The 1858 tax reform and the ‘other nomads’ in Ottoman Asia

Abstract

The Ottoman state governed its mobile subjects with various policies. While the Ottoman historiography is pretty illuminating on state-pastoralist relations, studies on the other nomads, peripatetics, are still rare. Existing studies are almost exclusively Roma-centred and focused mainly on the empire’s European territories. Moreover, the gap in the literature is more profound regarding nineteenth-century modernisation policies and their effects on the relevant groups. The present article, adopting micro-history and historical anthropology approaches, focuses on non-Roma peripatetic groups, such as Teber s, Doms, Loms, and Tahtacı s inhabiting Ottoman Asia, and investigates how the post-Crimean war administrative endeavours to end tax farming affected those groups. The systematic analysis of archival and ethnographic records reveals that the Ottoman administration had collected cizye from different ethnies registered as Gypsy in Kastamonu, Çankırı-Tosya, Ankara, Malatya, Harput, and Aleppo. They expanded the scope of the Gypsy poll tax after 1858 in Teke and Aydın by incorporating intersectional peripatetics, historically attached with another revenue item and tribal organisation, the Zulkadriyye spin-offs.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Ali Sipahi for his review and inspirational comments on the first version of this piece, Ayhan Han, Eda Güçlü, and Sinan Çetin for their kind help in the transliteration of some of the archival documents referred to in the text, and Graham Sheard for his rigorous proofreading.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Modernisation, when referred to in this piece, implies a complex, multiple, liquid, diverse, and contradictory process of human history, not a single project that had once created the West, see R. L. Lee, ‘Reinventing Modernity Reflexive Modernization vs Liquid Modernity vs Multiple Modernities’, European Journal of Social Theory Vol.9, No.3 (2006), pp.355–68; M. Sahlins, ‘On the Anthropology of Modernity, or, Some Triumphs of Culture over Despondency Theory’, in A. Hooper (ed.), Culture and Sustainable Development in the Pacific (Canberra: Asia Pacific Press, 2005), pp.44–61; I. Kaya, ‘Modernity, Openness, Interpretation: a Perspective on Multiple Modernities’, Social Science Information Vol.43, No.1 (2004), pp.35–57; S.N. Eisenstadt, ‘Multiple Modernities’, Daedalus Vol.129, No.1 (2000), pp.1–30; T. Mitchell, ‘The Stage of Modernity’, in T. Mitchell (ed.), Questions of Modernity (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), pp.1–34; N. Göle, ‘Snapshots of Islamic Modernities’, Daedalus, Vol.129, No.1 (2000), pp.91–118.

2 A. Rao, ‘The Concept of Peripatetics: An Introduction’, in A. Rao (ed.), The Other Nomads: Peripatetic Minorities in Cross-Cultural Perspective (Cologne: Böhlau, 1987).

3 C. Kırlı, ‘Kahvehaneler ve Hafiyeler: 19. Yüzyıl Ortalarında Osmanlı’da Sosyal Kontrol’ [Coffeehouses and Spies: Social Control in the Mid-nineteenth Century Ottoman Empire], Toplum ve Bilim, No.83 (2000), pp.58–79; U. Makdisi, ‘Ottoman Orientalism’, The American Historical Review, Vol.107, No.3 (2002), pp.768–96; S. Deringil, Conversion and Apostasy in the Late Ottoman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); F. Ahmad, The Young Turks and the Ottoman Nationalities: Armenians, Greeks, Albanians, Jews, and Arabs, 1908-1918 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2014); H. Bozarslan, ‘The Ottomanism of the Non-Turkish Groups: the Arabs and the Kurds after 1908’, Die Welt Des Islams, 56 (2016), pp.317–55; N. Özbek ‘“İstisna Hali”: “Devletsiz”, “Abdülhamidsiz” Osmanlı-Türkiye Tarihi Yazmanın İmkânları’, [‘State of Exceptions’: The Possibilities of Ottoman-Turkish History Writing without ‘State’, ‘Abdulhamid’] Toplumsal Tarih, 301 (2019), pp.46–53; C. Kafadar, ‘How Dark is the History of the Night, How Black the Story of Coffee, How Bitter the Tale of Love: The Changing Measure of Leisure and Pleasure in Early Modern Istanbul’, in A. Öztürkmen (ed.), Medieval and Early Modern Performance in the East Mediterranean (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), pp.243–69.

4 G. Levi, ‘Frail Frontiers’, Past and Present, Vol.242, No.14 (2019), p.40; C. Ginzburg, The Cheese and The Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth Century Miller (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), pp.XX–XXIV; D. Kalb, H. Marks, H. Tak, ‘Historical Anthropology and Anthropological History: two Distinct Programs’, Focaal, No. 26/27 (1996), p.8; P. Burke, ‘Historical Anthropology’, Focaal, No. 26/27 (1996), p.52; H. Medick, ‘“Missionaries in the Rowboat”? Ethnological Ways of Knowing as a Challenge to Social History’, in A. Lüdtke (ed.), The History of Everyday Life Reconstructing Historical Experiences and Ways of Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), p.59; J. Comaroff and J. Comaroff, Ethnography and the Historical Imagination (Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford: Westview Press, 1992), pp.32–33, 37–38.

5 D. Handelman, ‘The Extended Case: Interactional Foundations and Prospective Dimensions’, Social Analysis, The International Journal of Anthropology, Vol.49, No.3 (2005), pp.62–63, 65, 74–77; D. Handelman, ‘Microhistorical Anthropology: Toward a Prospective Perspective’, in D. Kalb and H. Tak (eds), Critical Junctions Anthropology and History beyond the Cultural Turn (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2006), pp.32/38–39.

6 H. P. Hahn, ‘Diffusionism, Appropriation, and Globalization: Some Remarks on Current Debates in Anthropology’, Anthropos, Vol.103, No.1 (2008), p.196; J. L. Comaroff and J. Comaroff, Of Revelation and Revolution: The Dialectics of Modernity on a South African Frontier (London: University of Chicago Press, 1997), p.37.

