CC BY
31
y^K 94(47).065 DOI: 10.22378/2313-6197.2022-10-3.672-692
EDN: EXZRWJ
THE REBELLION OF §AH1N GIRAY SULTAN (1746-1747)
Alper Ba§er
Afyon Kocatepe University Afyonkarahisar, Turkey baseralperhidayet@gmail.com
Abstract: Research objectives: This study aims to analyze the reasons, development, and consequences of §ahin Giray Sultan's Rebellion in the history of the Crimean Khanate, based on data retrieved from Ottoman archival sources.
Research materials: The main sources of data for this research are documents held in the Archive of the Topkapi Palace Museum and the Department of Ottoman Archives of the Presidency of the Republic of Turkey Directorate of State. These documents have been compared with the Ottoman-Tatar chronicles of the period (izzi Tarihi, Qelebi Akay Tarihi, Tarih-i Said Giray Sultan).
Results and novelty of the research: The most detailed evaluation of the rebellion of §ahin Giray Sultan can be found in Smirnov's book on the Crimean Khanate which echoes the information given in the Ottoman chronicle, izzi Tarihi. In the present study, Topkapi Palace Museum Archive documents numbered TSMA-E 408-55, TSMA-E 569-58, and TSMA-E 751-49, as well as the Mühimme Deiters and Kalebend Defters held by the Department of Ottoman Archives of the Presidency of the Republic of Turkey Directorate of State Archives, are compared with statements in different sources. In the light of these documents, the rise and progress of the rebellion headed by §ahin Giray Sultan are subjected to a new evaluation. Documents considered important and providing details of the life of §ahin Giray Sultan and the course of the rebellion have been transliterated and presented for the use of researchers.
The Noghays residing in the Bucak region constituted the social base of the §ahin Giray rebellion. The rebellion broke out due to the Porte's desire to deploy Tatar forces on the Iranian front, the increasing centralization efforts of the Ottoman Empire on the Russian-Polish and Ukrainian borders, and the pressure put on Tatar society for the return of Russian captives of 1736-39 War. The rebellion broke out prematurely after the Porte and Selim Giray Khan conspired to neutralize §ahin Giray Sultan. The extreme measures taken by the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate prevented the revolt from spreading, and the rebels led by the §ahin Giray Sultan were easily defeated, thus causing the suppression of the rebellion.
Keywords: §ahin Giray Sultan, rebellion, Ottoman Empire, Crimean Khanate, Noghays
For citation: Ba§er A. The rebellion of §ahin Giray Sultan (1746-1747).
Zolotoordynskoe obozrenie=Golden Horde Review. 2022, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 672-692. DOI: 10.22378/2313-6197.2022-10-3.672-692
© Ba^er A., 2022
Introduction: Collective Violence in the History of the Crimean Khanate
Collective violence used within a political organization to change the regime, rulers of the political community, constitution, or the structure of the administration is defined as political violence or civil strife. Civil wars, rebellions, revolts, mutinies and uprisings are all considered acts of political violence. [1, p. 1107; 2, p. 3-4; 3, p. 133-136]
The historiography of the Crimean Khanate includes studies of the rebellions that can be defined as political violence, and with a few exceptions, they were generally written to document the political history of the Crimean Khanate or the Noghay Tatars [4, 125-146; 5, p.74-113]. Evaluating the rebellions in the history of the Crimean Khanate, which endured for over 300 years as a political entity, can be problematic. Although the Crimean Khanate became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire after 1475, it remained a political structure with its own state organization, ideological legitimacy and ethnic base. Towards the end of the first half of the 17th century, following the dismantling of the Great Noghay Horde, the Noghay tribes began to migrate to the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman lands, which continued into the first quarter of the 18th century. As a result of the migrations, the tribes and their beys became involved in the political and ethnic structure of the Crimean Khanate as new political actors, and these intertwined facts make it difficult to evaluate the rebellions in the history of the khanate.
The period from 1441 to 1783 saw many outbreaks of political violence in the Crimean Khanate, from major civil wars to small-scale uprisings. Taking into account these examples of political violence as a whole, they reveal two basic forms of rebellion. In the first, the Crimean Khans rose against the Ottoman Porte and rejected the authority of the sultan, while in the second, the Crimean elite, dissatisfied with the administration of the current khan, rebelled to have him changed. The first form of rebellion saw a hostile attitude being taken against the Ottoman Porte, characterized by separatist tendencies. The rebellion of Mehmed Giray II in 158315841; the rebellion of brothers Mehmed and §ahin Giray in 1624 and 1627-1628 [7, p.49-91, 149-164; 8, p. 101-116] and the rebellion of inayet Giray Khan in 1637 [9, p. 209-224; 8, p. 122-125] serve as examples of this form of rebellion, and all can be considered as part of the phenomenon referred to by Alan Fisher as "Crimean separatism" [10, p.79-92]. In the second category - political violence within the Crimean Khanate - two separate tendencies can be noticed. The first involved members of the Giray dynasty fighting with each other for the throne, which was seen most often at the time of the establishment of the Crimean Khanate, when Ottoman interventions were less obvious than in the later centuries. The struggles between Mengli Giray Khan I and his brother, and Sahip Giray Khan I and islam Giray Khan I can be given as examples of such conflicts. [11, p.47-68; 12, p.8-14; 13, p. 21-25.]
Within the Crimean Khanate, aside from the struggles for the throne within the Giray dynasty, the second form of political violence that came to prominence surrounded the problems in the internal structure of the Crimean Khanate in which the tribal leaders, who were part of the feudal structure of the khanate, rebelled against the authority of the Crimean Khans. The rebellions of the Karaçi Beys - especially
1 II. Mehmed Giray emphasized the independent character of the Crimean Khans with these words, "... Ben sâhib-i sikke ve hutbe pâdiçâh iken beni azl u nasba kim kâdir olur ...ve ben ba§li badinapâdiçâhim ma 'zûl olmam ...", [6, p. 90-91].
the §irin and Mangit tribes - and those of the tribes of the Great Noghay Horde who became a component of khanate after 1640, can be included in this group. The conflict of the §irin tribe with the Crimean Khan Adil Giray [16, s.144-145], the rebellion of the Bucak Tatars under the leadership of Gazi Giray Sultan in 1699 [8, p.161-168] and Adil Giray Sultan in 1728 [14, p. 1589-1591], the Baht Giray Sultan rebellion [14, p. 1602-1603] that flared intermittently in the Kuban region in the first quarter of the 18th century, and the Yedisan Noghay Rebellion of 17561758 [5, 84-108; 29, p. 151-157] were examples of the political violence that broke out within the khanate.
It should be clarified here that classification of the political violence in the Crimean Khanate is no easy task, as the rebellions that took place in the history of the khanate were all intertwined in some way.
Who was §ahin Giray Sultan?
§ahin Giray Sultan was the son of Adil Giray Sultan, himself one of the sons of the famous Haci Selim Giray Khan. During the reign of Saadet Giray Khan II, he was assigned the post of nureddin, and kalgay under the reign of Mengli Giray Khan II. Shortly after being removed from the post of kalgay, he assumed the leadership of the Bucak Noghay s rebellion against the Saadet Giray Khan in 17241725. After the rebellion was quashed, he was pardoned and resided in the Rumelia for a while. In the third reign of Kaplan Giray Khan I, he was once again appointed as kalgay. Adil Giray Sultan died when Russian forces launched an invasion of the Crimean Peninsula, following the arrival in Crimea of the new khan Feth Giray Khan II [15, p. 81, 83, 87, 89; 17, p. 426-427, 432-440].
