Introduction
Martin van Bruinessen’s assertion in a prominent article about Alevism makes a striking statement for an introduction:
The existence of Kurdish- and Zaza-speaking Alevi tribes, who almost exclusively use Turkish as their ritual language, and many of which even have Turkish tribal names is a fact that has exercised the explanatory imagination of many authors (Bruinessen, 1997: 1).
Almost all traditional sources in Turkish historiography and its nearby companions acknowledge Alevism as a Turkish/Turkic system of belief;1 even though there are Alevi communities in Turkey that speak Kurmanji (Northern Kurdish) or Kırmanjki (Zaza) and that recognise themselves as “Kurd” or “Zaza”.2
In this context, Alevism refers to a specific faith that is different from the Shīʾa and is shared by various ethnic groups restricted to communities of Asia Minor who have a common liturgy, norms and cults. Nevertheless, despite their affinity, it is uncertain whether or not each of these various ethnic groups has its own ethno-religious identity. This uncertainty is compounded by the intertwining and assimilation of groups. This is also valid for those Alevi peoples from communities who speak Iranic languages; there are Kırmanjki speaking as well as Kurmanji speaking Alevi people. Besides, there are also Turkish speaking Alevi communities who have lost their original Kırmanjki languages but still maintain their affiliation with the Alevi community due to their former ocaks.3
Here a noteworthy question arises. How is it possible that a common religious belief with the same liturgy, dogmas and rituals, and the same oral traditions, is adhered to by three different socio-cultural and language groups, namely Kurmanji, Kırmanjki and Turkish? The most common, but one-sided, explanation is that Alevism is originally a Turkic belief, a syncretism brought to Asia Minor from central Asia and Iran by Shamanist Turks and Turkmen who converted to Islam. According to this view, the Kurmanji and Kırmanjki speaking Alevi peoples were originally Turks who became “Kurdified” in eastern Turkey through contact with native Kurds. Another equally one-sided explanation is that they were originally Kurds who became Alevi under the influence of Turkmen. According to a counter argument, Alevism is an original Middle Eastern syncretic belief which the Kurdish and Zaza communities adopted or transferred to other communities. Here, central Asian influences are trivialised and the Turkmen are said to have adopted Alevism after they migrated to the Middle East, where they were influenced by this Middle Eastern faith. Another explanation, which we may characterise as Zaza essentialism, views Alevism as an original Zaza belief (of Kırmanjki speakers) and suggests that there was a split between the Alevism of Dersim and that of the other regions to which Iranic speaking Alevi groups spread. Here Alevism is presented as a “Dersim phenomenon” which overrides the question of whether groups spoke Kurmanji or Kırmanjki, considering Alevism as the essential culture of the Dersim region which had a widespread power and influence because of the Dersim-based ocaks that spread well beyond the boundaries of that region.
Roughly speaking, the Upper Euphrates basin4 was the core region of Kurdish Alevism. At the same time, this region was the area where the Safavid- Ottoman conflict was at its most violent and the Safavids were at their strongest in Asia Minor. The presence of Kurdish and related groups in this vast area has long been a well-known fact.5 It is baseless, therefore, to claim that the Kurds and related communities appeared after the Turkic domination of the east of mountainous Asia Minor, from Erzurum to Mosul, and that the speakers of the Kurmanji and Kırmanjki languages are Kurdified or Zazafied Turks, as some Turkish nationalist historiographers do. At the same time, in Dersim, which is considered to be the core region of Kurdish Alevism, the fact that those who describe themselves as Turks or those whose mother tongue is Turkish are generally Sunni-Hanafi6 is another observation that not only weakens the hypothesis of generic Turkishness which is attributed to Alevism, but also emphasises not the generic but the contingent character of religious processes in the region. With this in mind, the thesis that it is the Turks who brought Alevism to the Upper Euphrates basin is groundless. Although it contains some belief elements particular to the Turkmen community,7 Alevism should be seen as a belief that exceeds Turkishness and is shared by a variety of groups in Asia Minor, Kurds as well as Turks.
The Development of Belief Sources and Their Geographical Distinction
Alevism relates to a belief system which is separate and dissenting from the traditions of orthodox Islam due to political and religious disputes. This syncretisation pathway for heterodox groups8 (different sects and orders) from the eighth century onwards reaches a visible and distinctive form with the combination of different zāwiyahs.9 The development of Alevism has not only been different from that of orthodox Sunni Islam but has also exhibited a unique place among the different forms of heterodoxy and the heterodox positions of some communities that coalesced after they became enemies of the Ottomans.10
From the thirteenth century until the beginning of the sixteenth century, a variety of different orders and communities following the ways of several murshids appeared. Although Bektashism was only one of them, it spread faster than the other groups. However, the direction of Bektashī expansion was towards the west (the Balkans) after the Janissaries were included in the order, partly after the emergence of Ottoman state rule. Dervishes such as Otman Baba and Sarı Saltuk were influential in the west, and their followers (Otman Babacılar and Sarı Saltukçular), but also the Jāmīs (Cāmīler) and even the ocak of Sayyid Battal Ghāzi, which is considered as the centre of the Rūm Abdals (the Dervishes of Anatolia), would be assimilated later into Bektashism. (Karamustafa, 1994: 77).11 In the first quarter of the sixteenth century, Bektashīs were not the only “mystical anarchist group” in Ottoman society nor was it the largest (Karamustafa, 1993: 128). In the east, the influence of Ibn Arabī, the community of Barak Baba, the dervish of the Sarı Saltuk, and Jamāladdīn Savī, Savī’s and Cavlakī’s followers (Qalāndārī, Hayderī, Malamatī, Hurūfī, Wefaī movements), and the extremist interpretations that emerged in the Shīʿa (such as Ismāʿīliyya) were more dominant. And like their followers (tālibs), these movements had diverse sources.12
At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the military expansion of the Safavid state threatened the Ottomans through its “Kizilbash ideology.” The ideology had profound effects on the many scattered and independent mystical groups living in Anatolia. While Bektashism was rising in the Ottoman camp in the west, the “Kizilbash ideology” was institutionalised in the Safavid camp in the east, where it affected and absorbed all heterodox groups, including the Bektashīs. Thus the heterodoxy of the Anatolian Turkmen, and other heterodox groups such as the Qalāndārīye, Hayderīye, Hurūfīyye, Wefaī‘ye, and Yasavīye, came under Safavid influence. In addition, the Halwatīs and Mavlawīs who had left Tabriz to take refuge in Anatolia, were also influenced by the Safavids (Koç and Tanrıverdi, 2004: 224–226; Konur, 2000: 115–118).
Shah Ismaʿil’s Influence and the Formation of Alevism in the Upper Euphrates Basin
Twelver-Imamism13 and the practice of Kerbala mourning (or mourning of Muharram) became part of Alevism on the Upper Euphrates through Shah Ismaʿil’s obvious influence on the regional heterodoxy. Bektashism later also adopted these religious practices (Ocak, 1996: 208–209). Despite Safavism having lost its political influence, there is much evidence supporting the fact that the Kizilbash ideology remained alive and that the Shah’s message survived.14
Shah Ismaʿil Safavī, under the pen-name of “Hatāyī”, created an ideological mysticism in his poems which encompassed Anatolian and Iranian heterodoxy in line with his political goals.15 As a matter of fact it is the halifes (messengers) of Shah Ismaʿil who put together the Imam Cafer Buyruğu (usually referred to as the Buyruk, considered to be the manual of Alevism), and who spread it to Asia Minor. Meanwhile the initiatives of some Safavid agents immediately after Shah Ismaʿil also played a role in the dissemination of the Buyruk.16 Bektashism and the Bektashī tekkes, that had spread to Anatolia and the Balkans, did not remain indifferent to these new ideas which had influenced the whole of western Asia in the sixteenth century, and their mysticism became integrated into the “new heterodoxy” establishing the ritual and mystical foundations of the beliefs of the Alevī-Bektashī order.17
However, the efforts at religious integration and at political domination of all the Bektashī tekkes should be seen as separate. Without the merging of Bektashism with Safavid Kizilbashism, it would not have been possible for the Bektashīs to penetrate the post-Kizilbash heterodoxy that dominated the Upper Euphrates basin.18 The crucial role of Shah Ismaʿil himself, and his image, was central to this integration. Shah Ismaʿil combined the dual meaning of the title Shah by being both a secular political leader as well as a murshid in the religious sense. He added the term ghāzi among his attributes through the chivalrous character that he depicted on the battlefield and thus: “The roles of king and holy man converge in Ismaʿil, and he was also a hero on the battlefield and crusader (ghāzi) for the faith” (Babayan, 2002: xxviii). Likewise, Kathryn Babayan emphasises that Shah Ismaʿil’s esoteric and divine identity inspired the Kizilbashs to sacrifice themselves entering battle without arms. He was regarded as immortal, as a spiritual guide (pīr, murshid, murshid-i kāmil), and as having miraculous powers for whom believers would sacrifice themselves as is mentioned in the Kizilbash battle cry: Qurbān oldïgïm pirüm mürshidim (“My spiritual leader and master, for whom I sacrifice myself”). He wanted his adherents to become dedicated sūfīs (Roemer, 1983: 214) for which he provided enormous inspiration and an attraction that transcended his ethnic (Turkic) identity. Therefore, it cannot be said as claimed by Roemer that the “overwhelming majority of İsmaʿīl’s militant supporters belonged to Türkmen tribes” (Roemer, 1983: 214). Indeed, as Babayan, who reads the Diwan from a different perspective, emphasises, the Iranian mythic components of his poetry shows us that İsmaʿīl furnished his Diwan with Iranian mythology (Babayan, 2002: xxviii–xxx).