7 D. F. Crew, ‘Alltagsgeschichte: A New Social History “From Below”?’, Central European History, Vol.22, No.3/4 (1989), p.396.

8 C. Boehm, ‘The Political Ecology of Refuge Area Warriors: Some Implications for Pastoral Nomads’, Nomadic Peoples, No.12 (1983), pp.4–13; H. Özoğlu, ‘State-Tribe Relations: Kurdish Tribalism in the 16^th- and 17^th-Century Ottoman Empire’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.23, No.1 (1996), pp.5–27; M. M. van Bruinessen, ‘Kurds, States and Tribes’ in F. Abd al-Jabbar and H. Dawod (eds), Tribes and Power: Nationalism and Ethnicity in the Middle East (London: Saqi, 2002), pp.165–83; Y. Köksal, ‘Coercion and Mediation: Centralization and Sedentarization of Tribes in the Ottoman Empire’, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.42, No.3 (2006), pp.469–91; V. Kursar, ‘Being an Ottoman Vlach: On Vlach Identity (ies), Role, and Status in Western Parts of the Ottoman Balkans (15^th- 18^th Centuries)’, OTAM, Vol.34 (2013), pp.115–61; O. Usta, ‘In Pursuit of Herds or Land? Nomads, Peasants and Pastoral Economies in Anatolia from a Regional Perspective, 1600-1645’ (PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, 2016). For the concept pastoral of nomads, see E. Marx, ‘The Tribe as a Unit of Subsistence: Nomadic Pastoralism in the Middle East’, American Anthropologist, Vol.79. No.2 (1977), pp.344–48.

9 E. Şerifgil, ‘XVI. Yüzyıl'da Rumeli Eyaleti’ndeki Çingeneler’ [Gypsies in the Rumelia Province in the Sixteenth Century], Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, No.15 (1981), pp.117–44; E. Marushiakova and V. Popov, Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire (Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001); E. Ginio, ‘Neither Muslims nor Zimmis: The Gypsies (Roma) in the Ottoman State’, Romani Studies 5, Vol.14, No.2 (2004), pp.130–31; İ. Altınöz, ‘Osmanlı Toplumunda Çingeneler’ [Gypsies in Ottoman Society] (PhD thesis, İstanbul University, 2005); A. Marsh, ‘Ottoman Gypsies & Taxation A Comment on Cantemir’s “…about the Gypsy people, who are numerous in the Turkish country”’ in A. Marsh and E. Strand (eds), Gypsies and the Problem of Identities: Contextual, Constructed and Contested (Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute, 2006), pp.171–74; E. Dingeç, ‘XVI. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Ordusunda Çingeneler’ [Gypsies in the Ottoman Army], SDÜ Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, No.20 (2009), pp.33–46; F. Çelik, ‘“Community in Motion”: Gypsies in Ottoman Imperial State Policy, Public Morality and at the Sharia Court of Üsküdar (1530s-1585s)’ (PhD thesis, McGill University, 2013).

10 F. Çelik, ‘Exploring Marginality in the Ottoman Empire: Gypsies or People of Malice (Ehl-i Fesad) as Viewed by the Ottomans’, EUI Working Paper RSCAS, No.39 (2004), p.2; A. Marsh, ‘A Brief History of Gypsies in Turkey’ in E. Uzpeder, S. Danova / Roussinova, S. Özçelik, and S. Gökçen, We are Here Discriminately Exclusion and Struggle for Right of Roma in Turkey (Istanbul: Mart, 2008), p.8.

11 E. Marushiakova and V. Popov, ‘“Gypsy” Groups in Eastern Europe: Ethnonyms vs. Professionyms’, Romani Studies 5, Vol.23, No.1 (2013), pp.61–82.

12 Y. Matras, ‘Romani’ in B. Kortmann and J. van der Auwera (eds), The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2011), p.257; H. Yıldız, ‘Türkçede Çingeneler İçin Kullanılan Kelimeler ve Bunların Etimolojileri’ [The Words Used for Gypsies in Turkish and their Etymologies], Dil Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol.1, No.1 (2007), pp.61–82; Y. Hunt, ‘Yiftos, Tsinganos: A Note on Greek Terminology’, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society 5, Vol.9, No.1 (1999), pp.71–78.

13 G. M. Messing, ‘Tsinganos and Yiftos: Some Speculations on the Greek Gypsies’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Vol.7, No.1 (1981), p.159; Ginio, Neither, p.131; G. C. Soulis, ‘The Gypsies in the Byzantine Empire and the Balkans in the Late Middle Ages’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol.15, (1961), p.148.

14 E. Strand and A. Marsh, ‘Gypsies and Alevis: The Impossibility of Abdallar Identity’ in H. I. Markussen (ed.), Alevis and Alevism Transformed Identities (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2005), pp.155–74; B. A. Kovankaya, ‘Negotiating Nature: Ecology, Politics, and Nomadism in the Forests of Mediterranean Anatolia, 1870-1920’ (PhD thesis, Boğaziçi University and Leiden University, 2019); D. Çakılcı, ‘Osmanlı Devleti'nde “Öteki” Olmak: 19. Yüzyılda Antalya Abdalları’ [Being ‘Other’ in the Ottoman State: Antalya Abdals in the Nineteenth Century] in B. Koçakoğlu, B. Karslı, and D. Çakılcı (eds), Antalya Kitabı (Konya: Palet, 2019), pp.92–110; C. Telci, ‘“Cemaat-i Tahtacıyan”: Aydın Sancağı’nda Vergiden Muaf Tahtacı Topluluğu XV-XIX. Yüzyıllar’ [‘Cemaat-i Tahtacıyan’ Tax Exempt Tahtaci Community from Aydin Province (XVI-XIX Centuries], Alevilik-Bektaşilik Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol.8, No.1 (2016), pp.5–34.