The first mention of §ahin Giray Sultan - the son of a dynamic and active father - can be found in the records of French consul A. Yavorka, who served in Crimea for some time, until 1736. A. Yavorka placed §ahin Giray Sultan in sixth place among the members of the Giray family in the order of importance [18, p. 137]. In the Ottoman sources, he is first recorded in 1737 due to a problem with his annual salary (salyane)2. Then there are two different documents, one from 1740 and the other from 1741, describing him as the serasker of Bucak3. §ahin Giray Sultan, who was appointed to the post of nureddin after 1741, and as kalgay on January 28, 17444, thus becoming the second in command in the Crimean Khanate. In the 18 th century, the male members of the Giray dynasty could hold the posts of kalgay, nureddin, and the seraskerliks of the Bucak, Yedisan, and Kuban regions within the Crimean Khanate. Thus, §ahin Giray Sultan held all the highest-ranking offices in the Crimean Khanate and served at all career levels of a Chinggisid prince.
According to Hurremi Abdullah Efendi, the most important act of §ahin Giray Sultan in his role as kalgay was the Circassian Campaign. During this successful expedition, 600-700 slaves were captured, to the great satisfaction of the Ottoman Porte [19, folio 111b]. That said, another chronicler of the period, Said Giray Sultan, put forward a different description of the event, claiming that the chief of the
2 Department of Ottoman Archives of the Turkish Presidency State Archives of the Republic of Turkey henceafter BOA. BOA, Ali Emiri, SMHD I (Sultan Mahmud I) 773.
3 BOA, Divan-i Humayun Sicilati Muhimme Defterleri henceafter, A.DVNS.MHM 147, p. 246/ 905; p. 329/1157.
4 BOA, Cevdet Eyalet-i Mumtaze henceafter C. MTZ 198.
Komurkoy tribe was invited to Crimea and was arrested upon his arrival to the peninsula. In a subsequent message to the Komurkoy tribe, they were told that their chief would be released on the condition that a thousand captives would be given to the Crimean Khanate. In the ongoing negotiations, it was agreed that the Circassian chief would be released in exchange for 800 slaves. After this agreement was struck, §ahin Giray Sultan went to the Caucasus with his retinue and a military force of 5000 men, and after accepting the captives, he returned the Circassian chief to his tribe. Another important event in this campaign involved the relocation of the Kasay and Kaspulat Noghay tribes. Upon the order of Selim Giray Khan, parts of these tribes were brought to the Crimean Peninsula, where they were settled in the villages devastated by the war [20, 105a-b, 114b].
The Causes and Expansion of the §ahin Giray Rebellion
Literature on the rebellion of §ahin Giray Sultan is very limited, with the most elaborate account being found in Smirnov's book on the history of the Crimean Khanate. Smirnov's account of the rebellion of §ahin Giray Sultan is a summary of the section of the chronicle Tarih-i izzi [21, p. 503]. Aside from the work of Smirnov, Ismail Hakki Uzun?ar§ili also provides a concise account of the rebellion. [22, p. 21, footnote 1].
The first events contributing to §ahin Giray Sultan's decision to launch a rebellion began with the enthronement of Selim Giray II to the Crimean Khanate. Selim Giray Khan II inflicted violent punishments against his opposition in Crimea as a means of strengthening his authority. Even the governors of cities such as Hotin, Bender, and Akkerman on the Black Sea were informed about this policy of the Khan. The Porte issued orders that no Tatars fleeing Crimea to the Ottoman territory should be granted asylum and no one would be allowed to come without the "yarlig" of khan.5
The problem in the khanate dated back to the reign of Selamet Giray Khan II. The 1736-1739 Ottoman-Russian War concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Belgrade, under which captives taken from Russians were to be returned. Selamet Giray Khan II, however, failed to return the captives and was dethroned. The new khan, Selim Giray Khan II, carried out this task vigorously, leading the Tatars to refer to him as "Kati", meaning severe and harsh [15, p. 92]. The primary reason for the opposition to the khan was his violent behavior and the issue of returning the captives. It is likely that §ahin Giray Sultan got closer to the opposition groups during this period and became their leader.
What was the motivation behind the rebellion of §ahin Giray Sultan? According to izzi Suleyman Efendi -the official chronicler of the period- §ahin Giray Sultan had been removed from the post of kalgay and was ordered to return to his manor in the town of Enez. After being notified of the decision, §ahin Giray Sultan, with unfounded fears for his life, opted not to return to Enez, and left his farm stating his intention to visit Selim Giray Khan II, but fled to Poland. Misleading and provocations of his followers and friends and disobeying the orders of the Ottoman administration and the Crimean Khan fueled the fears of §ahin Giray Sultan,
5 BOA, A.DVNS.MHM 150, p. 201/738. The date of the document is 6-15 January 1.
leading up to the rebellion [23, p. 526-527]. The statements of izzi Suleyman Efendi were almost found in the same way in the muhimme defters of the period.6
Were §ahin Giray Sultan's fears groundless, being only empty delusions? Was he really in no danger? The Topkapi Palace Archives contain three documents relating to these events7, among which is the correspondence of Selim Giray Khan II with the Ottoman administration which makes no mention of §ahin Giray Sultan's name, although there is no doubt that he is the person referred to as "§ahs-i mâhud' (known person) in the document. All of these documents bear the seal of Selim Giray Khan II. In three of these documents, the date is not indicated although one document in the Topkapi Palace Archive (numbered 408/55), gives an exact date of November 5, 1746, which helps us understand the chronological order of the events. The decision to take action against §ahin Giray Sultan in 1746 before Selim Giray Khan II's visit to Istanbul is clearly stated in these documents, in which it can be further understood that in the first phase of this conspiracy, §ahin Giray Sultan was ordered to go to the Bender. In Bender, in cooperation with Serasker of Bucak Haci Giray Sultan, Bender Muhafizi Muhsinzade Mehmed Pa§a and the commander of the volunteers ibrahim Aga, the plan was to capture and eliminate §ahin Giray Sultan (ahz u istisali), although state officials close to §ahin Giray Sultan warned the former kalgay about the plan, compelling him not go to Bender, but instead into hiding in the steppe surrounding the Bender.8
Despite the failure of the plan to eliminate §ahin Giray Sultan, at the beginning of 1747, Selim Giray Khan II removed him from the post of kalgay, and the Porte ordered §ahin Giray Sultan to return to the town of Enez. In an edict (ferman), sent by the Porte to the officials on the border of Lehistan (Poland), and to the hospodars of Bogdan (Moldavia) and Eflak (Wallachia), §ahin Giray Sultan was ordered to be taken into custody, but with respect. The edict also stated that if the sultan was captured, he was not be released until a new order came from the Crimean Khan.9 On June 30, 1747, a new edict (ferman) was issued, addressed to §ahin Giray Sultan, stating that he had been dismissed from the post of kalgay, but that his crimes up to that time had been pardoned. §ahin Giray Sultan was reminded that when the descendants of Chinggis Khan were dismissed from their posts, they returned to their farms in the Ottoman Rumelia, where they continued their lives in their manors, and the Porte stated that the same attitude was expected from him, ordering him to go to Yanbolu and to reside on his farm.10
It can be understood from the archival records that §ahin Giray Sultan disobeyed the orders of the Porte, and fled to Poland in the earliest days of November 1747. Thereupon, the Ottoman Porte ordered the state officials in Bender and Hotin, and the hospodars of Bogdan and Eflak, not to allow anyone from the Tatar