Those dervishes directly connected to Shah İsmaʿīl, regardless of their ethnicity, were intensively active in the Upper Euphrates and Kızılırmak basins and the Central Taurus region. The Upper Euphrates basin was the most sheltered region in Ottoman lands for those who entered into the Kizilbash faith, except those who had been forced to go to Iran under heavy pressure during the reign of Selim I (1512–1520) and Suleiman I (1520–1566). However, in the south of the Upper Euphrates basin, the Sunni Kurdish mīrs, who had entered into a kind of vassal relationship with the Ottoman Empire and were thus not under direct Ottoman influence, kept these groups at a distance. Their tribes consisted of ethnic Turkmen, Kurmanji and Zaza.
In addition, we know of the existence of some Turkmen tribes and emirates in the Upper Euphrates basin since the twelfth century. According to the Sharafnāme, the Melkişan rulers of Çemişgezek in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were Turkic. Among their subjects were Turkmen tribes as well as Kurds. The Sharafnāme indicates that in the sixteenth century a thousand households from the Melkişans were enlisted into the Safavid army, and this group became the guards of Shah İsmaʿīl. According to the Sharafnāme, their countries of origin were known as “Kurdistan” despite their Turkic origins (Bozarslan, 1990: 189–191).19 Therefore, some of the Kurdified Turkmens and Sunnified Turks of the Upper Euphrates basin should be seen largely as remnants of these Melkişans subordinated to their own emirate.
From the middle of the sixteenth century onwards, after the defeat of Shah İsmaʿīl, Kizilbash groups, Sunnis and Christians who lived in the Upper Euphrates basin continued to live together, now administratively belonging to the regions of the sanjaq begs of the Ottoman Empire. Within the Empire they were recognised for their power and influence. During this period, although the sanjaq begs seemed to be “Sunni”, they were also open to cooperation with Shah İsmaʿīl at the time when the influence of Shah İsmaʿīl was intense; actually they followed a bilateral policy towards the Ottomans and Safavids.
Shah İsmaʿīl’s politics had lasting consequences and his influence continued also after his defeat. His legacy provided the character and identity of the Dersim region. The majority of sheikh families who were active in the Upper Euphrates basin, and who were loyal to Shah İsmaʿīl under their own leadership, are the origin of today’s ocaks. The dervishes establishing ocaks, and the Qalāndārī and Wefā‘ī sheikhs who had siyadetnāmes20 distributed by Shah İsmaʿīl, were recognised as sayyids in Kurdish Alevism (Ocak, 2009: 51). After Shah İsmaʿīl’s intervention in the region, it is generally accepted that the ocaks were rooted in these sayyids and dedes (Ocak, 2002b: 49; 2011: 67; Yaman, 1998: 27–28) and it can be said that the ocaks were sanctified by Shah İsmaʿīl himself. It is known that Nūr (Tūr) Ali Halife, one of his halifes, was leading these activities (Uluğ, 1939: 28; Yolga, 1994: 96). The local ocaks, which started to be institutionalised through the sayyid genealogy, were shaped around the rituals carried out within the framework of Imam Ali, the Twelve-Imams and the Karbala Cult. Sayyids, according to the genealogical sequences, were descended from Husayn, grandson of Prophet Muhammad; and the mother tongue of most of them was Turkish, or they used Turkish in their rituals and worship because of their absolute affiliation to the Shah İsmaʿīl canon. Their murids and tālips were Turkmen, as well as Kurmanji and Kırmanjki speaking Kurds.
In short, it would be an incomplete interpretation to say that only Turkmen, such as the Qalāndārīye, Wefa‘īye, Hayderīye, Hurūfīye and Yasavīye, came under the influence of the various sources of Alevism, from the last years of the fifteenth century to the beginning of the sixteenth. It would also be incomplete to say that it was only groups who were included in the anti-Ottoman and pro-Safavid masses that could be called “Kizilbash”. These orders influenced not only the Turkmen, but neighbouring groups as well, who shared similar ways of life with the Turkmen. Similar beliefs were influenced not only by the indigenous peoples but also by some of the Iranian and central Asian communities who had fled or were driven away by the Mongols. It is rumoured that Celāleddin Harezmshah died in Dersim as the last stop on his escape from the Mongols. Also, there was a reverse movement: under the rule of Shah Abbas (1588–1629), some Dersim tribes were dispatched to the east of Iran to resist Sunnī Uzbek and Turkmen attacks and it is assumed that some of these tribes returned to Dersim after the Qajar-Uzbek wars ended.21 Because of this history, some scholars have connected the claim that “Alevis come from Khorasan”, which forms the basis of their own cosmogonies, with this concrete event (see Bayrak, 2004: 200). The most important of these tribes was the Çemişgezeklu (known as Zhaferanlu in Iran), which also played a role in the establishment of the Safavid state (Sümer, 1999: 53). Other examples are Turkmen tribes such as the Şahsevens and Avşars, as well as the Qaramanlu, Pulkanlu, Memiyanlu and Sufiyanlu tribes of Dersim origin (Temo, 2018: 198).