15 M. Hasluck, ‘Firman of A.H. 1013-14 (A.D. 1604-5) Regarding Gypsies in the Western Balkans’, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol.XXVII, No.1–2 (1948); Şerifgil, XVI. Yüzyıl'da, pp.117–44; Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies in the Ottoman; Çelik, Gypsies (Roma); Ginio, Neither, pp.117–45; İ. Altınöz, Osmanlı Toplumunda Çingeneler [Gypsies in the Ottoman Society] (Ankara: TTK, 2013); Dingeç, XVI. Yüzyılda, pp.33–46.

16 Yüksel, Buçuk; Ö. Ulusoy, ‘Tanzimat Sonrası Osmanlı Arşiv Belgeleri Temelinde Balkanlarda Çingene / Roman Algısı’ [Gypsy/Roma Perception in the Balkans according to the Post-Tanzimat Ottoman Archival Documents], paper presented at the Bulgaria and Turkey at the Intercultural Crossroads: Language, History, and Literature, The First Bulgarian Turkish Colloquium (Plovdiv: University Press – Paisii Hilendarski, 2011), pp.131–33; B. Akgül, ‘Being a Forestry Labourer in the Late Ottoman Empire: Debt Bondage, Migration, and Sedentarization’, International Review of Social History (2022) , pp.1–20, doi:10.1017/S0020859022000281.

17 Y. Matras, ‘The Role of Language in Mystifying and Demystifying Gypsy Identity’ in N. Saul and S. Tebbutt (eds), The Role of Romanies: Images and Counter-Images of ‘Gypsies’/Romanies in European Cultures (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2004), p.53.

18 L. Lucassen, ‘“Harmful Tramps”: Police Professionalization and Gypsies in Germany, 1700-1945’ in L. Lucassen, W. Willems and A. Cottaar (eds), Gypsies and Other Itinerant Groups: a Socio-Historical Approach (London: Macmillan, 1998), pp.74–76, 81–82, 86; I. Hancock, ‘Gypsies, Gadže, Languages and Labels’ in I. Hancock, Danger! Educated Gypsy edited by Dileep Karanth (Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2021), pp.95–96.

19 J. Okely, The Traveller Gypsies (Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp.3–5, 30, 53–54, 59; L. Lucassen, ‘The Clink of the Hammer was Heard from Daybreak till Dawn: Gypsy Occupations in Western Europe (Nineteenth-Twentieth Centuries)’ in Lucassen, Willems, and Cottaar (eds), Gypsies, p.155; W. Willems and L. Lucassen, ‘Gypsies in the Diaspora? The Pitfalls of a Biblical Concept’, Social History, Vol.33, No.55 (2000), p.254.

20 Still, the arguments are ongoing regarding the relative weight of those Orientals and locals who later adopted the Egyptian image within the total population called Gypsy (L. Lucassen, ‘Eternal Vagrants? State Formation, Migration and Travelling Groups in Western Europe, 1350-1914’ in Lucassen, Willems and Cottaar, Gypsies, p.60).

21 Y. Matras, ‘Johann Rüdiger and the Study of Romani in the 18^th-Century Germany’, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol.9, No.2 (1999), pp.89–116; D. Mayall, Gypsy Identities 1500-2000: From Egipcyans and Moon-men to the Ethnic Romany (London: Routledge, 2004), pp.125–214; Willems and Lucassen, ‘Gypsies’, pp.251–69.

22 Mayall, Gypsy, pp.43, 128–29; L. Lucassen, W. Willems, and A. Cottaar, ‘Introduction’ in Lucassen, Willems, and Cottaar, Gypsies, pp.7–8.

23 T. A. Acton, ‘Gypsylorism in the Far East’, Newsletter of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol.4, No.1 (1981), pp.2, 6.

24 R. M. Hayden, ‘The Cultural Ecology of Service Nomads’, The Eastern Anthropologists, Vol.32, No.4 (1979), pp.297–309.

25 P. K. Misra, ‘Mobility-Sedentary Opposition: A Case Study of the Nomadic Gadulia Lohar’, Nomadic Peoples, No.21/22 (1986), p.180.

26 J. C. Berland, ‘Pārytān: “Native” Models of Peripatetic Strategies in Pakistan’, Nomadic Peoples, No. 21/22 (1986), p.195.

27 For some recent examples embracing the concept, see A. Çakır, ‘“Mardinli Koçerler” Makalesi Üzerine Bir Eleştiri Yazısı: Kürtler ve Peripatetik Gruplarla İlgili Çalışmalarda Akademik Sorumluluğun Boyutları’ [A Critical Essay on the Article ‘Mardinli Koçerler’: The Political Dimensions of Academic Responsibility in Studying the Kurds and Peripatetic Groups], MSGSÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Vol.2, No.24 (2022), pp.752–66; P. S. Khandagale, ‘Struggle for Settlement: The Case of Nomadic Dombari Community in Aurangabad District, Maharastra’, in A. Kumar and R. B. Bhagat (eds), Migrants, Mobility and Citizenship in India (London: Routledge, 2021); H. Y. Mire, ‘Qof Madhibaan: Those who do not Bother Others’, Journal of Somali Studies, Vol.7, No.1 (2020), p.41; K. L. Richardson, ‘Invisible Strangers, or Romani History Reconsidered’, History of the Present a Journal of Critical History, Vol.10, No.2 (2020), pp.187–207.

28 P. K. Misra and N. Prabhakar, ‘Non-pastoral Nomads: A Review’, Journal of Anthropological Survey of India, Vol.60, No.2 (2011), p.167; E. Marushiakova and V. Popov, ‘Segmentation vs. Consolidation: The Example of four Gypsy Groups in CIS’, Romani Studies, Vol.14, No.2 (2004), p.146.

29 M. T. Salo, ‘The Gypsy Niche in North America: Some Ecological Perspectives on the Exploitation of Social Environments’ in Rao (ed.), The Other Nomads, pp.93–94; M. Bollig, ‘Hunters, Foragers, and Singing Smiths: The Metamorphoses of Peripatetic Peoples’ in Joseph C. Berland and Aparna Rao, Customary Strangers New Perspectives on Peripatetic Peoples in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia (Westport: Praeger, 2004), pp.195–96.

