A.C.S. Peacock, with contributions by Claudia Glatz and T. Emre Şerifoğlu 13 and its Region from Seljuk to Ottoman Times

The history of Cide in the Islamic period cannot yet be written. For the most part, its fortunes seem to have been bound up with that of the broader province of to which it was attached for administrative purposes. However, the history of Kastamonu itself is little researched and understood (Gökoğlu 1952: 22-3; Ergene 2003: 9). The Persian and Turkish literary sources, which constitute our main evidence for the Islamic history of Anatolia before circa AD 1500, seldom refer directly to Cide and its surroundings. Archival materials exist in significant quantities only from the 16th century, with a handful from the late 15th century, but their analysis for Kastamonu province has scarcely begun. This chapter, then, does not purport to offer a definitive view of Cide’s past under Turkish rule, for this can only be achieved when it can be contextualised and compared to developments in Kastamonu and north western Anatolia more broadly. This must be a task for future researchers. Rather, it is a preliminary sketch of Cide under Muslim rule in its regional context, from the arrival of the Turks to the end of the from the 13th to 20th centuries AD (Fig. 13.1).

Fig. 13.1: Map showing locations and sites mentioned in the text. Produced by Toby C. Wilkinson. 376 Cide and its Region from Seljuk to Ottoman Times

13.1 Turks in Cide and the Kastamonu Region: 1071-1462 AD

Kastamonu province in the was a famous stronghold of the Turkmen, the nomadic Turks whose livelihood relied on transhumant pastoralism. As early as AD 1073, just two years after the fateful battle of Manzikert which signalled the collapse of Byzantine authority in most of the Anatolian interior, Turkmen near Kastamonu almost captured the emperor Alexios (Cahen 1968: 48, 1971; Heywood 1960-2007). However, it is not clear how far Turkmen settlement extended. Both Byzantine and Islamic written sources indicate that the littoral of Anatolia remained under Christian rule until the Seljuk capture of Sinop in AD 1214 (see Peacock 2010). Even in the mid-13th century, Theodore II Laskaris, emperor of the in exile of Nicaea (r. 1254-8), mentions that Cape Karambis (Kerembe Burnu), 34 miles east of Cide, formed the frontier of his realm (Korobeinikov 2010: 216, n. 2). Yet Turkmen may have already started to populate parts of the littoral, probably on a seasonal basis, descending from their high summer pastures in the mountains to the lower lying, warmer coastline in winter. This pattern is well attested from Trebizond (Bryer 1975), although the first evidence for the Turkish western Black Sea littoral comes from the 1270s. Ibn Bibi, the Persian chronicler of Seljuk rule, refers to the ‘Turkmen who live on the coast’ (Turkmanan-i sahil-nishin) of Simre (probably modern Taşköprü), Sinop, and (Ibn Bibi 1956: 722). Certainly, in the second half of the 13th century, the frontier seemed to suddenly shift westwards. Writing of events around AD 1267, the Byzantine historian Pachymeres describes the coastal strongholds Kromna (Kurucaşile, located midway between Cide and ), Amastris (Amasra), Tios (Filyos) and Heracleia (Ereğli) as the last fortresses in the region in Greek hands, saved only by their access to the sea, which presumably allowed them to be resupplied (Pachymérès 1984: IV.27). Although Cide does not feature in these 13th century sources, it is probable that its surroundings were likewise inhabited seasonally by these coast-dwelling Turkmen, especially if, as seems logical, we take Pachymeres’ account to be in geographical order from east to west. This would mean that Kromna/Kurucaşile was the eastern most Byzantine settlement on the Black Sea; Cide, therefore, would have lain at the western extremity of Turkish control, and the local Turkmen population most probably were predominantly of the Chepni tribe, for these are known to have settled the Sinop area (Ibn Bibi 1956: 729). However, the account of Husam al-Din Khuyi, discussed below, suggests that as late as 1284 the castle of Gideros slightly to the west of Cide but east of Kromna was controlled by a Christian garrison (Khuyi 2000: 282). The process of conquest may therefore have been slower than Pachymeres implies. It has also been suggested on linguistic evidence that significant elements of the Turkish population of the region may have belonged to the southern Turkic Qipchaq grouping who mainly lived in the south Russian steppe on the other side of the Black Sea (Korobeinikov 2010: 223). Although there was certainly a medieval trade in Turks in Cide and the Kastamonu Region: 1071-1462 AD 377

