Resistance to centralisation in the Ottoman periphery: the Kurdish Baban and Bohtan emirates

Abstract

Modern Kurdish historiography, which examines resistance to provincial centralisation in Ottoman Kurdistan, focuses largely on Bedir Khan’s Bohtan emirate and his revolt in the 1840s, while ignoring the rest of the other Kurdish emirates such as Baban emirate. While both states, Qajar Iran and Ottoman Empire, were endeavouring to solve their conflicts in the 1840s (a process which culminated in the treaty of Erzurum in 1847) the future of the Baban emirate and its territories emerged as one of the major issues during the course of negotiations. The Baban emirate was the last emirate to give up its struggle against the Sublime Porte’s centralisation reforms. The legacy of the Kurdish emirates is important to understand better the relations between the centre of the Ottoman Empire and its eastern periphery, a much less studied subject in Ottoman historiography. This article will highlight the impact of the centralisation policies in Kurdistan, more specifically on territories of the Bohtan and Baban emirates. It will be demonstrated that the changes wrought by the Tanzimat reforms were partially successful in transforming the Kurdish notables, who later became a part of the state bureaucracy. However, the reform-minded officials, who were appointed after the Kurdish emirs were removed from the region, failed to persuade the locals in favour of the new administration thus transforming their lives.

Keywords:

• Baban
• Bohtan
• Kurdish emirates
• Bedir Khan
• Tanzimat
• Ottoman empire
• Qajar Iran
• centralisation

Acknowledgments

This article is an expanded and revised version of a chapter from my unpublished PhD thesis Politics of Alliance and Rivalry on the Ottoman-Iranian Frontier: The Babans (1500–1851) (Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg, 2013). I am very grateful for the guidance, friendship, and instruction of my doctoral supervisor, Maurus Reinkowski. I also thank J. Andrew Bush for revising an earlier version of this article and for providing many insightful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Ebubekir Ceylan, Ottoman Origins of Modern Iraq: Political Reform, Modernisation and Development in the Nineteenth Century Middle East (London: I.B. Tauris, 2011), p.16.

2 Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p.55.

3 The struggle with the Egyptian Khedive and his son İbrahim Pasha was taking all the efforts and energy of the Porte. Though the threat by the Albanian dynasty in Egypt did not mean a lack of awareness of the growing danger of Kurdish mîrs. A letter from Ali Rıza Pasha, the governor of Baghdad, dated 27 August 1832, stated that Mehmed Ali Pasha had already occupied Acre and Damascus and it appeared that he also advanced to capture Aleppo. The reason for the weakness of the Ottoman army before the Egyptian army, argued Ali Rıza Pasha, was that serdar-ı ekrem (the commander-in-chief) was in Iraq with his army to deal with the ‘enemies’ in Hille and Rawanduz. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Osmanlı Arşivi (Ottoman Archives of Presidency of Turkey, hereafter COA) HAT. 19734-A, 1 Rebiülahir 1248 (27 August 1832); See also James Henry Skene, The Three Eras of Ottoman History (London: Chapman and Hall, 1851), p.49.

4 Chris Kutschera, Kürt Ulusal Hareketi [Kurdish National Movement], trans. Fikret Başkaya (Istanbul: Avesta, 2001), p.23; Gencer claims that it was the historians of Soviet Russia, who presented Bedir Khan Beg as a Kurdish nationalist and many nationalist historians were influenced by such approaches. Fatih Gencer, ‘Merkeziyetçi İdari Düzenlemeler Bağlamında Bedirhan Bey Olayı [The Case of Bedir Khan Beg in the Context of Centralist Administrative Regulations]’ (PhD diss., Ankara University, 2010), p.261. For more discussion on Bedir Khan’s rise to power and his role in Kurdish rebellions see Mehmet Alagöz, ‘Old Habits Die Hard: A Reaction to Application Tanzimat: Bedirhan Bey’s Revolt’ (M.A. Thesis, Boğaziçi University, 2003); Celile Celil, Bedirhan Bey Ayaklanması [Bedir Khan Beg Revolt] in Faik Bulut (ed.), Dar Üçgende Üç İsyan [Three Revolts in an Acute Triangle] (Istanbul: Evrensel Yayınları, 2005); Cabir Doğan, ‘Cizre ve Bohtan Emiri Bedirhan Bey (1802–1869) [Bedir Khan Beg, the Emir of Cizre and Bohtan]’ (PhD diss., Afyon Kocatepe University, 2010); Hatip Yıldız, ‘Bedirhan Bey Vak’ası (1842–1848) [The Case of Bedir Khan Beg (1842–1848)]’ (M.A. Thesis, Atatürk University, 2000).