30 F. Barth, ‘Ecologic Relationships of Ethnic Groups in Swat, North Pakistan’, American Anthropologist, Vol.58, No.6 (1956), p.1079.

31 J. Okely, ‘Untangling Gypsy Ethnic Identity, Thanks to Barth’ in T. H. Eriksen and M. Jakoubek (eds), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries Today (London: Routledge, 2019), p.54; Salo, ‘The Gypsy Niche’, p.95; G. Gmelch and S. B. Gmelch, ‘Commercial Nomadism: Occupation and Mobility among Travellers in England and Wales’ in Rao (ed.), The Other Nomads, pp.142–43; Hayden, The Cultural Ecology, p.298; J. C. Berland, ‘Research Reports: Peripatetic, Pastoralist and Sedentist Interactions in Complex Societies’, Newsletter (Commission on Nomadic Peoples), No.4 (1979), pp.6–8.

32 Berland, Paryatan, pp.190–91; D. Nemeth, ‘Service Nomads: Interim Masters of Imperfect Markets’, Nomadic Peoples, No. 21/22 (1986), pp.135–36; Okely, The Traveller Gypsies, pp.49–50.

33 Misra and Prabhakar, ‘Non-pastoral’, pp.166–67.

34 Rao, The Concept, p.7; Okely, Untangling, pp.53–54.

35 J. F. Meyer, ‘Biography and Identity in Damascus: A Syrian Nawar Chief’ in Berland and Rao (eds), Customary Strangers, p.71.

36 Okely, The Traveller Gypsies, pp.3–4; Marushiakova and Popov, ‘“Gypsy” Groups’, p.63.

37 C. Silverman, ‘Negotiating “Gypsiness”: Strategy in Context’, The Journal of American Folklore, Vol.101, No.401 (1988), p.266; S. B. Gmelch, ‘Gypsies in British Cities: Problems and Government Response’, Urban Anthropology, Vol.11, No. 3/4 (1982), p.347.

38 H. İnalcık, ‘The Ottoman State: Economy and Society, 1300-1600’ in H. İnalcık and D. Quataert (eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Vol.I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p.16; R. H. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire 1856-1876 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), p.32; H. İnalcık, ‘Ottoman Method of Conquest’, Studia Islamica, No.2 (1954), p.113.

39 K. Barkey and G. Gavrilis, ‘The Ottoman Millet System: Non-territorial Autonomy and its Contemporary Legacy’, Ethnopolitics, Vol.15, No.1 (2016), pp.25–26; D. Vovchenko, Containing Balkan Nationalism: Imperial Russia and Ottoman Christians, 1856-1914 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), p.29; B. Braude and B. Lewis, ‘Introduction’ in B. Braude and B. Lewis (eds), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society (London: Holmes & Meier, 1982), pp.3–4.

40 C. Cahen, H. İnalcık, and P. Hardy, ‘Djizya’ in P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. Van Donzel and W. P. Heinrichs (eds), The Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Online, 2012), pp.559–62; J. Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), pp.130–33; N. J. Coulson, A History of Islamic Law (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1964), pp.23–27.

41 İ. Ortaylı, ‘Osmanlılarda Millet Sistemi’ [The Millet System in the Ottomans], TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, 2020, https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/millet#2-osmanlilarda-millet-sistemi (accessed 29 June 2022), pp.67–68; K. Karpat, ‘Millets and Nationality: The Roots of the Incongruity of Nation and State in the Post-Ottoman Era’ in Braude and Lewis, Christians, p.150.

42 Altınöz, Osmanlı (2013); Çelik, Community; Çelik, Gypsies (Roma), Ginio, Neither, pp.117–45; Marsh, Ottoman, pp.171–74; Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies in the Ottoman.

43 Ginio, Neither, p.131; Marsh, Ottoman, p.172; Soulis, ‘The Gypsies’, pp.156–58.

44 H. İnalcık, ‘Djizya, Ottoman’ in B. Lewis, C. Pellat, and J. Schacht (eds), The Encyclopedia of Islam-Vol II (Leiden: Brill, 1991), p.562.

45 E. Çelebi, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnamesi VIII. Kitap [The Travelogue of Evliya Çelebi, the 8th Book] (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2003), pp.37, 40.

46 D. Cantemir, Opere Complete (Vol. VIII) (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicci Socialiste Romania, 1987 [1722]), pp.341–42, pp.341–42; A. Oprisan, ‘An Overview of the Romanlar in Turkey’, in Marsh and Strand (eds), Gypsies, pp.167–68.

47 Ginio, Neither, p.130; F. Kasumović, ‘The Changing Face of Fiscal Policy in the Periphery of the World of Islam: The Gypsy Poll Tax in Ottoman Bosnis, c. 1690s-1856’, Journal of the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo, Vol.7, No.2 (2020), p.109.

48 The bureaucracy indiscriminately classified the poll tax paid by Muslims and non-Muslims as Kıbti cizye in many fiscal records while employing different terms in publicly visible documents [Directorate of State Archives, Ottoman Archives (DAB).MAD.d.21167.2., p.3; DAB.D.MMK.KBC.d.23771.1; DAB.MMK.KBC.d.23787, pp.2–7; A. Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri [The Ottoman Laws and their Legal Analysis], Vol.V (Istanbul: Fey, 1992), p.48.].

49 DAB.MVL.797.92.1.1.1866.row_2.

50 R. P. Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia (Bloomington: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 1983).

51 H. İnalcık, ‘Osmanlılar'da Raiyyet Rüsûmu’ [Raiyyet Tax in the Ottomans], Belleten, Vol.92, No.23 (1959), pp.586–87; O. Usta, ‘Türkmen Voyvodası, Tribesmen and the Ottoman State’, (MA thesis, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, 2011), pp.83–84.