Other Sources of Upper Euphrates Alevism: the Wafā‘iye and Saltukism
As in Anatolia, the mainstream tradition that established heterodoxy before Safavism in the Upper Euphrates basin was the Wafā‘i order. Even when Bektashism, a sect that broke away from the Wafā‘iye long ago, was fully established with all its institutions further west, the dominant sect in the Upper Euphrates basin was still the Wafā‘iye. Sheikh Dilo Belincān, one of the founding dedes still blessed in Dersim, was one of the greatest sūfīs of the eleventh century and a follower (tālip) of Es-Sayyid Abuʾl Wafā who founded the sect of the Wafā‘iye. Sheikh Belincān came to Dersim on Abuʾl Wafā’s instruction and lived in the village of Pilvenk until his death. His followers established themselves as “Şıh Delil-i Berhicān/Belincān Ocağı” and carved a large area of influence in Pertek and further south with the help of Kurmanji-speaking followers. From a genealogy belonging to Sheikh Belincān, it appears that he came to Dersim and communicated the path of the Wafā‘iye in the pre-Manzikert period (before 1071) at the very beginning of the eleventh century (Yar and Yalgın, 2014: 13). The aforementioned genealogy states that Sheikh Belincān was sent as the deputy of Abuʾl Wafā, specifically to guide the Kurdish tribes. In a remarkable passage of the genealogy, Sheikh Imaduddīn Suleimānī, who sent Sheikh Belincān to this region, says: “This is my will for the Kurdish communities” (Yar and Yalgın, 2014: 24, 28, 29). Additionally, a second genealogy lists the names of forty-two Kurdish tribes whom Sheikh Belincān was authorised to guide (Yar and Yalgın, 2014: 29–30). In the same manner, the genealogies of ocaks such as Cemal Abdal, Ağuiçen, Pirbad, Battal Gazi, Mineyik (Zeynelabidin), Dede Kargın in Malatya, and Üryan Hızır in Pertek also start from Abuʾl Wafā. Thus, we can distinguish two sources for the disciples who spread Alevism in the Upper Euphrates basin: Abuʾl Wafā’s personal dervish pupils, and missionary dedes sent to the region by Shah İsmaʿīl Safavī. It can be argued that these two sources were merged with indigenous sacred beliefs – some of them replaced older beliefs or incorporated indigenous elements, or they were combined with native beliefs by their followers, leading to the emergence of the syncretism unique to Upper Euphrates Alevism.22
As one of the successors to Abuʾl Wafā, Sheikh Hasan, who was one of the sons or brothers of Sheikh Ahmed, was another prominent pīr. Sheikh Hasan had gained the allegiance of tribes around Malatya. The tribes from this ocak are called “Şıhhasanlı” or “Şıhhasanan”. In a decision (hüküm) addressed to the qadi of Malatya, it is written that the village of Şeyhhasanlı in Malatya as well as the hamlets of Çivril, Üçbölük, Erdek and Şelo are affiliated to the waqf of the Sheikh Abuʾl Wafā Tekke located in Malatya’s “Meşar” village; that the waqf was assigned on the basis of a visit by Sheikh Ahmed Tavil, whose grave can be found in the village of Şeyhhasanlı; and according to an edict dated 1656/57, that the reaya of these waqf villages would be exempt from paying taxes.23 Sayyid Riza, who was hanged in the Dersim Operation in 1938,24 was one of the pīrs of the Sheikh Ahmed Dede ocak. This ocak from Malatya had joined the Abbasan tribe, and although they were not part of that tribe, they were known and venerated as “Aşira Babu” and “Ezbeta Babu”. Nowadays, Abbasans are known as Sayyid Riza’s tribe. In their cems, guides are called “rayber” and some raybers are related to the pīrs of Şeyhhasanlı. The Ferhatan tribe in Hozat is also a follower of the Sheikh Ahmedli/Şeyhhasanlı ocak. Ferhatans were the tribe of Diyap Agha who was the representative of Dersim in the Assembly that was held in Ankara in the 1920. The raybers differentiated themselves from the Şeyhhasanlı pīrs; although still loyal to the ocak, they lived in villages where they also ruled.
The Ağuiçen ocak also goes back to Abuʾl Wafā (Birdoğan, 1992: 152; Güler, 2010: 158; Çakmak, 2012). The first centres were located in Sün village within the borders of present-day Elazığ. The Kurdish (Kurmanji) Sinemilli tribe was completely affiliated to the Ağuiçen. The sons of Sayyid Temiz, founder of the ocak, were scattered in Dersim and Erzincan as well as surrounding areas. Sayyid Mençek maintained the ocak in the village of Bargini (Karabakır) of Hozat where his grave is located. As for his other sons, they maintained the ocak in the villages of Sivas, Erzincan and Harput.
The Sarı Saltuk ocak has a special status. This ocak is a form of the Balkan based Qalāndārī-Babaī murshids that managed to maintain its presence and establish itself as a permanent ocak in Anatolia. The view that the cult of Sarı Saltuk was a form of Bektashism that came from the Balkans to the Upper Euphrates region in the sixteenth century or later is dubious. The link between Saltukism’s epic of “seven sarcophagi – seven tombs” and Seven-Imamism makes it certain that the cult predates Twelver-Imamist Bektashism. In the Saltuknāme, the epic of Sarı Saltuk takes place in the Danishmend region (central eastern Anatolia) and tells a different story from that of the figure of Sarı Saltuk in the Bektashī tradition (Ocak, 2002: 38–41). This narrative, which takes place in the Erzincan-Amasya-Sivas triangle, gives us a strong idea about the source of the Sarı Saltuk cult in Dersim. The existence of the Sarı Saltuk ocak in Dersim, a fact agreed upon by both those who argue that the true burial place of Sarı Saltuk is at the present-day ziyaret in Dersim-Hozat and those who argue that the place of pilgrimage is only “representative/symbolic” (Çakmak, 2012: 94–95), shows us that the Qalāndārī-Heydarī way appeared before the establishment of Bektashism. The fact that various genealogies of the ocak deviate from Twelver-Imamist genealogies, on points of origins between the third and ninth imams, also confirms this situation (Çakmak, 2012: 85–89). The establishment of a genealogical relationship that extends to Sarı Saltuk through Battal Ghāzi shows an adherence to the tradition of the Danişmendnāme unique to the Upper Euphrates basin. The Sarı Saltuk narrative of the Upper Euphrates differs from that told in the Balkans.
On the other hand, it is also claimed that Sarı Saltuk’s descendant Sayyid Nesimī brought the cult of Sarı Saltuk to Dersim. Sayyid Nesimī’s grave can be found in the village of Agveren (Akören) as are the graves of his father and brother. It is rumoured that the person buried here is the same person as the Hurūfī bard Seyyid Nesimī, who was executed in Aleppo in 1418. There are also symbols indicating that the cult of Sayyid Nesimī was Twelver-Imamist, unlike the cult of Sarı Saltuk. Furthermore, the cult of Sarı Saltuk in Dersim has been continued and transmitted to this day by the descendants of Sayyid Nesimī (Çakmak, 2012: 97–100). Thus, the Sarı Saltuk ocak is the sole order in the Upper Euphrates basin with disputed origins. However, the link between Sarı Saltuk and Bektashism, like many others, appears to be established only later. Although Sarı Saltuk was a figure who joined Dersim Alevism later, in the early fifteenth century at most, if his relationship to Sayyid Nesimī is correct, it is possible that he entered the region not through Bektashism but through Hurūfism.
Ocaks and Tribes
Tribalisation can occur through ocaks which often have supra-ethnic authorities and networks of tālips. The Ağuiçen, Kureyşan and Pilvenk tribes were formed by this process. In the following paragraphs I will explain more about the development of each of these tribes. Thus, different groups became a “tribe” through their relationship to an ocak. Conversely, there are cases of different tribes bonded to the same ocak. Both Kurmanji-speaking Koçgiris and Kırmanjki-speaking Abdalans, Şavalans and Balabans are subject to the Baba Mansur ocak. There are also smaller ocaks as well as bigger ones, such as the Ağuiçen (Karadonlu Can Baba), Baba Mansur (Bāmasur), Şıhhasan (Şeyh Hasan), Derviş Cemal (Seyyid Cemal), Kureyşan, Sarı Saltuk, Şıh Belincan (Delil Berhican), Şıh Çoban and Sultan Hızır (Üryan Hızır/Hıdır). There is no competition between these ocaks (Gezik, 2013: 8). No matter to which ocak they are affiliated, Alevis respect them all and visit their graves. With the exception of Sarı Saltuk, the mentioned ocaks are of Upper Euphrates origin. The fact that the pīr families of ocaks regarded themselves as sayyids formed the basis of the Ottoman administration’s approach to them. The Ottoman administration adopted and approved these dedes, not as leaders of the Alevi faith but in terms of their sayyidism.
The Kureyşan ocak has influenced Dersim tribes (especially in Pülümür and Mazgirt) as well as the tribes and villages of Bingöl, Varto, Hınıs, Karlıova and Kiğı. The Kureysan ocak was connected to the supreme Baba Mansur ocak. There is a hierarchy among the tribes, tribal pīrs and some ocaks. For example, in terms of pīr-murshid relation between Baba Mansur and the Kureyşans in Pülümür and Mazgirt, the Kureyşans consider Baba Mansur, based in the Nazımiye Zeve village and concentrated in the Muhundu parish of Mazgirt, as their own murshid. The Bahtiyar tribe in Hozat is bonded to the Kureyşan pīrs (Çakmak, 2012: 115). Derviş Cemal are pīrs of the Şeyhhasanlı tribal confederation. Among the confederation, there are the Karaballı Uşağı, Ferhatuşağı, Abbasuşağı and Koçuşağı tribes. There is an important place of pilgrimage for them in Derviş Cemal (Mezra) village (see Ali Kemali, 1992: 155; Sevgen, 2003: 186; Birdoğan, 1992: 155; Dersimî, 1997: 118; Saltık, 2009: 157; Kaya, 2010: 142, 150–51; Çakmak, 2012: 121).
