of grandfather. Seybani Khan said that there was no such an article in law and grandchild could take this inheritance. Yet it couldn’t be happened according to Islamic Law that there was no such right. It was discussed in the scientific community and what they said was accepted. Seybani Khan was criticised too much because of his marriage that was not appropriate to this law.

Togan: Kazakhs called this as a “cisir”. Cisir means that the marriage of women with the brother of her death ex-husband. It is against to Islamic Law, but not to law.  There were good examples that were given by Abdulkadir Khan from Ilhanlilar. Sultan as a Cengiz could took a wife of bey or commander who he wanted, according to law. There was no such a right for Islamic Law. Such conflict occurred. Are there such examples in what you have read?

Kilic: To marry with aunt and cousin was possible at the same time. Seybani Khan did that, he had been criticised. Then he divorced one of them.

Togan: The winner always was not the law in the women law. While divorcing Seybani Khan accepted Islamic Law. We talked about beys who seated the right and the left of the khan. Some of them formed their own beyliks. We talked about ulema. What was the relation between state and  sheikhs in that period?

Kilic: They had their own autonomy. They had so large land and they also made trade. There were big sheikh families in Buhara. They had an irrigation system. They had architectural projects, trade caravans and also workshops. They controlled the whole socio-economic life of Buhara. If sultan wanted to gain the support of these people, they were exempted from taxes. Some owners of land in that region could transfer their lands to them. Family could be a dependent of one sheikh. That caused the emergence of patronage system. Sheikh avoided the political tensions in some situation. When there was a tension between the Khan of Buhara and the Sultan of Semerkant, they became  ambassadors. They also provided by the integration of both culture and economy of these two regions.

Togan: There were some measures in law at Ottoman. For example Kadi who responsible from law couldn’t be settled in same place more then three years to avoid taking care of local interests. What was the position of law in here?

Kilic: Law was not also centralised in here, opposed to what was in Ottoman. Kadis were important elements in law but they were not appointed by centre, they were from local ulema. They were also merchants or owners of land at the same time. They were also the most powerful people in that region.

Togan: I have remembered one story of Nasreddin Hodja from Uzbekistan. When Nasreddin found Kadi drunken, he took his large wadded turban “kavuk”. Next day, kadi sent his soldiers to be sought his kavuk in houses. Hodja  showed the kavuk by saying that it was here but he had taken it from one drunken person. Kadi hadn’t had own soldiers in Ottoman period. On the other hand, Nasreddin Hodja, didn’t deal with kadi in Ottoman lands. Sometime we can see him as a kadi. Kadi in Ottoman system was not a powerful figure so that there was no need for satire about him.

Kilic: Seyhulislam and kadis were from local notables. There were criticisms about that. There was a criticism for one seyhulislam in Semerkant, because of his lands and spiritual position.

Togan: What types of building were constructed for the eternity of Uzbek Khans? There were many buildings for the eternity of ottoman Sultans. When we look the city oh Hiva, it can be interpreted as a symbol of eternity of Konrat Beys in 18th –19th centuries.

Kilic: There were medreses in the period of Seybani Khan, most of them were destroyed. There was a period of Abdullah Khan when uzbek Khan centralised. Many mosques, medreses and shrines were built  in this period. Caravan-serais and bazaars were also built.

Togan: Were they called with his name, except that?

Kilic: There were Abdullah Khan Medrese and Meberra Khan Mosque that was built for his mother.

Togan: If we think today’s Uzbekistan, there are Ulug Bey Medrese and Kokenlitas Medrese. What can we see from those inns, if we go there today?

Kilic: There is Barakan Medrese. Mirarap Medrese from that period is in Buhara.

Mutlu: Are there any residence? Are there any palaces?

Togan: There are both winter and summer palaces and castle that were built at the time of beys became khans by Buhara Emir. There were also palaces of both Konrat Khans and Hokant Khans. Because of their privileges, khans didn’t try to eternalise themselves, did they? What are the situation of shrines of khans?

Kilic: All shrines of Seybanis were untidy position at the behind of Sirdar Medrese at Semerkant Registan.

Togan: They didn’t construct single shrine for each khan. Did they bury in some shrine?

Kilic: They were brought together later. There was a shrine for only Seybani Khan.

Togan: Are they gravestone or cupola?

Kilic: None of them. some of them are buried next to shrine of Bahattin Naksibendi. It is told that Abdullaziz Khan had been buried next to his treasure.

Togan: What is the stone of this united shrine?

Kilic: It is obelisk.

Togan: Eleven sultans who were Kilicarslan and other sultans were buried in Konya. The shrines of sultan in Turkey are not majestic. We don’t also wonder where they are. Is Seybani Shrine visited?

Kilic: I don’t think so. It remains behind.

Togan: It is interesting that reflect the perception of themselves. When we look at Hiva where medreses, palaces and shrines were so magnificence that you have understood the magnificence of sultans. Seybanis from Cengiz origin didn’t give importance to that. There were no shrines for both Cengiz Khan himself and his sons. Also it wasn’t known where they buried. There was a bark for the soul of Gokturks about them thought the members of sacred family, but no information where they buried. It seems that beys and khans interpreted the period after the death of themselves. they aren’t a sultan but saint for whom people come to Muradiye shrine in Bursa. After visit , their position of being sultan was a second important place. It is interesting that Cengizs provided suitable situations for that.

Mutlu: It is not the result of desire but the continuation is provided in this manner. It is not for that I will provide I will construct an administration for the happiness of all.

Kilic: Seybani Khan had lived in Buhara before congesting Maveraunnehir and Semerkant. He was dependent on sheikh, and he went to him by saying that I wanted to be a sultan. I want to take Maveraunnehir and Semerkant. Then he went to another sheikh. He said  same thing to him . he called his disciples and by saying  prepare a table for meal. Then he said  to clear away it. Then he said that the formation of state should be started from border like clearing away. Seybani Khan did what he had said. He went to Kipcak.

Mutlu: Thanks for your participation. Good bye. See  next program.

pc12.soc.metu.edu.tr   (25 June 2000, Ankara)