Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/22974 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation Author: Olnon, Merlijn Title: “Brough under the law of the land” : the history, demography and geography of crossculturalism in early modern Izmir, and the Köprülü project of 1678 Issue Date: 2014-01-08 The Ottoman City In the half century before Timur despoiled the town in 1402, Izmir’s Turkish population had confined itself to Kadifekale, the castle on the hill, and its immediate surroundings be- cause of the Christian menace ensconced in Aşağıkale, the castle guarding the divided set- tlement’s inner harbor. As the site became repopulated during the pax ottomanica following Timur’s decisive victory, the Turks gradually drifted down the hill from the quarter (ma- halle) of Faikpaşa, to Mescid-i Selâtinzade, Han Bey (Pazar), and Liman-i Izmir until by 1528-29 a solid band of Muslim settlement extended from castle to castle and obliterat- ed the ancient partition between Crusader and Turk … While these four quarters formed the heart of the renascent town, this downward movement did not develop its other two quarters, Boynuzseküsü and Cemaat-i Gebran. The first was a largely autonomous village near Izmir and linked only administratively to it. The second, a ‘community of Christians’ (cemaat-i gebran), constituted a Greek Orthodox enclave adjoining the harbor. Its twenty- nine households, whose members rebuilt their quarter in the decade after Timur’s onslaught, comprised approximately 14 percent of the town’s inhabitants. Daniel Goffman (1990)5 History At first glance, the paradigm of the Islamic city seems particularly well suited to Izmir. Although its formation and development was by no means typical for the Islamic or the Ottoman world; it would be difficult to find a city with a history better suited to the typification of Islamic cities as “agglomerates of densely inhabited components”.6 In fact, the Izmir of 1678 was the result of the gradual fusion of what originally had been two opposing frontier towns, one Muslim and one Christian. Nevertheless, the city’s history had already commenced millennia before the advent of Islam.7 5 Goffman, Izmir and the Levantine World, 11-12. 6 Richard van Leeuwen, Waqfs and Urban Structures: The Case of Ottoman Damascus (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 15. 7 See generally Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, XV ve XVI. asırlarda İzmir kazasının sosyal ve iktisâdî yapısı (Izmir: İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayını, 2000); Necmi Ülker, The Rise of Izmir, 1688-1740 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1975); Besim Darkot, “İzmir”, İslam Ansi- klopedisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1988-…), 1239-51; Constantin Iconomos, Étude sur Smyrne (Izmir: Tatikian, 1868); Kate Fleet, European and Islamic Trade in the Early Ottoman State: The Merchants of Genoa and Turkey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Kenneth M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571, vol. 1: The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Phila- delphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1976); Cl. Cahen, “Alp Arslan”, EI2 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), i: 420a-21b; C. E. Bosworth, “Saldjūkids, III.5: The Saldjūks of Rūm”, EI2, iix: 948a-50a; G. Leiser, “Sulaymān b. Kutulmısh”, EI2, ix: 825b-26a; S. Soucek, “Milāha, 2: In the Later Mediaeval and Early Modern Periods”, EI2, vii: 46a-50b; I. Mélikoff, “Aydın-oghlu”, EI2, i: 783a-b; Beatrice F. Manz, “Tīmūr Lang”, EI2, x: 510b-12b; Halil İnalcik, “Bāyezīd I”, EI2, i: 1117b-19a; I. Mélikoff, “Djunayd”, EI2, ii: 598b-600a; Halil İnalcik, “Mehemmed I”, EI2, vi: 973b-8a; J. H. Kramers, “Murād II”, EI2, vii: 594a-5b; L. de Blois, and R. J. van der 19 Greek and Roman Izmir The part of the city which will be considered Ottoman was largely construct- ed on top of – and with materials from – Ancient Izmir, or, as it was origi- nally called, Smyrna. Archaeological evidence indicates settlement dating back to the third millennium BC, with signs of Greek habitation from about 1000 BC. According to Herodotus, the city was originally founded by the Aeolians, but later conquered by the Ionians. The, by that time, stately city on the site of what is now Bayraklı, boasting extensive fortifications and blocks of two-storied houses, was captured and demolished by the Lydian king Alyattes in 575 BC, its surviving inhabitants fleeing the site for the area between modern Naldöken and Buca. In 541 BC, what remained of Smyrna went over into Persian hands and remained there until Alexander the Great extended the theatre of his war against the Persians to Ephesus in 344 BC. In the course of the war, Alexander is reported to have entrenched himself on Mount Pagus and, realizing the suitability of the location, to have designated it as a site for future habitation. The project of refounding Smyrna on this new site was subsequently taken on by Alexander’s successors Antigonus I Monophthalmus (d. 301 BC) and his enemy and successor Lysimachus (d. 281 BC), when it re-emerged as one of the chief cities of Asia Minor. By now, the acropolis on Mount Pagus was proving too small to accommodate the urban sprawl, and the city started descending the hillside to the coast. In the first quarter of the third century BC, Seleucus I Nicator (d. 281 BC) took Smyrna from Lysimachus and added it to the dominions of the Seleucid kingdom. Practically until the city’s addition to the Roman Middle Republic (from 264 to 133 BC), it remained in possession of the Seleucids. During this period, it was respectively governed by Seleucus I’s son Antio- chus I Soter (d. 262/261 BC), his son Antiochus II Theos (d. 246 BC) – when it was used as a base in the war with Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (d. 246 BC) – and his son Seleucus II Callinicus (d. 225 BC), who lost it to Attalus II Philadelphus of Pergamum (d. 138 BC). Antiochus III (d. 187 BC) afterwards attempted to regain Smyrna through diplomacy, but failed when the Smyrniotes called Rome to its defense. In 190 BC, a Roman fleet under admiral Gaius Livius ushered in Smyrna’s Roman age. Spek, Een kennismaking met de oude wereld (Bussum: Coutinho, 2001); 95-142; and Ency- clopaedia Brittanica, deluxe CD edition (Chicago: 2003; 2004), s.v. “Izmir”, “Ionia”, “Ionian”, “Aeolis”, “Antigonus I Monophthalmus”, “Lysimachus”, “Alyattes”, “Seleucid kingdom”, “Seleucus I Nicator”, “Antiochus I Soter”, “Antiochus II Theos”, “Seleucus II Callinicus”, “Pergamum”, “Attalus II Philadelphus”, “Antiochus III”, “Hadrian”, “Marcus Aurelius”, “Theme”, “Nicephorus II Phocas”, “Byzantine Empire”, “Manzikert, Battle of”, “Alp- Arslan”, “Anatolia”, “Alexius I Comnenus”, “Crusade”, “Baldwin I”, “John III Ducas Vatatzes”, “Michael VIII Palaeologus”, “Andronicus II Palaeologus”, “Zaccaria, Benedetto”, “Aydin Dynasty”, “Clement VI”, “Knights of Malta”, “Timur”, “Bayezid I” and “Mehmed II”. 20 As a Roman city, Smyrna, by now extending from the fortified district on Mount Pagus (see Map 1) down to the seashore, gained prominence as the center of a civil diocese in the province of Asia. It was on equal footing with Ephesus and Pergamum and became celebrated for its riches, beauty and learning. However, Caesar’s death (44 BC) and the succeeding struggle for power spelled ruin for the city. It languished away in war and commercial decline until Hadrian (r. 117-138) actively sought to restore it to its former power. He constructed a temple, a gymnasium and a market in the area be- tween Mount Pagus and the seashore, and exempted the city from imperial taxation. Shortly after its restoration, in the year 178, a severe earthquake hit the city, killing many inhabitants, destroying its temple and filling its inner harbor with debris. It was quickly rebuilt under Marcus Aurelius (r. 161-180). Byzantine and Seljukid Izmir As part of the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, empire, Smyrna’s fortune again proved fickle. Although it withstood an Arab siege in 627, the city went into decline under Nicephorus II Phocas (r. 963-969); perhaps its commerce suffered from that emperor’s relentless campaigns against the Arabs. If so, its becoming capital of the maritime province (theme) of Samos was a bad omen indeed. The theme-system was not designed to promote commerce but to help marshal Byzantine resources to withstand the mounting threat of Turkish invasions and this no doubt forced the city to turn its back on the profitable sea and brace itself for the onslaught from the Anatolian interior. Turkish settlers had already been trickling in before that time, prompting many Greeks to leave for the islands or the still securely Byzantine Balkans. Following the Byzantine defeat at the hand of the Muslim Seljuks under Alp Arslan (d. 1073) at the Battle of Manzikert (modern Malazgirt, 1071), their numbers increased dramatically. In 1081, lower Smyrna was seized by Süleyman bin Kutulmış (d. 1086), founder of the Anatolian branch of the Seljuks (the Seljuk sultanate of Rum). After his death, the lower city (by now also known by its Turkish name; Iz- mir) was governed by Seljuk prince Çaka Bey, who used its inner harbor as a base for the naval expeditions that added Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Rhodes to his territories along the coast from Çanakkale (on the Asian side of the Dardanelles) to Kuşadası (Levantine: Scalanuova). After Çaka’s death as a result of the pact concluded against this increasingly powerful rival by Seljuk sultan Kılıç Arslan (d. 1107) and Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus (r. 1081-1118), Yalvaç Bey ruled there until 1096. The first Crusade (1096-1099) and the consequent Seljuk retreat from Iznik (Byzantine Nicaea) to Konya (Iconium) in 1097 resulted in the city being re-conquered by the Byzantines. What happened to the city until 1261 is not entirely clear, but it appears to have largely remained under Byzantine suzerainty, notwithstanding con- tinuing Muslim habitation.