Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Neighbourhoods Visited by Courage, Sleeplessness and Dead Bodies

The ‘Ottoman Neighbourhood’ is the basic social unit for the study of the Ottomans and the social lives they led, and many of these studies have been based on such classic resources as religious archives (şer’i siciller). This work investigates the social life of the Ottomans from a perspective that is ignored in the classic resources, as it uncovers the Ottoman individual's courage, willingness to forgo sleep, and approach to unsolved murders. The individuals who lived within the communal organizations as prescribed by Ottoman law behaved in ways that would seem quite strange today. This paper analyses the response of both public authorities and neighbourhood residents to the kinds of crimes that required meticulous investigation in order to solve them, and the meting out of punishments for these crimes. Notes1. S. Faroqhi, Osmanlıda Kentler ve Kentliler: Kent Mekanında Ticaret, Zanaat ve Gıda Üretimi, 1520–1650 (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, 1993); S. Faroqhi, Orta Halli Osmanlılar (Istanbul: T. İş Bankası Yayınları, 2009); Ö. Ergenç, XVI. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Bursa: Yerleşimi, Yönetimi, Ekonomik ve Sosyal Durumu Üzerine Bir Araştırma (Ankara: TTK Yayını, 2006); Ö. Ergenç, ‘Osmanlı Şehrindeki Mahallenin İşlev ve Nitelikleri Üzerine’, Osmanlı Araştırmaları, Vol.IV (1984), pp.69–78: M. Çadırcı, Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentlerinin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Yapısı (Ankara: TTK Yayını, 1997); İ. Ortaylı, Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Yerel Yönetim Geleneği (Istanbul: Hil Yayıncılık, 1985).2. U. Heyd, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973); R. Peters, Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); A. Bayındır, İslâm Muhâkeme Hukuku (Osmanlı Devri Uygulaması) (Istanbul: İslâmi İlimler Araştırma Vakfı 1986); M.A. Aydın, Türk Hukuk Tarihi (Istanbul: Beta Yayıncılık, 2009).3. A. Rubin, ‘The Trial of the Prosecutor Hamdi Bey: Inside and Out of the Ottoman Nizamiye Court’, Journal of Social History, Vol.45, No.3 (2012), pp.757–79; For detailed court minutes about the penal code as reflected within daily life in Nizamiye courts, and containing the words and reactions of individuals, see S. Bingöl, Hırsova Kazâ Deâvî Meclisi Tutanakları (Nizamiye Mahkemeleri Tutanaklarından Bir Örnek) (Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversite Yayınları, 2002).4. A. Giddens, Modernliğin Sonuçları, translated by Ersin Kuşdil (Istanbul: Ayrıntı Yay, 2010), p.9.5. Sabah Newspaper, 11 April 2011.6. Milliyet Newspaper, 10 Dec. 2008.7. Milliyet Newspaper, 11 Nov. 2004.8. Yeni Emek Newspaper, 28 May 2012.9. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/courts-police-and-fire/2011-12-05/murder-charges-dropped-against-urbana-teen-witnesses-could-no, 14 July 2012 at 13.32.10. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9163767/Russian-banker-shot-six-times-had-testified-over-murder-plot.html, 15 July 2012 at 00.24.11. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/223923/murder-case-key-witness-shot.html, 15 July 2012.12. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Good Practices for the Protection of Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings Involving Organized Crime (New York: United Nations, 2008), p.8.13. Ibid., pp.9–14.14. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti, Resmi Gazete, 5 Jan. 2008.15. As is to be expected, this process called ‘modernity’ did not appear all over the world in the same way and at the same time. Within this context, one of the most important strides in Ottoman modernity, as far as social transformations and organizations were concerned, was taken with the Tanzimat reforms. The Tanzimat reforms had a deep influence on law and the judiciary. The first result of this was the introduction of the Nizamiye courts that operated alongside the religious canonical courts. The Nizamiye courts, introduced in the nineteenth century, were completely different from the traditional religious courts in both their structure and trial procedures. For wide-ranging studies about the structure and functions of the Nizamiye courts see S. Bingöl, Tanzimat Devrinde Osmanlıda Yargı Reformu (Eskişehir: Anadolu Ünivsitesi Yayınları, 2004); A. Rubin, Ottoman Nizamiye Courts: Law and Modernity (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011); F. Demirel, Adliye Nezareti. Kuruluşu ve Faaliyetleri 1876–1914 (Istanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi, 2009).16. Most of the canonical law court records do not contain detailed information about the stages of criminal trials, while the Nizamiye court records are much more detailed. For a rare record of minutes of a local court that shows this, see S. Bingöl, Hırsova Kazâ Deâvî; in addition to this, the official Ceride-i Mehakim newspaper published from 1873 onwards by the Ottoman Ministry of Justice provides a great deal of data about detailed testimony, doctors’ reports, courts of first instance and appeal courts. For an evaluation of this data see M.V. Petrov, ‘Everyday Forms of Compliance: Subaltern Commentaries on Ottoman Reform, 1864–1868’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol.46, No.4 (2004), pp.730–59: For detailed information about the content, value and transformations of the Ceride-i Mehakim see S. Bingöl, ‘Osmanlı Mahkemelerinde Reform ve Ceride-i Mehakimdeki Üst Mahkeme Kararları’, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, Vol.XX, No.1 (2005), pp.9–38.17. The exact hour was not recorded.18. Ceride-i Mehakim, No.24, 7 Şaban 1290, 30 September 1s73.19. The text in Ottoman of the above-mentioned narrative ‘i’lâm-ı şer’i dahi ... tasaddî eylediği davâyı isbâttan izhâr-ı acz edüb talebiyle müddeialeyh-i merkûm bil-muvâcehe ber-nehc-i şer’i tahlîf olunmağın mûcebince müddei-i vekil-i merkûm davâ-yı mezkûresiyle müddeialeyh-i merkûma bilâbeyyine-i muârazeden men’ olunduğunu beyândan ibâret...fetvâhâneden zâhir-i i’lâm-ı mezkûr işâret kılınmıştır’. Ceride-i Mehakim, No.16, 11 Cemâziyelâhir 1290.20. Ceride-i Mehakim, No.16, 11 Cemâziyelâhir 1290.21. Ceride-i Mehakim, No.39, 14 Zilhicce 1290.22. Ceride-i Mehakim, No.28, 6 Ramazan 1290.23. Ceride-i Mehakim, No.12, 12 Cemâziyelevvel 1289; No.13, 19 Cemâziyelevvel 1289.24. Düstur, Tertip I, Vol.I (1289/1871), p.597.25. Within Ottoman legal terminology or within Islamic law, from which Ottoman law originated, the term ‘murder’ was not limited, as it is nowadays, to the act of killing someone. ‘Murder is the name of an act that is prohibited by canonical law that is related either to the person or the organs of a person or to his property and honour.’ Ö. Hilmi, Miyâr-Adalet (Istanbul, 1301/1885), p.3; however in this article the term murder will be limited to the act of killing a person.26. From the point of view of canonical law courts, the legal proof of an incident required the witnesses to have observed the crime and the culprits at the moment of occurrence of the incident (Ân-ı müşâhedet) or in other words there had to be ‘visual witnesses’ of the event. Otherwise there was no proof.27. Retaliation (kısâs) is a kind of punishment aiming for equality between crime and penalty. It consists of killing a murderer or amputating or injuring a person who has committed one of those acts. Bayındır, İslâm Muhâkeme Hukuku, p.163.28. According to the Islamic penal code, the penalty for wilful murder is retaliation; the inheritors might require this, or they might pardon the culprit, in which case the penalty will be in the form of compensation by the payment of blood money. In this case there will be an agreement concerning compensation, and according to Islamic law the murder trial will be annulled. See Ç. Üçok, ‘Osmanlı Kanûnnâmelerinde İslâm Ceza Hukukuna Aykırı Hükümler II’, Ankara Üniv. Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol.III, No.2 (1946), pp.365–83.29. Another condition is that the murder should have been determined by signs of strangling, wounding or hitting, or by the fact that blood has come from the ears and eyes. However, this cannot be considered to be a real post-mortem. What we have is the determination of the existence of a dead body, or of the occurrence of a claimed incident. For detailed information on this matter see S. Bingöl, ‘XIX. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Mahkemeleri’nde Adli Tıp Uygulamaları’, XV. Türk Tarih Kongresi 11–15 Eylül 2006, Vol.4, No.2 (2010), pp.1351–63; M. Akman, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Ceza Yargılaması (Istanbul: Eren Yayınları, 2004), p.96.30. Even though penalties meted out by the Islamic penal code are directed towards the individual, there are nevertheless two situations that are of a collective nature. The first of these is the ‘kasâme’ practice, and the other is the obligation of the ‘akile’ (family) to pay an indemnity in certain situations. According to the Islamic penal code, in cases of wilful murder and wounding, if the victim or his or her family reject retaliation or if the murder is not wilful, then an indemnity will be paid. In those cases, when the perpetrator of the crime is known, the fixed amount of the high indemnity will be paid by the members of the akile (mainly the relatives) of the suspect. For information concerning the members of the akile see Aydın, Türk Hukuk Tarihi, pp.206–7; Üçok, ‘Osmanlı Kanûnnâmelerinde İslâm’, p. 383.31. For the kasâme to be enforced, the next of kin of the victim had to sue. However, if the next of kin of the victim could not be found or there were none, then the state had to step in. In such a case, the indemnity to be paid according to the kasâme would be paid by the owner of the territory to the treasury (beytülmal), but if the body was found on public land, the state would be both a debtor and creditor and so there would be no payment. If, on the other hand, the next of kin of the victim existed and were known, the owner of the land where the body was found or if the land was public land then the state would pay the indemnity to the next of kin. For detailed information see A. Pamir, ‘İslâm ve Osmanlı Hukuku’nda Kasâme Müessesi’, AÜ. Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol.54, No.4 (2005), pp.343–5.32. Üçok, ‘Osmanlı Kanûnnâmelerinde İslâm’, pp.379–81; Bayındır, İslâm Muhâkeme Hukuku, pp.62, 127.33. The text in Ottoman of the above-mentioned decree, ‘ ahâli-i karye üzerine lâzım gelecek kasâme ve diyetin mahalline rü’yeti husûsuna nizâmı vechile mahalline havâlesi ... veresenin behemehâl kasâme davasına kıyâm ettirilmesi’, Ceride-i Mehakim, No.16, Cemaziyelâhir 1290, p.196.34. Determining a sentence in had and kısâs trials required testimony provided by at least two male witnesses. Testimony by women was not valid in this case. In had and kısâs trials a penalty could not be decreed on the sole basis of women's testimony. This is valid in all had and kısâs trials except adultery trials. Bayındır, İslâm Muhâkeme Hukuku, pp.158, 164; in another similar incident, because the defendant was Muslim, none of the testimony of the many non-Muslim witnesses was taken into consideration and only the testimony of the single Muslim witness was considered valid. See Ceride-i Mehakim, No.19, 2 Receb 1290; Bayındır, İslâm Muhâkeme Hukuku, p.159.35. In this trial, the suspect's guilt was not proven due to the fact that the necessary number of visual witnesses had not been reached. For the number and requisites of the witnesses required for proving guilt see Bayındır, İslâm Muhâkeme Hukuku, pp.163–4.36. Ceride-i Mehakim, No.20, 9 Receb 1290; for other examples see Ceride-i Mehakim, No.33, 25 Şevval 1290; Ceride-i Mehakim, No.19, 2 Receb 1290; Ceride-i Mehakim, No.51, 10 Rebiülevvel 1291; Ceride-i Mehakim, No.52, 17 Rebiülevvel 1291.37. Heyd, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law, pp.308–9; İsmail from Yaka village close to Konya sued Behram, who was a slave of Ahmet Ağa, for having wounded and killed Mustafa. Behram confessed the crime in court; however, it was claimed that Ahmet Ağa had encouraged his slave to kill Mustafa. At the end of the trial, Ahmet Ağa was condemned to pay 16,000 akce as blood money. See H. Muşmal, ‘1640–1650 Yılları Arasında Konya’da Sosyal ve Ekonomik Hayata Dair Bazı Tespitler’, Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, No.20 (2006), pp.201–32.38. Ceride-i Mehakim, No.37, 22 Zilkade 1290; on the basis of the penal code that required at least 15 years of forced labour for those acquitted from retaliation, a Nizamiye court had condemned Yorgi to 15 years of forced labour. The sentence was also ratified by the appeals court. In all penal codes issued during the Tanzimat period the canonical courts had been declared to be both the courts of first instance and the appeals courts. In other words, in these kinds of crimes, a person would be tried at a canonical court and later at a Nizamiye court. Because of this, in the nineteenth century the Nizamiye courts established as part of the Ottoman modernization process worked in conjunction with canonical courts. After 1840, the penal code favoured and authorized the Nizamiye courts; however, there were two exceptions to this: the canonical courts took precedence in cases involving kısâs and blood money. If the matter was related to Nizamiye courts, the matter would later be taken up also by these courts. It is because of this that certain details that cannot be found in the minutes of canonical courts can be found in the records of Nizamiye courts. See Bingöl, Tanzimat Devri’nde, pp.61–3.39. Many examples are available concerning the fact that within canonical courts the official amount was 10,000 dirhem. For example for the years 1270–71 see, V. Akay, ‘201 Numaralı Mardin Şer’i’ye Sicili (Değerlendirme, Metin Transkripsiyonu ve Dizin)’ (MS thesis, Turkiyat Research Instıtute, Marmara University, Istanbul, 2006), pp.36–7, 98–9, 115–16.40. Z.A. Kurumlar, ‘69/1 Numaralı Kastamonu Şer’iyye Sicili (H. 1210–1211 / M. 1795–96) Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirme’ (MS thesis, Erciyes University, Kayseri, 2006), pp.241–2.41. Ş. Pamuk, İstanbul ve Diğer Kentlerde 500 Yıllık Fiyatlar ve Ücretler 1469–1998 (Ankara: DİE Yayıncıları, 2000), p.226; as far as the mid-nineteenth century is concerned, Cevdet Pasha stated, ‘the 1,000 kuruş of those days were the equivalent of 20 dirhem of gold or 320 dirhem of silver’. He also provides us with the monthly income of the upper and mid-level functionaries of those days. Comparing the above-mentioned official amounts of blood money with these amounts, we see that they are quite high. See C. Pasha, Tezâkir 1–12, edited by C. Baysun (Ankara: TTK, 1986), p.18; for the development of the prices of some basic foodstuffs throughout the nineteenth century see C. Issawi, The Economic History of Turkey 1800–1914 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980), pp.335–6.42. A dirhem is equal to 3,027 grams and 10,000 dirhems correspond to 32,070 kilos of pure silver.43. In 1840 the food expenses of an adult were 1 kuruş per day. And while the average daily food for a family with 3.5 adults cost 3.5 kuruş, average daily income was 5 kuruş. Issawi, The Economic History of Turkey, pp.332–3.44. Heyd, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law, p.311.45. The text in Ottoman of the above-mentioned narrative, ‘ gece ile etrafına bazı maktûl ilka’ edip Kütahya ve Ankara Valileri taraflarından dem-i öşr-i diyet mutâlebe’. For similar examples in other areas of the empire see Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (Ottoman Archives of the Office of the Prime Minister – BAO), C. ADL., Dosya 15, Gömlek 970; BOA. A.DVN. Dosya 19 Gömlek 38; BOA, C.ADL. Dosya 20, Gömlek 1203; BOA, C.ADL. Dosya 4, Gömlek 223; for detailed information and action about this kind of problem through the centuries see H. İnalcık, ‘Adâletnameler’ Osmanlıda Devlet, Hukuk Adâlet (Istanbul: Eren Yay, 2000), pp.112–18; for examples concerning other abuses related to taxes and blood money see M. Akman, ‘Osmanlı Hukukunda Kasame’, Türkler, Vol.XIII (2002), pp.789–94.46. I. Tamdoğan, ‘Atı Alan Üsküdar’ı Geçti ya da XVIII. Yüzyılda Üsküdar’da Şiddet ve Hareketlilik İlişkisi’, in N. Lévy and A. Toumarkine (eds.), Osmanlı’da Asayiş, Suç ve Ceza 18.–20. Yüzyıllar (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 2007), pp.80–95.47. BOA. Y. EE Dosya 36, Gömlek 17; BOA. Y. EE Dosya 31 Gömlek 14.48. Düstur, III. Tertip, Vol. 5, (1931), pp.794–6

Art · Courage · Humanities · Neighbourhood (mathematics · Political science · Sociology · Islamic Studies and History · Law · Ottoman and Turkish Studies · Ottoman Empire History and Society