Kurmanji speaking Ağuiçen dedes have a large network of influence (Dersimi, 1997a: 117; 1997b: 73; Güler, 2010: 157). The Ağuiçen present a good case of multi-ethnic affiliation. The followers of the Diyarbekir branch of the Ağuiçen ocak are Turkmen (see Akın, 2014), while followers of the Dersim branch are predominantly Zaza speakers. Among those in the Divriği branch there are Kurmanjis as well as Turks. The Ağuiçen pīrs are the leaders of both the Ağuiçen tribes and the Sinemillis (Gezik, 2013: 6, 9). The dedes of Ağuiçen trace their roots to Imam Zeynelabidin from the Wafā‘ī path and distance themselves from the Haci Bektaş tradition. Like many other ocaks, the dedes of Ağuiçen also trace their past from before Haci Bektaş and have genealogies supporting these claims. The aforementioned ocak is based on four murshids. Most of the Dersim Ağuiçens subordinate themselves to Sayyid Mençek; dedes in Elazığ’s Sün village and Hozat’s Bargini (Karabakır) village come from the branch of Koca Sayyid. The others are Köse Sayyid and Mir Sayyid who are considered to have settled in the Karpan Mountain. Bektashīs accept the Ağuiçen as the second murshid ocak after Haci Bektaş.
The centre of the Şeyh Hasan ocak, a large ocak whose influence is spread over a wide area and developed around the Euphrates River, is Şeyhhasan village in the Baskil district where the pīr’s tomb is also located. The “Kizilbash Şeyhhasanlı tribes” (Yılmazçelik, 2012: 15) populating this region until the early eighteenth century appear to have headed towards western Dersim around these dates (Halaçoğlu, 1988: 49–50). According to a complaint sent by inhabitants of the Çarsanjaq district (the present-day Mazgirt region) to Istanbul in 1726, the Şeyhasanlıs roaming in this region for around two decades could not be removed and were pillaging. The documents dated 1732, 1736, 1751 and 1762 also report that Şeyhasanlıs together with the Dersim tribe continued to harass the inhabitants of the Çarsanjaq and Keban districts (Yılmazçelik, 2012: 13–14). The Şeyhasanlıs appear to have settled in western Dersim in the first half of the eighteenth century and became locals in the region. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the Şeyhhasanlıs had spread as far as Pülümür and Kiğı.25 They occupied some of the Armenian villages in the region and caused Armenian peasants (reaya) to emigrate as well as making some of them their sharecroppers.
Speaking about Dersim, it can be concluded from surveying the documents of the period from the beginning of the eighteenth century, that two big tribes (or tribal confederations) dominated the Dersim region. The Şeyhhasanlı tribe dominated western Dersim, while the Dersimli tribe dominated the eastern part (also called Central Dersim). Other tribes were generally confederated under these two umbrella tribes.26 The Şeyhhasanlı tribe was mostly an alliance of Kurmanji speakers, while the Dersimli was an alliance of Kırmanjki speakers. However, over time, groups following the Şeyhhasanlı tribe also penetrated central Dersim.
The Relationship between Upper Euphrates Alevism and Bektashism
But how are Alevism and Bektashism related in the Upper Euphrates region? For Dersim, the Anatolian Alevi-Bektashī tradition created a similar narrative as elsewhere, which places Haci Bektaş as the ser-çeşme maqam (pīr of pīrs) from the beginning. This interpretation of Dersim is an ethnocentric one asserting that Haci Bektaş was in Dersim together with Sarı Saltuk, and that the original centre of the Bektashī order was Dersim (Çakmak, 2012: 101–102). However, the ocaks in Dersim and the upper Euphrates basin were not included in the Bektashī Vilāyetnāme tradition, which shows that these ocaks, as we mentioned above while explaining their origins, are rooted in a different order than the Bektashīs and that they emerged from local developments. The only exception is the Sarı Saltuk ocak. The inclusion of Sarı Saltuk in the Vilāyetnāme tradition at a later date and the appropriation of it into Bektashism probably happened after the Sarı Saltuk ocak settled in Dersim. In the Dersim narrative, the inclusion of Seyyid Nesimī into the story, and even the placement of him at the beginning of the Dersim story or Sarı Sultan being Sarı Saltuk in the nineteenth century, confirms this chronological difference in both cases.
The violent policy of Mahmud II (1808–1839) to eliminate the Bektashī order temporarily caused pressure on and weakened the traditional local centres of Alevism. Even though the dergāh in Hajibektaş town was also affected by Mahmud II’s violent policy, the dergāh’s power in central Anatolia recovered by the decreasing pressure on Bektashism after Mahmud’s reign. The Naqshbandī postnişīns who took over the lodge, therefore, could not rule there for long. The babas of the dergāh having been exiled to Amasya were also forgiven by the Ottoman authorities.27 Eventually, at the end of 1849, Ali Dede from the Bektashī community was appointed as the “tomb keeper” (türbedār) of Haci Bektaş. The Haci Bektaş ocak, which was again offered protection under the Ottoman regime, moved towards establishing a Haci Bektaş dergāh-centered Alevism, something which eventually was to bring the Haci Bektaş ocak to the hierarchical top of the all ocaks in the second half of the nineteenth century. The Tahtaji ocak and the Kurmanji and Kırmanjki (Zaza) speaker’s ocaks were the last to participate in this development.
While the Haci Bektaş dergāh emerges as an “Ottoman institution”, the eastern regions subjected to the “Kizilbash” tradition bypass the Bektashī tradition and date their past to the pre-Ottoman era through the murshid ocaks centered on Dersim and Malatya. The Ottoman-Islamic policy of Abdulhamid II, which followed an integration policy within the Ottoman domain, was not a strategy that only used Sunni Islam. Abdulhamid II’s administration did not avoid using Bektashism to subject eastern ocaks to the imperial centre. Within this scope, the Bektashī dedes, too, were mobilised over the eastern ocaks. Although spreading Sunni Islam was the main target in the policy of Abdulhamid II, the Bektashization of the Alevi Kurds and the removal of the Alevi communities from the “Kizilbash” tradition were the secondary goals.28 According to British consul Taylor, before Abdulhamid II, the Bektashīs only opened a lodge in Arapgir in 1866 (Taylor, 1868: 312). Fifty years later, another British official counted the shrine in Hacibektaş town as among the ziyarets of the Dersim Alevis (quoted by Gezik, 2000: 155).
The first ocak in the Upper Euphrates basin that the Bektashīs came close to was the Ağuiçen, one of the strongest ocaks in the region. In the words of Nejat Birdoğan, the Malatya Ağuiçen ocak was the first to subject itself to Haci Bektaş. Birdoğan calls them “apostates” (“dönmeler”). Thus, the Ağuiçen ensured the recognition of Haci Bektaş and the introduction of the Turkish Bektashī mantras to the cems. Another missionary was Cemaleddin Efendi from the Çelebi branch of the dergāh. Cemaleddin had been sent to the region by the İttihad-Terakki administration, which ruled between 1908–1918, on the eve of the First World War to organise the Dersim tribes against the Russian threat. According to Cemaleddin Efendi, the Dersim Alevis no longer followed the commandments of the dervishes sent to them by Haci Bektaş himself centuries ago and had fallen away from the path (Dersimî, 1997b: 113–114, 115–116). Cemaleddin Efendi also tried to influence the Dersim Alevis through the Sayyid Aziz of Sivas Ağuiçen (Dersimî, 1997b: 108–109, 113).
Through this process, the main structure that became prominent and maintained its hierarchical structure until today outside of Dersim is the lineage known as the “Çelebi ocak”. The Çelebi ocak today has asserted its hierarchical influence all over Turkey and validated an Alevi framework based upon the personality of Haci Bektaş Velī.29 However, this influence in the entire country does not go back to before the nineteenth century. That is to say, it is necessary to find other dynamics which come before this “integration” and are the source of all these breaks and divergences and to see the differences and similarities by taking into consideration the historical process. But the claim that the glorification of Haci Bektaş and his heirs (the Çelebis) is to be found in all Upper Euphrates ocaks is a dubious one even today. Some dedes see a crucial difference between their pro-Bektashī Alevism and Upper Euphrates Alevism. Hüseyin Solmaz from Çorum, one of the dedes of the Imam Riza ocak, summarises this relationship in the following way:
The Alevis in eastern Anatolia do not adopt much Haci Bektaş Velī, they say our ocak is superior, however, Alevis of this region – our central Anatolian provinces, Çorum, Amasya, Tokat, Sivas – are dedicated to Haci Bektaş Velī. (quoted by Erdem 2013: 263)
Although it is accepted that there were ocaks before the Haci Bektaş ocak, it is believed that the ocaks in Anatolia were combined together with Haci Bektaş. In a way, it is accepted that the roots of all the ocaks in Asia Minor are related to Haci Bektaş.30 The Bektashīs see most of the ocaks as a kind of corruption and associate this plurality with the disintegration after Mahmud II. Again, in Solmaz Dede’s own words:
Until 1826 permitted ocaks from the Haci Bektaş dergāh were limited in number. But later this way got slack. A Naqshbandi sheikh was placed in the pīr house. And that Naqshbandi sheikh randomly established a tradition … You know what happened, while being baba, the man became dede … (cited in Erdem, 2013: 264)
Therefore, the real pīr house (the maqam) belongs to Haci Bektaş and others are dubious or self-appointed structures. This dominant narrative has no validity in relation to the Upper Euphrates basin. The Alevis who spread over this area were until recently clearly distinct from other Alevi-Bektashī groups. The two different ways – Alevism under the effect of Bektashism and eastern Alevism – still function in the construction of Alevi social memory and constitute a certain “cultural border”. Nur Yalman, in field research conducted in a Kurdish-Alevi village following the Ağuiçen in Nurhak-Maraş, observed that the village’s pīr (Doğan Dede) claimed to be at the same level as Haci Bektaş and that the village never established marital relationships with the nearby “Bektashī” village (Yalman 1969: 57). Until recently, the Ağuiçen dedes in Sün village regarded themselves as separate and more superior to the Bektashīs (Türkdoğan, 1995: 286–288).
The Expansion of the Kurdish Tribes and Sunnification31
From the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, the main conflict of “eastern Alevism” was not with the Ottoman government itself. Conflict mostly occurred between the tribes and mīrs but not on ethnical or religious grounds. This is why the assumed argument about the main difference and conflict between Alevi and Sunni Kurdish peoples does not do justice to the facts. According to this dubious argument, the main reason for the ongoing conflict is the Sunni acceptance of submission to the Ottoman government while the Alevi population always kept their distance from the Ottoman government and periodically had conflictual relationships with it. In fact, the dependence of the Sunni Kurdish population, which was organised in tribes, on the Ottoman government was through local authorities in autonomous structures via the yurtluk-ocaklık and the hükūmet systems. It would not be wrong to suggest that the only real direct contact of the Sunni tribes with the Ottoman government was during the Hamidification period.32 Therefore, it is illogical to try to explain the differences, conflicts, and problems between Alevi and Sunni Kurdish peoples in terms of their relationships with the central Ottoman government.33
Kurdish mīrs and rulers, basing their legitimacy on an extreme Sunni-Shafʿi ideology, developed negotiable and sometimes independent relationships with the Ottoman government and, on the other hand, tried to have control over the tribes within their regions. In general terms, the tribes moving south from the upper part of the Euphrates basin had gone through Sunnification or had split into Sunni and Alevi parts. Most of the Sunni tribes in the south have a “sibling” of the same name in the north and vice versa.34 The stronger and larger tribes (tribal federations) that had gained power on their own succeeded in managing to keep the Alevi and Sunni tribes together in their own structures. The most striking example of this is the Rişvan federation.35 But the Sunnification of the pastoral-nomadic tribes was always seen as a “false Sunnification” until they were incorporated into organised religion after permanent settlement.36 Therefore, a symbiotic and tribal way of life did not cause a great religious problem among the pastoral nomads.37
The Alevi tribes expanded to include Dersim as their centre, to Erzincan, to western Erzurum, to the northern highlands of the Murat River, and to the south eastern parts of Sivas. It is also a fact that, especially around Dersim, the Ottoman government was trying to create a Sunni zone through its sanjaq begs. This indicates a vague cultural border of a “minority” that can be called “Dersim Sunnism”. Certain tribes (for example, the Şavaks) were partly Sunnified, and it is known that there were villages of Sunni populations within the domains of the sanjaq begs. Moreover, there were fully Sunni tribes such as the Barmaz. This tribe expanded towards the Çemişgezek and Pertek villages, that is, the southwestern parts of Dersim near the Sunni zone.
The area between Malatya and Bingöl was a zone of high mobility. We can observe the tribes’ mobility in this area within a three-hundred-year time span approximately since the seventeenth century. The Alevi tribes of the upper part of the Euphrates basin, for example the Haydaran tribe, expanded to Kiğı and Tercan, the northern parts of Bingöl, and on the east to Varto of Muş, as is the case with the Hormek and Lolan tribes (see Aytaş, 2010). From the end of the nineteenth century onwards, Maraş and the eastern parts of Kayseri were included in this movement zone. The most sheltered area among all the regions is still Dersim. This is why especially those who were oppressed on the western part of the Euphrates moved towards Dersim and the northern parts of Bingöl. Similarly, the dense mobility towards Dersim resulted in the tribes moving towards Erzincan, the eastern parts of Sivas and the southern parts of Erzurum.
One consequence of this expansion was the movement of the Koçgiri tribe, one of the biggest tribes in the western parts of Dersim, the population of which speaks both Kırmanjki and Kurmanji, towards Sivas and Erzincan.38 Apart from rural Erzincan where the tribe began to spread at first, the first area it moved into was the Divriği region due to the weakening of the Kösepaşa dynasty at the beginning of the nineteenth century and the insecurity of the region as a result of the liquidation of the ayāns in the middle of the century (Sakaoğlu, 1984: 209). The wide zone the tribe expanded to remained within the administrative domain of the Dersim sanjaq towards the mid-nineteenth century (Kızıldağ-Soileau, 2017: 157–158, 161).
Another important tribe expanding from the upper part of the Euphrates basin towards the south was the Sinemillis. The expansion period beginning within the first decade of the eighteenth century continued towards Elbistan, crossing through Malatya.39 At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Sinemilli expanded to Pazarcık and Gölbaşı, especially after the deportation of the Ottoman Armenians. Similarly, households that belonged to the Pilvenk, Atmanki and Alhas, which were originally from Dersim and Malatya, were observed to settle in the villages in Sarız (Kayseri), Elbistan, Göksun, and Afşin (Maraş). World War I, including the Koçgiri Rebellion and the Turkish War of Independence, caused the tribes of Dersim and Malatya to expand towards the west and the south and to settle especially in the villages, hamlets and pasturelands vacated by the deportation of the Armenians.
Following the repression of the Koçgiri Rebellion in 1921,40 certain groups of the Koçgiri tribe moved towards Maraş and Kayseri in the west, and towards Tokat and Amasya in the northwest. The Koçgiri scattered around Maraş and Kayseri, many settling in the villages and pasturelands vacated because of the deportation of the Armenians. The Canbegs, a part of the Koçgiri confederation, were also seen to move towards the northwest and settle in the villages of Zile in Tokat and Göynücek in Amasya; while those who moved towards the west occupied the land between Ankara and Konya and towards Aksaray. The tribes moving towards the northwest preserved their Alevism, while the ones settling in central Anatolia were Sunnified. The north western Canbeg people are still loyal to the Ağuiçen ocak.
