Arab Studies Journal

Review
Author(s): James E. Baldwin
Review by: James E. Baldwin
Source: The Arab Studies Journal, Vol. 12/13, No. 2/1 (Fall 2004/Spring 2005), pp. 215-218
Published by: Arab Studies Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27933921
Accessed: 01-08-2015 08:55 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Arab Studies Institute and Arab Studies Journal are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Arab Studies Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sat, 01 Aug 2015 08:55:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEW BOOK REVIEW BOOK REVIEW BOOK REVIEW BOOK REVIEW

TheNatureof theEarlyOttomanState
Heath W. Lowry
Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003

(197 pages, appendices, bibliography,index)$20.95 (paper)

ReviewedbyJames? Baldwin_
this contribution to thedebate on the emergence of theOttoman state,Heath
Lowry attacks Paul Wittek's sixty-year-old "gazi thesis," which holds that
the early Ottomans were a community bonded by commitment to gaza, the
expansion of Islam by force. This revision has been made before, but not, as Lowry
does it, through a re-examination of the evidence presented byWittek himself. After
In

a survey of thehistoriography to date, Lowry concludes thathistorians have projected

later realities of theOttoman state onto theiranalysis of the fourteenthcentury. Lowry
then spends two chapters demolishing each ofWittek's two sources, the?skendern?me
inBursa. He
ofAhmedi and the 1337 dedicatory inscription on the ?ehadet Mosque
follows thiswith a discussion of themeaning of the termsgaza and gazi, before pre

senting his own account of the early Ottoman state,which focuses on its syncretism
and inclusiveness. His thesis is fleshed out with what is perhaps themost interesting
part of the book, a case study of fifteenthcenturyChristian peasant life on the island
of Limnos, followed by an examination of the incorporation into theOttoman elite of
the "Byzanto-Balkan aristocracy," based largely on Balkan and Greek chronicles.
Lowry's main criticism of the existing historiography is that ithas not advanced
beyond the poles established byWittek and M. Fuat K?pr?l? during the 1920s and
1930s. In consequence, the early Ottoman state is explained as a product of either
Turkish tribal tradition or gazi ideology, or, following Halil ?nalcik, a combination of

the two.While he is right to point out the dichotomous nature of scholarship on this
subject as a whole, he gives Cemal Kafadar less than his due when he dismisses his
Between Two Worlds (University of California Press, 1995) as a repetition of Inalcik.

Kafadar attempted to change the terms of the debate by questioning the essentialist
understanding of Islam and gaza implicit inmost scholarship, and Lowry does not
address this aspect of his book. Indeed, his failure to engage seriously with Kafadar

is his most conspicuous omission.

Lowry moves on to attack the flimsy evidence forWittek's thesis. He notes
Wittek's selective use of Ahmedi's Iskendern?me, which was limited to thirteenof
James E. Baldwin
Studies at New

?ya Ph.D.

student in the joint program

ofHistory

and Middle

Eastern

and Islamic

York University.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sat, 01 Aug 2015 08:55:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

216

Arab Studies Journal

Fall 2004 I Spring 2005

the 334 couplets devoted to the early Ottomans. Lowry argues that
Wittek was wrong
to see this as a "versified chronicle" intended to portray reality.Ahmedi was writing a
nasihatname, or a prototype of the "Mirror forPrinces" genre, intended to advise and
influence a ruler, in this case initially Sultan Bayezid, and following his death, Prince

Suleyman. Thus the emphasis on thegaza of the early rulers is a topos, highlighting
the ideal character of an Islamic state, and specifically urging Ahmedi's patrons to
focus their energies on westward expansion rather thanwarring with otherMuslim
principalities. As for the Bursa inscription,whereas Wittek argued that the titles it
bestowed on Orhan were unique, Lowry claims he misquoted it, replacing "al-amir
al-kabir al-mu 'azzam al-mujahid," a typical period Seljuk title,with "sultan" which

would have been exceptional. The book's reproduction of the inscription isnot of good
enough quality to verify Lowry's reading easily, though it is apparent thatWittek's
was wrong. Lowry then points to numerous inscriptions inAnatolia, Ottoman and
other,which show that theBursa inscription's use of gazi and other formulationswas
not

at all unusual.

Lowry's treatmentof theword gaza aims to show that in fourteenthcenturyAna

tolia itcarried themeaning of akin, a raid aimed at capturing booty and slaves, devoid
of religious significance. He cites a couplet inwhich Ahmedi says gaza was called
akin by theTurks, and an edict of Bayezid II which stresses thematerial rewards for

thosewho joined him in carrying out gaza and cihad. This is perhaps thebook's least
satisfying section. It is interesting thatChristians joined theOttomans in carrying out
akin, but Lowry's suggestion, thatBayezid's use of thewords gaza and cihad side
by side shows his intention to appeal to both Christians andMuslims, seems no more
likely than that itwas simply a typical use of parallel synonyms. The book suffersfrom
a simplistic understanding ofwhat gaza would mean in religious circles, as shown by
the repeated argument that theOttomans could not have been conducting religious
gaza, as theydid not give conquered Christians the choice of conversion or the sword.
It is not clear why forcible conversion would be a necessary component of gaza or
cihad. Even ifwe allowed this fororthodox gaza, Lowry completely ignoresKafadar's
discussion of the heterodoxy of frontier Islam, which suggests that a contemporary