Qipchaq slaves routed via the Crimea and Sinop (Peacock 2010: 115-8), it is not clear exactly how or when these Qipchaq elements might have appeared in the population more generally, as presumably most slaves would have been sold on to buyers in central Anatolia and the Mediterranean world. Kütüklü and Tunoğlu (2012: 30) note the existence of several Turkic tribal (cemaat) names derived from places in Kastamonu province scattered among Turkmen across Anatolia, according to Ottoman documents. Among them is the name ‘Cidelü’ (‘of Cide’) which is found in documents relating to Kırşehir and (near Diyarbakır). If this interpretation is accurate, it would confirm the suggestion here that there was significant Turkmen settlement around Cide. However, the villages of the region must have continued to be populated by Greek-speaking Christians, as is suggested by the prevalence of pre-Turkish place names. We know, however, very little of them. What of the political structures? There is no reason to think that the extension of Seljuk control over Sinop was matched by the presence of much effective Seljuk governance along the coastline to its west. Indeed, the silence of the 13th century Islamic sources over the region is suggestive of its peripherality. It seems likely that beyond the main towns of Kastamonu and Sinop, where Seljuk administrative appointees were based, local Turkmen chiefs held sway (Heywood: 1960-2007; Korobeinikov 2004: 90-92). However, even these Seljuk appointees were themselves often prominent local Turkmen. Initially, the Seljuks had appointed descendants of the Danishmendid Turkmen dynasty to administer the northwestern uj, as the Turkmen-inhabited territories of the Seljuk realm were known (Ibn Bibi 1956: 68). Subsequently, a certain Husam al-Din Chupan was appointed as of Sinop after its conquest in AD 1214, and his descendants, known as the Çobanid dynasty, but also probably Turkmen chiefs managed to retain a pre-eminence in the region. His grandson, Muzaffar al-Din Yavlak Arslan b. Alpyürek is mentioned by Ibn Bibi (1956: 741) as sipahdār (military governor) of Kastamonu in the 1280s (see Cahen 1971; Yücel 1988, vol. 1: 34-51; Korobeinikov 2004; his regnal dates are uncertain, from c. 1280 to 1291, see Yücel 1988). However, in the second half of the 13th century another layer of political authority was added, in the form of the Seljuks’ own suzerains the . A Mongol ally, the Pervane Mu‘in al-Din Suleyman, who was effective ruler of Anatolia in the later 13th century, owned much of the Black Sea littoral around Sinop as his personal estate, and his descendants may have maintained a foothold there (further Korobeinikov 2004: 94-7; Peacock 2010: 104-9). The Turkmen particularly resented Mongol rule, which threatened their control of pasturage, and the region witnessed frequent Turkmen revolts in the late 13th century (Korobeinikov 2004). It is with the Çobanids that we have one unexpected source on the Cide region, the aforementioned account by Husam al-Din Khuyi of the Muslim conquest of the castles of Gideros. Khuyi was a Çobanid chancery official, and he was also an eyewitness to the fighting at Gideros, concerning which he composed an elaborate ‘victory-letter’ (fath-nama) celebrating the conquest of the castle by the Muzaffar al-Din Yavlak Arslan b. Alpyürek in Rajab/October 683 AH/AD 1284 (Khuyi 2000: 282-5). Such letters 378 Cide and its Region from Seljuk to Ottoman Times