Conclusion
Alevism developed along a different path away from the Bektashī influence in the eastern parts of the Euphrates. The Alevism here is to a great extent Kurmanji-Zaza (Kırmanjki) Alevism – “Kurdish Alevism” in other words. It was organised through ocaks and was a result of the Twelver-Imamist formation following the Safavids in the east of the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, Twelver-Imamism is the link between pre-Safavid heterodoxies and later Safavid ones. The Twelvers in the western Ottoman lands appear at the beginning of the sixteenth century when Balım Sultan reorganised the Bektashī order. It was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that the Kurdish Alevi tribes moved to the western parts of the Euphrates and expanded towards the west once again. Under the influence of the Safavids in the sixteenth century, Turkish developed into a liturgical language in Kurmanji and Zaza Alevism, whereas Bektashism became influential in Kurdish Alevism in the nineteenth century. Kurmanji and Zaza Alevism preserved their networks of murshids in the upper part of the Euphrates basin, whereas in the west, after the second half of the sixteenth century, the Haci Bektaş dergāh began to adopt other dergāhs into its hierarchy. When Kurdish Alevism expanded from the upper part of the Euphrates basin, these networks of murshids also spread. This seemed to decrease to a certain extent when the Bektashī effect increased towards the east in the second half of the nineteenth century. Although there was a dichotomy between the eastern networks of murshids and the Alevism based on Haci Bektaş, at least until the beginning of the twentieth century, on the basis of the common liturgical language, rules, dogmas, rituals and conventions connecting the two centres lies the uniting effect of the Twelver-Imamism of Shah İsmaʿīl Safavī at the beginning of the sixteenth century.
References
Akın, B. (2014). Alevi ocakları ile ilgili tespit edilebilen en eski tarihli belge: Ağuiçen Ocağı şeceresi (The oldest document about Alevi Ocaks: Genealogy of Ağuiçen Ocağı). Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Veli Araştırma Dergisi, 70, 15–38.
Andrews, P. and Temel, H. (2010). Hubyar. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 37(3): 287–334.
Aydın, S. et al. (2019). Mardin: Aşiret-Cemaat-Devlet (Mardin: Tribe-Community-State) (2nd edition). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.
Aytaş, G. (ed.). (2010). Bingöl, Muş/Varto Yörelerinde Ocaklar, Oymaklar ve Boylarla İlgili Araştırma Sonuçları (Research Results about Ocaks and Tribes in Bingöl, Muş/Varto). Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Velī Araştırma Merkezi Yayınları.
Babayan, K. (2002). Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs: Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bahadır, İ. (2000). Alevilikte Erkān Farklılıkları (Erkân Differences in Alevism). Uluslararası Anadolu İnançları Kongresi Bildirileri – Proceedings of Congress on International Anatolian Beliefs (23–28 October 2000, Ürgüp-Nevşehir). Ankara: Ervak Yayınları, 89–112.
Baran, M. (2011). Koçgirî: Kuzey-batı Dersim (The Koçgiri: Northwest Dersim). Ankara: Saresur-Kızılbaş Yayınevi.
Bayrak, M. (2004). Ortaçağ’dan Modern Çağ’a Alevilik (The Alevism from the Middle Ages to the Modern Era). Ankara: Öz-ge Yayınları.
Beşikçi, İ. (2016). Yaresan (Ehl-i Hak) Rêya Heqîyê, Ezdan, www.nerinaazad.org, 23/06/2016 (Last accessed on 15 April, 2020).
Birdoğan, N. (1992). Anadolu ve Balkanlarda Alevi Yerleşmesi (Ocaklar-Dedeler- Soyağaçları) (Alevi Settlements in Anatolia and Balkans: Ocaks, Dedes, Lineages). Istanbul: Alev Yayınları.
Birdoğan, N. (1999). Alevi Kaynakları, II (Alevi Sources, II). Istanbul: Kaynak Yayınları.
Bozarslan, M. (ed.). (1990). Şerefnāme (Kürt Tarihi) (Sherefnāme of Sheref Khan: Kurdish History). Istanbul: Hasat Yayınları.
Çakmak, Y. (2012). Tunceli-Hozat Bölgesinde Sarı Saltık Ocağı ve Bektaşilik (Tarih-İnanç ve Doktrin-Ritüel) (Sarı Saltık Ocak and Bektashism in Tunceli-Hozat Region: History- Belief-Doctrin-Ritual). Unpublished MA Thesis, Ankara: Hacettepe University.
Çakmak, Y. (2019). Sultanın Kızılbaşları: II. Abdülhamid Dönemi Alevi Algısı ve Siyaseti (Kizilbashs of the Sultan: Alevi Perception and Policy during the Abdulhamid II Era). Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Christoff, H. (1935). Kurden und Armenier: Eine Untersuchung über die Abhängigheit ihrer Lebensformen und Charakterentwicklung von der Landschaft. Dissertation, Hamburg: Hamburg Universität.
Deniz, D. (2012). Yol/Rê: Dersim İnanç Sembolizmi. Antropolojik Bir Yaklaşım (Yol/Rê: Dersim Belief Symbolism. An Anthropological Perspective). Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Dersimi, M. (1997a). Hatıratım (My Memoirs). Istanbul: Doz Yayınları.
Dersimi, M. (1997b). Kürdistan Tarihinde Dersim (Dersim in the History of Kurdistan). Istanbul: Doz Yayınları.
Dressler, M. (2013). Writing Religion: The Making of Turkish Alevi Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Engin, R. (2004). Bir madalyon, bir tarih, Ali Koç Baba ve yaşayan erkānı (A medallion, a history, Ali Koch Baba and his living liturgy). Gazi Üniversitesi Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Veli Araştırma Dergisi, 10(31): 33–67.
Erdem, C. (2013). Sözlü tarih ve kültür açısından İmam Rıza Ocağı (İmam Rıza Ocak through oral history and culture). Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Velī Araştırma Dergisi, 66, 257–278.
Ergun, S. (ed.). (1956). Hatāyī Divanı. Şah İsmail Safevī: Edebi Hayatı ve Nefesleri (Diwan of Hatāyī. Shah Ismaʿil Safavī: His Literary Life and His Poems). Istanbul: İstanbul Maarif Kitaphanesi.
Esin, E. (1985). Les dervīs hétérodoxes turcs d’Asie centrale et le peintre surnommé ‘Siyāh Kalam’. Turcica, 17, 7–41.
Gezik, E. (2013). Rayberler, Pirler ve Murşidler (Alevi ocak örgütlenmesine dair saptamalar ve sorular) (Raybers, Pirs and Murshids: Determinations and questions on ocak organizations of Alevism). E. Gezik and M. Özcan (eds.), Alevi Ocakları ve Örgütlenmeleri (Alevi Ocaks and their Organizations), (2–44). Ankara: Kalan Yayınları.
Gölpınarlı, A. (1987). Tarih Boyunca İslām Mezhepleri ve Şīīlik (Islamic Sects and Shiʿa throughout the History). Istanbul: Der Yayınları.
Güler, S. (2010). Dersim Alevi geleneğinde bir tarihsel ocak: Ağuçanlar (A historical ocak in Dersim Alevi tradition: Ağuiçen). In Ş. Aslan (ed.), Herkesin Bildiği Sır Dersim (The Secret that Everybody Knows), (155–174). Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Gültekin, A. (2013). Kültürel kimliğin çeşitliliği bağlamında özgün bir örnek: ‘Şavak Aşireti’ (The shavak tribe as an original case for diversity of cultural identity). Antropoloji, 26, 129–154.
Gündüz, T. (2015). Kızılbaşlar, Osmanlılar, Safevîler (Kizilbashs, Ottomans, Safavids). Istanbul: Yeditepe.
Halaçoğlu, Y. (1988). XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İskān Siyaseti ve Aşiretlerin Yerleştirilmesi. Ankara: TTK Yayınları.
Imber, C. (1979). The persecution of the Ottoman Shīʿites according to the Mühimme Defterleri, 1565–1585. Der Islam, 56(2): 245–273.
Inalcık, H. (1993). Dervish and Sultan: An Analysis of the Otman Baba Vilayetnamesi. The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire. Essays on Economy and Society. Bloomington: Indiana University Turkish Studies and Turkish Ministry of Culture, 19–36.
Karakaya-Stump, A. (2006a). Kızılbaş, Bektaşī, Safevī ilişkilerine dair 17. yüzyıldan yeni bir belge: Yazı çevrimli metin-günümüz türkçesi’ne çeviri-tıpkıbasım, (A new document from the Seventeenth Century on the Kizilbash, Bektashi and Safavi relationships: Transcripted, translated text and its facsimile). Journal of Turkish Studies, Festschrift in Honor of Orhan Okay II, 30(2): 117–130.
Karakaya-Stump, A. (2006b). Sinemilliler: Bir Alevi ocağı ve aşireti (The Sinemillis: An Alevi saintly lineage and tribe). Kırkbudak, 2(6): 19–59.
Karakaya-Stump, A. (2011). The forgotten dervishes: The Bektashi convents in Iraq and their Kizilbash clients. Turkish Studies, 16(1–2): 1–24.
Karakaya-Stump, A. (2015). Vefailik, Bektaşilik, Kızılbaşlık: Alevi Kaynaklarını, Tarihini ve Tarihyazımını Yeniden Düşünmek (Wefa‘iye, Bektashism, Qızılbashism: Rethinking Alevi Sources, History and History Writing). Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Karamustafa, A. (1993). Kalenders, Abdāls, Hayderīs: The Formation of the Bektāşīye in the Sixteenth Century. In H. İnalcık and C. Kafadar (eds.), Süleymān the Second and His Time, (121–129). Istanbul: Isis, Press.
Karamustafa, A. (1994). God’s Unruly Friends: Dervish Groups in the Islamic Later Middle Period, 1200–1500. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Kaya, A. (2010). Başlangıcından Günümüze Dersim Tarihi (Dersim’s History from the Beginning to Present). Istanbul: Demos Yayınları.
Kemali, A. (1992/1932). Erzincan (Tarihi, Coğrafi, Toplumsal, Etnografi, İhsai İnceleme Araştırma Tecrübesi) (Erzincan: A Research Experience on its History, Geography, Society, Ethnography, and Statistics). Istanbul (2nd print): Kaynak Yayınları.
Kiel, M. (1994). Deliorman: Kuzeydoğu Bulgaristan’da bir Bölge (Deliorman: A Region in North-Eastern Bulgaria). TDV İslām Ansiklopedisi (Encyclopedia of Islam TDV version), 9, 141–144.
Kızıldağ-Soileau, D. (2017). Koçgiri İsyanı: Sosyo-Tarihsel Bir Analiz (Koçgiri Rebellion: A Socio-Historical Analysis). Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Klein, J. (2016). The Margins of Empire. Kurdish militias in the Ottoman Tribal Zone. Redwood City, CL: Stanford University Press.
Koç, M. and Tanrıverdi, E. (eds.). (2004), Muhyî-i Gülşenî, Menâkıb-ı İbrâhim-i Gülşenî. İstanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı Yayınları.
Konur, H. (2000). İbrahim Gülşenî: Hayatı, Eserleri, Tarikatı (İbrahim Gülşenî: His Life, Works and His Order). İstanbul: İnsan Yayınları.
Köprülü, F. (1919). Türk Edebiyatında İlk Mutasavvıflar (The First Sufis in the Turkish Literature). Istanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire.
Köprülü, F. (1929). Influence du Chamanisme Turco-Mongol sur les Ordres Mystiques Musulmans. Istanbul: İstanbul Darülfünûnu Türkiyat Enstitüsü.
Kutlu, S. (2006). Alevīlik Bektaşīlik Yazıları, Alevīliğin Yazılı Kaynakları: Buyruk, Tezkire-i Şeyh Safī (Articles on Alevism-Bektashism, The Written Resources of Alevism and Bektashism: Buyruk, Tezkīre-i Sheikh Sāfī). Ankara: Ankara Okulu Yayınları.
Kutlu, S. (2010). Alevī ve Bektaşī Yazılı (Arap Harfli) Kaynaklarının Neşri ve Ortaya Çıkar Sorunlar (Publishing Alevī and Bektaşī Written (Arabic Letters) Resources and Emerging Problems). In G. Aytaş and D. Sümer (eds.), Alevī ve Bektaşī Yayınlarının Temel Sorunları, Çözüm Önerileri Konulu 13. Bilim Danışma Kurulu Toplantısı, (42–73). Ilgaz, Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Velī Araştırma Merkezi Yayınları.
Markoff, I. (1986). The role of expressive culture in the demystification of a secret sect of Islam: The case of the Alevis in Turkey. The World of Music, 28(3): 42–56.
Mélikoff, I. (1980). Un ordre des dervishes colonisateurs, les Bektashis: Leur rôle social et leurs rappors avec le premiers sultans ottomans. Mémorial Ömer Lütfi Barkan, Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Maissonneuve, 149–157.
Mélikoff, I. (1982). L’Islam hétérodoxe en Anatolie. Turcica, 14, 142–154.
Mélikoff, I. (1992). La communauté Kızılbaş du Deli Orman en Bulgarie. Sur les Traces du Sofisme Turc: Recherches sur L’islam Populaire en Anatolie. Istanbul: Isis Press.
Mélikoff, I. (1993). Uyur İdik Uyardılar: Alevīlik-Bektaşīlik Araştırmaları (‘Uyur İdik Uyardılar’: Researches on Alevism-Bektashism) (trans. T. Alptekin). Istanbul: Cem Yayınları.
Ocak, A. (1983). Bektaşī Menākıbnāmelerinde İslam Öncesi İnanç Motifleri (Pre-Islamic Belief Motifs in the Bektashī Menakıbnāmes). Istanbul: Enderun.
Ocak, A. (1996). Türk Sufīliğine Bakışlar (Views on Turkish Sufism). Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Ocak, A. (1998). Osmanlı Toplumunda Zındıklar ve Mülhidler: 15.–17. Yüzyıllar (The Heretics in Ottoman Society: 15th–17th Centuries). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Ocak, A. (2002). Sarı Saltık: Popüler İslām’ın Balkanlar’daki Destanī Öncüsü (Sarı Saltık: The Legendary Pioneer of Popular Islam in Balkans). Ankara: TTK Yayınları.
Ocak, A. (2002b). Türkler, Türkiye ve İslam (The Turks, Turkey and Islam) (5th print). Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Ocak, A. (2009). Babaīler isyanından Kızılbaşlığa: Anadolu’da İslam heterodoksisinin doğuşuna kısa bir bakış (From Babai revolt to Kizilbashism: A review on the rise of Islamic heterodoxy in Anatolia). In A. Ocak (ed.), Geçmişten Günümüze Alevī-Bektaşī Kültürü (Alevi-Bektashi Culture from the Past to the Future), (38–57). Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları.
Ocak, A. (2011). Dede Garkın ve Emirci Sultan (13. Yüzyıl) (Dede Garkın and Emirci Sultan, 13th Century). Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Özoğlu, H. (1996). State-tribe relations: Kurdish tribalism in the 16th and 17th century Ottoman Empire. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 23(1): 5–26.
Özoğlu, H. (2004). Kurdish Notables and the Ottoman State. New York: New York University Press.
Öztürk, N. (ed.). (2013). Âşıkpaşazâde Tarihi [Osmanlı Tarihi, 1285–1502] (Cronicle of Âşıkpaşazâde [Ottoman History, 1285–1502]). Istanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat.
Roemer, H. (1983). The Safavid Period. Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 189–350.
Roemer, H. (1990). The Qizilbash Turcomans: Founders and victims of the Safevid theocracy. In M. Mazzaoui and V. Moreen (eds.), Intellectual Studies in Islam: Essays Written in honor of Martin B. Dickson, (27–39). Utah: University of Utah Press.
Şahin, H. (2007). Otman Baba. TDV İslām Ansiklopedisi (Encyclopedia of Islam TDV version), 34, 6–8.
Sakaoğlu, N. (1984). Anadolu Derebeyi Ocaklarından Kösepaşa Hanedanı (The Kösepaşa Dynasty: One of the Anatolian Landlord Ocaks). Ankara: Yurt Yayınları.
Saltı̱k, V. (2009). Tunceli’de Alevi Ocakları (Alevi Ocaks in Tunceli). Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Veli Araştırma Dergisi, 52, 145–176.
Seven, Y. (2010). İmam Rıza Ocağı’nda inanç uygulamaları, (Belief practises in İmam Rıza Ocak. Türk Kültürü ve Hacı Bektaş Velī Araştırma Dergisi, 56, 357–370.