52 H. İnalcık, ‘The Yörüks: Their Origins, Expansion and Economic Role’, CEDRUS the Journal of MCRI, No.2 (2014), p.481.

53 DAB.MVL.572.71.3.1.1858.row_1; DAB.C.ML.331.13593.1.row_1; F. Çelik, ‘The Many Faces of the “Gypsy” in Early Modern Ottoman Discourse’ in H. Karateke, H. E. Çıpa and H. Anetshofer (eds), Disliking Others: Loathing, Hostility, and Distrust in Premodern Ottoman Lands (Boston: Academic Studies, 2018), p.224.

54 Çelik, The Many, p.217; V. A. Friedman and R. Dankoff, ‘The Earliest Text in Balkan (Rumelian) Romani: A Passage from Evliya Çelebi’s “Seyahat-name”’, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol.1, No.1 (1991), pp.1–20.

55 Çelik, Community; Ginio, Neither, pp.117–45.

56 DAB.DH.MKT.1368.131.1.1.1886; DAB.NFS.D.3201.0-8.

57 DAB.BEO.655.49054.1.1,1895.row_4.

58 DAB.NFS.d.2278, pp.22–23; DAB.ML.VRD.TMT.d.3247.1, p.2.

59 Altınöz, Osmanlı (2005), pp.212–13; F. Çelik, ‘The Many Faces’, pp.227–30.

60 Ekrad-ı Kara Yağmurlu. Groups named Kara Yagmurlu are visible in the sixteenth-century Ottoman records (Y. Halaçoğlu, Anadolu’da Aşiretler, Cemaatler, Oymaklar III (1453-1650) [Tribes, Sub-Tribes, and Bands in Anatolia III (1453-1650)) (Ankara: TTK, 2009), pp.1248–249]. The Ottoman state lumped at least some of those with the other groups classified as Kıbti no later than the late seventeenth century. Ekrad means Kurds, and there is an ongoing debate on the term’s connotations when used in the Ottoman documents [Y. Halaçoğlu, ‘The Evaluation of the Words Türk-Etrak, Kürd-Ekrad as the Appear in the Ottoman Documents’, Belleten, Vol.60, No.227 (1996), pp.147–54; F. Dündar, ‘Empire of Taxonomy: Ethnic and Religious Identities in the Ottoman Surveys and Censuses’, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.51, No.1 (2015), pp.138–56; R. Kasaba, A Moveable Empire: Ottoman Nomads, Migrants, and Refugees (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009), p.21]. Some Abdal communities accept Kara Yağmur as their historical leader, who led Abdals in their migration towards Anatolia [A. Aksüt, ‘İlk Abdal Musa Dergahı, Kâfi Baba ve Yuvalı’ [The First Abdal Musa Dergah, Kafi Baba and Yuvalı], Serçeşme, No.40 (2008), p.19; A. Aksüt, ‘Abdallarla İlgili Notlar’ [Notes about the Abdals], Folklor / Edebiyat, Vol.8, No.29 (2002), p.13; M. Ş. Ülkütaşır, ‘Abdallar’ [Abdals], Türk Kültürü, No.64 (1968), p.251].

61 Richardson, ‘Invisible Strangers’, pp.187–207; K. Richardson, Roma in the Medieval Islamic World: Literacy, Culture, and Migration (London, New York, Oxford, New Delhi and Sydney: I. B. Tauris, 2022), pp.4, 20; Z. Gezicier, ‘Dom Toplumunda Toplumsal Cinsiyet Algısının Dönüşümü’ [Transformation of Gender Perception in Dom Society] (MA thesis, Gaziantep University, 2019), pp.18–20; Y. Halaçoğlu, Anadolu’da Aşiretler, Cemaatler, Oymaklar II (1453-1650) [Tribes, Sub-Tribes, and Bands in Anatolia II (1453-1650)] (Ankara: TTK, 2009), p.920; A. Sarı, ‘Dulkadirli Türkmenlerinin Yurtları Hakkında’ [About the Homeland of Dulkadirli Turkmens], Türkbilig, No.35 (2018), p.33.

62 Tayife, or ta’ife, was a highly flexible term and may correspond to different human clusters, such as a sect, a class, a nation, or crew [J. Redhouse, A Turkish and English Lexicon (Istanbul: American Mission, 1890), p.1230; F. Meninski. Thesaurus Linguarum Orientalium Turcicae, Arabicae, Persicae V. 1 (Vienna, 1680), p.3080].

63 Sancaḳ, see Meninski, Thesaurus, pp.1683–684; Redhouse, A Turkish, p.1082. An administrative unit smaller than vilāyet, province, G. Dávid, ‘Administration, Provincial’, in Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters (eds), Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Facts on File, 2008), p.14.

64 DAB.IE.DH.18.1732.1.2.

65 G. Bozarslan, Türkiye Tarihi İmparatorluktan Günümüze [The History of Turkey: From Empire to Today] (Istanbul: İletişim, 2018), pp.133–37.

66 D. Vovchenko, ‘Caring for the Sick Man? Russian and Greek Reactions to the Ottoman Reforms’, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.58, No.1 (2022), pp.2–3, https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2021.1947253; V. Roudometof, ‘From Rum Millet to Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Secularization, and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society, 1453-1821’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, Vol.16 (1998), pp.13–14, 30. For the term ethnie, see A. D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1988), p.13.

67 Vovchenko, Containing, pp.3, 46, 70; R. H. Davison, ‘Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim Equality in the Nineteenth Century’, The American Historical Review, Vol.59, No.4 (1954), p.846.

68 A. Salzmann, ‘Citizens in Search of a State: The Limits of Political Participation in the Late Ottoman Empire’ in M. Hanagan and C. Tilly (eds), Extending Citizenship, Reconfiguring States (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999), p.45; Bozarslan, Türkiye, pp.129–33; E. J. Zürcher, ‘The Ides of April: A Fundamentalist Uprising in Istanbul 1909?’ in E. J. Zürcher (ed.), The Young Turk Legacy and Nation Building from the Ottoman Empire to Atatürk’s Turkey (London: I. B. Tauris, 2010), p.73; B. C. Fortna, Imperial Classroom: Islam, the State, and Education in the Late Ottoman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p.47.

69 Davison, Turkish, pp.848–64; Salzmann, Citizens, pp.38–39. In this process, the ruling elite’s mindset evolved from a multicultural and multireligious Ottoman patriotism to Pan-Islamism and Turkish nationalism, see T. Bora, Türk Sağının Üç Hâli Milliyetçilik, Muhafazakârlık, İslâmcılık [The Three Forms of the Turkish Right: Nationalism, Conservatism, Islamism] (Istanbul: Birikim, 2018), pp.112–16; E. J. Zürcher, ‘The Ottoman Empire 1850-1922: Unavoidable Failure?’ in Zürcher (ed.), The Young Turk, pp.59–72; M. Ş. Hanioğlu, The Young Turks in Opposition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp.30–31; Ahmad, The Young Turks, pp.3–4.

70 U. Gülsoy, Osmanlı Gayrımüslimlerinin Askerlik Serüveni [The Military Service Adventure of Ottoman non-Muslims] (Istanbul: Simurg, 2000), p.35; H. İnalcık, ‘Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700’, Archivum Ottomanicum, Vol.6 (1980), p.310; E. J. Zürcher, ‘The Ottoman Conscription System, 1844-1914’, International Review of Social History, Vol.43, No.3 (1998), pp.437–45.

71 Gülsoy, Osmanlı, pp.56–58;

72 Zürcher, The Ottoman Conscription, pp.445–46; S. J. Shaw, ‘The Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Tax Reforms and Revenue System’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol.6, No.4 (1975), p.431.

73 DAB.MVL.797.92.1.1.1866.row_2; Gülsoy, Osmanlı, p.61; H. İnalcık, ‘Application of the Tanzimat and its Social Effects’ in İnalcık, The Ottoman, p.12; Zürcher, The Ottoman, p.446.

74 Davison, Reform, p.94

75 DAB.A)MKT.UM.322.2.1.1.1858.row_2; DAB.MVL.797.92.1.1.1866.rows_1.

76 N. Özbek, ‘Tax Farming in the Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire: Institutional Backwardness or the Emergence of Modern Public Finance’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol.XLIX, No.2 (2018), p.225; Ş. Pamuk, ‘Fiscal Centralisation and the Rise of the Modern State in the Ottoman Empire’, The Medieval History Journal, Vol.17, No.1 (2014), p.21.

77 M. Genç, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Devlet ve Ekonomi [The State and Economics in the Ottoman Empire] (Istanbul: Ötüken, 2014), pp.95–143; K. K. Karaman and Ş. Pamuk, ‘Ottoman State Finances in European Perspective, 1500-1914’, The Journal of Economic History, Vol.70, No.3 (2010), pp.593–98; H. İnalcık, ‘Autonomous Enclaves in Islamic States: Temliks, Soyurghals, Yurdluk-Ocakliks, Malikane-Mukata’as and Awqaf’ in J. Pfeiffer, S. A. Quinn, and E. Tucker (eds), History and Historiography of Post-Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East: Studies in Honor of John E. Woods (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006), pp.112–33; L. T. Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1500-1660 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), pp.119–60.

78 Shaw, ‘The Nineteenth-Century’, p.422; A. Şener, Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı Vergi Hukuku [The Ottoman Tax Law in the Tanzimat Era] (Istanbul: Alfa, 2021), pp.38–59.

79 Özbek, ‘Tax Farming’, pp.223–29; Shaw, ‘The Nineteenth-Century’, p.423.

80 Özbek, Tax Farming, pp.235–236; Pamuk, Fiscal Centralisation, p.20. For the financial aspect of the Crimean War, see, C. Badem, The Ottoman Crimean War (1853-1856) (Leiden: Brill, 2010), pp.289–328.

81 Vidin (Видин) and Tirnova (Велико Търново) are in Bulgaria Today [T. Sezen, Osmanlı Yer Adları [Ottoman Place Names]. (Ankara: DA, 2017), pp.752, 790].

82 DAB.I.MVL.395.17191.1.1.rows_1-4; DAB.I.MVL.395.17191.2.1.rows_2-5; MVL.885.87.1.1.rows_3-7.

83 DAB.I.MVL.395..17191.1.1.row_4.

84 DAB.I.MVL.395.17191.2.1.rows_5-6;

85 DAB.İ.MVL.395.17191.1.1.rows_3-7; DAB.İ.MVL.395.17191.2.1.rows_7-8; DAB.MVL.885.87.1.1.rows_11-13.

86 DAB.İ.MVL.395.17191.1.1.rows_8-9; DAB.İ.MVL.395.17191.2.1.rows_8-11; DAB.İMVL.395.17191.rows_2-3

87 DAB.I.MVL.395.17191.3.1.

88 S. Kuneralp, Son Dönem Osmanlı Erkân ve Ricali [The late-Ottoman Statesmen] (İstanbul: İSİS, 1999), p.1.

89 DAB.A}MKT.MVL.98.12.1.1; DAB.A}MKT.UM.316.64.1.1.

90 DAB.MAD.d.18513 [1696/1697], pp.6–8.

91 E. Uras, ‘Poşalar: Elekçi Çingeneler Hakkında Etnografik ve Sosyolojik Bir Etüd’ [Poşas: An Ethnographic and Sociological Study about Sieve-maker Gypsies], Çığır, Vol.17, No.178 (1947), p.132; K. P. Patkanoff, ‘Some Words on the Dialects of the Transcaucasian Gypsies-Bošà and Karači’, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society New Series, Vol.1, No. 3(1908), p.237–245; A. G. Paspati, Études sur les Tchinghianés ou Bohémiens De L'empire Ottoman [Studies on the Tchinghianes or Bohemians of the Ottoman Empire](İstanbul: Antoine Koroméla, 1870), p.17.

92 T. Bozkurt, ‘Poşalar Örneğinde Etnisite ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet İlişkisi’ [Ethnicity and Gender Relation in the Case of Poşas] in Ç. C. Süvari, A. Yıldırım, T. Bozkurt, İ. M. İşoğlu, Artakalanlar Anadolu’dan Etnik Manzaralar (İstanbul: E, 2006), pp.327–330.

93 Ibid., pp.333–336;

94 Cauldron maker [J. W. Redhouse, A Turkish and English Lexicon (Istanbul: American Mission, 1890), p.1451]

95 Aksüt, İlk, p.19.

96 DAB.MAD.d.18513, p.6.

97 DAB.NFS.d.2051, p.370, 443.

98 DAB.NFS.d.2051, p.404, 413, 439, 443.

99 D. Şahbaz, ‘1831 Tarihli Nüfus Defterlerine Göre Bozok Sancağında Aşiretler’ [Tribes in Bozok Sanjak according to Census Registers Dated to 1831], Genel Türk Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol.2, No.3 (2020), p.147.

100 DAB.AE.SABH.I.177.11821.1.row_2; DAB.AE.SABH.I.00177.11821.3.row_2.

101 A. R. Yalman (Yalgın), Cenupta Türkmen Oymakları I [Turkmen Bands in the South] (Ankara: MEB, 1977(1931), p.18.

102 S. Winter, ‘The Reşwan Kurds and Ottoman Tribal Settlement in Syria, 1683-1741’, Oriento Moderno, Vol.97, No.2 (2017), pp.256–269; S. Dede, ‘From Nomadism to Sedentary Life in Central Anatolia: The Case of Rışvan Tribe (1830-1932)’ (MA thesis, Bilkent University, 2011).

103 Ahmed Vefik Paşa, Lehce-i Osmani (İstanbul: Cemiyyet-i Tedrisiyye-‘i Osmaniyye, 1876), p.2.

104 For an extensive study on the interethnic relations in Harput in the late nineteenth century, see A. Sipahi, ‘Deception and Violence in the Ottoman Empire: The People’s Theory of Crowd Behaviour during the Hamidian Massacres of 1895’, Comparative Studies in Society and History Vol.62, No.4 (2020), pp.810–35.

105 Ayintab / Gaziantep was a sub-province within the Zülkadriye province in the sixteenth century [Sezen, Osmanlı, p.278] and a district within Anatolian province in the early eighteenth century [İstanbul Court Registry, No.150, Vol.65, p.227, Sentence No. 204].

106 G. F. Herrick, An Intense Life a Sketch of the Life and Work of Rev. Andrew T. Pratt (New York, Chicago: Fleming b. Revell, 1890).

107 Paspati, Études, p.16.

108 M. Fırat, S. İlhan, ‘Çingenelerde Yoksulluk ve Sosyal Dışlanma: Malatya Örneği’ [Poverty and Social Exclusion in Gypsies: The Case of Malatya, Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Vol.7, No.3 (2019), p.273.

109 M. Fırat, ‘Çingeneliği Anlamanın İmkânı: Çingeneler Üzerine Sosyolojik Bir Araştırma (Malatya Örneği)’ [The Possibility of Understanding Gypsyness: A Sociological Research on Gypsies (The Case of Malatya)] (PhD thesis, Fırat University, 2016), p.84.

110 DAD.MAD.21473, pp.1–18.

111 DAB.MAD.21473, pp.1–2.

112 DAB.MAD.21473, p.9.

113 G. F. Black, ‘The Gypsies of Armenia’, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol.6, No.4 (1912–1913), pp.329–33; G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina [Work and Custom in Palestine] (Gütershlog: Bertelsmann, 1933), p.256; E. O. Winstedt, ‘Palestinian Gypsies’, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol.31, No.1–2 (1952), p.78.

114 K. P. Patkanoff, ‘Some Words on the Dialects of the Transcaucasian Gypsies-Bošà and Karaci’, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol.2, No.3 (1909), pp.247–52.

115 A. V. Le Coq, ‘Die Abdal’ [The Abdal] in P. Ehrenreich (ed.), Baessler-Archiv, Vol.II (Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teuner, 1912), p.224.

116 Islahiye was a district within the Halep province between 1868 and 1880. It is within Gaziantep today [Sezen, Osmanlı, p.382].

117 Le Coq, ‘Die Abdal,’ pp.225–26.

118 Ibid., p.226.

119 E. Balkır, ‘Kuştepe’de Yaşayan Kayserili Abdal (Teber) Geç-Peripatetik Toplulukların Kentleşme Süreçleri’ [The Urbanisation Processes of late-Peripatetic Abdal (Teber) Communities in Kuştepe] (MA thesis, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, 2020), p.50; O. N. Poyrazoğlu, ‘Çukurova Abdalları Üzerine’ [On Çukurova Abdals], Folklor / Edebiyat, Vol.1, No.2 (1995), p.77; P. A. Andrews and R. Benninghaus, Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Turkey (Wiesbade: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1989), pp.72, 229–30; A. Tietze, ‘Zum Argot der Anatolischen Abdal (Gruppe Teber)’ [On the argot of the Anatolian Abdal (Teber group)], Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol.36, No.1 (1982), pp.521–32.

120 DAB.MAD.d.8616, p.9, rows_5-8; DAB.NFS.d.3201.1; E. Z. Karal, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda İlk Nüfus Sayımı [The First Census in the Ottoman Empire] (Ankara: T.C. DİE, 1997[1943]), p.122.

121 K. Crenshaw, ‘Mapping the Margins: Identity Politics, Intersectionality, and Violence against Women’, Stanford Law Review, Vol.43, No.6 (1991), p.1243.

122 Ibid., pp.1296–299.

123 S. Cho, K. W. Crenshaw and L. McCall, ‘Toward a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis’, Signs, Vol.38, No.4 (2013), pp.787–88/795.

124 P. Werbner, ‘Intersectionality and Situationalism: Towards a (more) Dynamic Interpretation of Ethnic Groups and Boundaries’ in Eriksen and Jakoubek, Ethnic Groups, pp.119–25; B. Kapferer, ‘Situations, Crisis, and the Anthropology of the Concrete: The Contribution of Max Gluckman’, Social Analysis, Vol.49, No.3, pp.85–122.

125 P. Werbner, ‘Everyday Multiculturalism: Theorising the Difference between “Intersectionality” and “Multiple Identities”’, Ethnicities, Vol.13, No.4 (2013), p.402.

126 Werbner, ‘Intersectionality’, p.123; Werbner, Everyday, p.410.

127 DAB.BOA.ŞD.609.40.4.1; DAB.BOA.ŞD.2222.42.1.1.

128 D. Can, ‘Mersin Abdalları Halkbilimi Araştırması’ [The Folklore Research of Mersin’s Abdals] (MA thesis, Mersin University, 2010), p.36; F. Yıldırım, Abdal Gizli Dili [Abdal Secret Language] (Adana: Karahan Kitabevi, 2011), p.29; Gezicier, Dom, pp.4, 18; Le Coq, ‘Die Abdal’, p.225; F. Grenard, Mission Scientifique dans la Haute Asia 1890-1895 [Scientific Mission in Upper Asia 1890-1895] (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1898), p.308.

129 Gezicier, Dom, p.4; Le Coq, ‘Die Abdal’, p.222; F. V. Luschan, The Early Inhabitants of Western Asia (London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1911), p.227.

130 DAB.NFS.d.3201.1.; DAB.ML.VRD.d.5133, p.3; DAB.ML.VRD.d.1824, p.4; DAB.NFS.d.3222, p.8.

131 Ö. Tatar, XVIII. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Çukurova’da Aşiretlerin Eşkıyalık Olayları ve Aşiret İskanı (1671-1750) [The Banditry and settlement of nomadic tribes in the first half of the 18th century (1691-1750)] (PhD thesis, Fırat University, 2005), pp.97–140; G. Ágoston, ‘Ottoman Conquests’, in G. Martel (ed.), The Encylopedia of War (West Sussex: Blackwell, 2012), p.9.

132 İ. Solak, ‘XVI. Yüzyılda Maraş ve Çevresinde Dulkadirli Türkmenleri’ [In XVI Century Dulkadirli Turkomans Maraş and Close Surroundings], SÜ Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, No.12 (2002), p.112; A. Kanlıdere, ‘XVI. Asır Başında Dulkadirli Türkmenleri Hakkında Önemli Bir Kaynak: Maraş’ın İlk Mufassal Tahrir Defteri’ [An Important Source on Dulkadirli Turkmens at the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century: The First Mufassal Tahrir Registry of Maraş], Uluslararası Dulkadir Beyliği Sempozyumu (Kahramanmaraş: Kahramanmaraş Belediyesi, 2012), p.89; Ü. Katırancı, ‘XVIII. Yüzyılda İfraz-i Zu’l-kadriyye’nin İskânı Sorunu’ [The Issue of İfraz-i Zu’l-kadriyye in Eighteenth Century] (MA thesis, Ankara University, 2015), p.9.

133 Usta, ‘Türkmen Voyvodası’, pp.64–88; Kasaba, A Moveable Empire, pp.21–29.

134 Katırancı, XVIII. Yüzyılda, pp.21, 51

135 DAB.C.ML.629.25866.

136 Ferecik/Feres (Φέρες) is in Greece Today [Sezen, Osmanlı, p.268].

137 DAB.A{DVNSMHM.122.119.row_ 2.

138 DAB. A_{DVNSMHM.122.119.line_ 3-5.

139 DAB.AE.SABH.I.177.11821.1; DAB.BOA.ŞD.609.40.4.1; C.ML.632.25957.1.1; DAB.C.ML.629.25866; DAB.C.ML.70.3250.1.1; AE.SMST.III.00200.15740.1.1.

140 aşa’ir, pl. of aşiret [Redhouse, A Turkish, p.1302]. The term might correspond to various levels of segmentary social organisation, such as band, clan or tribe, in its different uses [H. Yeni, ‘The Yörüks of Ottoman Western Thrace in the Sixteenth Century’ (PhD thesis, Bilkent University, 2013), p.214; Y. Halaçoğlu, ‘Aşiret’ [Tribe], in İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol.4, (Istanbul: TDV İSAM, 1991), p.9; Kasaba, A Moveable Empire, p.21].

141 DAB.MAD.d.8616.row_4-6, p.3.

142 DAB.ML.VRD.d.1418.

143 Sarraf, moneychanger. For the crucial role in Ottoman finance played by the Ottoman moneychangers, see A. Yaycıoğlu, ‘Perdenin Arkasındakiler: Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Sarraflar ve Finans Ağları Üzerine Bir Deneme’ [Those behind the Curtain: On Money Changers in the Ottoman Empire and Finance Networks], Journal of Turkish Studies, Vol.52 (2019), pp.375–96; Ş. Pamuk, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp.200–04. Sandık Sarrafs were provincial moneychangers who had a significant role in the local management of state finance and tax collection. They were the members of moneychanger companies established in Anatolia and Rumelia in the nineteenth century [B. Çelik, 19. Yüzyılda Sivas Eyaletinde Sarraflık Faaliyetleri [Moneychanging Activities in Sivas Eyaleti at 19^th Century] (MA thesis, Cumhuriyet University, 2013), pp.33–39; M. Çadırcı, Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentlerinin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Yapısı [Social and Economic Structure of Anatolian Cities in the Tanzimat Era] (Ankara: TTK, 1997), pp.230–32; Y. Cezar, ‘18 ve 19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Sahaflar’[Money Changers in the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries] in L. H. Akgül and F. Aral (eds), Gülten Kazgan’a Armağan Türkiye Ekonomisi (Istanbul: BÜ Yayınları, 2004), pp.187–88].