Anatolian understanding of gaza could have embraced syncretism and pluralism,

regardless of classical fikh.
Lowry's account of the earlyOttomans focuses on theheterogeneity of the ruling
elite,which included numerous Christians holding timars and in other powerful posi

tions,and theaccommodating attitude taken toward conquered populations. He points to

early leaders such as Evrenos and K?se Mihal who were eitherChristian or ofChristian
origin, and claims that their importance has been underestimated. The Islamization of
the elitewas gradual, reflectingthegrowing preponderance of theOttoman family over
theirfellow warriors, the conversion of Christian leaders, and intermarriage.
The populations takenunder Ottoman rulewere not subjugated by force of arms,

butwon over with fairer taxation and justice systems, and a more mobile social struc
ture than that offered by theirByzantine predecessors. This is not an entirely novel
explanation, and owes much to ?nalcik's article on "Ottoman Methods of Conquest,"

published in Studia Islamica

in 1954. The difference is thatwhile ?nalcik portrays

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sat, 01 Aug 2015 08:55:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

217
these policies as a conscious strategy,Lowry sees them as pragmatic decisions made
by a warrior elite whose military success overtook their administrative capabilities,
leaving them inneed ofmanpower and goodwill.
As furtherevidence, Lowry uses a number of non-Turkish chronicles and travel
lers' accounts. It is not clear how some of his observations fit intohis general picture.
He makes much of the openness of charitable hospices inBursa, which accepted the
poor of all faiths. In contrasting thiswith laterOttoman practice, he accepts a highly
confessionalized image of laterOttoman society which is now challenged by many
scholars. From IbnBattuta's description of functioning courts,mosques and medreses,
and from thePersian language and classical Islamic terminology of the 1324Mekece
vakfiyedocument, Lowry concludes thatBursa had many of the trappings of a classical

Islamic statewithin five years of its conquest, and that its rulerswere surrounded by
those well acquainted with the Islamic intellectual tradition.He does not fully inte
grate thiswith his picture of an elite society not especially concerned with religion, in
which religious terminology such as gaza was used with an entirely secular meaning.
These observations could also have been used to challenge Kafadar's picture of the
heterodoxy and syncretism ofAnatolian Islam.
The chapter on Limnos, based on extensive research using the island's tahrirdeft

ers (tax registers), provides empirical evidence forLowry's suggestions. It is apparent

that theChristian peasant population was armed and largely responsible for the island's
defense?in 1490 theOttoman military presence was a 21 -man Janissarygarrison. This
shows that the conception ofOttoman society as sharply di vided into a rulingMuslim
askeri (military) class and a tax-paying peasant re 'aya class isnot applicable as late as
the sixteenth century. Supporting Lowry's focus on istim?let (accommodation) is the
Ottomans' adaptation of their tax system to local farming practices, at the request of
the local peasantry. Lowry's examination of later sixteenth-centurydefters shows that
these practices were changing, however. By the 1520s local Christians were no longer
performing a military role, and therewere an increased number of Ottoman officials.
Tax policies were increasingly centralized, and thedefters cease to show a dynamic
engagement with the local population, instead becoming formulaic.
While theChristian converts recruited into theOttoman elite through thedevsirme
are well known, in his penultimate chapter Lowry provides evidence of the incorpo
ration of the existing Byzantine and Balkan elites. Often continuitywas such that a
former fief-holder stayed in control of his ancestral lands, now considered a timar.
former scholars have not differentiated between devsirme recruitswho were
formally slaves and Byzantine nobility who chose to join theOttomans in order to
preserve their status, Lowry points out that the difference is crucial as the latterrun
entirely contrary to the logic of thedevsirme, which was to produce provincial rulers

While

and soldiers with no familial or regional loyalties. Lowry also provides evidence of
devsirme recruitspassing on positions, or at least status, to theirchildren.His principal
contention is the existence of continuitybetween theByzantine and Ottoman periods.
He maintains that the "fault-line" in 1453 is largely retrospective.
Lowry's book is a useful contribution to the field, although ironically, despite
Lowry's own contentions, it is still structured aroundWittek's

thesis. His picture of

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sat, 01 Aug 2015 08:55:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

218 4 Arab Studies Journal

Fall 2004 I Spring 2005

Ottoman syncretism and accommodationism is convincing, albeit not as original as

he suggests. In addition to the author's debt to ?nalcik, his stress on the syncretic and
inclusive nature of early Ottoman society and his references to ideas of "Islamochris
tian" synthesis reminded this reader ofKafadar's book. Although theyexpressed things
differently, largely due to theirdivergent understandings of theword gaza there are
broad similarities in their conceptions (which makes Lowry's neglect of Kafadar all
the stranger).Nevertheless, Lowry's comprehensive analysis of extant sources as close
to contemporary as possible represents a different approach fromKafadar's insight

ful readings of the later chronicles. Lowry's book includes several key documents, in
facsimile, transcription, and translation.Unfortunately the facsimiles are small and
some not of the highest quality. As noted above, theBursa inscription is difficult to
read?the tombstone of Evrenos is harder still, and theMekece vakfiyealmost impos
sible. Improvements on this frontwould no doubt have precluded the publication of
an affordable paperback edition.

There is an unresolved tension inLowry's thesis between the syncretismhe posits,

and the evidence he finds of high Islamic culture in earlyOttoman Anatolia. However,
given thefluidity and complexity of theperiod and the lack of contemporary sources,
a completely coherent narrative is perhaps a tall order. Overall, this book provides
a cogent presentation of the anti-Wittek position, backed up by significant original
research.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sat, 01 Aug 2015 08:55:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions