Between Two Worlds Kafadar.pdf

has been mentioned, we should note that Köprülü, along with many other Turkish
scholars before and after Wittek, accepted that there were gazis in medieval
Anatolia and that Osman and some of his followers and descendants belonged in
that category. But this is surely not the same thing as subscribing to the gaza
thesis. While some of his articles were translated, Wittek's book was not
published in Turkish until 1971 (translated by Güzin Yalter and first published
as Beiheft to I. * H. Danismend's * Izahli * Osmanli Tarihi Kronolojisi, and
then as fascicule no. 1 in Bati Dillerinde Osmanli Tarihleri [Istanbul, 1971],
3-52). An earlier translation by Fahriye Arik is cited in Uzuncarsili * ,
Osmanli Tarihi, vol. 1 (Ankara, 1947), 97-98, but it remained unpublished. Arik
herself was not convinced by Wittek and wrote an article to prove (but it
ultimately turned out to be wrong) that a symbol on Orhan's * coins was the
tribal sign of the Kayi. As for Uzuncarsili * , arguably the most widely read
historian of republican Turkey, and always more comfortable as a chronicler, he
did not overtly subscribe to any thesis. To the extent one can discern an
explanatory model in his works, he is closer to Köprülü not only because he
accepts the Kayi tribal origins but also because he emphasizes the role of the
ahis * , the dervishes, and early institutionalization based on Turco-Muslim
models. Most importantly, the notion of descent-based tribalism reigned supreme
in Turkey, and this alone should caution the historiographer against
universalizing Wittek's appeal. Also see n. 67 below. As in the case of Togan
(see n. 38 below), many Turkish scholars were uncomfortable with implications of
religious fanaticism. A Russian translation of Köprülü's book appeared in 1939
(Moscow). A Serbo-Croatian translation, with a laudatory introduction by Nedim
Filipovic * , was published before the Turkish edition: porjeklo Osmanske
Carevine (Sarajevo, 1955).
32. Aydin Taneri would argue, for instance, that Mevlana * Celaluddin * Rumi *
is not only Turkish but a Turkish nationalist; see his Mevlânâ Âilesinde Türk
Milleti ve Devleti Fikri (Ankara, 1987).
33. George Georgiades Arnakis, Hoi protoi othomanoi (Athens, 1947).
34. Robert Lee Wolff's review was published in Speculum 26(1951):483-488.
35. Arnakis, Hoi protoi othomanoi, 246.
36. A. Zeki Velidî Togan, Umumî Tüurk Tarihi'ne Giris * , 3d ed. (Istanbul,
1981), esp. see 332-33.
37. Ibid., 333-35. In the same work (341), he also delineated what he
interpreted to be Kipchak (as opposed to Oguz * ) influences in early Ottoman
usages. Togan also engaged in an exchange with Köprülü which may be called the
second Kayi controversy: Köprülü still insisted that Osman's ancestry was from
the Kayi branch of the Oguz * Turks while Togan raised the possibility that it
may have been from the eastern Turkish Kay.
38. Ibid., 317-51. On the religiosity of the early Ottomans, Togan writes:
"Since their level of civilization was incomparably lower than, say, the begs of
Kastamonu or Germiyan, they were detached from Islamic fanaticism, though they
were Muslim" (336-37).
39. Mustafa Akdag * , "Osmanli Imparatorlugunun * Kurulus * ve Inkisafi *
Devrinde Türkiye'nin Iktisadi * Vaziyeti," in two parts, Belleten
13(1949):497-571, 14(1950):319-418. Critiqued by Halil Inalcik * , "Osmanli
Imparatorlugunun * Kurulus * ve Inkisafi * Devrinde Türkiye'nin Iktisadi *
Vaziyeti Ýzerinde Bit Tetkik Münasebetiyle," Belleten 15(1951):629-84.
142