6 BOA, A.DVNS.MHM 153, p.67/205.
7 TSMA-E 408/55; 569/58 and 751/49. In the book Le Khanat de Crimée dans les Archives du Musée du Palais de Topkapi provides a summary of these documents and presents further information. However, these documents were not evaluated in the context of the Çahin Giray Sultan rebellion. [30, p. 217-220]
8 Topkapi Sarayi Muzesi Ar§ivi-Evrak henceafter TSMA-E 408-55; TSMA-E 569-58, TSMA-E 751-49.
9 BOA, A.DVNS.MHM 153, p. 67, h.205.
10 BOA, A.DVNS.MHM 153, p. 69-70/218.
communities to cross the border into Poland to communicate with or visit the §ahin Giray Sultan.11 The Porte's intentions in this regard were to isolate §ahin Giray Sultan by cutting his ties with the Tatar Hordes in Bucak and Yedisan, although it became apparent that the Porte was unable to achieve this goal, as, despite the efforts of the Ottoman administration, the rebellion broke out.
In December 1747, vizier Numan Pasha, who was serving in Bender, reported the developments surrounding the §ahin Giray Sultan situation to Istanbul. The report stated that §ahin Giray Sultan, together with his accompanying Tatars, had been able to cross the frozen Turla (Dniester) River on the border, and had arrived in Hotin. From here, he entered Bucak territory and established his headquarters in the village of §eklak, where he began gathering people around him. The Serasker of Bucak Haci Giray Sultan and vizier Numan Pasha in Bender sent messengers to §ahin Giray Sultan to admonish him and suggest he give up the rebellion. After seeing §ahin Giray Sultan continue with the rebellion unabated, Haci Giray Sultan took action with his forces and defeated the rebels. However, §ahin Giray Sultan together with his retinue, was able to escape to a heavily forested area in Moldavia. Dealing with the captured supporters of §ahin Giray Sultan, The Porte ordered to the local officials to hand the Ottoman-oriented supporters over to Ottoman officials, while the Tatar supporters handed over to the Serasker of Bucak Haci Giray Sultan [23, p.527].12
§ahin Giray Sultan managed to escape the pursuing Ottoman-Tatar forces and once again took up refuge in Poland. Thereupon, the governor of Ozi, Numan Pasha, wrote a letter to the Polish Hetman, demanding that §ahin Giray Sultan and his retinue be resettled in a region far from the Ottoman border. [23, p. 528]. After fleeing the Ottoman lands, §ahin Giray Sultan took up residence in Gorodets in the Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania. According to the information given by the Ottoman authorities to the Crimean Khan, §ahin Giray Sultan, who was not wanted in the country by the Polish rulers, was seeking to continue the rebellion and planned to go to the Caucasus with his 18 men, and amass an army of Noghays and Circassians. Selim Giray Khan II, in his letter to the Zaporog Hetman, stated that, in line with the signed treaties, §ahin Giray Sultan and his companions were to be prevented from crossing the Bug River and should be stopped, dead or alive [24, p. 413-414]. The harsh measures taken by Selim Giray Khan II and the Ottoman Porte against the rebellion forced §ahin Giray Sultan to come to terms with the Crimean Khan. §ahin Giray Sultan whose negotiations with Selim Giray Khan II seem to have begun before March 1748, was permitted at the request of the Crimean Khan to return from Poland on the condition that he would be exiled as "kalebend' on the island of Rhodes13. Soon after, however, upon the intervention of Crimean Khan Selim Giray Khan II, the exile location was moved from Rhodes to Chios. §ahin Giray Sultan's brother, Mahmud Giray Sultan, who had been by his side throughout the rebellion, was permitted to reside in their manor in Yanbolu.14 Upon the death of Selim Giray Khan II on April 17, 1748 [15, p. 92], Arslan Giray Khan was appointed Khan in Crimea. As a result of the endeavors of Arslan Giray
11 BOA, A.DVNS.MHM 153, p. 154/588.
12 BOA, A.DVNS.MHM 153, p. 176/670.
13 BOA, Divan (Beylikfi) Kalemi Kalebend Defterleri henceafter A.DVNS.KLBd.10, p.23.
14 A.DVNS.KLBd.10, p. 20.
Khan at the Porte, §ahin Giray Sultan was pardoned in August 1749 and was allowed to return to his manor, named ^apak^in, in the town of Zagra-i Atik.15
Was §ahin Giray Sultan's rebellion merely a response to his dismissal from the post of kalgay, or was there a more widespread social base? According to Izzi Suleyman Efendi, aside from his retinue, the gypsy population of Rumelia, and low-class people, nobody acted in support of §ahin Giray Sultan. Information given by Izzi Suleyman Efendi reflected the point of view of the Ottoman administration aimed to play down the importance of the rebellion. Said Giray Sultan, another witness of the period, provided a different perspective of the rebellion. Having assumed the post of Seraskerlik of Bucak 10 years after the rebellion of §ahin Giray Sultan, Said Giray Sultan had a good knowledge of the region's recent history, and wrote that while the Bucak Tatars supported §ahin Giray Sultan, the Yedisan Noghays did not. [20, f. 117a]. In addition to this information, the fact that §ahin Giray Sultan wanted to leave for the Kuban steppes suggests that the rebel sultan also had support from the tribes living in the Kuban region, aside from Bucak Tatars, and §ahin Giray Sultan may have established close relations with the local powers during his Caucasus campaign in his kalgay period. It can thus be understood that §ahin Giray Sultan had support from both the Tatars in the Bucak region and the Noghay communities in the Caucasus, revealing a serious social base to §ahin Giray Sultan's rebellion.
To understand the root causes of §ahin Giray Sultan's rebellion, it is necessary to look at developments in the Crimean Khanate at that time. First, the Porte constantly made use of, or sought the participation of the Crimean forces on the Iranian front in the ongoing war with Nadir Shah, who ruled in Iran between 1730 and 1745 [25, p. 87-88, 91-92, 97-100]. The main reasons for the 1583-84 rebellion of Mehmed Giray Khan II and that of Inayet Giray Khan in 1637 were the consistent Ottoman demands for the Crimean forces on the Iranian front and their use in this protracted war. In the Ottoman chronicles, the reason given for the enthronement of Mehmed Giray II was his unwillingness to go to the Iranian front16. After his accession to the throne, strict orders were sent to Inayet Giray Khan regarding his participation in the Iran Campaign, and especially after 1636, these orders became more definite. Although Inayet Giray Khan was keen to join the Iran campaign, he was dissuaded by the Crimean aristocracy, who along with people from different classes, spoke with a unified voice about the difficulties on the Iranian front. The consensus was that the involvement would place Crimea in danger and leave it defenseless, and so they opposed the demands of the Ottoman administration for the participation of Tatar forces in the campaign. It was this attitude of the Crimean aristocracy that led Inayet Giray Khan to rebel [26, p.264-265]. As can be seen, the root cause of these rebellions was the Ottoman Porte's desire to use the Crimean
15 A.DVNS.KLBd.10, p. 253.
16 Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali narrated this event as this, "... Amma han-i mezbur gah Cengiz'e muntehi olan nesebine magrur olub eda-i hizmetde cust u galak deprenmemigdi. Gah ben Osmanli 'nun umerasinda miyim ki bana boyle teklifat iderler diyu §irvan'a gitmeyub ta 'allul tar'ikina gitmigdi.Pes ugcunci senede ki tekrar §irvan'a teveccuhi emr olunmugdi. Bu kerre inad u muhalefet dayiresinde sabit-kadem bulundi. Hatta eda-i hizmetteki kusurundan maada bais-i gayret ve futur bazi sozler soyledigi nakl olundi..." [34, p. 1037-38].
Tatars on the Iranian front, and the Ottoman Porte's demands in the reign of Selim Giray Khan II, to use the Tatar forces in the war against Nadir Shah led to great unrest in the Crimean Tatar society. It was from this unrest that the social base of the §ahin Giray Sultan Rebellion emerged.
In the 18th century rebellions that occurred in the Crimean Khanate, the ending of the raids intensified during the times of war, the efforts of the Ottoman Empire to increase its control over its borders and over the nomadic Tatars, and its demands for the return of the captives after the war were other factors leading to the rebellions, including those of Gazi Giray Sultan in 1699 and the Devlet Giray Khan in 1702 following the signing of the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699) and the Istanbul Treaty (1700). The strict control of the borders and the return of the captives were addressed in the Treaty of Karlowitz in the following way:
"The fourth article: None of the troops dependent on the high state, and especially the Tatars, should attack Polish subjects and transgress the Polish borders under any kind of excuse, pretext, or title, nor should they drive any captives or animals nor should they cause any other damage. And it will be clearly commanded and confirmed by noble orders. To the viziers and beylerbeyis, to the felicitous Crimean khan, kalga, nureddin, and the other princes and to the hospodar of Moldovia that they should respect and preserve with the utmost care the order on the frontiers and the provisions of this peace...The ninth article: The prisoners taken during the war from among the Poles will be set free after the price of their purchase, confirmed legally or revealed by their owners with an oath, is repaid in the manner described in the ahdnames given in the past." [27, p. 587-593; 595, 597] and brought about events that led to the rebellions of both Gazi Giray Sultan and Devlet Giray Khan.
After the end of the Ottoman-Russian War of 1736-39, the Crimean Khan, and the Porte sought to increase their control over the border regions with the Russian Tsardom (such as the Caucasus-Kuban Line and the Ozi/Dnieper area) [25, p.79-80] and to bring about the return of the captives of war by putting pressure on the Tatar society.17 These developments led to a severe loss of income and gradual centralization, especially along the Russian border, and could have been a secondary motivation for the §ahin Giray Sultan Rebellion. The Tatar communities suffered significant losses, both human and economic, at the hands of the Russian forces on the Crimean Peninsula, the Kuban region, and even around Ozi [28, p. 90-92], and this was another cause of unrest that led to the rebellion of Tatar society.
A final reason for the rebellions in the Crimean Khanate in the last days of the 17th century is related to the Noghays. Since the second half of the 17th century, the Noghay population within the Crimean Khanate had gradually been increasing, and in parallel to this population increase, the importance of the Noghays [politically and militarily] gained ground within the Crimean Khanate [29, p. 115-131]. The Crimean Khans developed a system named "seraskerlik' to keep the Noghay
17 II. Selim Giray Han II's predecessor, II. Selamet Giray Khan II was dethroned due to his failure to return the captives of war taken in the 1736-1739 Ottoman-Russian War. In contrast, Selim Giray Khan II was rewarded for his success in this matter. [15, p. 91-92].
groups under control, and the Seraskerliks of Yedisan, Bucak and Kuban subsequently emerged. In this system, a male member of the Giray family was appointed serasker, that is, governor, of the Noghay Hordes [8, p.198-200; 31, p.18; 33, p. 114; 32, p.14].18 Despite the establishment of the Seraskerlik system, the Noghays could not be fully controlled, and rebelled under the leadership of the Giray Sultans, whom they considered close to them, and reacted strongly against the Crimean Khans and to the Porte. The rebellions in the Crimean Khanate, from the rebellion of Gazi Giray Sultan in 1699 to the 1756-1758 Yedisan Noghay Rebellion, all emerged as a result of the Noghays' search for political influence within the khanate, or in their reaction to the khanate or the Ottoman Porte [33, 114-115]. In a way, the Rebellion of §ahin Giray Sultan can be considered a reaction of the Bucak Noghays to the khanate's administration. Consequently, all these combined reasons contributed to the social basis of the rebellion.
One last question remains about the rebellion of §ahin Giray Sultan, and that is "Why did the rebellion fail?". Taking a general overview, the main reason was §ahin Giray Sultan's inability to gain the support of the Yedisan Noghays, which limited the military strength of the rebels considerably, as well as their geographical depth. In addition, the Zaporog Cossacks, acting in accordance with the wishes of the Crimean Khan, prevented §ahin Giray Sultan from uniting with the Tatar communities in the Kuban and the Caucasus, thus preventing the continuation and spread of the rebellion. Upon this, because of the conspiracy of the Porte and Crimean Khan toward the §ahin Giray Sultan, the rebellion occurred prematurely. §ahin Giray Sultan could not focus the support of all the dissidents in the organization of a rebellion. The strict attitude and uncompromising acts of the Porte can be given as the final reason for the failure of the rebellion. While this rebellion, limited to the Bucak area, was quelled, the tensions in the socio-economic structure of the khanate continued, culminating in Yedisan Nogay Rebellion in 1756-1758, on a much larger scale.
18 BOA, All Emm, (Sultan Mustafa III) SMST III 29050, a sample document adressed to the serasker of Yedisan; BOA, Ali Emiri, (Sultan Mahmud I) SMHD I 6461, a sample document adressed to the serasker of Kuban].
Facsimile and Transliteration of Selected Documents on the Life and Rebellion of §ahin Giray Sultan
Document I: C.MTZ. 4/198: 13 Zilhicce 1156/28 Ocak 1744.