were circulated within the ruler’s realm to celebrate his conquest (Khuyi 2000: 285), and sometimes to other rulers as well. The letter, then, is propaganda, and Khuyi is at pains to emphasise the stiff resistance the Muslim forces encountered, and to emphasise the magnitude of Yavlak Arslan’s achievement. The campaign is further legitimised through its characterisation as jihad, and seems to have formed part of a broader conquest of Christian-held territory (Khuyi 2000: 284). Khuyi’s letter describes how the campaign targeted ‘the two castles of Gideros on the coast of the Byzantine territories (az sahil-i fasilyus), opposite one another, connected to the sea’. The impregnability of the two castles is emphasised; the defenders were assisted by men from the western Byzantine lands and from Trebizond (az kishwar-i Lashkari wa taraf-i Tarabzun). The Çobanid army, on the other hand, was assisted by fighters from the Turkmen tribes (qaba'il-i atrak) who were noted for their ferocity and were inflamed by desire to fight ‘the enemies of religion’. The attack was launched on the 4th of Rajab, the assailants using a variety of types of mangonels to destroy buildings inside the castle, while a hail of arrows rained down on the defenders. Nonetheless, the attack lasted a full week. It was not until the 11th of Rajab after the defences had been severely weakened and many of the defenders killed that the final assault could be launched. This was spear-headed by the naphtha-throwers (naffāṭ); the naphtha attack forced many of the remaining defenders to flee, some escaping in boats, many drowning. Eventually the Muslim forces seized control of the castle; the fate of the twin castle at Gideros was identical. The interest of Khuyi’s account comes not just from the exceptional detail that he gives on the battle for Gideros, but also from the fact that he emphasises that as late as AD 1284, the garrison was still connected to the broader Byzantine world, with defenders coming from both western Anatolia and Trebizond to defend this strategic location. The Cide region was thus not as isolated as written sources imply. In addition, Khuyi confirms the suspicion that Turkmen played a leading role in the incorporation of the region into the Muslim domains, although one may imagine that practical considerations such as a desire for unfettered access to pastures may have been at least an equally important motivation as jihad, the factor he emphasises. At any rate, by AD 1284 Cide and its region must have been incorporated into the Çobanid domains. From the beginning of the 14th century, the Çobanids were replaced by another Turkmen dynasty, the Isfandiyardids or Candarids (on whom see Yücel 1988: 53-123). Little is known about Candarid society and economy, and the Cide region’s history is totally obscure in this period. The Egyptian author al-‘Umari tells us that Candarid Kastamonu was famous for its horses, which were exported to Egypt, and also carried out trade with the Crimea and territories in modern Russia and the Ukraine (Yücel 1988: 185-6, 296-7; also Kopraman 1988). Meanwhile, Turkish control gradually encroached over the remaining Byzantine strongholds on the Black Sea, with Heraclea/Ereğli falling in 1360 (Pachymeres 1984: 405, n. 5). The Kastamonu region probably came briefly under Ottoman control around AD 1393-9, but Candarid rule was subsequently restored and endured until the final conquest by the Ottoman Cide and the Kastamonu Region in the Ottoman Period 379

sultan Mehmet I in 1462, following shortly from his occupation of Genoese-held Amasra in 1460 (for a discussion of Çoban Kalesi, a Genoese fortress on the Cide coast, see chapter 12). Somewhere between 1460 and 1462, then, Cide must have been incorporated into the Ottoman state.

13.2 Cide and the Kastamonu Region in the Ottoman Period

The Kastamonu region was given the status of a sancak in the eyalet (province) of Anadolu, and initially Kastamonu seems to have been a place of some importance, assigned as its governors the Ottoman princes Sultan Cem (AD 1469-1474) and Şehzade Mahmud (AD 1481-1504). Areas of the Kastamonu sancak, including villages in the İnebolu and Sinop areas, were allotted as has, i.e. the personal land of the prince from which he drew his income (Yakupoğlu 2010: 324). However, the province’s importance soon declined, as it remained rather isolated from the main trade routes, and its economy seems to have been overwhelmingly agricultural. Rope, linen, silk and woollen cloth were also produced, and wine was made by Christians. From the 16th century onwards, most of Kastamonu was assigned as arpalık (an estate as a revenue source) to officials with the ranks of mirliva and mirmiran who usually governed it in absentia by sending agents (mütesellims) to collect revenue (Tosunoğlu 1984; Ergene 2003: 12-15). From the 16th century we have clearer evidence of Cide’s place in the province. In 916 AH/AD 1510, the first known mosque was built in Cide, the Kara Mustafa Camii (Gökoğlu 1952: 238). Cide appears in the AD 1530 defter of Anadolu eyalet as part of the fiefs (timar) assigned to pay the military (sipahis). It was attached to the kaza (administrative subdivision) of Hoşalay (Doğanyurt) and is described as a village (kariye). The defter gives the following statistics for Cide (438 Numaralı Muhasebe-i Vilayet-i Anadolu Defteri (937/1530), vol. 2: 644-5):

40 hane (households) 8 mücerred (unmarried adult males) 2195 [akçes]1 hasil (total revenue)

What sort of population does this indicate? Clearly the critical question is how large a hane could be, and estimates of this range from an average of 3.5 to 7 people (Tosunoğlu 1984: 268; Lowry 2002: 48-52), giving a population roughly in the range of 150 to 300. The total population for the sancak of Kastamonu has been estimated at this date at 137,000 (Tosunoğlu 1984: 268).

1 The akçe was a silver coin which was the main currency unit in the Ottoman empire till the 19th century. For a discussion of its fluctuating value see Pamuk (2000). 380 Cide and its Region from Seljuk to Ottoman Times

As for income, the defter (p. 647) gives a total income for the 66 villages of Hoşalay kaza of some 72,252 akçes: Cide therefore, contributed approximately 3% of the kaza’s tax revenue. Some land in Cide was also alienated as waqf (religious endowments), the income from which amounted to 120 akçes, out of a kaza total of 5711, or just over 2% (ibid, p. 648). Most likely this waqf was to finance the Kara Mustafa Cami (on waqfs in Hoşalay see further Kütüklü and Tunoğlu 2012: 103-4).