5 Barbara Henning, Narratives of the History of the Ottoman-Kurdish Bedirhani Family in Imperial and Post-Imperial Contexts: Continuities and Changes (Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press, 2018), p.75.

6 Nejat Abdulla, İmparatorluk, Sınır ve Aşiret: Kürdistan ve 1843–1932 Türk-Fars Sınır Çatışması [Empire, Border, and Tribe: Kurdistan and 1843–1932 Turkish-Persian Border Conflict], trans. Mustafa Aslan (Istanbul: Avesta, 2010), p.190.

7 Sabri Ateş, Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands: Making a Boundary, 1843–1914 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp.32–3.

8 Denise Natali, The Kurds and the State: Evolving National Identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005), p.6.

9 Jun Akiba, ‘From Kadı to Naib: Reorganisation of the Otoman Sharia Judiciary in the Tanzimat Period’ in Colin Imber and Keiko Kiyotaki (eds), Frontiers of Ottoman Studies: State, Province, and the West (Vol. 1, London: I.B. Tauris, 2005), pp.43–60.

10 Ibid., pp. 43–60.

11 Since there are still no major works on where the Kurdish Shafi’i population stands in the Hanafi dominant Ottoman law system it would still be difficult to make concrete statements on the role of the school in the slow rate of centralisation/reform. Yavuz Aykan offers some details on the difference between the Hanafi and Shafi’i schools through Diyarbekir court records in the eighteenth century. Yavuz Aykan, Rendre la justice à Amid: Procédures, acteurs et doctrines dans le contexte ottoman du XVIIIème siècle (Leiden: Brill, 2016); also see Ateş, Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands, pp.41–2.

12 Ceylan, Ottoman Origins of Modern Iraq, p.15.

13 For a thorough discussion on the transformation of yurtluk-ocaklık and hükûmet land regime in Diyarbekir see Uğur Bayraktar, ‘Yurtluk-Ocaklıks: Land, Politics of Notables and Society in Ottoman Kurdistan, 1820–1890’ (PhD diss., Boğaziçi University and EHESS, 2015).

14 Midhat Pasha had the province of Baghdad divided into ten sub-divisions. Sulaimaniya was one of these ten sub-divisions and besides the centre of the sancak there was Karadagh, Bazian, Markah, Gulanbar, and Shahr-i Bazar. COA. İ. MMAH. 1664, 19 Zilhicce 1287 (12 March 1871) in Ceylan, Ottoman Origins of Modern Iraq, p.126.

15 Ceylan, ‘Ottoman Centralisation and Modernisation in the Province of Baghdad, 1831–1872’ (PhD diss., Boğaziçi University, 2006), p.29. In an Ottoman document that Ceylan refers to, Sulaimaniya was also considered a sancak in 1860. The document states ‘…Şehrizor ve Musul ve Süleymaniye sancaklarına dahi Bağdad’ın merkez ittihaz olunması cihetiyle…’ [Baghdad is accepted as the centre of Shahrizor, Mosul and Sulaimaniya], COA. İ. MVL. 19487, dahiliye lef 1, gurre-i Cemaziyel-evvel 1277 (15 November 1860) in Ceylan, ‘Ottoman Centralisation’, footnote 359, p.116.

16 Haim Gerber, The Social Origins of the Modern Middle East (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1987), p.68.

17 Keiko Kiyotaki, ‘Ottoman Land Policies in the Province of Baghdad, 1831–1881’ (PhD diss., The University of Wisconsin, 1997), pp.137–8.

18 Hasan Kayalı, Arabs and Young Turks: Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire, 1908–1918 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), p.20.

19 Austen Henry Layard, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon with Travels in Armenia, Kurdistan and the Desert, Part 1 (London: John Murray, 1856), pp.19–20.

20 COA. C.DH. 1878/ 38, 11 Receb 1861 (16 July 1845).

21 Layard, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh, p.20.

22 Ibid., p.311.

23 David McDowall, A Modern History of the Kurds (London: I.B. Tauris, 2000), p.45. Sicill-i Osmani recorded that ‘Bedirhan Pasha’ was ‘Hâlid b. Velid sülalesinden ve Kürdistan’ın seçkin beylerinden Abdülhan’ın oğludur. 1217 tarihinde Cezire-i İbn-i Ömer’de doğup babası yerine yurtluk suretiyle bey oldu’ [He is a descendent of Halid bin Velid and one of sons of Kurdistan’s distinguished beys Abdülhan. He was born in 1802 in Cezire-i İbn-i Ömer and became the bey of the family estate in place of his father]. Mehmed Süreyya Bey, Sicill-i Osmani [Records of the Ottomans] vol. 2 (Istanbul, 1308), p.13.

24 Lokman Turgut, Mündliche Literatur der Kurden in den Regionen Botan und Hekarî [Oral Literature of the Kurds in the Regions of Bohtan and Hakkari] (Berlin: Logos Verlag, 2010), p.164.

25 Janet Klein, The Margins of Empire: Kurdish Militias in the Ottoman Tribal Zone (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011), p.57; Martin van Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State (London: Zed Books, 1992), p.177.

26 Klein, The Margins of Empire, p.58; van Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State, p.179.

27 Klein, The Margins of Empire, p.58.

28 Sabri Ateş, ‘Empire at the Margins: Towards a History of the Ottoman-Iranian Borderland and the Borderland Peoples’ (PhD diss., New York University, 2006), p.85; Jwaideh states that Bedir Khan Beg was appointed as the head of a contingent of Bohtan troops in the battle of Nizip against İbrahim Pasha of Egypt. So, most likely because of his participation in the war on the Ottoman side he was appointed as miralay. Wadie Jwaideh, The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2006), p.63; An Ottoman archival document refers to Bedir Khan’s reception of the title of miralay in 1839. COA. C. AS. 46027/1047, 09 Muharrem 1255 (25 March 1839); In some Ottoman documents he is called ‘kaymakam’. See, for instance, COA. C. NF. 959/20, 8 Cemaziyel-evvel 1259 (7 June 1843), where it says ‘Diyarbekir ve Musul arasının eşkıya taarruzundan muhafazası için Cizre Kaymakamı Bedirhan Bey’e emir yazılması’ [An order to be sent to Kaymakam of Cizre Bedirhan Bey in order for him to protect Diyarbekir and Mosul from the attacks of bandits].

29 Ateş, Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands, p.76. Van Bruinessen substantiates this with a map, which shows the eastern border of the Bohtan emirate reaching to the Iranian border on the west of Urumiya Lake: van Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State, p.178. Considering that the mîr of Hakkari, Nurullah Beg, was an ally of Bedir Khan Beg, one could claim that the latter’s rule extended to the frontier of Iran, though Hakkari was still under the leadership of the former.

30 According to the report that Wright and Breath prepared after their visit to Bedir Khan, ‘He prides himself upon being a man of “one word,” a rare thing in these countries. In confirmation of this, he told us that eight years ago, when he was weak and Turkey strong, he entered into an engagement with the latter; and now, though the power had changed hands, he did not violate his word. “Upon this you may rely,” he said, “that when I give you my word as a friend, I am so indeed.” He is an uncommon man. Eight years ago he was poor, without power, and little known. The Turkish government then took him by the hand; and now his wealth is incalculable,’ The Missionary Herald Vol.42, No.11 (1846), p.381. Also cited by Jwaideh, he adds that it is interesting to see that this agreement was made during the Ottoman government’s effort to pacify the Kurdish emirates, which no doubt helped the former to have one less enemy. Jwaideh, The Kurdish National Movement, p.64.

31 George Percy Badger, The Nestorians and Their Rituals: with the Narrative of a Mission to Mesopotamia and Coordistan in 1842–1844, and of a Later Visit to Those Countries in 1850 Vol. 1 (London: Joseph Masters, 1852), p.305.

32 Jwaideh, The Kurdish National Movement, p.64.

33 The leadership of Kurdish tribes in Bohtan emirate was weakened during the reign of Bedir Khan Beg but did not totally cease to exist as they re-emerged after the Kurdish emirates were destroyed by the Ottomans. See more on the rise of the tribes after the destruction of the Kurdish emirates in Klein, The Margins of Empire, pp.58–62.

34 van Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State, p.179.

35 Kaws Kaftan, Baban, Botan ve Soran: 19. yüzyıl Bölgesel Kısa Kürt Tarihi [Baban, Bohtan and Soran: A Short Nineteenth Century Regional History of the Kurds], trans. Alihan Zerşati and Fuat Cemil (Istanbul: Nujen, 1996), p.66; Mihemed Emîn Zekî, Dîroka Kurd û Kurdistanê [History of the Kurds and Kurdistan], trans. Ziya Avcı (Istanbul: Avesta, 2002), p.163.

36 Halfin, XIX. Yüzyılda Kürdistan Üzerine Mücadeleler [Scramble over Kurdistan during the Nineteenth Century] (Istanbul: Komal, 1992), p.50; Kaftan claims that the mîr of Ardalan also joined the band of Bedir Khan Beg, though I suspect this is not true since I have come across no information or indication about this. Kaftan, Baban, Botan ve Soran, p.67. Nikitin also briefly states that the mîr of Ardalan was part of the unity created by Bedir Khan, but he does not provide any source for this information. Basil Nikitin, Kürtler [The Kurds], trans. Hüseyin Demirhan and Cemal Süreyya (Istanbul: Deng, 2002), p.333.

37 van Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State, p.179; One also wonders why the Babans did not establish any coalition with Bedir Khan Beg. The geography was, probably, one of the reasons in addition to the traditional independent status of the Babans. Through the nineteenth century the Babans made no alliance with any Kurdish emirate, though they made temporary commitments to the Iranian governors or to the pashas of Baghdad when it suited their interest.

38 Badger, The Nestorians and Their Rituals, p.372.

39 Ateş names the process of unification by Bedir Khan as ‘de-clanization’ of Kurdistan in reference to the erosion of the power of the tribal chiefs. He claims that such a process ‘was the beginning of a new form of identity and allegiance formation and so posed a challenge to the Ottoman project of creating citizenship based on rights provided by tanzimat reforms’. Ateş, Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands, p.77.

40 The Missionary Herald Vol.42, No.11 (1846), p.381.

41 Ditil, 1824’ten 1845’e Kadar Şark Gezileri Günlükleri İnceleme Kütüphanesi[Survey Library on Diaries of Eastern Travels from 1824 until 1845], 1:95 (1849), pp.5–6 cited in Halfin, XIX. Yüzyılda Kürdistan, p.51.

42 For more information on the massacres of the Nestorians and its background see Jwaideh, The Kurdish National Movement, pp.65–72 and van Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State, pp.177–181. For primary accounts see also George Percy Badger, The Nestorians and Their Rituals, Layard, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh, and Lütfi [Liceli Ahmed Ramiz], Emir Bedirhan (Cairo: Matbaa-yı İctihad, ca. 1907), pp.17–21.

43 McDowall, The Kurds, p.45.

44 Jwaideh, The Kurdish National Movement, p.67.

45 Jwaideh, The Kurdish National Movement, p.67; McDowall, The Kurds, p.46. It was clear that the American missionaries wanted to maintain good relations with Bedir Khan Beg since they thought that taking a stance with the mîr would help them to convert more mountain Nestorians. The Missionary Herald, Vol.43, No.1 (1847), p.6.

46 William Ainsworth, Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Chaldea, and Armenia Vol. 1 (London: John W. Parker, 1842), p.242.

47 McDowall, The Kurds, p.46; Jwaideh, The Kurdish National Movement, p.70.

48 Jwaideh, The Kurdish National Movement, p.70.

49 Badger, The Nestorians and Their Rituals, pp.368–69.

50 A document refers to the release of the Nestorian captives by Bedir Khan. See COA. HR. MKT. 29/2, 09 Safer 1960 (28 February 1844). Another document indicates that Bedir Khan’s army was still financed by the vali of Mosul: ‘Cizre Mütesellimi Bedirhan Bey’in maiyyetinde müstahdem asker ve başıbozukların maaş ve tayinatı için Musul Valisi Mahmud Paşa’nın hazinesinden karzen para aldığı’ [The leader of Cizre Bedir Khan Beg has borrowed money from the governor of Mosul, Mahmud Pasha’s budget for salaries and expenses of soldiers and irregulars employed under his leadership], COA. A. MKT. 86/9, 19 Safer 1260 (9 March 1844). There was even a demand by the commander of the army in Anatolia asking to keep Bedir Khan in place for the time being: COA. A. MKT. 69/28, 3 Şevval 1261 (5 October 1845).

51 McDowall, The Kurds, pp.46–37.

52 Dated 12 August, 1843, Dr. Grant stated in his letter that the Kurdish forces were made up of seventy thousand men. The Missionary Herald Vol.39, No.12 (1843), p.454. Others suggested that there were a hundred thousand men. Both figures are cited in Jwaideh, The Kurdish National Movement, p.72.

53 Austin Layard, Ninevah and Its Remains Vol. 1 (New York: George P. Putnam, 1849), p.153; idem, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh, part 2, pp.424, 428, 435. Dated 27 July 1846 the American missionary Edward Breath reports in his letter ‘the number killed in two campaigns was said to be about seven thousand; but this estimate may be too high’. The Missionary Herald Vol.42, No.12 (1846), p.407.

54 Layard does not provide a precise number, but he states that around three hundred women and children were killed in the Tiyari region of Hakkari. Layard, Ninevah and its Remains, p.201. The news coming from the American missionaries was also conflicting. A letter from Dr. Wright dated 22 December 1846 states ‘probably not less than five hundred Tahomeans [a Nestorian tribe in Hakkari region] fell by the sword; and perhaps the number may rise a good deal above that amount’. The Missionary Herald Vol.43, No.4 (1847), p.138.

55 van Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State, p.180.

56 McDowall, The Kurds, p.47.

57 McDowall, The Kurds, p.47.

58 On 21 December 1848, Rev. Joseph Gallup Cochran, an American missionary, reported that the Ottoman army was fast subjugating the rugged mountains of Hakkari. He also noted that Nurullah Beg fled to the borders of Iran, and he was soon to be caught and exiled with Bedir Khan Beg. The Missionary Herald Vol.45, No.5 (1849), p.161.

59 Several British documents, such as The National Archives of UK (hereafter TNA), FO 78/702, 9 August 1847, From Brant to Palmerson; TNA, FO 78/702, 3 July 1847, From Brant to Lord Cowley; TNA, FO 78/702, 26 June 1847, From Brant to Lord Cowley and the Ottoman document COA. A. MKT. 112/50, 17 Şaban 1264 (29 July 1848) mention the defeat and removal of the Kurdish notables from Kurdistan. Among those Kurdish leaders exiled were Nurullah Beg of Hakkari, Baban Ahmed Pasha, Şerif Beg of Bitlis, and Bedir Khan Beg of Bohtan. Also see McDowall, The Kurds, p.47 and Jwaideh, The Kurdish National Movement, p.74.

60 Müşir Esad Pasha became the governor of newly created Eyalet-i Kürdistan (1847–1867), which was made up of several elviyes (sub-provinces), including Van, Muş, Mardin, Diyarbekir, Hakkari, and Dersim. Some governors of these sub-provinces, like Ahmed İzzet Pasha of Hakkari, had the rank of vizier, which was one of the highest in the Ottoman bureaucracy. Hakan Özoğlu, Kurdish Notables and the Ottoman State (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2004), pp.62–3.

61 van Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State, p.181.

62 The name of the Babans occurs variously in different Western sources as Babeh, Bebbeh, and Bebe. Modern Kurdish and Persian sources refer to them as ‘Baban’ or ‘Al-e Baban’, while they are called ‘Babanlar’ or ‘Babanzadeler’ in modern Turkish historiography. W. Behn, ‘Baban’, Encyclopaedia Iranica. Scholars speculate on the origin of the name ‘Baban’. Some say the shah of Iran gave this name to Faqih Ahmed because of his service to the Iranian king and the courage he showed in a war. The shah patted him on the back and praised him by saying ‘baba, baba!’. After that, everyone started to use ‘Baban’ as an epithet for him. Yamülkizade Aziz, ‘Kürd Tarihinden: Baban Hanedanı [From the Kurdish History: Dynasty of Baban]’, Jin Vol.9 (1335/1917), pp.1–6. The Babans are mentioned in the classical work of Sharaf Khan Bidlisi’s Sharafnama (1597), in which he allocates ten pages to the Babans and traces their history back to 1500 CE. Sharaf Khan bin Shams al-din Bidlisi, Ketab-ê Sharafnamah, prepared by Vladimir Vladimirovich Veliaminov-Zernov (St. Petersburg: Académie Impériale des Sciences, 1860), pp.279–88. The first Ottoman source to mention the Babans is a Mühimme Defteri [the register of important affairs] for the hijri years of 951-52/1544-46. Halil Sahillioğlu (ed.), Topkapı Sarayı Arşivi H.951–952 Tarihli ve E-12321 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (Istanbul: IRCICA, 2002), pp.106–8, 56. There is also one Tapu Tahrir Defteri [land registry book] for Baban Sancağı recorded by the Ottomans almost thirty years after the capture of the region from the Safavids. COA. ML. T. 352 (h. 972/1564–5).

63 As Zekî states, there is not much information on Ahmed Pasha compared to his predecessors. For more information on Baban Ahmad Pasha see Mihemed Emîn Zekî, Tarîxî Slêmanî we welatî le dewreyê zor Qadîmewe ta ewwelê ehtilal (1918 m.) [History of Sulaimaniya and the Region from the Ancient Period until the First World War (1918)] (Baghdad: Al-Najah, 1939); Abd al-Qadir bin Rostam Babani, Siyar al-Akrad dar Tarikh wa Jografya-ye Kordestan [A Survey of the Kurds in the History and Geography of Kurdistan] (Tehran: Chapkhane-i Golbang, 1288/1871; republished in 1377/1998). So far Rostam Babani has covered more information on the last phase of the Babans than any other sources. Although there is not much information about the author he seems to be a witness to the demise of the Baban dynasty as he states in his account.

64 ‘Art. XI. – Narrative of a Journey through parts of Persia and Kurdistan, undertaken by Commander J. F. Jones, I. N., of the Honourable Company’s Steam Vessel “Nitocris”, in company with Major Rawlinson, Political Agent in Turkish Arabia. – Dated Baghdad, 31st December, 1847’ Transactions of the Bombay Geographical Society, Vol. 8 (1847–49), pp.249–335. Emîn Zekî also focuses on Ahmed Pasha’s character and states that he was very ‘industrious, shrewd, and mature’. Emîn Zekî, Tarîxî Slêmanî, p.114.

65 ‘Narrative of a Journey through parts of Persia and Kurdistan’, p.329; Emîn Zekî, Tarîxî Slêmanî, p.114.

66 Major Soane states that Ahmed Pasha’s fight against the Ottoman army was one of the major attempts with ‘national spirit’ in nineteenth-century Kurdistan. The other three such attempts were, Soane notes, Baban Abdurrahman Pasha’s rebellion against the valis of Baghdad in 1806, the bid for independence by the Mîrê Kor of Rawanduz in 1836–8 and Bedir Khan Beg’s famous ‘revolution’ in 1847. Soane was right when he stated that Ahmed Pasha’s rebellion was among some of the major Kurdish movements of the nineteenth century but approaching these events as ‘nationalist’ and ‘secessionist’ seems to be a misreading of the period. Ely Banister Soane, To Mesopotamia and Kurdistan in Disguise (Boston: Small, Maynard and Company, 1913), pp.371–72; Four decades before Soane, Millingen made similar comments on Ahmed Pasha’s resistance against the Ottomans. Millingen supported his ‘nationalist’ view with the first-hand accounts of the Kurdish notables. He noted: ‘It seems as if the revolutionary fever had inflamed the brains of the whole mass of the Koordish nation. From my personal experience, having been thrown into contact with many of the chiefs of the Koordish national movements, as Ahmed Pasha of Suleimanieh and Resul Pasha, with all their brothers and sons, I can affirm, without fear of exaggerating, that the sentiment of nationality and the love of independence are as deeply rooted in the heart of the Koords as in that of any other nation.’ Frederick Millingen, Wild life among the Koords (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1870), p.213. Although Soane did not cite him or any other sources for his analysis of Kurdish nationalism, one suspects that he made such comments under the influence of Millingen.

67 ‘Narrative of a Journey through parts of Persia and Kurdistan’, p.329.

68 ‘Narrative of a Journey through parts of Persia and Kurdistan’, p.330.

69 Ateş, Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands, pp.71–2.

70 From Williams to Canning, Erzurum, 12 February 1844. Richard Schofield (ed.), The Iran-Iraq Border, 1840–1958 (Vol. 1, London: Archive Editions, 1989), p.213.

71 TNA, FO 78/2713, 9 July 1845, From Rawlinson to Canning, Suleimanieh and British Consulate in Baghdad.

72 TNA, FO 78/2713, From Rawlinson to Canning.

73 TNA, FO 78/2713, From Rawlinson to Canning.

74 TNA, FO 78/2713, From Rawlinson to Canning.

75 Rostam Babani notes that Ahmed Pasha had upheld Koy Sanjaq with 10,000 cavalrymen at the time of Necib Pasha’s advance. bin Rostam Babani, Siyar al-Akrad, p.160.

76 Rostam Babani named the sheikh as Mullah Ali Kahyai. bin Rostam Babani, Siyar al-Akrad, p.161.

77 TNA, FO 78/2713, 12 July 1845, From Rawlinson to Canning.

78 When, one night, Ahmed Pasha came close to the outskirts of Sulaimaniya with a few loyalists he waited until dawn so people of the town could join him. Around a thousand men, mostly the elderly and dignitaries, decided to join him, while most of the people held out for Abdullah Pasha in Sulaimaniya. bin Rostam Babani, Siyar al-Akrad, p.163.

79 Ateş, Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands, pp.74–5; See also Canning to Lord Aberdeen, Constantinople, 20 July 1846 in Schofield, The Iran-Iraq Border, Vol.1, pp.576–77.

80 Abdullah Pasha remained as kaymakam of Sulaimaniya for four years. However, his leadership was symbolic as he did not have the capacity of his predecessors. In 1851, together with his brother Ahmed Pasha, he was summoned by Namık Pasha, the vali of Baghdad, and both were exiled to Istanbul. After the departure of the last member of the Baban dynasty, the Porte appointed a certain İsmail Pasha from the centre as the kaymakam of Sulaimaniya. Mehmed Emin Zeki Bey (Mihemed Emîn Zekî), Kürd ve Kürdistan Ünlüleri [Notables of Kurds and Kurdistan] (Ankara: Öz-Ge Yayınları, 2005), pp.59–60; ‘Narrative of a Journey through parts of Persia and Kurdistan’, p.330.

81 bin Rostam Babani, Siyar al-Akrad, pp.166–67.

82 bin Rostam Babani, Siyar al-Akrad, p.167. In Paris, Ahmed Pasha met Aleksander Chodzko, a Russian Iranologist who worked for the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 1853 Chodzko visited Ahmed Pasha frequently and worked with him on the Kurdish dialect of Sulaimani. Calling Ahmed Pasha the ‘hereditary chief of Kurdish tribe of Bébé’ and ‘the fourth pasha of the dominant family in that part of Kurdish Bébé tribe’ Chodzko produced a work on the Kurdish language as a result of their meetings. A. Chodzko, ‘Etudes philologiques sur la langue kurde (dialecte de Suléimanié)’, Journal Asiatique (April–May 1857), pp.297–356.

83 Sicill-i Osmani. Vol. 1, p.302. Mehmed Süreyya records in Sicill-i Osmani that Ahmed Pasha’s son Halid Bey was once the Ottoman ambassador to Tehran and his other son, Mustafa İzzet Pasha, was a mirliva (major general). His brother Mehmed Pasha was the governor of Basra and the other brother lived in Istanbul.

84 Jordi Tejel Gorgas, ‘Urban Mobilisation in Iraqi Kurdistan during the British Mandate: Sulaimaniya 1918–30’, Middle Eastern Studies Vol.44, No.4 (2008), pp.537–552.

85 Abdulla, İmparatorluk, Sınır ve Aşiret, p.222; The members of the first commission were Enveri Efendi of the Ottoman Empire, Mirza Taki Khan of Iran, Col. Denish of Russian Empire and Robert Curzon, Col. Williams and Major Perrant of the British Empire. The second commission members were Mushir al-Dawla Mirza Jaafar Khan, a British-educated engineer from Iran, Derviş Pasha from the Ottoman Empire, Col. Williams, his assistant Captain Glasscotte and Fenwick William Kenneth Loftus from the British side and Col. Y.I. Tchirikof from the Russian Empire.

86 Abdulla, İmparatorluk, Sınır ve Aşiret, p.222; Ateş, following M. Harari’s periodisation, presents three phases in the Erzurum negotiations: in the first phase, which lasted from January 1843 to mid 1844, the Ottoman and Iranian negotiators conveyed their claims and grievances to each other’s governments. The second phase was about the possible compromises by the negotiators, the presentation of the Anglo-Russian compromise plan to Iranian and Ottoman delegates, and the signing of the treaty of Erzurum in 1847. The third phase focused more on the endorsement of the Treaty of Erzurum. Ateş, Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands, p.88; see also Maurice Harari, ‘The Turco-Persian Boundary Question: A Case Study in the Politics of Boundary Making in the Near and Middle East’ (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1958), p.43.

87 After the first treaty of Erzurum was signed in 1823, the commerce between Iran and the Ottomans grew substantially. Joseph Wolff, a British officer who visited Erzurum in 1843, states ‘the commerce between Turkey and Persia has been most considerably increased and facilitated’, especially thanks to ‘the activity and exertions’ of James Brant, Esq., the British consul in Erzurum. Of course, the more the inhabitants of two countries interacted the more the diplomatic issues (diplomatic representation, territorial claims, citizenship of border people, etc.) and legal questions (tax, custom duties, lawsuits between Iranian and Turkish merchants) came into existence. For the letter from Wolff to Grover (Erzurum, 21 December 1843) see Joseph Wolff, Narrative of a Mission to Bokhara, in the Years 1843–1845, to Ascertain the Fate of Colonel Stoddart and Captain Conolly (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1845), pp.107–08.

88 Several works have problematised the Ottoman-Iranian border. Ateş in his work offers a wide perspective of the borderlands and border people in the second half of the nineteenth century. Ateş, Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands. Abdulla presents a similar picture of the border, but with a broader period and less analytical approach. Abdulla, İmparatorluk, Sınır ve Aşiret. On the other hand, Aykun in his work, which is mostly based on the Ottoman sources, is focused more on the Erzurum Treaty of 1847 and the border. İbrahim Aykun, ‘Erzurum Konferansı (1843–1847) ve Osmanlı-İran Hudut Antlaşması’ (PhD diss., Atatürk University, 1995). Besides the modern sources some of the members of the border commission also produced some works on the Ottoman-Iranian frontiers. Two such works were written by the Ottoman delegates and one was written by the Iranian delegate: Mehmed Hurşid Paşa, Seyahatname-i Hudud [Travelogue of the Border] trans. Alaaddin Eser (Istanbul, circa 1850, reprinted in Istanbul: Simurg, 1997); Derviş Pasha (Mehmed Emin), Tahdid-i Hudud-u İraniye [Demarcation of the Iranian Border] (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1326/1910); Mirza Sayyid Ja’fer Khan (Mosher-al Dawlah), Resale-ye Tahqeqat-e Sarhadiyyah [Treatise of Frontier Investigation] (Tehran, 1348).

89 R. Schofield, ‘Narrowing the frontier: mid-nineteenth century efforts to delimit and map the Perso-Ottoman border’, in Roxane Farmanfarmaian (ed.), War and Peace in Qajar Persia: Implications Past and Present (New York: Routledge, 2008), p.152.

90 Besides Katib Çelebi’s account, the Ottoman delegate Enveri Efendi presented Düstur’ul İnşa [Principals of Writing], which was made up of many documents from the correspondence and treaties with Iran and collected by Reisü’l-Küttab in 1643, and Mustafa Naima Efendi’s Tarih-i Naima [Naima’s History] as well as Feraizi-zade’s Gülşen-i Maarif [Rose Garden of Wisdom] to the delegates as evidence showing that Sulaimaniya was part of the Ottoman Empire throughout of centuries. Aykun, ‘Erzurum Konferansı’, pp.117–18.

91 Ateş, Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands, p.92; Iran had already asked the Ottomans to appoint Baban Mahmud Pasha to the leadership of Sulaimaniya in 1841. Sultan Abdülmecid agreed to dismiss Baban Ahmed Pasha and appoint Mahmud Pasha instead. While waiting for Mahmud Pasha to arrive in the town, the Ottomans appointed Baban Abdullah Pasha as deputy governor of Sulaimaniya. Iran immediately sent Mahmud Pasha with 2000 soldiers to cross the border and take over the governorship. Abdullah Pasha resisted this request with his forces and he defeated Mahmud Pasha and the Iranian soldiers. Although Iran tried to make another attempt to defeat Abdullah Pasha, he warned them that he would resist as he did before. The Iranians then left the question of Sulaimaniya unresolved until they raised the issue again during the negotiations of the Erzurum Treaty. Aykun, ‘Erzurum Konferansı’, pp.39–41.

92 The minutes of the discussions on the status of Sulaimaniya were well documented. A copy of them is available in the Ottoman archives in COA. İMM. 1073/4, 15 Şevval 1259 (8 November 1843). Aykun discusses these minutes in details in his work on the treaty of Erzurum. Aykun, ‘Erzurum Konferansı’, pp.105–120.

93 Richard Schofield (ed.), Arabian Boundary Disputes Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Archive Editions, 1992), pp.167–69. For more information on the text of the Erzurum Treaty see also: COA. HR. SYS. 2920/83 (12 April 1847); Name-i Humayun Defteri[Register of Imperial Correspondence]. Vol. 12, p.17; Muahedat Mecmuası[Corpus of Treaties]. Vol. 3, pp.5–8; Gabriel Effendi Noradounghian, Recueil d’Actes internationaux de l’empire ottoman: 1789–1856 (Vol. 2, Paris: Cotillon, 1900), pp.383–385; Aykun, ‘Erzurum Konferansı’, pp.242–44; Reza Qoli Khan Hedayat, Rawzat al-Safa-ye Naseri[Naser’s Garden of Purity] (Vol. 10, Tehran, 1339), pp.302–306; Fereydun Adamiyat, Amir Kabir va Iran [Amir Kabir and Iran] (Tehran: Chap-i Piruz, 1334/1955), p.51; British and Foreign State Papers (Vol. 45, London: William Ridgway, 1865), pp.874–876.

94 Kamal Abdal-Rahman Salman, ‘The Ottoman and British Policies Toward Iraqi Tribes: 1831 to 1920’ (PhD diss., the University of Utah, 1992), p.86.

95 Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet, Frontier fictions: Shaping the Iranian Nation, 1804–1946 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), p.26.

96 Mohammad Reza Nasiri, Nasıreddin Şah Zamanında Osmanlı-İran Münasebetleri, 1848–1896 [Ottoman-Iranian Relations during the Period of Nasir Al-Din Shah, 1848–1896] (Tokyo: ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 1991), p.8.

97 Walter B. Harris, Batum to Baghdad: Via Tiflis, Tabriz and Persian Kurdistan (London: W. Blackwood, 1896), pp.285–287.

98 Ateş, Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands, p.34.

99 Kutschera, Kürt Ulusal Hareketi, p.23.

100 J. Blau, Written Kurdish Literature in Philip G. Kreyenbroek and Ulrich Marzolph (eds), Oral Literature of Iranian Languages: Kurdish, Pashto, Balochi, Ossetic, Persian and Tajik (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010), pp.33–69.

101 Michael Eppel, ‘The Demise of the Kurdish Emirates: The Impact of Ottoman Reforms and International Relations on Kurdistan during the First Half of the Nineteenth Century’, Middle Eastern Studies Vol. 44, No.2 (2008), pp.237–258.