Sahh
Buyruldu
Niçân-i hûmâyûn oldur ki
Çûn mâlik-i memâlik-i kudret ve hûdâvend-i ekâlîm-fitrat celle çânûhû'l alâ ve âmme nevâlûhû ve tevâlî kemâl-i inâyet-ulyâ ve nihâyet-i mevhibet-uzmâsiyla selâtin-i nasafet-medâri teçrif ve ce'alnâkûm halâife fi'l-arz ile ser-firâz ve havâkîn-i zevi'l-iktidâr vallâhu yûti mûlkûhû men yeçâ' efser-i übbühet-eseri ile mu'azzez ve mûmtâz eyleyüb lâ-siyyemâ benim çân-i vâlâ-niçân-i saltanat-i aliyyemi ber-muktezâ-yi fehvâ-yi ve in-te'adde ve nimetu'llâhi lâ-tuhsuhâ tevâli-i atâyâ-yi bî-intihâ ve tetâbi'-i avâtif-i adîmû'l-ihsâ ile mu'allâ ve refi'u'l mûrtefâ eyledi. Felâ-cerem çûkrân alâ-zâlike'n-ni'am zimmet-i ulyâyi çâhânem ve himmet-i simyâ-yi padiçâhâneme lâzim ve lâbûd oldi ki esnâf-i eltâf-i mûlûkâne ve envâ'i e'tâf-i padiçâhânem âmme-i enâma çâmil husûs-i hulûs-i taviyyet ve sidk-i niyyet ile dergâh-i felek-rütbetime izhâr-i ubûdiyyet eden selâtin-i sadâkat-âyîne mütevarid ve mMevâsil ola binâen-alâ-zâlik içbu râfi'-i tevkî'-i refî'-i ferhunde-fâl-i hakanî ve nâkil-i yarlig-i belîg-i meserret-me'al-i cihân-bânî helefu's-selâtini'l-izâm çerefu'l-havâkîni'l-kirâm el-muhtâs bî-mezîd-i inâyeti'l-meliki'l müsteân bundan akdem Nureddin olan §ahin Giray Sultân dâme ulüvvühu akrân ve emsâli meyâninda rûçd ü sedâd ile ma'rûf ve celâdet ve kiyâset ile mevsûf ve sinnen dahi istihkâki olub çecâat-çiâr ve inâyet-i aliyyeme sezâvâr olmagla vilâyet-i Kirim Kalgayligi mûmâileyhe tevcîh ve taklîd olunmak bâbinda cenâb-i emâret-meâb eyâlet-nisâb saâdet-iktisâb bi'l-fi'il Kirim Hani olan Selim Giray Han dâmet me'âliyehûnun taraf-i ilhânilerinden kâimeleriyle iltimâs olunmagin hâliyâ hakkinda bihâr-i zahhâr-i âtifet-i çâhânem mevc-zen ve âfitâb-i re'fet-i pâdiçâhânem pertev-efken olub Han-i mü^rünileyhin iltimâslari mucebince Kefe ískelesi mahsûlâtindan beç yüz kirk bir bin akçe salyâne ile vilâyet-i Kirim Kalgayligi sene sitte ve hamsin ve mi'ete ve elf zilhiccesinin on ^üncü (13 Z. 1156 / 28 Ocak 1744) gününden mûmâileyhe tevcîh ve inâyet idüb içbu berât-i saâdet-âyât-i inâyet-makrûn ve bu misâl-i bî misâl-i mekremet-meçhûni virdüm ve buyurdum ki; ba'de'l-yevm mûmâileyh vilâyet-i mezbûrede Kalgay olub tevâif-i Tatar beyninde kadîmden cârî olan âdet ve kanûn-i eslâflarin icrâ ve kalgayliga müte'allik ve müterettib olan umûr ve hususlarin küllisinde cidd-i belig ve sa'y-i evfâ eyleye ve tâife-i Tatarin mirzâlari ve beyleri ve askerîsi ve erkân ve ahâlisinden sagîr ve kebîri mûmâileyhi kalgay bilüb hizmet-i mezbûrede mûmâileyhe mürâcaat ideler ve mûmâileyh dahi hâlâ Kirim Hani olan mü^árünileyhin vech-i mürósib gördügü üzere hareket ve emrine mMâbaât idüb sözüne muhâlif ve emrine muânedetden hazer eyleye ve ta'yîn olunan beç yüz kirk bir bin akçe salyâneye bundan akdem kalgay olanlar ne vechile mutasarrif ola gelmiçler ise mûmâileyh dahi Kefe ískelesinden alub o vechile mutasarrif ola.
Ol bâbda ferd mâni' ve müzâhim olmaya, çôyle bileler alâmet-i çerîfe i'timâd kilalar.
Tahrîren fî evâsit-i Z. 1156 / 26 January-3 February 1744
682
ЗОЛОТООРДЫНСКОЕ ОБОЗРЕНИЕ I GOLDEN HORDE REVIEW. 2022, 10 (З)
«
•taidír i -----o—
TíMwW
A M! » ^/«WMiyJy
S
Document I: C.MTZ. 4/198: 13 Zilhicce 1156/28 Ocak 1744.
Document 2: A.DVNS.MHM. d.153, Page: 177, Edict: 673.
Buyruldu sûreti Han-i âli§ân tarafina tesyîr kilmmi§dir.
5 M. [1]161
Bender Muhâfizi Vezir Numan Paça'ya hüküm ki,
Kalgay-i sâbik §ahin Giray Sultân bundan akdem ba'zi efkâr-i fâsideye teba'iyyet ile Leh cânibine firâr eyledikden sonra Hotin cânibinden memâlik-i mahrûsem topragina duhûl idüb rizâ-yi hümâyûnuma mugâyir tavr u harekete ictisâr ve Bucak Seraskeri Haci Giray Sultân ile muhârebe ve cidâle ibtidar ve esnâ-yi bî-kârda birkaç nefer adem ile münhezimen Bogdan topraginda vâki' Miçe-zâr tarafina firâr eyledigi sen ki vezîr-i mü^árünileyhsin tarafindan ve Kirim Hani cenâb-i emâret-me'âb eyâlet-nisâb saâdet-iktisâb Selim Giray Han dâmet me'âliyehu cânibinden Dersaâdetime i'lâm ve iç'âr olunmuç öteden beru rizâ-yi tomâyûnuma muhâlif vaz' u harekete cesâret idenlerin keder ve vehâmeti yine kendülere âid ve râci' olageldigi ma'lûm ve bâ-husûs Sultân-i mûmâileyh çâh-i dûdmân-i Cengizîye'ye irâs-i kesr u ta'yis edecek böyle bir emr-i nâ-mülâhiye mukadder olmak hasebiyle cümle beyninde ma'lûm ve mezmûm olmagla bundan sonra bir ferd kendüye sâhip çikmayacagi bir dürlü yardim ve i'ânet itmeyecegi zâhir ve husûsan bundan mukaddemce sâdir olan evâmir-i âliyyem muceblerince tarafina bir kimse varmak ve anin etbâ'indan berü cânibe ferd-i vâhid gelmemek üzere sedd-i bendi iktizâ iden mahaller tahassun ve teçdîd olundugu egerçi meczûm ve bâhirdir lakin sultân-i mezbûr ber-minvâl-i mestûr hem Devlet-i Aliyyeme ve hem Kirim Hanina ve hanedân-i Cengizîye'ye bir gûne habâset ve adem-i itâat itdikleri ^ün tecessüs ve tefahhus olunarak Memâlik-i Mahrûsem hudûdu dahilinde bir yerde oldugu haber alunur ise derhâl bulundugu mahalde kendüsü ve yaninda ma'iyyeti olan hâinler yakalatdurulub alâ eyyi hâl ahz ve ele getürülmek ve sultân-i merkûm ve yaninda bulunan Tatar taifesi ahz olunduklarinda Bucak Seraskerine teslîm ve Osmanludan olan ma'iyyetleri ma'rifetiniz ile muhkem habs ve tazyîk ve keyfiyetleri i'lâm ve tefhîm olunmak fermânim olub ve husûs-i mezbûr Hotin ve Özi muhâfizlarina ve Bogdan Voyvodasina baçka baçka evâmir-i alîçânimla tenbîh olunmagla sana dahi içbu emr-i çerifim isdâr ve ( ) ile irsâl olunmuçdur. imdi vusûlünde sultân-i
mezbûra dâhil-i hudûd-i Memâlik-i hüsrevânemde olanlardan bundan böyle herkim i'ânet ider ise ol dahi âsî ve bâgî olacagini ifhâmi iktizâ idenlere izhâr ve ve içâat ve ele girdiklerinde bilâ-eman haklarindan gelinecegini derhâl i'lâm ve içâret iderek Bender hudûdi dâhilinde olan memer ve mu'berleri mukâddema sâdir olan emr-i çerîfim mantûki üzere muhkem sed u bend ve Memâlik-i Mahrûsem hudûdi dâhillerinde kendüsüni ve mai'yetlerini dâima tecessüs ve tefahhusdan bir an halî olmayarak ve memûr olan mumâileyhüm ile haberleçerek ve Han-i müçârünileyh tarafindan dahi eger bir haber vârid olur ise muktezâsiyla hareket eyleyerek dâhil-i hudûd-i Memâlik-i Mahrûsemde bir yerde oldugi haber alunur ise bagteten cümlesini ahz ve sultân-i mûmâileyhi ve ele giren Tatar tâ'ifesini serasker sultâna teslîm olundukdan sonra Osmanlu makûlesini tarafindan muhkem habs ve keyfiyeti arz idüb lakin bu bâbda ziyade taharrî ve basîret ve kemâl-i ihtiyât ve dikkat üzere hareket ve M-mü^im bir nesne hudûsundan be-gayet tehâçî m^âadet eylemen bâbinda fermân-i alîçânim sâdir olmuçdur.