Fig. 13.2: Traditional houses at Mencekli Köyü Yukarı Mahalle (CAP-P2/12).

Cide was considerably larger than most other villages mentioned in Hoşalay kaza, many of which had as few as 2 or 3 households, and it contributed a much larger proportion of tax income, most other villages paying under 1000 akçes. Only 19 villages had land endowed as waqf, although Cide’s waqf income is distinctly on the low side. It was, then, a place of modest local importance, and the waqf and the building of the Kara Mustafa mosque suggests the gradual development of Muslim life in the town. The figures for the kaza as a whole suggest that Muslim life was rather undeveloped, with merely one hatib (preacher), two imams (prayer leaders), one congregational mosque (cami, presumably the Kara Mustafa Cami), two smaller mosques (mescid), and two zaviyes (Sufi retreats). These figures are comparable to those for other rural areas of Kastamonu sancak, but in contrast to the towns of Sinop, Kastamonu and Taşköprü where there was a much more substantial infrastructure of Muslim institutions, as one would expect (Tosunoğlu 1984: 232). These figures also Cide and the Kastamonu Region in the Ottoman Period 381

suggest that the countryside remained in large part Christian. In Hoşalay the revenue decreased slightly over the course of the 16th century, although the population of the kaza generally seems to have risen (Tosunoğlu 1984: 153, 333). This may reflect a decrease in taxes such as the bennak levied on non-Muslims.

Fig. 13.3: Pipe heads and fragments. Produced by Lorraine McEwan. 382 Cide and its Region from Seljuk to Ottoman Times

The 17th and 18th centuries represent a particularly obscure period in our knowledge of Kastamonu sancak. From the late 16th century onwards Kastamonu was ravaged by the Celali rebellions which resulted in widespread brigandage and chaos in the countryside that the authorities struggled to suppress (Kütüklü and Tunoğlu 2012: 52-7). The Ottoman empire was becoming increasingly decentralised, and from 1735 Kastamonu sancak was generally assigned as a lifetime tax farm (malikâne) to high ranking military figures. However, because of the lack of central control, there were often several claimants at once (Ergene 2002: 14). Kastamonu sancak main contribution to the empire, however, was its timber industry, which was essential to the Ottoman navy (Kütüklü and Tunoğlu 2012: 43-9; also section 3.2). Indeed, as early as the 13th century, the Moroccan geographer Ibn Sa‘id had recorded how timber was cut down from the mountains northwest of for use in the Seljuk shipyard there (Cahen 1968: 49). Sinop’s shipyard (tersane) rose to renewed importance after the Ottoman conquest in the 15th century, and was the empire’s third largest tersane after those at and Gallipoli (Ünal 2008: 348). Cide and nearby Gideros to its west feature regularly in archival documents requesting the timber for use in shipbuilding. The wood was used not just in Sinop but also in Istanbul (Ünal 2008: 336, n. 1024). Given the military importance of procuring these vital supplies of wood, the instructions from Istanbul often go into considerable detail as to how and from where they should be obtained (further on the infrastructure supporting shipbuilding see Ünal 2008: 347-402). For instance, an order dated 1728 requests wood and rope to be sent from Cide and Gideros for use in the Istanbul shipyard (BOA C.BH. 88/4228), while in 1782 the people of Cide were ordered to collaborate with those of kaza to provide the necessary timber (BOA, C.BH. 105.5051). A document of 1812 records an instruction for buffalo in Hoşalay kaza to be used to transport wood from Gideros and surroundings to the harbour for transport by sea to the tersane (BOA, C.BH.111/5394). Clearly the importance of Cide and Gideros for the naval timber industry lay in the fact that they had ample forests on the mountains behind the town, along with easy access to the sea, and were comparatively close to all three of the main Ottoman shipyards. The government’s interest did not extend far beyond shipbuilding. In 1775, the Kadı of Cide complained of the oppression and misdeeds of an important Hoşalay family, the Derbederoğulları (BOA, AE.SABH.I.73/5075), while a group of people from Cide fled local misgoverance for the Crimea in 1799 (BOA, AE.SSLM.III.359/20580). As in much of the , it seems that power lay in the hands of local notables (âyân). From the 19th century, however, with the institution of the Tanzimat reforms, Istanbul took a rather greater interest in the region. At some point during this period Cide was established as a separate kaza in its own right, but the archival documents indicating when this happened have not yet come to light. The census data for AD 1831 indicates that Cide’s population was some 4455, out of a total of 120,123 for Kastamonu sancak (Kütüklü and Tunoğlu 2012: 42), making it one of the larger kazas: neighbouring Cide and the Kastamonu Region in the Ottoman Period 383

A B

C D

Fig. 13.4: Ottoman-period gravestones from (A: CAP-P1/5047 and B: CAP-P1/5049), (C) Çayyakka (CAP-P2/749) and (D) Gideros East (CAP-P2/1827).

Hoşalay had a population of 6586, that of Sinop was 7137, while İnebolu was only 2822. The only kaza in a different league was Kastamonu itself, with a population of 14,861. From the mid-19th century detailed information survives for the social and economic history of Kastamonu province, and with it Cide, in the form of temettuat defters for 1260-61 AH /AD 1844-46 which give details of the name, occupation, lands and incomes of each household in each kaza (Kütüklü and Tunoğlu 2012: 62, 71). This information 384 Cide and its Region from Seljuk to Ottoman Times

has not yet been investigated by researchers, and it is beyond the scope of a short piece such as this to do so. It must, however, represent a major desideratum for future work on 19th century Kastamonu and Cide to concentrate on this resource.

Fig. 13.5: Central pillar of the old bridge over the near Çamdibi, Loç valley (CAP-P2/1657).

A further administrative reorganisation took place in AD 1846 when Kastamonu was made into a province (vilayet) in its own right. Cide became one of the eight kazas that comprised the sancak of Kastamonu within the vilayet of the same name. The other kazas in the sancak were Kastamonu town, İnebolu, , Taşköprü, Araç and , while the vilayet also comprised the sancaks of , Sinop and Kengiri (Çankırı) (Kütüklü and Tunoğlu 2012: 129-30). Hoşalay (Doğanyurt) now became a sub-district (nâhiye) of Cide kaza, suggesting Cide’s growing importance in a regional context. However, it was soon eclipsed by the rise of İnebolu from the mid-19th century, which became the main commercial centre on the Kastamonu coastline, with its own customs department (Gümrük Müdürlüğü) to administer its exports of agricultural products, foodstuffs and timber. İnebolu also received a large volume of imports, especially of textiles and cotton, and did business with the UK, France, Italy, Austria- Hungary, Germany, Greece and Russia (Kütüklü and Tunoğlu 2012: 166-7, 351-3). Mining was another industry. Kastamonu had been known for its copper mines to the Ottomans since the 16th century (Kütüklü and Tunoğlu 2012: 174), and the nâhiye of Küre-i Nuhas, the copper mining region, was for a while administratively attached to Cide (BOA, DH.MKT.1578/41). Copper mines near Cide were still being operated into the 18th century (BOA, C.DRB.42/2077), but subsequently most of the references in archival sources that Cide and the Kastamonu Region in the Ottoman Period 385

have come to light to date are not to copper, but to coal mining. Cide’s coal mining potential started to attract attention from the late 19th century. In 1874, a concession was granted to a certain Sergiz Bey for the coal mines in Bartın and Cide (BOA, I.MMS.49/2124). Subsequently, new mining concessions around Cide were granted to other individuals and companies, such as one at Kurucaşile, which was in the hands of a certain Krikor Sinabyan, an Armenian, until his shares were turned over to a state company, the Ticâriye ve Sınâiye ve Mâliye Osmanlı Anonim Şirketi in 1920 (BOA, MV.220/5). The provincial salnâme (yearbook) for 1902-3 offers the following description of Cide (Kütüklü and Tunoğlu 2012: 151-2, 160):

“The Kaza of Cide The town (kasaba) of Cide is to the north west, at a distance of 24 hours and 20 minutes on the coast. To the east it borders İnebolu, to the west Amasra and Safranbolu nahiyes which are attached to Bartın, and to the east Daday kaza. Its climate is pleasant, and because the kaza centre is suitable for every kind of civilization and development, it has been decided that the road being constructed to Daday should extent to Cide. Cide kaza consists of 163 villages, 33 large and small mosques (cami ve mescid), one tekye (Sufi retreat), 4 hans (inns/caravanserais), 18 coffee shops (kahvehâne) one public bath (hamam), 12 ovens, 15 large shops, 7 large barns (berhâne), 9378 haylofts and granaries, 53 primary schools (sibyan mektebi), 110 small shops (dükkân), 8 police stations, 286 mills, 20 water sawmills, 21 fac- tories, 26 drinking water fountains. Cide kaza’s land is estimated to comprise 425,246 dönüm2 of cultivated land, 67,799 dönüm of uncultivated land, and 8082 dönüm of fruit and vegetable gardens. Agricultural products: Wheat, barley, sweetcorn, millet, linen, chestnuts, apples etc. Industrial products and commerce: Things like timber, boxwood, boats and rowing boats are pro- duced, exported and sold.”

To put these figures in comparative perspective: Cide emerges as undeveloped, even by the standards of Kastamonu, itself somewhat remote and backward, as it was distant from the main west-east railway line. Every kaza except Cide and Araç had at least one medrese (school); several, such as İnebolu, Taşköprü and even had a library, but not Cide, Araç or Daday. While İnebolu’s population was only about 50% bigger than Cide’s, it had 10 hamams as compared to Cide’s one, and 145 mosques compared to Cide’s 33, and 716 shops and cafes compared to Cide’s total of 143 (Kütüklü and Tunoğlu 2012: 167). The population of Cide by 1902-3, as attested by the salnâme, had risen to a total of 41,502, who were almost entirely Muslim: a mere 20 men and 18 women are listed as Rum (Greek-speaking Christians) in the 1902-3 salnâme’s population figures, and none as Armenian. This, however, was reasonably representative of rural areas in Kastamonu sancak: only Kastamonu town, İnebolu and Safranbolu had significant Christian populations of the order of 2-3000 each (around 4.5%, of whom the vast majority were Greek; however, small numbers of Armenians are recorded everywhere

2 1 dönüm = 1000 m2. 386 Cide and its Region from Seljuk to Ottoman Times

Fig. 13.6: Çilekçe Köprüsü (CAP-P2/1371). but in Cide and Safranbolu). Compared to the other constituent sancaks of the vilayet (Bolu, Çankırı and Sinop), Kastamonu had a much larger proportion of Muslim inhabitants (Kütüklü and Tunoğlu 2012: 166-7, 339-40). Doubtless Cide’s remoteness due to the lack of a paved road was the main factor in its lack of development (also chapter 2). Efforts to build the road were not helped by embezzlement on the part of the officials responsible, for which the kaymakam and others were prosecuted in 1906, and the plan was abandoned, despite the pleas of the people of Cide (BOA, DH.MKT.1051/61, DH.MKT.2765/41). Cide’s relatively remote location also encouraged various forms of lawlessness, especially the Laz tobacco smugglers who openly did business in Cide (BOA, DH.MKT 1432/12, DH.MKT1466.88). Indeed, combatting smuggling was the main reason for the plan to construct a telegraph line from İnebolu to Cide in 1890, although the plan was long postponed for the lack of funds (BOA, DH.MKT.1799/4; DH.MKT.1450/97). Various brigands such as the Laz Tufan Reis were also active in the area (BOA, DH.MKT.267/41, DH.MKT.2629/39). Again there is a certain suspicion that the local authorities may have been complicit, for an investigation was started against the kaymakam Tevfik Efendi for turning a blind eye to some individuals’ possession of illegal weapons (BOA, DH.MKT.2478/92). It is perhaps not surprising that many of the archival documents in Istanbul from this period discuss the building of two prisons (men’s and women’s) in Cide; but the town was also furnished with some new amenities such as a government house (Hükümet Konağı) (BOA, DH.MB.HPS 16/66; DH.MB. HPS/17/62, DH.MKT.988/30). Cide and the Kastamonu Region in the Ottoman Period 387

Fig. 13.7: İlyasbey water installation (CAP-P15/289).

Cide’s small Christian population was growing at the beginning of the 20th century, although a request to be allowed to build a church was rejected by the authorities in 1906 on the grounds that the place chosen was unsuitable (BOA, DH.SFR.396.110), and permission was only finally granted in 1913 (BOA, İ.AZN.111/25). The new attention Cide’s Christians had brought themselves was to redound to their disadvantage: at the beginning of the First World War, fear that they were in secret treasonous contact with the Russians led to an instruction for Ottoman Christian schools and churches to be searched for secret telegraph lines as was also done in , Ereğli, İnebolu and Sinop (BOA, DH.EUM.6Sb 2/49). Cide was bombarded by Russian ships on several occasions, in 1915, 1917 and 1918 (BOA, DH.EUM.5Şb.80/50; DH.İ.UM.EK107/13; DH.İ.UM 21-2/32). The war affected it in other ways too, with refugees from Russian- occupied seeking refuge in Cide (BOA, DH.ŞFR 630/91), and nearly 500 men from Cide were killed in the succession of wars that accompanied the collapse of the Ottoman empire, stretching from the Italian invasion of Libya in 1911 to the establishment of the Turkish republic in 1923 (Kütüklü and Tunoğlu 2012: 272-80). 388 Cide and its Region from Seljuk to Ottoman Times

Fig. 13.8: Traditional stone-built bread oven, Çamdibi (CAP-P2/1640).

Fig. 13.9: Recorded finds locations of Seljuk and Ottoman date in the CAP survey area. Produced by Toby C. Wilkinson. The Material Remains of the Ottoman Period in Cide 389

13.3 The Material Remains of the Ottoman Period in Cide (Claudia Glatz and T. Emre Şerifoğlu)

Cide’s architectural and archaeological records for this period are rich and diverse. They include the traditional wooden houses, many still occupied (Fig. 13.2) as well as in varying stages of decay. The systematic recording of the remains of the region’s more recent past was beyond the Cide Archaeological Project’s scope, but it is certainly an important undertaking for the future in a region that has seen a recent decline in population as its younger inhabitants move to Istanbul or abroad (also chapter 2) and those who have remained construct new homes using concrete and bricks often right next to their abandoned traditional houses. Archaeological evidence for the Ottoman period, which we encountered both during intensive fieldwalking and were shown by local residents, includes a small collection of 17th and 18th century pipe heads and fragments from the Cide hinterland (F89), a local resident’s private collection at Irmak (S 146), a garden plot in Kumluca (F43), a location near Sofular (F44) and inland Aybasan (F48, F50) (Fig. 13.3 and 13.9). Ottoman gravestones are another category of evidence. At least two 18th century Ottoman graves were recorded near Kumluca amidst a forest, which included one inscribed slab and one decorated with flower and ribbon motifs (Fig. 13.4). Two further gravestones came from the northern edge of the mostly modern Kumluca cemetery (S166). In terms of their styles, the Kumluca gravestones seem to belong to the end of the 18th and 19th century, and one gravestone, whose inscription dates it to 1805, supports this view. Other Ottoman-period gravestones dating from the 19th and early 20th century were recorded in a cemetery at Çayyakka (S87). The earliest Çayyakka gravestone dates to 1807 and the latest one is from 1911. The cemetery also has a gravestone, which imitates Ottoman examples, but dates to 1931. An Ottoman tombstone from 1830 also stands at the western tip of the eastern Gideros promontory together with an upright cannon. In general terms, the gravestones from Cide, which follow imperial Ottoman styles (Laquer 1993; Güvelioğlu 2008; Sevim 2010), imply that the area became more attached to the Ottoman central authority with the beginning of the 19th century. Archaeological evidence for efforts to make the region more accessible include two substantial, probably late Ottoman, stone-built bridges which were in use until recently. They include a bridge across the Devrekani in the Loç valley, of which only a central oval pillar remains (S111) (Fig. 13.5) and a second, similar but much better preserved bridge in the easternmost part of Cide district near the village of Çilekçe (S103) (Fig. 13.6). The latter bridge is some 40 to 50 metres across and has two large arrow-shaped bridge pillars, as well as two bridgeheads. These probably supported a wooden bridge construction. Also dating to the Ottoman and post-Ottoman period and still partly in use is an aqueduct and mill in the Okçular valley (S105) attesting to the long-term importance of this valley for agricultural production (also chapters 11 and 14). The remains of a 390 Cide and its Region from Seljuk to Ottoman Times

watermill and associated installations were also recorded at İlyasbey (S186) (Fig. 13.7) and similar mills, still currently in use, were encountered across the region, as were traditional stone-built bread-ovens (Fig. 13.8).

13.4 Conclusion

As indicated at the beginning, much more detailed work is required to establish Cide’s place in regional history. Nonetheless, it seems clear that Cide’s obscurity in the written record reflects its marginal importance. Until the early 20th century and the construction of the paved road, Cide was a remote and impoverished region, sparsely inhabited and to some degree isolated even from the interior heartland of Kastamonu province. Nonetheless, as the evidence of bridge building discussed above suggests, especially from the 19th century, efforts were made to integrate Cide more fully into the road network and hence the regional economy. However, as the continuing occurrence of smuggling and lawlessness suggests, such efforts did not fully bear fruit until republican times.

Acknowledgement: The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement no. 208476, “The Islamisation of Anatolia, c. 1100-1500”.

Catalogue of Illustrated Artefacts

F43 Mouth fragment of a decorated ceramic pipe. Red fabric. Fragment length = 28mm. Outer D= 20mm and 15mm, inner D= 7mm. F44 Small fragment of decorated ceramic pipe. Decorative flower motif. Red fabric. Fragment width = 15mm, wall thickness = 5mm. F48 Small fragment of ceramic pipe head. Buff fabric. Fragment length = 34mm, width = 14mm, wall thickness = 4mm. F50 Small fragment of ceramic pipe head with impressed decoration. Fragment length = 22mm, width = 19mm, wall thickness = 4mm. F89 Fragment of a ceramic pipe head with impressed/stamped decoration. Orange fabric (2.5YR 6/8). Fragment size = 36mm. D= 25mm.

Bibliography archival documents BOA = Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Istanbul. Bibliography 391 published sources Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi 1994. 438 Numaralı Muhasebe-i Vilayet-i Anadolu Defteri (937/1530), vol. II: Bolu, Kastamonu, Kengeri ve Koca-ili Livaları (Dizin ve Tıpkıbasım). , BOA Yayınları. Bryer, A.M. 1975. Greeks and Türkmens: The Pontic exception. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 29: 113-48. [reprinted in Bryer,A.M. 1980. The and the Pontos. London, Variorum]. Cahen, C. 1968. Ibn Sa‘idsur l’Asie Mineure Seljuqide. Dilve Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 6/x-xi: 41-50. [reprinted in Cahen, C. 1974. Turcobyzantina et Oriens Christianus. London, Variorum]. — 1971. Questions d’histoire de la province de Kastamonou au XIIIe siècle. Selçuklu Araştırmaları Dergisi 3: 145-58. [reprinted in Cahen, C. 1974. Turcobyzantina et Oriens Christianus. London, Variorum]. Ergene, B. 2003. Local Court, Provincial Society and Justice in the Ottoman Empire: Legal Practice and Dispute Resolution in Çankırı and Kastamonu. Leiden, Brill. Gökoğlu, A. 1952. . Kastamonu, Doğrusöz. Güvelioğlu, İ.G. 2008. Osmanlı Mezar Taşları. Istanbul, Türkiye Anıtlar Derneği Yayınları. Heywood, C. 1960-2007. Kasṭamūnī. Encyclopaedia of Islam. [2nd edition]. Leiden, Brill. Khuyi, Husam al-Din Hasan b. ‘Abd al-Mu’min. 2000. Majmu‘a-yi Athar-i Husam al-Din Khuyi. Tehran, Mirath-i Maktub. Ibn Bibi 1956. El-Evamirü’l-‘Ala’iyye fi ’l-Umûri’-‘Ala’iyye. [facsimile prepared by Adnan Sadık Erzi]. Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu. Kopraman, K.Y. 1988. Memluk Kaynaklarına Göre XV. Yüzyılda Kastamonu ve Cevresi. In Türk Tarihinde ve Kültüründe Kastamonu: Tebliğler. Kastamonu, Kastamonu Eğitim Yüksekokulu Koruma Derneği: 17-33. Korobeinikov, D. 2004. The revolt in Kastamonu, c. 1291-1293. Byzantinische Forschungen 28: 87-118. — 2010. How Byzantine were the early Ottomans? in c. 1290-1450. In I.V. Zaitsev and S.F. Oroshkova (eds.), Osmanskii Mir i Osmanstika: Sbornik Statei k 100 letiu so dniarozhdeniia S.A. Tveretinovoi. Moscow, Institut Vostokovedeniia RAN: 215-39. Kütüklü, F. and Tunoğlu, K., 2012. Bir Şehrin Hafızası: Osmanlı Arşiv Belgelerinde Kastamonu. Istanbul, Ceren. Laqueur, H.-P. 1993. Osmanische Friedhöfe und Grabsteine in Istanbul. Tübingen, Wasmuth. Lowry, H.W. 2002. Fifteenth-Century Ottoman Realities: Christian Peasant Life on the Aegean Island of Limnos. Istanbul, Eren. Pachymérès, G., 1984. Rélations Historiques. [editor A. Failler, translated by V. Laurent, vol. II: Livres IV-VI]. Paris, Belles Lettres. Pamuk, S. 2000. A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Peacock, A.C.S. 2010. Sinop: A frontier city in Seljuq and Mongol Anatolia. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 16: 103-24. [reprinted in Kassab Tezgör, D. 2012. Sinope: The Results of Fifteen Years of Research. Leiden / Boston, Brill: 103-24]. Sevim, N. 2010. Medeniyetimizin Sessiz Tanıkları (Eyüp Sultan’da Osmanlı Mezar Taşlarıve Edebi Eyüp Sultan’lar). Istanbul, Kitap Dostu. Tosunoğlu, A. 1984. XVI. Yuzyılda Kastamonu Sancağı. Unpublished PhD thesis, Istanbul University. Ünal, M.A. 2008. Osmanlı Devrinde Sinop. XV. Yuzyıldan XVIII. Yuzyıla Sinop Kazası. , Fakülte Kitabevi. Yakupoğlu, C. 2010. II. Bayezid’inoğlu Şehzade Mahmud’un Hayatıve Faaliyetleri. ZKU Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 6(12): 319-39. Yücel, Y. 1988. Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar. Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu.