The social structure in the GAP region and its evolution

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cijw20

Download by: [Bilkent University] Date: 29 October 2017, At: 23:07

International Journal of Water Resources Development

ISSN: 0790-0627 (Print) 1360-0648 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijw20

The Social Structure in the GAP Region and its

Evolution

Selahattin Erhan

To cite this article:

Selahattin Erhan (1997) The Social Structure in the GAP Region and

its Evolution, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 13:4, 505-522, DOI:

10.1080/07900629749593

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900629749593

Published online: 21 Jul 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 60

View related articles

T he Socia l Structure in the G A P R egion and its

Evolution

SEL AH A TT IÇN E RH A N

D ep artm ent of International R elations, U niversity of Bilkent, 06533 Bilkent, A nka ra, Turkey

ABSTRACT G A P is an integrated m ultisectoral developm ent project implem ented in south-east Turkey, w hich m akes up 9.7% of the country. W ith its technical, econo m ic and social dim ensions, it is considered in w estern circles as one of th e three to nine w onders of the m odern w orld. A s distinct from earlier projects im plem ented in Turkey (e.g. the CËuk urova Plain project) and elsew here in the w orld, the m ain objective of G A P is to im prove the living conditions of the people not m erely by developing the m aterial infrastructure but by taking the people as the core factor in every com ponent of the project. The sustainability of such projects, it is w ell realized, dep ends on the hum an dim ension, and no t on success in the achievem ent of the m aterial goals alone. W ithin this fram ew ork, several sociological research studies w ere conducted in th e region to deter-m ine the appropriate approach in deter-m aking the people a vital codeter-m ponent of G A P and in bringing them to p articipate in the project voluntarily. This article ® rst gives a historical account of nom adic, i.e., `tribal’ (or ashiret) aspects of A natolian history, w ithout w hich neither the past nor the present of Turkey can be adequately understood.1 It then proceeds to sum m arize the ® ndings, regarding the `tribal’ structure in the region, of the several research studies carried out in the region betw een 1992 and 1994.

Introduction: The Scope

Since early times, Anatolia, the m ain body of the Republic of Turkey, has been a place of cultivators. A ccording to geographers (e.g. de Planhol, 1959), almost all of its land is suitable for agriculture. Despite that, from the 10th century onw ards, nom adism became the pred ominant life style in the majority of the penins ula. Therefore, I m aintain, the history and hence the presen t structure of Turkey, and more so of south-east A natolia, cannot be fully compreh ended unless its nomadic past is appropriately taken into consid eration in any analysis regarding the social form ation and culture of the country.

While the population of Anatolia w as composed of cultivators until the 10th century, this situation has changed thenceforth. W aves of people came in mainly from the east, and these new comers had a variety of social groups and strata, from fully sedentary urbanites to full-time nomads (SuÈmer, 1960). A signi® cant fact is that the m ain bulk of the incomers w ere pred ominantly nomads, w hose survival depended on their animals, and life on their mobility and military capability. To recapitulate, one of the major factors promoting nom adic survival in the A natolian penin sula, and hence some form of `tribal’ or ashiret

organiza-0790-0627/97/040505± 18 $7.00

Ó

tion, has been m assive w estw ard m igrations, m ainly from Asia. Thus began the pred om inance of nomadic existence in Anatolia around the 10th century. The ® rst m igration after the establish ment of nomadism in A natolia, w hich brought w ith it a `tribal’ form of organization to the penin sula to an extent w hich has never been experienced before w as the 13th-century Tartar/Mogul in¯ ux. The second major in¯ ux of nomadic peoples came about the tim e that the O sm anlõ Beylik (principality or emirate) w as expanding at the expense of the Turkm en Beyliks in A natolia. Later, w ith the emerg ence of the Sa fevi political in¯ uence in Iran in the 14th century, m igrations turned back towards the east (D em irtasË, 1949, p. 38; SuÈm er, 1980, p. 156), and remained so until the arrival of Tamerlane (or Tim ur the lam e) at the turn of the 15th century, w hich brought another major w ave of nom adic immigrants to A natolia. This mass m ove of the (tribally organized) nomadic people under Tam erlane once more successfully revived nomadism, especially in the eastern half of Anatolia.

In a sens e, the founding of the Iranian Safevi state in the early 16th century, w hose roots are to be found in the su® sect of the 14th century, w as parallel to that of the O sm anlõ in the w est. H owever, w hile the former remained much more loyal to the Turkm en w ho had founded it, and w ho had borne the main burden of its establish ment (SuÈm er, 1976), the latter rather sw iftly changed its policy towards nomads once it w as strong enough to do so.

O ttom an Policies of C ontainm ent and Settlem ent

The subordination of Anatolian nomadism greatly accelerated in the 17th century.2 From the view point of the Empire, the m ost critical factor in the 17th century w as its inability to m aintain its borders as a result of several defeats in the w est. The Em pire had already undergon e a serious decline in its agricultural population at the end of the Great Escape in the ® rst half of the century. It came face to face w ith a drastic fall in production and hence suffered famine in most regions of Anatolia (AkdagÏ, 1975, p. 61ff.). Furthermore, ª the Celali rebellions of the later sixteenth century ¼ made it increasin gly dif® cult to guarantee the safety of m erchants and their goodsº (Faroqhi, 1982, p. 523). The result w as a one-third decline in tax reven ue in many regions. To solve this double-edged problem (i.e. military and ® nancial) the central government applied military force. On the one hand, it attempted to keep rural people w here they w ere and to sen d those w ho had emigrated to the cities back to the countrysid e. On the other hand, it tried to extract the same total amount of tax from those w ho did not leave their villages, all the w hile trying to impose additional taxes upon them to ® nance the costly m ilitary expeditions.3 These practices only w orsen ed conditions in the countryside. The administra tion eventually relinq uished this policy, and tried to resettle the vast areas left idle either by sending the rural population back to their homes or through attempts to repopulate them w ith nomads and immigrants from the lost provinces.

A fresh effort at reforming the military began at about the same tim e. The devshirm e sys tem of the yenicËeris w as now far from ef® cient. The yenicËeris w ere undisciplined and w eak. Thus began the recruitment of the yoÈruÈks in the Balkans. H owever, a great majority of the yoÈruÈks in the Balkans w ere long settled (i.e. oturak) and did not view active military service as an enticing prospect. To brin g the people to the calling , the governm ent granted them the honorary title: EvlaÃd-õ FaÃtihaÃn, i.e. Sons of the Conquerors. Second, it exempted them from all

the taxes they had previously been forced to pay as reaya (GoÈkbilgin, 1957, pp. 255± 256). The establishm ent of the EvlaÃd-õ FaÃtihaÃn troops in 1691 posed new problem s for the state. Though the Balkan yoÈruÈks w ere not enthusiastic about this project and w ere pressed into serv ice only by these ideological and econ-om ic m easures, many people frecon-om the Anatolian countrysid e tried to join these troops by claiming that they too w ere yoÈruÈks. Others took a more negative attitude and rebelled , or seized this occasion as an opportunity for resistin g any taxation w hatsoever (CËetintuÈ rk, 1943, p. 116).

While the Governm ent w as organizing the long-settled nom ads as EvlaÃd-õ FaÃtihaÃn in the Balkans, it initiated a comprehensive settlem ent project in eastern parts of Anatolia and Syria in 1691. The south-eastern extremes of A natolia w ere under continuous assault by the Bedouins (or the Badaw i, i.e. the desert nomads) from the south (Orhon lu, 1987, pp. 45± 46). H ere the frontiers w ere rein forced agains t the Sa fevõÃ and the social disord er caused on the arable lands of Anatolia by the Bed ouins. The areas chosen for (re)settlem ent w ere Raqqa, H ama, H umus and Aleppo in Syria, and the area covering mainly the w est betw een the Adana and Tokat provinces in Anatolia (ibid., 1987, pp. 32, 55± 87; see also Bates, 1971a). W hereas the main concern in establishin g the EvlaÃd-õ FaÃtihaÃn w as military, the settlem ent of Anatolia and Syria involved social and economic dimensions as w ell as establishin g order on the eastern and south-eastern soil (Orhonlu, 1987, pp. 37± 45, 56). Furthermore, those nomads settled in A natolia and Syria w ere consid ered among the causes of the socioeconomic instability of A natolia by the administration (UlucËay, 1955, pp. 80± 85).

Settlem ent of nomadic ashirets in earlier centuries in the Balkans and else-w here else-w as part of the colonization of neelse-w ly conquered lands. The neelse-w project indicated an ª introversion of settlem ent policyº (Orhonlu, 1987, p. 96) in that it attem pted to repopulate the heart of the Empire. In other w ords, the O sm anlõ w ere now trying to maintain control of the m ainland w here their power rested for so many centuries. Although the choice of both Anatolia and Syria involved similar concern s, an additional military role w as assigned to the settlers along trade routes and/or borders, w ho thus received some extra righ ts. W hile the form er settlers in the Balkans and elsew here w ere regarded simply as reaya, i.e. commoners, in socioeconomic term s4 and w ere taxed according ly (ibid., 1987, p. 71ff.), the latter w ere exem pted from several taxes (ibid., 1987, p. 47), thereby becoming the askerõÃ , i.e. military. Those assign ed as militia to guard the derbents (mountain passes) w ere also allow ed to engage in pastoral production as long as they did not change locations seasonally. In order to guard the trade routes and to stand as perm anent frontier forces, they had to stay on the spot all year round (1987, p. 47). They could pursue their `traditional mode of life’ only by send ing their herd s to the highlands w ith their shepherds in sum mer (ibid., 1987, p. 51). Quite realistically, the govern ment did not expect to prevent comm unal seasonal m ovem ents by law alone, and secured them by force (ibid., 1987, p. 51; see also Bates, 1971b).5

The comm on practice of the O sm anlõ w as to settle nomadic `tribes’ in frag-m ents aw ay frofrag-m each other in order to prevent any rapid recovery of their previous power or unsupervised movem ent (Orhonlu, 1987, p. 56). This tim e, however, they w ere settled along the borders or trade routes in large groups so as to facilitate the performance of their m ilitary duty, to protect those borders and trade routes (Asw ad, 1971). Since such ashiret settlem ents migh t w ell start causing trouble them selves, the govern ment took several measures to preserv e the stability of the settlem ents and their loyalty. The chiefs and other notables,

i.e. bey s and kethuÈdas, w ho had high standing both w ithin their communities and in the eyes of the state, w ere given the largest and best lands. The chiefs’ w illin gness to settle w as instru mental in brin ging them considerable land titles as w ell (Orhonlu, 1987, p. 57).

The 1691± 96 settlem ent project w as a multidimens ional one. To the O sm anlõ , rural settlem ent w as the only w ay to counter the problems of decreasing rural population, crop damage caused by irregu lar nomadism, and extern al threat. Banditry and raids on dw ellin g areas w ere largely ascribed to the nomadsÐ usu-ally, quite righ tly so (see Bayrak, 1984). In many cases, the disruptive groups w ere reported to have come from eastern A natolia and Syria, w here they had earlier been forced to settle.6

Large numbers of Crimean and Caucasian agricultural imm igrants w ere settled next to the nom adic ash irets, if not directly on the pastures used by them . Thus, in these border areas and trade-route passages vacated by the people durin g the upheavals leading to the Great Escape, not only w as security expected to be maintained but also a very critical balance w as intended betw een the experienced cultivators and nomadic settlers. The incoming people had recently lost their ancestral lands, and w ere determ ined not to ex perience the sam e fate again. They represented a strong and intransigen t foe for the nom ads, w ho w ere not pleased at having been red uced to immobility. W hat is more, the tw o could successfully stand together against the advance of a common enem y, such as the Sham m ar and A neze Bedouins of A rabia (Orhon lu, 1987, pp. 45± 46). The presence of nom ads as `tribal’ settlers w as also seen as a factor that w ould control local `feudalistic tend encies’ ,7 w hich had already emerg ed in the 17th century (UlucËay, 1955, pp. 71± 74).

It w as not easy to prevent nomads from abandoning their assign ed plots (Orhonlu, 1987, pp. 81ff, 88ff.). The land and its natural resources w ere often claimed by nom ads to be insuf® cient. Furthermore, as settlers, they w ere subject to recurren t attacks of stronger or Bed ouin groups from the south (ibid., 1987, p. 90). Finally, new taxes w ere imposed on them and w ere regularly extracted after they became `sedentary,’ i.e. im mobile. So, many of them left their settle-m ent zones to avoid strict political control and taxation, and ¯ ed into areas w here they could more readily cope w ith the pressures imposed by the gover-nors.

This time their ¯ igh t w as not exclusively toward the w est or north . A principal altern ative w as the east. Iran had been a preferred destin ation for many nomads sin ce the 16th century, and it continued to be so during the 17th and 18th centuries (DemirtasË, 1949, p. 38; SuÈmer, 1980, pp. 303± 304). The extent of the eastw ard migration and hence its impact on the O sm anlõ in A natolia w as quite substantial. For example, on one occasion in the 18th century, 50 000 nomads left their lands around the Taurus m ountains, and w ent to Iran (Yalm an, 1977, I, pp. 49, 102; SuÈmer, 1980, pp. 303± 304).

As a result, initial attem pts at repopulating the Anatolian countryside and increasing agricultural productivity largely failed , despite some temporary suc-cesses (Orhon lu, 1987). N or w ere the issues of safer trade, transportation and the like completely solved .

Eighteenth C entury: N om adic Ashirets as G uards, etc.

Consequent upon this failure, a more comprehensive approach w as adopted by the O sm anlõ in the 18th century to re-establish overland communications, among

other concern s. ª This policy involved the construction and repair of forti® ed kervansarays and the reorganization of the corps of passg uards (derbendci)º (Faroqhi, 1982, p. 523).

This time, many of the reasons people gave for ¯ eein g or resis ting settlem ent on assigned plots began to be given m ore serious consideration (HalacËogÏlu, 1988). The declared aim w as still to populate and cultivate the devastated countrysid e, by brin gin g security and stability back to Anatolia. H owever, the O sm anlõ w ere O sm anlõ and acted like O sm anlõ more often than not. Thus, special forces like Fõ rka-õ IslaÃhiye w ere sen t against resistin g nom ads, and there w ere m any armed clashes. Due to som e talented, able govern ors, some successes w ere achieved at least temporarily in certain reg ions in A natolia (ibid.) and Syria (Lew is, 1987).

In the meantime, reformation of m ilitary organization continued at full speed. One of these attem pts w as the establish ment of the N izaÃm -õ CedõÃ d (literally, the N ew Order) army in 1793. The resistance of the long corrupted yenicËeris w as so ® erce and strong that the attem pt could not go further than trying to maintain the new reg im ents as special guards, downplaying their role and keeping both their numbers and public appearances very low .

In addition to the establishm ent of a new central army, the state also tried to rein force and stren gthen the old frontiers, as w ell as establish new ones. ª The ® nal steps ¼ to extend central control into the provinces involved a major reorg anization of the arm yº in 1841, w hich w as for ª the ® rst time divided into provincial commandsº in an attempt to counter and terminate the local ª govern ors’ control of the m ilitary forces w ithin their domainsº (Shaw & Shaw , 1978, p. 85). In addition to these forces, the ª irregu lar tribesmen, generally called bashõ bozuk s,º assisted the provincial division s ª w ith som e 65 000 w arriorsº (ibid., p. 86).

The Balkan troops of ex-nomads founded in 1691, EvlaÃd-õ FaÃtihaÃn, w ere reorg anized in 1832 (with the same exem ptions and privileg es), and w ere deployed not only in the w est but also in Georgia, for instance (GoÈkbilgin, 1957, p. 256). Ow ing to the desperate need for their services, the privileg ed status of the EvlaÃd-õ FaÃtihaÃn continued until 1850 w hen the Tanzim at, i.e. Reform ation, govern ment of 1839 announced military service to be a duty of all citizens (ibid., p. 256). A new Land Act follow ed this law in 1858, w hich:

¼ in combination w ith following num erous decrees of execution, led to a stabilization of law and order in the country, especially regarding the m ost im portant security of property. Property of landÐ till then only possible as m õÃ rõÃ , a form of copyholdÐ could now be changed into a legal title of ownership. (H uÈtteroth, 1973, p. 23)8

W hile this law stimulated the expansion of agricultural production via the legalization of the cultivation of additional lands such as pastures, w hich probably had already begun, it did the opposite to nomadism. In addition to the decrease of pastures available for grazing, many dw ellin g-places (left idle by villagers), presumably used by nom ads on a seasonal basis, w ere now being revived by the settlem ent of ª hundred s of thousands of Muslims ¼ emigrated from the Crim ea, Caucasus, and the Balkansº following their loss (ibid., p. 23). These developm ents, combined w ith the continuing attem pts of the govern -m ent to control the-m as sedentaries,9 put the nom adic confederations in a very constrained situation. A s a result, some volunteered for settlem ent (see Yalman,

1977, I; pp. 215, 216). Many refused to oblige and moved further east w hile others w ere already continuing to enjoy a relative `freedom’ in quite large confederations. Others joined nomadic groups after leaving the lands on w hich they w ere settled by of® cial decrees (ibid., 1977, I, p. 251). Some ashirets resorted to banditry because of the dif® culties of adjusting to a settled life (see Boran, 1945, pp. 31± 32).

H owever, the O sm anlõ do not seem to have followed a policy of settlin g all nomads. A s Bates sees it, it w as ª a project w hich arose from the govern ment’ s desire to brin g politically threatenin g tribes under controlº (1973a, p. 225).10 To achieve this goal, it seem ed the best and easiest w ay for the state to grant land titles to the chie¯ y ® gures of every tribal group. This thereb y initiated ª the rise of large private estatesº in south-east Anatolia (Asw ad, 1971, p. 21; cf. BesËikcËi, 1969b) w here ª many of their descendants are found among the largest landlords of the region todayº (Bates, 1973a, p. 225).

As noted above, local notables w ere already emerg ing throughout Anatolia as `feudalistic’ derebeys, w ith almost-absolute powers over the reaya. The policy of giving arable lands to notables as private holding s, in addition to the collective or comm unal lands granted to the settlin g confederations, in time led to an enlargem ent of the estates and, hence, the expansion of the power of the notables at the expense of the m asses (cf. Sencer, 1974). N otables acquired lands through a variety of means, from illegal coercion and appropriation to legal transfer. Also partly because of nomads’ inability and unw illin gness to stay and engage in cultivation on the assigned plots, in the end all the land turned into the private property of these ashiret notables, w ho now became local (land)lords w hile the ordinary nom ads gradually became dispossess ed tenants. After gettin g rid of the large and m ore threatenin g confederations, the govern ment allowed the others w ho ª offered no threat to the political stability of the reg ionº , to continue their usual w ay of life (Bates, 1973b, p. 34).

R evival of N om adism in Eastern A natolia: The Hamidiye C ava lries

In the last quarter of the 19th century, further even ts occurred that accelerated the revival of nom adism (and, thereby, the ashiret structure) in eastern Anatolia. In direct cooperation w ith the Russians, w ho w ere continuing their advances through Caucasia in the north -east (w hich is on a major trade route betw een Caucasus, Iran and A natolia), the O sm anlõ A rm enians initiated guerilla activity behind the arm y lines so as to help the Russians defeat the O sm anlõ . The British w ere another concern. The British had already `rented ’ the province of Cyprus unilaterally in 1878 (Kodaman, 1987, p. 25), and annexed Egypt in 1882 (ibid., p. 68), all under the pretext of preventing the Russians from doing so. H ence, they w ere righ tly suspected of having further ambitions concerning O sm anlõ lands, extend ing from north-east Anatolia to the Arabian peninsula.

These developments led the central govern ment to adopt a rather traditional strategy. In 1891, the state organized 36 regim ents (Fõ rat, 1983, p. 123), from among the ashiret (i.e. nomadic and semi-nomadic) w arriors of eastern Anatolia (Kodaman, 1987, pp. 44, 49).11 Tw o important criteria for selection w ere the size and power of the groups. Large and strong confederations that could rise against the state in a con¯ ict w ere not the ® rst choice. Adherence to sunnõÃ Islam w as preferred , though not steadfastly follow ed (see Kodaman, 1987, p. 37). The purposes w ere varied, three of w hich w ere: ª to help the arm y suppress

terrorism in the eastº (Shaw & Shaw , 1978, p. 203), ª to counter the Russian Cossack forces in the Crimea, and also to control the tribes them selves by `placing’ nomadic areas adjacent to the Russian borderº (ibid., p. 246; cf. BesËikcËi, 1969a, p. 79).

These cavalry w ere named after the Sultan Abdul H amid as the H am idiye [H a® f SuÈvari] A laylar, the H amidiye [Ligh t Cavalry] Regim ents12 and initially consisted of some 50 000 men w ho w ere ª paid on active dutyº and their families ª exempted from all taxes except the tithe [oÈsËuÈr] and anim als taxº (Shaw & Shaw , 1978; p. 206). Their arms w ere provided by the state and although they ª w ere supposed to be provided only w hen they w ere engaged in combat ¼ in fact m ost of them m anaged to keepº them even after the w ar (ibid., p. 206). These regim ents w ere not totally free from governm ent control. Although they w ere actually ª comm anded by the trib al chiefs ¼ reg ular army of® cers also w ent along to train the men and make sure that the overall commands w ere carried outº (ibid., p. 206).

These regim ents provided the means for nom ads to foster their privileg ed position in the region and, consequently, the ª H amidiye tribal force grew fairly rapidly, to 40 regim ents in 1892, 56 in 1893, and 63 in 1899º (Shaw & Shaw , 1978, p. 206). One reason w as the regulation enacted for their recruitment, w hich stated that the people had tw o choices: either to be recruited for regular army service; or to become irregu lars under the H am id iye troops (Kodaman, 1987, p. 37). This expansion w as realized also through force exercised by the H am idiye chiefs (see Fõ rat, 1983, pp. 125± 126) as w ell as through the independ ent initiative of other chiefs, w ho had initially been hesitant or even unw illing to be recruited. The appeal of these regim ents can also be located in their organization and its effects (Fõ rat, 1983, pp. 124± 126). In fact, this seem s to be the main reason w hy the chiefs w ho at ® rst hesitated to join the reg im ents and w ere thus left out of the H am idiye organization later becam e eager supporters of it. They realized that the early founders of the regim ents soon becam e stronger and m ore respected than they could have ever dream ed had they not joined these forces. Many chiefs im mediately became commanders of a combination of several sm all kabiles or ashirets in addition to their own kabile or ashirets, thereb y becoming leading ® gures in the region .

One consequence of the establishm ent of the H am idiye reg im ents w as the division of the people into tw o antagonistic groups. Those w ho w ere servin g in these regim ents became ª the H am idiyeº vis-aÁ-vis the others. For more than tw o decades, the previous names and titles of the people involved in the H amidiye organization w ere subsum ed under the m ore comprehensive and legally auth-oritative rubric H am idiye. Since relig ious af® liation (sunnõÃ vs. alevõÃ ) w as another concern of the O sm anlõ in appointing the increasing ly w illin g candidate w arriors as H am idiye, sectarian antagonism13resurfaced and rose to an unforeseen magni-tude betw een the tw o groups, adding greatly the strains felt betw een them later (see Fõ rat, 1983, p. 158ff.).14

On the death of Sultan H amid in 1909, the H am idiye chiefs found them selves in a dangerous vacuum. The new governm ent did not seem to share the policy of the deceased Sultan. A s opposed to the sunn õÃ -oriented Islamicist policy of A bduÈl H amid, the new govern ment adopted an Ottomanist view to (re)unite the badly divided population of the Empire, Christians, Jew s and Muslim s alike (CËavdar, 1984). This policy found immediate support among the non-H amidiye alevõÃ communities in eastern A natolia, w ho had suffered most severely from the

divisive consequences of the earlier policy (Fõ rat, 1983, p. 141ff.). Partly because of being left powerles s by the death of the Sultan, w hom they considered a father (ibid., p. 125), and partly because of the threat posed by the alliance betw een the new govern ment and the alevõÃ ashirets, som e of the commander-chiefs rebelled im mediately after the announcem ent of the era of the Second Constitution (M esËruÃtiyet) in 1908, but w ere subsequently defeated by regular troops.15 Only after these defeats and under strict govern mental control did these irreg ular nomadic reg im ents give up ® ghting the new regim e.

The M esËruÃtiyet govern ment did not dissolve the regim ents but chose to control them more directly. N ow, each reg im ent had a reg ular m ajor as its second-in-command (Fõ rat, 1983, pp. 141± 142). Again, according to the law , raiding and tax-gatherin g w ere no longer perm itted (ibid., p. 142). Despite these restrictions, the chiefs did not lose their power and authority either among the troops or among the sedentaries of the region (ibid., pp. 141± 142). They still proved helpful to the govern ment in w ar. In 1912, they w ere put on alert because of the Balkan con¯ ict in the w est. The continuing threat of the Russian Empire forced the govern ment to maintain and train H am idiye regim ents in the east. At the begin nin g of the First W orld W ar in 1914, the H am idiyes w ere sent against the Russians. Though they fought to the best of their abilities , they w ere defeated. Most of them ¯ ed back into the mountains w here they began to engage in banditry and raidin g.

Those w ho stayed at the front w ere reorg anized and gathered into tw o divisions, w hich survived until about 1920 (Fõ rat, 1983, pp. 143± 444). They adamantly resis ted dissolution, and remnants of them (even after their of® cial disbanding) caused the O sm anlõ governm ent many headaches. A side from trying to exact illegal taxes from villagers and non-H am idiy e ashirets, they engaged in ® erce ® ghts w ith one another. Besid es such inter-ashiret w arfare, the ex-comm an-ders turned into local `despots’ known as the derebeys of absolute power, w ith hundreds of armed men at their command. These even ts created w idespread unrest in the region . But the O sm anlõ found them selves on the losing side durin g the closin g stages of the First World W ar, and w ere in no position to put a stop to such illegal activities anyw here in the country. IÇstanbul w as under allied invasion. In the east, nomads and the ashiret system w ere once again on the rise, and in the m idst of the chaos created by the power gap at the centre from losing the w ar, raids and banditry became taken for granted as daily events (ibid., pp. 155± 156).

T he Present C onditions of N om adism in T urke y

U nder the new reg im e, the privileged nom adic groups and their leaders had to relin quish their legal/of® cial titles, administra tive and military rig hts and du-ties, such as collecting taxes (Fõ rat, 1983, p. 141ff.). A second developm ent w as the closure of the eastern and south-eastern borders in the late 1920s and the 1930s, w hich curbed the migratory orbit of nomads drastically, and red uced the area that they could exploit. Furtherm ore, some of the disb anded ex-H am idiy e ashirets w ere left outside Turkey. Later on, the enactment of the Village Act in 1924 turned the power relations betw een nomads and villagers completely upside down. This Act w as design ed to protect the interests of villagers against intruders such as nomads and converted the traditional grazing plots, highlands and pastures that nomads had been using into the common property of (the

nearest) villages (TuÈtengil, 1969, p. 128). D epending on their own productive orien tation, the villagers chose either to exploit the pastures themselves, or to rent them to nom ads (who w ere now stripped of this basic economic means) at high rates. Since, how ever, many of these villagers w ere ex-nomads settled earlier, they too retained an ashiret structure similar to that of the nomads, if not exactly the same. More precisely , the con¯ ict w as now also one among ashirets. Consequent upon the process sketched above, contemporary nomadism is strictly dom inated by the sedentary w ay of life into w hich it becomes more incorporated every day. In contrast w ith the political power they held in the past, w hich lasted until the 1930s, pastoral nomadic ashirets today are subordi-nate to the agricultural population. The presen t reg im e is organized on the basis of a settled w ay of life. H ence, nomads, w ho are a priori considered as ª the people of no landº , do not stand a chance agains t villagers w hen con¯ icts occur, unless they are either backed or represented by an able person in the region . The of® cial de-recognition of (nomadic) ashirets as legal communities by the foun-dation of the Republic in 1923 underm ined the leadersh ip and made the allegiance of their m embers to certain ashiret leaders contrary to the ideology of central govern ment. In most disputes betw een villagers and nomads, therefore, the law, and hence security forces, are on the side of the villagers unless, to repeat, they are aligned w ith local power foci.

As a result of the developments and policies describ ed earlier, eastern and south-eastern A natolia became a refuge for nom ads. A simple observation in the Republic of Turkey reveals that there is a ª clearcut contrastº (de Planhol, 1959, p. 529) betw een w estern Anatolia and eastern Anatolia in term s of nomadic, i.e. ashiret, survival. Until about tw o decades ago or so, nomadism w as quite vestigial in the w est, and practised mainly betw een the coastal plains and the plateaux near Kayseri (in central A natolia) by several fragmented grouping s of the A ydõ nlõ group (Eberh ard, 1967, p. 282) and by the remnants of BozologÏ, i.e. Boz-U lus (Yalman, 1977, Vol. II). In eastern Anatolia, on the other hand, nomadism experienced ª a m uch m ore vigorous survivalº (de Planhol, 1959, p. 529) until quite recently. If one reason w hy nomadic survival w as much more vigorous in the east is the suitable climate and geography, another factor w hich resulted in the prevalence of nomadism in the east has been the differential rate of agricultural m echanization and comm ercialization (Erhan, 1992, p. 88) in Turkey. Furtherm ore, as a result of the developments and policies described earlier, eastern and south-eastern soil had become a refuge for nom adic ashirets until about a couple of decades ago. Studies show that even in the 1980s there w ere som e pastoral nomadic ashirets in eastern Anatolia such as the SËavaklõ of the Elazõ gÏ-Tunceli-Erzincan range w hich had as many as 15 000 mem bers (Aydõ n, 1980, p. 143; Kutlu, 1987, p. 53). One should add the Beritanlõ ashiret to this list, the number of w hose m em bers, regardless of their active involvem ent in nomadic pastoral practices, easily equalled the SËavaklõ , if not exceeded them (Erhan, 1992).

Indeed, one of the most distinguishin g social characteristics of the population in eastern A natolia is its as yet undetached ashiret af® liations w hich at times of inter-group con¯ ict, such as feuds, prove them selves to be a major basis of solidarity and cooperation (H akkõ , 1932; Sencer, 1992± 93, pp. 609, 614± 615).16 In other w ords, the prevailin g ideology w hich ultim ately governs social relations in m ost parts of the region is that of ashiret organization, i.e. genealogical kinship relations; social belongin gness; and the notion of ª communityº , as ª a sense of

belong ing togetherº Brow (1990, p. 1).17The same is true for the (sedentary) rural population, as w ell as m any people of the towns and small cities, w hich either have been practising a semi-settled w ay of life or have become sedentary cultivators during the last tw o hundred years or so, mainly through the govern ment operations describ ed above (see also Sencer, 1992± 93, p. 614). At this point, it is w orth m entionin g, in the w ords of Sencer (1992± 93, p. 611) that ª It is a very rare situation to ® nd an ashiret w hich is completely nomadic or settled º . Largely as a result of this structure, eastern (and, by the same token, south-eastern ) A natolia did not seriously take part in the process of m echanization until the 1960s. Most people in eastern A natolia w ere landless and organized in ashirets, and the landlords w ould appear to have had very little to gain from using m odern m achin ery.18 On the one hand, m achines w ould replace large numbers of rural people, landless and landed alike, w ho for the most part belong ed to the same ashiret as their landlords. Thus, the calculation involved in adopting (or, for that matter, refusing the use of) new machinery w as not simply an economic one. The m achin es w ould perh aps bring about an increase in the yield . But, once the m achines w ere introd uced, the ashiret leaders, w ho had become landlords in the process of settlem ent, w ould lose their `dependants’ , i.e. the social base of their political power (Erhan, 1992, see also Sencer 1992± 93, p. 616ff.). In effect, then, ashiret forces w ere threatened. The introd uction of m achin ery w ould have encouraged the break-up of fundamental social relations in favour of capitalist penetration. N evertheless, quite aw are of their eventual fate, the local leaders (such as the sheikh s and ashiret chiefs) not onlyÐ and foreverÐ did resist m echanization but also have renew ed them selves quite successfully and adapted to m odern conditions. A s an example, they began to get actively involved in national party politics so as to m aintain their position and roles as local leaders and mediators (see Erhan, 1992, 1993; OD TUÈ , 1993, p. 19; Sencer, 1992± 93, pp. 614± 615).

G A P and Its Pros pects

A t present, however, even the nomads of this region are continuously losing ground at an ever increasin g speed . A t this point, Sencer notes (1992± 93, p. 612) that the ashiret population ª w hose estim ated number w as approximately 70 000± 100 000 at the begin nin g of the 1970sº is in a process of settlement due to the shortage of sum mer and w inter quarters and the like. The conditions once relatively suitable for nomads in eastern and south-eastern Anatolia are now subject to drastic changes . The m ost compreh ensive and most curren t of these changes is GA P, namely G uÈneydogÏu A na dolu Projesi, or the Southeast Anatolian Project. GA P is an integrated m ultisectoral developm ent project covering the nine provinces (Adõ yaman, Batman, Diyarbakõ r, Gaziantep, Kilis, Mardin, Siirt, SËanlõ urfa, SËõ rnak) of the south-eastern corner of Turkey. The area in question m akes up 9.7% of the country, and w ith its technical, economic and social dimens ions, the project is considered by several w estern circles as one of the three to nine w onders of the modern w orld. This development project includes 13 sub-projects, the totality of w hich aim s at a hydraulic complex able to irriga te 1 800 000 ha, so as to increase agricultural production up to 50± 60 times (Bala-ban, 1986, p. 5). This ® gure is 300 000 ha more than the total irrig ated land in the w hole of Turkey at present.

Balaban notes (1986, p. 3) that the prelim inary steps of w hat is now called

GA P w ere taken in 1936. H owever, feasibility studies proceeded only during the 1960s and w ere ® nished by 1970. With regard to its magnitude, the entire sys tem w as projected to be completed w ithin a span of 30 years. At 1986 rates, it required a total of TL7 trillion , a sum w hich is equal to the same year’ s national budget. Initially, GAP w as planned to be ® nished by the year 1990. Several reasons, including the so-called ª Gulf Crisisº next door, precluded the com-pletion of the project on time. Openin g of the AtatuÈrk dam, the biggest dam of all w ithin the GA P system , took place on 1 D ecember 1993. A s of A pril 1996, the sub-system s of this vast integra ted project completed so far could provide a total of 68 000 ha of irriga tion. The energy production of the tw o dams, Karakaya and A tatuÈrk, amounts to 102 630 071 000 kW h for the same year. By the end of 1996, the total land irrig ated reached 1 693 027 ha, w hich is equal to 19% of the total economically irrig able land in Turkey .

Despite the ensuing delay in the completion of GAP’ s physical investments, the picture looks quite dark for the nomadicÐ and, to a lesser degree, the semi-nomadicÐ ashirets of the reg ion, w hose culture and mode of organization have pred ominated there for m any centuries. There are very few altern atives left for them, if they could be called `alternative’ at all. The most plausible one is to settle down and cease to be nomadic, thereby practising some combination of cultivation and sedentary anim al breed ing, inevitably at a m uch low er capacity. Many nomadic groups have actually been seekin g government aid to settle sin ce the 1930s. The underlying idiom of state policy has been , as it still is, to convert nomads into cultivating villagers, if not also urban dw ellers , and to m ake them productive as soon as possib le after they settle (APD, 1971), rather than causing them to suffer the consequences of a prolonged transition. Thus, the usual practice of governm ents before 1970, under Law N o. 2510 w hich provides the basic stipulations, w as to provide every possible assistance to those seek ing rural settlem ent, including land, ® elds, housing, agricultural equipment and the necessary infrastructure such as sheds, stables and roads (GuÈloÈksuÈz, 1985, p. 307). The prin cipal conditions of eligibility w ere sim ple and very strictly follow ed. They w ere, as they still are, to own no landed property anyw here in Turkey, and to be married at the tim e of the of® cial settlem ent survey.

Since the 1970s, how ever, these bene® ts are provided only as loans w ith easy credit terms (as low as 2.5% interes t), payable in instalments over ® ve to 20 years. According to Law N o. 1306, as amend ed in 1970, ª the property is not granted for free to the settlers, but rather they become indebted to the state for the disbursed expensesº (GuÈloÈksuÈz, 1985, p. 307). Perh aps because the settle-m ent of nosettle-m ads has not been a prisettle-m ary concern of governsettle-m ent in settle-m odern Turkey, in practice, a group that requests settlem ent usually ® nds a place and then noti® es govern ment agencies. If the piece of land is public property, then its current value is calculated by experts, based on an assessm ent of the quality of its cultivable land, etc., and is transferred to the group after the roads and houses have been built by the state. If the site belong s to private person s, then the governm ent purchases it from its owner, to turn it over to the group w hen the necessary housing, roads, drin king w ater, stores and the like have been provided. A t the time of settlem ent, the state also provides some initial capital, based on agreem ent w ith the group. This m ay be either seed grain/w heat or anim als.

N everth eless, w hat is true for `nom adism ’ is not the same for `ashirets’ , i.e. tribes and/or trib alism. An overw helming majority of sedentary rural

lation in the region is organized as ashirets, thanks to the centuries-long domi-nation of nomadism and the three-century history of govern mental or voluntary settlem ent practices.

Sociological Studies in G A P

A w are of these and other issues concerning the population of the region , w hose lives have already begun to change or are subject to be altered drastically soon, a major concern of the GAP project is to take into consid eration the living conditions of the people in the face of the expected and/or projected changes deriving from the physical and the ensuing econom ic changes enacted in the region. In other w ords, as distin ct from the earlier projects implemented in Turkey (e.g. the CËukurova Plain project) and elsew here in the w orld, the main objective of GA P is not merely to develop the infrastructual facilities and/or to invest in material projects. The sustainability of such projects, it is w ell realized, depend s not on success in the achiev em ent of the m aterial goals alone. Rather, it depends on taking the human elem ent as the core factor in every single component of the project, successfully and appropriately. It is, so to speak, the human dimens ion w hich bring s either the failure or success of any developm ent project.

Betw een 1992 and 1994, four m ajor resea rch es w ere cond ucted in and on south-eastern A n atolia, through the in itiative and sponsorship of th e GA P± B KIÇ (Southeastern A natolia Project± Regional D evelop m ent A dm in istration). Th ese in clud e `Survey on the T ren d s of Social C hange in GA P Region’ plann ed, d esig n ed an d conducted by the Ch am ber of A gricultural E ngineers und er the supervision of D r M uzaffer Sen cer (1992± 93); `W om en’ s Status in the GA P Region and th eir Integration to th e Process of D evelopm ent’ (1994) designed and im plem ented by the D evelop m ent Found ation of Turkey (TKV ), un der the guid an ce an d supervision of D r A hm et Saltõ k; `Survey on the Problem s of E m ploym ent and Resettlem ent in A reas w hich w ill be A ffected by D am L akes in GA P Region ’ (1994) d esign ed an d applied by the Sociology A ssociation , under th e supervision of D r Birsen GoÈkcËe; and `Population Movem ents in the GA P Region ’ d esig ned and cond ucted by the D ep artm ent of Sociology, M idd le E ast T ech nical U niversity (M E T U or OD T UÈ, 1993), und er the supervision of D r B ahattin A ksËit. In ad d ition to these surveys, a ® fth one w as con ducted on the `M an agem ent, Opera tion an d M ainten ance of GA P Irriga tion System s’ planned , d esig n ed an d im plem ented by H alcrow , D olsar and RW C jointly. T he sociological dim ension of th is project w as undertaken by the D epartm en t of Sociology, M E TU (A ksit et al., 1994).

Some of the major ® nding s of these research studies indicate that a de® nin g characteristic of the reg ion is its still high ly effective ashiret, i.e. `tribal’ , structure and accompanyin g sociopolitical institutions. Many of the critical features and aspects of social organization and life seem to derive from this peculiar mode of organization, w hich has its roots in the O sm anlõ history, as sketched earlier.

Besid es being an imperial state w ith m any and distinct relig ious and social groups w ith varyin g sociopolitical and economic activities and organizations, O sm anlõ state had developed certain policies on the basis of real and urgent concerns reg arding that reg ion in particular w hich is at the threshold of the deserts to the south, as the last citadel of arable lands of Asia Minor. Beginn ing

in the 1690s, the O sm anlõ w ere concerned w ith protecting the intercontinental trade routes w hich passed through the reg ion, as w ell as preventing the desert nomads from attacking and pillagin g the arable, cultivated lands there. There-fore, they ins tituted large-scale settlem ent program mes all over the reg ion including parts of present Iraq and Syria. This policy of (re)settlem ent of m asses in the region continued w ith semi-success and semi-failure due to the Badaw i fear of the population settled in those agricultural zones. W hat happened in the end (as a result of continued efforts to settle people, the 1878 Russian± Ottoman W ar, the Firs t World W ar, etc.) is the ® rm establish ment in the reg ion of tribal organization once more.

In ad dition to the lon g-established (re)settlem ent policy of the O sm anlõ govern m en tÐ h istorically, th e 1854 Land A ct; the form ation of H am idiye C avalries against the Russian ad vances in th e 1870s from trib al groups, und er the lea dership of their traditional lead ers, som e of w hom received m ilita ry ed ucation an d train in g in Istanbul; th e 1924 V illa ge A ct; and ® nally the in troduction to the countrysid e of a total of 40 000 tractors in the 1940s for agricultural purposes, w ith no prior stud y or inquiry Ð contributed a lot to the form ation of this picture. T he new Land A ct legitim ized the possession of huge areas of land by the sheikh s (tribal an d/or relig ious lead ers). T he chiefs or com m and ers of the H am id iye Cavalries, w ho w ere also trib al lead ers, w ere granted righ ts to exact taxes, and to m ake use of grazing zones an d h igh land s for their herd s, etc. A nd the V illage A ct turned into village com m on properties the traditional pastures of nom ad ic and sem i-n om adic trib es of th e region, w ho w ere th us left w ith nothing besid es their herds and tents. A ll these n ot only brought further friction and /or hostilities am ong variou s sectors of the population, but also rein forced the trad itional m od e of trib al organization in the reg ion.

Th e trib al or ash iret type of social organization, together w ith the h istorical reasons sketched above, brought a speci® c sen se of in security in south-east A natolia. Th is transla tes into a need for m anpow er, for h e w ho has the m ost m anpow er is considered the strongest an d h ence th e m ost resp ectable. Th is, in turn, brings polygam y (Sen cer, 1992± 93; TK V , 1994; see also GoÈkalp, 1975), as the easies t, m ost ef® cient (plus trad itionally acceptable and religio usly per-m issible) w ay to have as per-m any children, and as per-m any allies through per-m arriages, as possible. One consequ ence of this is a high birth rate, w h ich in turn brin gs a high child m ortality rate, because of insuf® cient h ealth care (TK V, 1994), and trad ition al attitud es tow ard s health problem s (such as trusting in local tribal eld ers rath er than m edical doctors). Th is lead s to rapid an d en dless d ivision of land am ong sons in every generation, on th e one hand, w hich in turn lead s m any people to h ave one piece of lan d w hich is good for n oth ing (see Sencer, 1992± 93, p. 248). M any of th ese people eith er sell th eir land and go to th e urban centres w ith no skill for w ork other than cultivation, or begin to w ork for the landlord s w ith little m oney and in kind , in ad d ition to cultivatin g their ow n plot. Som e of these people w ork as seasonal w orkers in other regions such as the CËukurova basin (OD T UÈ , 1993). On the other hand, it leads many others to practise such age-old trad itions as brother’ s son/brother’ s daughter m arriages for m any genera tions to com e.

These (traditional) efforts to maxim ize the num ber of members of a house-hold, and the ens uing land fragm entation, lead to landlessn ess of m any people (Sencer, 1992± 93, p. 246). Furtherm ore, it brin gs severe competition among

people, w hich leads to even high er brid e prices and inability to get married for those w ho lack the necessary economic means and, even tually, to blood feuds. Scattered resid ence in the m ost secure, inaccessible places (historically, for protection from the Badaw is, for pastoral activities, and due to inter-ashiret con¯ ict) is another result, w hich effectively disables efforts to provide health-care, education, transportation, etc. It is neither possible nor economically viable to brin g the necessary facilities to those comm unities w hose sizes range from tw o to 10 household s. At presen t, the num ber of these sub-village settlem ents (called m ezra, kom , etc.) far exceeds the number of villages in the region .

The GAP A dministra tion is curren tly makin g every effort to change this picture. A most recent example of the continued efforts of the GAP Administra-tion is the establishm ent of m ultipurpose Comm unity Centres (CËATOM, in Turkish ) both in urban areas and the countrysid e. These centres aim at raising the status of w om en in the region , by training and educating them to gain income-generating skills and providing them w ith necessary information on health issues and child care as w ell as education, sin ce w omen among all are the least privileged section of society in the reg ion. At presen t, fem ale children are not even allowed to have a decent education as a result of socioeconomic and religiou s reasons, and are m arried at very young ages at `prices’ non-affordable by many families.

Other social projects to be implemented w ithin the framew ork of GAP include the resettlem ent of those w hose dw ellin g places or ® elds w ill be in¯ uenced by dam lakes (Sosyoloji, 1994); reorganization of the urban informal sector through education and training for regular jobs of m ostly rural origin people w ho ¯ ood into the cities w ith few or no skills beyond cultivation; establish ing busing system s for the children of the scattered communities; and settlem ent of no-m adic people w hose prospect for usin g the south-eastern soil for grazing is approaching zero. Through infrastructural investments and implementation of such social projects, around the year 2005, GAP is estim ated to create employ-m ent opportunities for about 3 500 000 employ-million people.

N otes

1. T hroughout the text nom ad ic, ash iret (and , occasionally, tribe/tribal) are utilized interch ange-ably, and should be read as such unless otherw ise cited. O ther w ord s used in the literature for nom ad include yoÈruÈk/yuÈruÈk and T urkm en.

2. T he studies that provide background inform ation for this period are those on the classical age of the O sm anlõ E m pire (IÇnalcõ k, 1973; Shaw I, 1974).

3. T his point is crucial in that taxes from the reay a, as a rule, w ere being ex tracted on the basis of the population of settlemen t units. T he unit of taxation w as the village or the estate. T herefor e, tax-g atherers w ere dem and ing a certain amount of tax from each unit as befor e, regard less of the num ber of current residents. T his m ethod w orked w ell under norm al cond itions. T he am ounts and kind s of tax w ere set by the law books and the registers w ere upd ated at regular intervals in order to take accoun t of such factors as population increase. Since both d uring and after the Great Escape the tax collectors insisted (under local ad m inistrations’ orders) on securing the sam e am ount as befor e from each unit, the rem aining tw o-th irds w ere faced w ith d e facto ex tra taxation. T his prob lem w as solved later, w hen the governors recalculated the am ounts subject to ex traction at the beginning of the 17th cen tury (A kd agÏ, 1975).

4. A m on g the people w ho w ere sent to Syria as part of this project w ere those w ho also practised agriculture as com plemen tary to pastoral nom adism . A s usual, these groups refused to pay

raiyy et taxes w hen ever they felt stron g en ough to claim askerõÃ , i.e. m ilitary status (O rhon lu, 1987,

p. 81ff.), and thus not be subject to taxation. Th e governm en t d eem ed this argum ent valid for those resettled in Raqqa, and gave all the privileges that the others had in these areas.

5. A series of ord ers and d ecrees w ere issued in 1691, beginning on 11 January (10 RebõÃ -uÈlaÃhir 1102). O ne of these states that:

A s their animals customarily are taken to sum m er-land s, let them not take them them selves but stay beh ind w ith their spouses and fam ilies at the speci® ed locations, and sen d them by their shepherds, and let no on e prevent their m ovem ent. (cited in Orhon lu, 1987, p. 51; translation by the presen t author).

T he sam e d ecree con tinues as follow s:

In the event that they d o not ob ey and w ant to go to the highland s, the royal decree is issued for the people of B ehõ snõ , H õ sn-õ M ansuÃr and GoÈ ynuÈk, and for KuÈ peli H asan and Ya’ kub B eg-ogÏlõ H alil Beg ashirets to block the residence centres and not to allow them to the E lbistan and M alatya territories. (ibid., p. 51; translation by the present author)

6. For several ex am ples of such cases of d isturbances caused by nom ads, see U lucËay, 1955, pp. 80ff, 105, 132, 142, 167, 183, 196, 215, etc.

7. For ex am ple, in the 1840s, the T anzimat governm ent used som e nom adic ash irets to com plete the d estruction of a d erebey (local notable, `feu d al’) fam ily, w hich ran the M usË B ey lerbey ligÏ i (M usË

Governorship) until it w as annulled by the new governm en t. T he lack of governm ental backing d id not m atter m uch since the of® cial duty w as assigned to the m em bers of the sam e fam ily for som e time. O nly after this fam ily had been d efeated, w ith the support of nom ads, could governm ent establish new ad m inistrative organs. T hereafter, the tow n Varto becam e a ka ym

a-k a m lõ a-k (district head of® ce) and M usË becam e a m uta sarrõ ¯ õ a-k, i.e. jurisdiction of the `provincial’

(sanca k) governor (F õ rat, 1983, p. 120).

8. Q uite understandably, w estern scholars speak very favourably of this privatization of land in the O sm anlõ Em pire. A s for the social, econ om ic and political effects or con sequences of this process, how ever, I think on e should be m ore careful in d eclaring it a great success and presenting it as the ultimate solution to the prob lems that the E m pire had been ex periencing for m any d ecades . 9. T he ª governm en t in 1865± 66 sen t a m ilitary ex ped ition, Fõ rka-õ Islah iy e (h ence the tow n’s name), to the inner Taurus and Am anos m ountainsº both ª to d estroy the pow er of the d erebey fam iliesº and to settle the nom ads (B ates, 1973b, p. 34, note 9).

10. Just as in earlier cen turies, the state granted land s to settling groups, in ad d ition to giving private titles to chiefs and other notables w hich it had begun to issue m ore readily. T he R eyh anlõ confed eration w as am ong those w ho settled on the A m ik plain in A ntakya by governm ent d ecree ª in such an attempt to con trol and to obtain taxes and m ilitary supportº in 1859 (A sw ad , 1971, p. 19). A t the time, it ª w as com posed of forty tribal sections that had band ed together from various regions to resist increasing tax d em and s by the governm en t and threats m ad e against their caravans by m ountain tribesº (ibid., p. 29). T hey w ere estim ated to be nearly 30 000 persons (ibid.; see also p. 21).

11. In spite of their utilization by m any historians and alike as synony m s (e.g. the title of O rhon lu’s stud y, 1987, on the settlement of nom ad s is O sm anlõ IÇm parato rlugÏ und a A sËiretlerin IÇsk aÃnõ , that is,

literally, Settlement of A shirets in the O ttoman E m pire), the w ords ash iret and nom ad do not alw ays appear ex clusively as synon ym s in T urkish literature. T he historian Kod aman uses them interch angeably in his stud y, Sulta n II. A bduÈlham id D evri D ogÏu A nad olu P olitika sõ (1987; see also A kd agÏ, 1975, pp. 52± 53). In tw o places, he explicitly states, w ithin the con text of tax exem ptions instituted by the state to encourage recruitmen t, that such ex em ptions d id not appeal to the

a sh irets m uch since they w ere already exem pt from them as nom ads or sem i-nom ad s, and had

very little to d o w ith the raiy yet taxes that crop cultivation brought (1987, p. 44; see also p. 49). 12. Similar to the case of the Ev laÃd-õ FaÃtih aÃn, m en tioned earlier, these regim en ts w ere highly esteem ed in the Palace. T heir leaders w ere called `son s’ by the Sultan and received several honorary gifts on their arrival at the Palace in IÇstanbul (Fõ rat, 1983, p. 125).

13. T his antagon ism had its roots in the early 16th-century con¯ ict betw een O sm anlõ s and Safev õÃ s, w here the parties respectively held fast to the orthod ox sunnõÃ and sh i`õÃ sects of Islam (see E rhan, 1992, C h. 2 for a m ore d etailed d iscussion of this historical con ¯ ict, w hich in m any w ays has shaped the history of especially the eastern regions of A natolia; see also Fõ rat, 1983, p. 89ff.) 14. A lthough the H am id iy e regimen ts w ere d isband ed in 1918, those w ho opposed Sheikh Said in 1925 used the d evastating effects of the H am idiy e ex perience as an explanation of their m istrust of the rebelling forces, w hom they iden ti® ed w ith ª the H am id iy esº and refer red to as such (F õ rat, 1983, p. 158).

15. O ne of the largest con fed erations in the area w as M illi, then ruled by IÇbrahim Pasha. It had about on e thousand tents at the en d of the 18th century, and w as forced to settle at the time

(G oÈyuÈncË, 1969, p. 79 n. 4). Follow ing the found ation of the H am idiye Regimen ts, the M illi confed eration soon recovered its previous posture and gained a very respectable place am ong the Regiments (Fõ rat, 1983, p. 124). IÇbrahim Pasha w as am on g those w ho felt threatened by the new governm en t and rebelled. H e w as soon d efeated and, as a result, had to retreat and m ove further into the Syrian d eserts (ibid., p. 141).

16. H akkõ states (1932, p. 23) in his book on the Tunceli province (then , D ersim) of the early 1930s that in ad dition to the 7000 people living in six settlemen ts and about 11 000 Per tek and CË em isËkezek villagers, 47 000 of the Tunceli population, w hich at that time totalled 65 000, lived und er the ash iret regime. Although to a m uch lesser d egree, recen t studies m ade in the south-east indicate that the ashiret or `tribe’ is still a viable m od e of organization in the region. For instance, Sencer found out in his sam ple (1992± 93, p. 335) that an average of 47% of the people have varying deg rees of relationship w ith the ash iret system, w hich rises to 57.2% in the countryside and falls to 37.3% in urban areas (see also, Sosyoloji, 1994, p. 57).

17. A ctually, this has been the case in m ost of T urkey. A s B oran (1945, pp. 67± 68) notes for the villages of M anisa in w estern A natolia, the quarters or d istricts of m ost of the tow ns and villages in A natolia are still know n by the nam e of the fam ilies or groups that initially settled there. T hrough the process of seden tarization, the political term m ah alle (w hich still signi® es the group of closest fam ilies of agnates or even of af® nals) has turned into a term indicating district of permanen t residence (see also B en ed ict, 1974).

18. H akkõ notes (1932:10) that in the Tunceli area som e local lord s ow ned 10, 20/or even 189 villages in the early 1930s. For the ex tent of landlessness in the southeast, see O DT UÈ (1993, p. 26); Sen cer (1992± 93, p. 188ff., 248, 335); and Sosyoloji (1994, p. 24).

R eferences

A kd agÏ, M . (1975) T uÈrk H alkõ nõ n D irlik v e D uÈzenlik K av gasõ : C elali IÇsyanlarõ (A nkara, B ilgi Yayõ nlarõ ). A ksit, B . et al. (1994) G A P Sulam a Sistem lerinin isËletm e, Ba kim v e Y oÈnetim i Projesi: Sosyo-E konom ik

CË alisËm alar (A nkara, T.C . B asËbakanlik GuÈ ney dogÅlu A nadolu Projesi BoÈlge Kalkinm a idaresi

B asËkanligÏi).

A PD (A rasËtõ rma ve Planlama D airesi) (1971) G oÈcËebe ve G ezginci N uÈfusun U zun V adeli IÇskan P lanlam asõ (T .C . KoÈy IÇsËleri B akanlõ gÏõ , T oprak ve IÇsËleri Gen el M uÈd uÈrluÈgÏuÈ).

A sw ad, B . (1971) P roperty C ontrol and Socia l Stra tegies in Settle rs in a M id d le Ea stern P lain (M ichigan, U niversity of M ichigan Press).

A yd õ n, Z. (1980) A spects of rural d evelopmen t in southeastern Turkey: the household econ om y in Gisgis and Kalhana, unpublished d issertation, U niversity of D urham , D ept. of Sociology and Social Policy.

B alaban, A . (1986) GuÈneyd ogÏu A nadolu Projes i (G A P) E ntegre Sistemi, Planlama ve U ygulama Sorunlarõ , in: G A P : G uÈney d ogÏu A nadolu P rojesi T arõ m sal K alkõ nm a Sim p ozy um u, 18 ± 21 K asõ m 1 98 6 (A nkara, TUÈ B IÇT A K, A nkara UÈ niversitesi Ziraat FakuÈltesi, T.C . Ziraat Bankasõ , A nkara UÈniversitesi B asõ m evi), pp. 1± 17.

B ates, D .G. (1971a) GuÈ ney-D ogÏu A nadolu’d a GoÈ cËebe YoÈruÈk YerlesË m eleri UÈ zerine Bir CËalõ sËm a (A Stud y on the N om adic YoÈruÈk Settlemen ts in South-East A natolia), in: E . T uÈm ertekin, F. M ansur & B en ed ict (E d s) T uÈrkiy e: G ogÏrafõÃ ve Sosy al A rasËtõ rm ala r (IÇstanbul, IÇUÈ , E F, C ogÏrafy a E nstituÈsuÈ), pp. 245± 292.

B ates, D.G. (1971b) Th e role of the state in peasant± nom ad m utualism , A nth ropologica l Q uarterly , 44, pp. 109± 131.

B ates, D .G. (1973a) Shepherd becom es farmer: a stud y of sed en tarization and social change in Southeastern T urkey, in: E . T uÈm ertekin, F. M ansur, & P. B en edict (E d s.) Tu rkey: Social and

G eog rap hic P erspectives (L eiden , E.J. Brill), pp. 92± 133.

B ates, D .G. (1973b) N om ad s and Farm ers: A Stud y of th e Y oÈruÈk of South eastern T urkey , A nthropological Papers N o. 52 (A nn A rbor, U niversity of M ichigan, M useum of A nthropology).

B ayrak, M . (1984) A nad olu’d a E sËkõ y alõ k ve E sËkõ y alõ k T uÈrkuÈleri (A nkara, Yorum ). B ened ict, P. (1974) U la: an Anato lian T ow n (L eiden , E .J. B rill).

B esËikcËi, IÇ. (1969a) D ogÏud a D egÏisËim v e Y ap õ sal Sorunlar: G oÈcËebe A likan A sËireti (A nkara, D ogÏan Yayõ nlarõ ). B esËikcËi, IÇ. (1969b) D ogÏu A nad olu’n un D uÈzeni, Sosy o-E ko nom ik ve Etn ik T em eller (A nkara, E . Yayõ nlarõ ). B oran, B .S. (1945) T op lum sal Y ap õ A rasËtõ rm alarõ : `IÇki K oÈy CËesËid inin M uka y eseli T etkik i,’ (A nkara, A nkara

UÈ niversitesi, DT C F, Felsefe E nstituÈsuÈ, Sosyoloji Serisi: 3, TT K B asõ m evi).

B row , J. (1990) N otes on com m unity, hegem ony , and the uses of the past, A nth rop olog ical Q uarterly, 63(1), pp. 1± 6.

CË avd ar, T. (1984) T alat Pa sËa: B ir OÈ rguÈt U stasõ nõ n YasËam OÈykuÈsuÈ (Ankara, Dost Kitabevi Yayõ nlarõ ) (1. B askõ ).

CË etintuÈrk, S. (1943) O sm anlõ IÇm paratorlugÏ und a YuÈ ruÈk Sõ nõ fõ ve H ukuki StatuÈleri, A UÈ, D T C F D erg isi, II(1), pp. 107± 116.

D em irtasË, F. (1949) B ozulus H akkõ nda (O n B ozulus), A UÈ , D TCF D ergisi, VII(1), pp. 29± 60.

d e Planhol, X. (1959) Geography, politics and nom adism in A natolia, Inter nation al Socia l Science

Jou rnal, (U N ESC O ), XI(4), pp. 525± 531.

E berhard, W . (1967) N om ads and farmers in Southeastern Turkey: problems of settlemen t, in:

Settlem ent a nd Socia l C ha nge in A sia (H on g Kon g, H on g Kong U niv. Press), pp. 279± 296.

E rhan, S. (1992) Id en tity form ation and political organization am on g A natolian nom ads: the B eritanõ case, unpublished dissertation, U niversity of T ex as, A ustin.

E rhan, S. (1993) T he Beritanlõ and national politics: settlement and new identities, T urkish Stud ies

A ssociatio n B ulletin , 17(2), pp. 57± 67.

Faroqhi, S. (1982) C am els, w agon s, and the O ttoman state in the sixteenth and seven teenth centuries,

In ternatio nal Jo urnal o f M idd le E ast Stu dies, 4(4), pp. 523± 539.

Fõ rat, M . SË. (1983 [1948]) D ogÏu IÇlleri v e V arto T arih i (Th e H istory of E astern Provinces and Varto), (A nkara, KardesË M atbaasõ ).

GoÈ kalp, Z. (1975 [1905) KuÈrt A sËiretleri H akk õ nd a Sosy olo jik IÇncelem eler (Sociological In quiries on Kurdish A sh irets) (A nkara, Kom al Yayõ nlarõ ).

GoÈ kbilgin, M .T. (1957) R um eli’d e Y uÈruÈkler, Ta ta rlar ve E v laÃd -õ FaÃtih aÃn (YuÈruÈks, T atars and the E vlad-õ Fatihan in Rum elia) (IÇstanbul, IÇUÈ , E .F. Yayõ nlarõ ), N o. 748.

GoÈ yuÈncË, N . (1969) XVI. Y uÈzy ild a M ardin Sanca gÅi (T he M ardin Province in the XVIth C entury) (IÇstanbul, õÏ .uÈ., E . F. Yyl.), Sayi 1459.

GuÈ loÈksuÈz, G. (1985) Th e B eritan nom ad s over time and the problems of their settlemen t, unpublished Ph D dissertation, M iddle E ast T ech nical U niversity C ity and Regional Planning, A nkara. H akkõ , N . (1932) D erebey i v e D ersim (no publication details know n).

H alacËogÏlu, Y. (1988) XV III. Y uÈzyõ ld a O sm anlõ IÇm p arato rlugÏ u’n un IÇskaÃn Siy a seti v e A sËiretlerin Y er-lesËtirilm esi (A nkara, A tatuÈrk KuÈltuÈr, D il ve T arih YuÈksek Kurum u, T TK Yayõ nlarõ ), VII. D izi (92).

H uÈtteroth, W .D . (1973) T he in¯ uen ce of social structure on land d ivision and settlemen t in inner A natolia, in: E . T uÈm ertekin, F. M ansur & P. Ben ed ict (E d s), T urkey : Social and G eog raph ic P ersp

ec-tiv es (Leid en, E .J. B rill), pp. 19± 48.

IÇnalcõ k, H . (1973) T h e O tto m an E m pire: T h e C lassica l A g e: 1 3 00 ± 16 00 , (trans. N . Kow itz & C . Im ber) (L on d on , W eidenfeld & N icolson ).

Kod aman, B. (1987) Sulta n II. A bdulham it D ev ri D ogÏu A nad olu P olitik asõ (A nkara, T uÈrk KuÈltuÈruÈnuÈ A rasËtõ rma E nstituÈsuÈ Yayõ nlarõ ), N o. 67.

Kutlu, M . (1987) SËav ak lõ TuÈrkm enlerde G oÈcËer H ay vancõ lõ k (N om ad ic An imal B reeding amon g the SËavaklõ TuÈrkm en s) (A nkara, SevincË B asõ m evi, KuÈ ltuÈr ve T urizm B akanlõ gÏõ , M illi FolkloÈr A rasËtõ rma D airesi Yayõ nlarõ ), 84, Gelenek-G oÈ renek ve IÇnancËlar D izisi.

L ew is, N .N . (1987) N om ad s and Settler s in Syria and Jo rd an, 18 0 0± 1 98 0 (Lon d on N ew York N ew Roch elle M elbourne Syd ney, C ambridge U niversity Press).

O rhon lu, C . (1987 [1963]) O sm anlõ IÇm parato rlugÏ unda A sËiretlerin IÇskaÃnõ (Settlemen t of N om ads in the

O ttoman Em pire) (IÇstanbul, E ren Yayõ ncõ lõ k ve KitapcËõ lõ k L td. Sti.)

O D T UÈ Sosyoloji B oÈluÈm uÈ GA P A rasËtõ rmasõ Ek ibi (1993) G A P BoÈlg esi N uÈfus H areketleri A rasËtõ rm asõ (A nkara: T.C . B asËbakanlõ k GuÈneyd ogÏu A nadolu Projesi BoÈlge Kalkõ nm a IÇdaresi B asËkanlõ gÏõ ). Sen cer, M . (1974) T op rak A gÏaligÏinin K oÈkeni (T he O rigin of L and lordship) (IÇstanbul, T el Yyl.) Sen cer, M . (Proje YoÈ neticisi) (1992± 93) G A P BoÈlg esinde T op lum sal D egÏisËm e E gÏilim leri A rasËtõ rm asõ (B oÈluÈm

I: G A P B oÈlg esinin Sosy o-e k onom ik P ro® li) (A nkara, T .C . B asËbakanlõ k GuÈneyd ogÏu A nad olu Projes i

B oÈlge Kalkõ nm a IÇdaresi B asËkanlõ gÏõ ).

Shaw , S.J. (1974) H isto ry of th e O tto m an E m pire and M od ern T urkey , I: E m p ire of th e G azisÐ the R ise and th e D ecline of th e O ttom a n Em p ire, 12 8 0± 18 0 8(C am bridge L on d on N ew York M elbourne, C am bridge

U niversity Press).

Shaw , S.J., & Shaw , E .K. (1978) H istory of th e O tto m an Em p ire and M od ern T urkey , II: R eform , R ev olutio n

a nd R epublicÐ Th e Rise of M od ern T urkey , 18 08 ± 19 7 5 (C am bridge L on d on N ew York M elbourne,

C am bridge U niversity Press).

Sosyoloji D ernegÏi (1994) G A P B oÈlg esi B araj G oÈl A y nasõ nd a K alacak Y oÈrelerd e IÇstihd am ve Y eniden Y erlesËim

So runlarõ A rasËtõ rm asõ (A nkara, T .C . B asËbakanlõ k GuÈneyd ogÏu A nadolu Projesi B oÈlge Kalkõ nm a

IÇdaresi B asËkanlõ gÏõ ).

SuÈm er, F. (1960) A nadolu’ya Yalnõ z GoÈcËebe T uÈrkler m i Geldi? (D id O nly N om ad ic T urks C om e to A natolia?/W as it O nly the N om ad ic T urks W ho C am e to A natolia?), Belleten, XXIV (96), pp. 567± 594.

SuÈm er, F. (1976a) Safev õÃ D evletinin K urulsËu ve G elisËm esind e A nad olu T uÈrkm enlerinin R oluÈ (A nkara). SuÈm er, F. (1980) O gÏuzlar (TuÈrkm enler): T arih leriÐ Bo y TesËkila tõ D esta nlarõ [T he O guz (T he T urkm ens):

T heir H istoryÐ O rganizationÐ M ythologies] (IÇstanbul, A na Yayõ nlarõ ).

T uÈrkiye Kalkõ nm a Vakfõ (T KV) (1994) G A P B oÈlgesind e K adõ nõ n Sta tuÈsuÈ v e K alkõ nm a SuÈrecine E nteg re

E d ilm esi A rasËtõ rm a sõ (A nkara, T .C . BasËbakanlõ k GuÈ neyd ogÏu A nad olu Projesi BoÈlge Kalkõ nm a

IÇdaresi B asËkanlõ gÏõ ).

T uÈtengil, C .O. (1969) TuÈrkiye’d e K oÈy Sorunu (IÇstanbul: KitapcËõ lõ k T icaret L imitet SËirketi, KitasË Bilim D izisi, N o:3)

U lucËay, M .CË . (1955) 18 . v e 19 . Y uÈzy õ llard a Saruh an’d a EsËkiyalõ k v e H alk H areketleri (B and itry and Pop ular M ovem ents in Saruhan in the 18th and 19th C en turies) (IÇstanbul, B erksoy B asõ m evi). U zuncËarsËõ lõ , IÇ.H . (1969) A nadolu Beylikleri ve A k K oyunluÐ K ara K oy unlu D ev letleri (A natolian

Princi-palities and the A k Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu States) (A nkara, TuÈrk T arih Kurum u Yayõ nlarõ ). Yalgõ n (Yalkõ n/Yalm an), A .R. (1977) C enup ta T uÈrkm en O y m ak larõ , 2 vols (An kara IÇstanbul, T .C . KuÈ ltuÈr

B akanlõ gÏõ Yayõ nlarõ , KuÈltuÈr E serleri, N o. 14, M .E.B. B asõ m evi).