Fî Evahir-i Z 11б0/24 December 1747-1 January 1748
Bir sûreti Özi kalesi Muhâfizina ve Yeniçeri Zâbitine
Bir sureti Hotin Muhâfizina ve Alaybegisine ve Yeniçeri zabitine
Bir sûreti Bogdan Voyvodasina,
Bir sûreti Bender Muhâfizi Beyi Yunus Beye ve Yeniçeri Zâbitine
Document 2: A.DVNS.MHM. d.153, Page: 177, Edict: б73.
Document 3: TSMA. E. 569/58.
Benim saädetlü mekremetlü semähatlü birâder-i celîlû'ç-çânim düstür-i âli-unvân hazretleri
Hemvâre masün vikâyetü'l-avn-i samedâni olmakda deymümiyetleri duâsindan sonra çahs-i ma'hüda tarafimizdan re'y verilmek musammem idügü bundan mukaddemce Divân efendileri bendeleri vürudunda kendüye tefhîmen cânib-i çeref-i câlib-i vezîrânelerine ifâde olunmuçdu.
Hâlâ merküm-i ma'hüda tasmîm olundugu üzere re'y virilüb tarafimiza vürüd eylediginden fîmâba'd Bender'e duhülden teneffür ve tevahhuç eylememesi zâhir ve bedîhi olmagla ba'd-ezin muhlis-i bi-m^errâlari Devlet-i Aliyye'ye varub avdet idince merkümin hakkinda menvî ve derkâr olan emrin infâz ve icrâsi ta'vîk ve fîmaba'd muhlisiniz ile meyânede tekrâr muhâbere oluncaya dek teennî ve tehîr buyurub ol taraflara vardikça kendüden def'i-vahçete bâdî ve min külli'l vücüh selâmet ve emniyyeti mü'eddî muâmeleleri müi^hedesine ve bu misüllü istimâlet haline himmet-i aliyyeleri derkâr buyurulmak muktezâ-yi halden olmagla bu husüs ma'lüm-i saâdetleri buyurulub ve keyfiyet çimdilik iktizâ-yi hale göre cenâb-i saâdete bu siyâkda tavsiye olundugi inçâllahu teâlâ Devlet-i Aliyyeye vusülümüzde irâd ve ifâde olunacagi dahi karîn-i ilm-i çerif buyurulmak içün kâime-i muhabbet-hitâm tahrîrine ibtidâr olundi. Bi avnillahi teâlâ ahvâl muhât-i ilm-i saâdetleri oldukda merküm ol caniblere vardikca kendüye tahsil-i emniyeti m^eddî muâmele olunarak hakkinda bundan evvel derkâr olan husüs icrâsi muhlisiniz Devlet-i Aliyyeye varup avdet idinceye dek te'hîr ve tekrâr cenâb-i saâdetleriyle meyânede muhâbere olunmasina ta'lik buyurulmasi me'müldür. Simdilik iktizâ-yi hal bu vech üzere olmagla Înçallah bundan sonra lâzime-i ahvâl yine savb-i pür-§erefe ifâde olunur
Selim Giray Han
686
ЗОЛОТООРДЫНСКОЕ ОБОЗРЕНИЕ I GOLDEN HORDE REVIEW. 2022, 10 (3)
F Я о г
bût'
w
ф.
tfÚWfrcwJb
Document 3: TSMA. E. 569/58.
Document 4. A.DVNS.KLB. d.10, Page: 20.
Kalgay-i sâbik §ahin Giray Sultâna ve dergâh-i mu'allâm gedüklülerinden olub mukaddemâ mûmâileyhi Rodos'a isâle mûbâçir ta'yîn olunan Abdurrahman zide mecduhûya hüküm ki;
Sen ki sultân-i mûmâileyhsin dûdmân-i Cengizye'nin ulüvvü kadr u çân semmû-rif'at ünvâш ne derecede idigi ma'lûm ve hanedân-i merkûmeye müntesib olanlar dahi Devlet-i Aliyyemin kullugunda ve Kirim Hanlarinin itâ'etlerinde ne rütbede sebât-kadem üzere olduklari meczûm olmakdan naçi sen dahi ol hanedân-i alîçân ve ol dûdmân-i meâli-unvânin keçîde riçte-i silsilelerinden olman hasebiyle tabi'iyet-i asliyenin pâk ve mücellâ ve çîme-i himmetin nâ-hemvâr vaz' u hareket irtikâbindan beri ve mukarrer hod be hod senden na-marzî hâlet zuhûr degil belki zelle sudûru bile vukû' bulmak emr-i muhâl ad olunub ve hatta mukaddemâ tarafindan hudûs iden ba'zi gûne nâ-mûnâsib vaz'-i mücerred sû-i karîn beliyyesi idügi vâzih ve açikâr olduguni ve sen zâtinda asil ve nesîb olmagla her halde ribka-i itâati zîver-kerden rizâ ve ubûdiyet idecegini bi'l-fiil Kirim Hani cenâb-i emâret-meâb eyâlet-nisâb saâdet-iktisâb Selim Giray Han dâmet me'âliyehû cenâblari mukaddemâ tahrîr ve inhâ ve afvin husûsu iltimâs ve ricâ eylediklerine binâen ta'yîn olunan salyânen ile gelüb Rodos Cezîresinde ikâmet eylemen bâbinda Han-i alîçân -i mü^arünileyhin iltimâslari karîn-i kabûl ve bu vechile emr-i çerîfim isdâriyla m^â^ir-i mûmâileyh me'mûr olmuç idi. El hâlefâ hâzihi vârid olan tahrîrât muktezâsinca zâtinda olan rü§d ü kiyâset ve asâlet ve necâbeti icrâ ve dûdmâninizin revnak ve izzeti olan madde-i itâat ve inkiyâdi ibkâ ve ni'am-i afv ü inâyet-i hüsrev£nem te^ekkürüni icrâ zimninda bilâ-tehîr emr-i çerîfime itâat ve m^â^ir-i mûmâileyh maiyyeti ile savb-i memûre azîmet eyledigin sem'-i hümâyûnuma vâsil olmak hasebiyle bu gûne vaki olan hüsn-i hareket ve emr-i çerîfime sür'at-i imtisâl ve mutâvaatin hakkinda olan gerdûn-i dûn ve igbibâri bi'l-külliye izâle idüb karîben müsâade-i hümâyûnum zuhûru ile yine çiftliginde gelüb ikâmete sühnet ve medâr olmak için Rodos'a olan memûriyetin Sakiz Cezîresine sarf ve tahvîl ve sebkat iden afv ve inâyet-i m^ûkânem çimdilik bu vechile tezyîl olundugundan mâadâ sana vesîle-i mahzûziyet ve bâis-i teselliyet olmak için yaninda olan karindaçin Mahmud Giray zîde mecdühû gelüb Yanbolu'da senin çiftliginde ikâmet eylemek üzere izn-i hümâyûnum erzânî kilinmagla içbu emr-i çerifim isdâr ve ( ) ile
irsâl olunmuçdur. Îmdi taraf-i hümâyûnuma olan mutâvaat ve inkiyâdin lcâletü'l-vakt bu vechile semere ve fâidesi zuhûr eyledigi ma'lûmin oldukda bundan böyle dahi hüsn-ü hareket ve etvârin mesmû' oldukça hakkinda olan mekârim-i mülûkânem müterakki ve müzdâd ve müddet-i kalîle zarfinda çiftliginde gelüb ikâmete müsâade-i hümâyûnum sudûruyla mesrûru'l-fuad olacagini fikr ve m^âhaza iderek çimdilik dogri Sakiz'a gelüb anda ikâmet ve ta'yîn olunan salyâneyi ahz birle devâm-i ömr-i devlet-i çâhânem de'avâtina muvâzabet eyleyüb ve karindaçin Mahmud Giray'i Yanbolu'da olan çiftligine gönderüb ol dahi anda meks itmesi tavsîye ve tenbîh eyleyesin ve sen ki m^â^ir-i mûmâileyhsin bervech-i muharrer sultân-i mûmâileyhi dogru Sakiz'a isâl ve vus^ünü mü§'ir senedât ile Dersaâdetime avdet eylemen bâbinda fermân-i alîçân sâdir olmuçdir.
Fî Evâhir Rebiülahir sene [1]161/20-28 April 1748
Document 4. A.DVNS.KLB. d.10, Page: 20.
REFERENCES
1. Gurr, Ted Robert. "A Causal Model of Civil Strife: A Comparative Analysis Using New Indices", The American Political Science Review, December 1968, Vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1104-1124.
2. Gurr, Ted Robert. Why Men Rebel, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, 2016. 423 p.
3. Eckstien, Harry. "On the Etiology of Internal Wars", History and Theory, 1965, Vol. 4, no. 2, 1965, pp. 133-163.
4. Klein, Denise. "Tatar and Ottoman History Writing The Case of Nogay Rebellion 1699-1701", The Crimean Khanate Between East and West, edited by Denise Klein, 2012 Wiesbaden, pp. 125-146.
5. Bülbül, ismail. "Yedisan-Bucak Nogaylarinin 1756 ve 1758 isyanlari", Türk Tarihi Ara§tirmalari Dergisi, Vol.1, Sayi 1, 2016, s. 74-113. (In Turkish)
6. Peguylu ibrahim Efendi, Tarih-i Peguylu, Vol. 2, Matbaa-i Amire, istanbul, H. 15 Safer 1283/29 Haziran 1866. 487 p. (In Ottoman Turkish)
7. Ostapchuk, Victor. The Ottoman Black Sea Frontier and the Relations of Porte With the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Muscowy 1622-1628, unpublished PHD, University of Harvard, 1989. 322 p.
8. Ba§er, Alper. Bucak Tatarlari, unpublished PHD, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Afyon 2010. 242 p. (In Turkish)
9. Söylemez, Yavuz. "Osmanli Sarayinda Katledilen Bir Kirim Hani: inayet Giray Han", Karadeniz Ara§tirmalari XIV/55 Güz, pp. 209-224. (In Turkish)
10. Fisher, Alan. "Crimean Separatism in The Ottoman Empire", Between Russians, Ottomans and Turks: Crimea and Crimean Tatars, Isis Press, Istanbul 1998, pp. 79-92.
11. Oleksa Gaivoronski. Poveliteli dvukh materikov. Tom. 1: Krymskie Khany XV-XVI Stoleti i Bor'ba za Nasledstvo Velikoi Ordy, Kiev; Oranta, Maisteria Knigi, Bakhchisarai 2010. [Олекса Гайворонский. Повелители двух материков. Том. 1: Крымские ханы XV-XVI столетий и борьба за наследство Великой Орды, Киев; Бахчисарай, 2010], 396 p. (In Russian)
12. Gökbilgin, Özalp. 1532-1577 Yillan Arasinda Kirim Hanligi'nin Siyasi Durumu, Seving Matbaasi, Ankara 1973, 101 p. (In Turkish)
13. Kaysunizade Remmal Hoca, Tarih-i Sahib Giray Han, edited by. Özalp Gökbilgin, Baylan Matbaasi. Ankara, 1973. 313 p. (In Turkish)
14. Celebizade ismail Asim Efendi, Tärih-i Celebizäde, (1134-1141/1722-1729), edited by. Abdülkadir Özcan, Ahmet Zeki izgöer, Yunus Ugur, Baki Cakir, Klasik Yayinlari, istanbul 2013. 1952 p. (In Turkish)
15. Halim Giray, Gülbün-ü Hanan [Kirim Hanlari Tarihi), edited by Alper Ba§er-Alper Günaydin, istanbul Üniversitesi Avrasya Enstitüsü Yayinlari, istanbul, 2013. 121 p. (In Turkish)
16. Abdulgaffar-i Kirimi, Umdetu'l Ahbar, Volume I, Seriya «Yazma Miras. Pis'mennoe Nasledie. Textual Heritage». edited by Derya Derin Pa§alioglu, Kazan: Marjani Institute of History of the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences Publ. Kazan 2014, 419 p. (In Turkish)
17. Seyyid Mehmed Rizä, Es-Seb'üs-Seyyär Fi Ahbar-i Müluki't-Tatar (Inceleme-Tenkitli Metin) edited by Yavuz Söylemez, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlari, Ankara, 2020, 470 p. (In Turkish)
18. Avakov P.A., Bespyatykh Yu.N. The Crimean Khanate in 1736 according to the Account of the French Consul, Adam Yavorka. Zolotoordynskoe obozrenie=Golden Horde Review. 2020, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 127-146. DOI: 10.22378/2313-6197.2020-8-1.127-146 (In Russian)
19. Hurremi Abdurrahman Efendi, Qelebi Akay Tarihi, istanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler Kütüphanesi, nr. T 399. (Manuscript in Ottoman Turkish)
20. Said Giray Sultan, Tarih-i Said Giray Han, Berlin, Staasbibliothek. (Manuscript in Ottoman Turkish)
21. Smirnov, V.D. Osmanli Dönemi Kirim Hanligi Tarihi, Translator: Ahsen Batur, Selenge Yayinlari, istanbul 2016. [В.Д. Смирнов, Крымское ханство под верховенством Отоманской Порты до начала XVIII века. СПб., 1887], 681 p. (In Turkish)
22. Uzunçarçili, ismail Hakki. Osmanli Tarihi, IV. Vol. 2. Kisim, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlari, Ankara, 2011, 681 p. (In Turkish)
23. izzî Shleymân Efendi, izzî Tarihi (Osmanli Tarihi 1157-1165/1744-1752), (inceleme-Metin), edited by Ziya Yilmazer, Türkiye Yazma eserler Kurumu Baçkanligi Yayinlari: 119, istanbul, 2019. 1282 p. (In Turkish)
24. Arkhiv Kosha Novoi Zaporoz'koi Sichi. 1734-1775. Korpus dokumentiv. Tom 1. Kiiv, 1998; Document : 329. Holovne arkhivne upravlinna pry Kabineti ministriv Ukraïny; tsentral'nyi derhavnyi istorychnyi arkhiv Ukraïny [Apxie Коша Hoeoï Запорозько1 Gui. 1734-1775. Корпус doKyMenmie. Т. 1. Кив, 1998], 692 p. (In Ukrainian)
25. Kirim Hanlarina Name-i Hümayun (2 Numarali Name Defteri), edited by Murat Cebecioglu, etc. T. C. Baçbakanlik Devlet Arçivleri Genel Müdrülügü, Osmanli Arçivi Daire Baçkanligi Yayinlari, Yayin nu: 123, istanbul, 2013, 288 p. (In Turkish)
26. Novoselskiy A.A. XVII. Yüzyilin Birinci Yarisinda Moskova Devleti'nin Tatarlarla Mücadelesi, Translator: Kemal Ortayli, edited by. ilyas Kemaloglu-Erhan Afyoncu, Türk tarih Kurumu Yayinlari, Ankara 2011. [Новосельский А. А. Борьба Московского государства с татарами в первой половине XVII века. М.: Издательство Академии Наук СССР (1948)], 484 p. (In Turkish)
27. Kolodzejczyk, Darisuz. Ottoman-Polish Diplomatic Relations (15th-18th Century) An Annotated Edition of Ahdnames and Other Documents, Brill: Leiden-Boston, 2000. 721 p. (In Turkish-English)
28. Sbornik Russkogo Istoricheskogo Obshchestva. Tom 80, Tipografia Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, Saint Petersburg 1892. [Сборник Русского исторического общества. Т. 80, Типографиа Императорской Академии Наук , СПб., 1892], 932 p. (In Russian)
29. Kochekaev, Bi-Arslan Ba№ekovich. Nogaysko-Russkiye Otnosheniya v XV-XVIII, Alma-Ata, Izd-vo «Nauka» Kazakhskoï SSR, 1988. [Кочекаев Б.-А.Б. Ногайско-Русские отношения в XV-XVIII вв, Алма-Ата: Наука КазССР], 267 p. (In Russian)
30. Le Khanat de Crimée dans les Archives du Musée du Palais de Topkapi, présenté par Alexandre Benningsen, Pertev Naili Boratav, Dilek Desaive, Chantal Lemercier-Quelquejay, Mouton Editeur, Ecole Des Hautes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, 1978. 458 p. (In French)
31. Mustafa Kesbî, ibretnhmâ-yi Devlet (Tahlil ve Tenkitli Metin), Haz. Ahmet Ögreten, Türk tarih Kurumu Yayinlari, Ankara 2002. [According to Feridun M. Emecen, ibretnüm§-yi Devlet is written by Mehmed Haçim Efendi not Mustafa Kesbi], 654 p. (In Turkish)
32. Peisonel' M. Issledovanie Torgovli Na Cherkessko-Abkhazskom Beregu Chërnogo Moria v 1750-1762 Godakh, v Izlozhenii E.D. Felitsina, Izdanie Obshchestva izuchenia Adygeïskoï avtonomnoï oblasti. Krasnodar, 1927. [Пейсонель М. Исследование торговли на Черкесско-Абхазском берегу Чёрного моря в 1750-1762 годах, в изложении Е.Д. Фелицина, Издание Общества изучения Адыгейской автономной области. Краснодар, 1927] 35 p. (In Russian)
33. Baçer, Alper. "Conflicting Legitimacies in the Triangle of the Noghay Hordes, Crimean Khanate, and Ottoman Empire", Harvard Ukrainian Studies 36, no. 1-2, 2019, pp. 105-122. (In English)
34. Gelibolulu Mustafa Âli, Künhü'l-Ahbär, edited by Ali Çavuçoglu, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlari. Ankara, 2020. 1169 p. (In Turkish)
About the author: Alper Ba§er - Associate Professor of the Department of History, Afyon Kocatepe University (Ahmet Necdet Sezer Kampusu Merkez, Gazligol Yolu, 03200, Afyonkarahisar Merkez/Afyonkarahisar, Turkey). E-mail: baseralperhidayet@gmail.com
Received April 28, 2022 Accepted for publication August 24, 2022
Published September 29, 2022
ВОССТАНИЕ СУЛТАНА ШАХИН-ГИРЕЯ (1746-1747)
Альпер Башер
Университет Афьон Кокатепе
Афьонкарахисар, Турция baseralperhidayet@gmail. com
Цель исследования: анализ причин, развития и последствий восстания султана Шахин-Гирея в истории Крымского ханства.
Материалы исследования: документы, хранящиеся в архиве дворца-музея Топ-капы и в Департаменте османских архивов Государственного управления при Президенте Турецкой Республики. Эти документы сопоставляются с османско-татарскими хрониками того периода (Иззи Тарихи, Челеби Акай Тарихи, Тарих-и Саид-Гирей Султан).
Результаты и научная новизна: наиболее подробную оценку восстания Шахин-Гирея Султана можно найти в книге В. Д. Смирнова о Крымском ханстве, которая перекликается со сведениями, приведенными в османской хронике Иззи Тарихи. В настоящем исследовании архивные документы дворца-музея Топкапы под номерами TSMA-E 408-55, TSMA-E 569-58 и TSMA-E 751-49, а также дефтеры (Mühimme и Kalebend), хранящиеся в Департаменте османских архивов Управления государственных архивов при Президенте Турецкой Республики, сравниваются с другими источниками. В свете этих документов дается новая оценка восстанию под предводительством султана Шахин-Гирея. Документы, считающиеся важными и содержащие подробности жизни Шахин-Гирея и хода восстания, были транслитерированы и представлены к публикации.
Ногайцы, проживающие в Буджакском районе, составляли социальную базу восстания Шахин-Гирея. Восстание вспыхнуло из-за желания Порты развернуть татарские силы на иранском фронте, нарастающих усилий Османской империи по централизации на русско-польской и украинской границах, а также давления на татарское общество с целью возвращения русских пленников войны 1736-1739 гг. Восстание вспыхнуло преждевременно после того, как Порта и Селим-Гирей-хан сговорились нейтрализовать Шахин-Гирея. Крайние меры, предпринятые Османской империей и Крымским ханством, предотвратили распространение восстания, и повстанцы во главе с султаном Шахин-Гиреем были легко разбиты, что привело к подавлению восстания.
Ключевые слова: султан Шахин-Гирей, восстание, Османская империя, Крымское ханство, ногайцы
Для цитирования: Ba§er A. The rebellion of §ahin Giray Sultan (1746-1747) // Зо-лотоордынское обозрение. 2022. Т. 10, № 3. С. 672-692. DOI: 10.22378/23136197.2022-10-3.672-692 EDN: EXZRWJ
Сведения об авторе: Альпер Башер - доцент кафедры истории, Университет Афьон Кокатепе (Афьонкарахисар, Турция). E-mail: baseralperhidayet@gmail.com
Поступила 28.04.2022 Принята к публикации 24.08.2022
Опубликована 29.09.2022