Sevgen, N. (2003). Zazalar ve Kızılbaşlar (Coğrafya-Tarih-Hukuk-Folklor-Teogoni) (Zazas and Kizilbashs: Geography, History, Law, Folklore, Religion) (2nd print). Ankara: Kalan Yayıncılık.
Sümer, F. (1999). Safevi Devletinin Kuruluşu ve Gelişmesinde Anadolu Türklerinin Rolü (The Role of Anatolian Turks in Establishment and Development of Safavid State). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
Tanman, B. (1994). Demir Baba Tekkesi. TDV İslām Ansiklopedisi (Encyclopedia of Islam TDV version), 9, 150–151.
Taylor, J. (1868). Journal of a tour in Armenia, Kurdistan, and Upper Mesopotamia, with notes of researches in the Deyrsim Dagh, in 1866. The Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London, 38, 281–361.
Temo, S. (2018). Horasan Kürtleri (Khorasan Kurds). Istanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
Türkdoğan, O. (1995). Alevi-Bektaşi Kimliği: Sosyo-Antropolojik Araştırmalar. Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları.
Uluğ, N. (1939). Tunceli Medeniyete Açılıyor (Tunceli Opens to Civilization). Istanbul: Cumhuriyet Matbaası.
van Bruinessen, M. (1992). Agha, Shaikh and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan. London and New Jersey: Zed Books.
van Bruinessen, M. (1997). “Aslını inkâr eden haramzādedir”: The debate on the ethnic identity of the Kurdish Alevis. In K. Kehl-Bodrogi, B. Kellner-Heinkele and A. Otter-Beaujean (eds.), Syncretistic Religious Communities in the Near East, (1–23). Leiden: Brill.
Yalman, N. (1969). Islamic reform and mystic tradition in Eastern Turkey. European Journal of Sociology (Archives Européennes de Sociologie), 10(1): 41–60.
Yaman, A. (1998). Kızılbaş Alevi Dedeleri (Kizilbash Alevi Dedes). Istanbul: Şahkulu Sultan Dergāhı Vakfı Yayını.
Yar, E. and Yalgın, E. (2014). Şeyh Dilo Belincān’ın şeceresinin kısa bir analizi (A short analysis on the genealogy of Şeyh Dilo Belincān). Tunceli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(4): 7–32.
Yıldırım, M. (2012). Desimlu Aşireti’nden Dersim Sancağı’na (From De[r]simlu Tribe to Dersim Sanjak). Tunceli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1): 23–37.
Yılmazçelik, İ. (2012). Osmanlı döneminde Dersim’de sosyal yapı ve Dersim Aleviliği (Social structure and Alevisim in Ottoman Dersim). Alevilik Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3, 1–38.
Yolga, M. (1994). Dersim (Tunceli) Tarihi (History of Dersim–Tunceli). Ankara: Türk Halk Kültürünü Araştırma Vakfı Yayınları.
Appendix
Many academic studies start from this assumption. Its origin can be found in Köprülü’s writings (1919). Also see Mélikoff (1982, 1993); Roemer (1990).
See Dressler (2013); Markoff (1986); Beşikçi (2016). For the language of Dersim’s Alevis, see Bruinessen (1997: 6).
Its fundamental meaning is hearth. It means “the family around that hearth”. According to Andrews and Temel (2010: 287), “in the sense of a large family, it is used for subdivisions, that is communities, among the Alevi …”. Every particular ocak recognizes a lineage that is descended from the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson Huseyn (known as as-sayyids).
Please see the map at the end of the article which clearly shows the boundaries of the Upper Euphrates basin.
This is, for example, shown on the famous map of Mahmūd Qashgārī’s Dīwān-ı Lughāt al-Turk written between 1072 and 1074, where the Kurdish regions are indicated as Arḍ-ı Ekrād (lands of Kurds), and situated between today’s Iraq and Azerbaijan.
See Gültekin (2013: 144).
For the most serious study on the emphasis of pre-Islamic elements, see Ocak (1983); Köprülü (1929); Esin (1985); Karamustafa (1994).
Heterodoxy and syncretism concepts are criticised in the post-Köprülü paradigm. For debates on concepts and anti-Köprülü positions, see Dressler (2013, Ch. 5).
Zāwiyah (tekke) is a monastery or shrine of dervishes where Sufī/mystic teaching and worship take place.
Next to Kizilbashs, also some pantheist groups such as Bedreddīnīs and Melāmatīs were declared unbelievers and heretics by Ottoman rulers (see Ocak, 1998). Before the sixteenth century, during the reign of Mehmed II and Bayazid II, some Hurūfīs and Qalāndārīs who were declared heretics were executed (Ocak, 1998, et al.; Gölpınarlı, 1987: 149; İnalcık, 1993: 32–33). Some others were executed and deported on the grounds that they were under pro-Safavid influence. See Aşıkpaşazāde, Menākıb-ı Āl-i Osman, Bāb 23, 268 (original text and its transliteration: Öztürk, 2013).
However, as mentioned by Karamustafa, despite the absence of sufficient evidence for the stages of these transformation, it is true that there was a “gradual submersion in the growing and stronger network of the officially accepted Bektāşīye” at least since the beginning of the sixteenth century (Karamustafa, 1994: 77–78).
For detailed descriptions of these sources, see Karamustafa (1994).
Before the Safavid influence, especially in Balkan heterodoxy, there are strong traces of seven- and eight-Imamist faith instead of Twelver-Imamism. See Karamustafa (1993: 123–124; 1994: 83); Bahadır (2000); Birdoğan (1999: 20); Şahin (2007); Tanman (1994); Kiel (1994: 143); Engin (2004: 46); Mélikoff (1992).
The most important evidence for this is the mystic poems (deyishs) of Pir Sultan Abdal who was killed in 1589 or 1590. Despite 70–75 years after the definitive Safavid defeat and 50 years after Shah Ismaʿil’s death, Pīr Sultan repeats the “Shah’s call” from his poems. In these sayings, the Shah is now the expected mahdi.
For the poems of Shah Ismaʿil (Hatāyī), see Ergun (1956: 43–44).
There are two sources of the Buyruk. The first is Menākıbü’l Esrār which is composed of Shah Hatāyī’s, Kul Himmet’s and Kul Mazlūm’s lyrics, and the maxims of Safiyuddin Ardebilī, the founder of Safevīsm. The second Buyruk is attributed to Sheikh Sāfī. Gölpınarlı says that the main source of opinion of the Buyruk, which was spread by the halifes of Shah İsmaʿil, was the Menākıb’ü-l Esrār Behcet’ü-l Ahrar, compiled by Bısatī during the time of Shah Tahmasb. However, according to oral tradition the Buyruk derives from the sixth imam Cafer Sādıq. In the Alevi tradition, the Buyruk attributed to Cafer Sādıq is called the Büyük Buyruk (“Buyruk the Great”). The Küçük Buyruk, on the other hand, includes a narrative of the Mahdi, referring to Shah İsmaʿil. The dates of the Küçük Buyruk manuscripts that are attributed to Sheikh Sāfi are placed at the beginning of the seventeenth century at the earliest. The existence of Shah İsmaʿil’s deyişs written under the Hatāyī pen name, as well as the deyişs of Pīr Sultan, Kul Mazlūm and Kul Himmet found in the Buyruk indicate that the Buyruk was arranged after Shah Ismaʿil and possibly his successors (see Gölpınarlı 1987: 178–180; also see Kutlu 2006 and 2010).
See Karakaya-Stump (2015: 13).
For Bektashī lodges and their influence in the Upper Euphrates basin and Iraq, see Ayfer Karakaya-Stump (2006: 118; and 2011).
According to Sharafnāme, after the Battle of Çaldıran (1514), Pīr Huseyin, son of the Rustem Beg who was affiliated with the Shah, declared his loyalty to Selim I and, in return, the Çemişgezek emirate was assigned to this dynasty again. Pīr Huseyin Beg, who went to his old land upon the order of the Sultan Selim I, evicted the Kizilbash from there (Bozarslan, 1990: 194).
These are sayyidism documents showing the pīrs and sheikhs as descendants of the Prophet Muhammad’s grandsons Hasan and Husayn.
For an extensive research on the Dersim originated Kurds in Khorasan, see Temo (2018); see also van Bruinessen (1992: 134).
Especially in Dersim, the ancestor cult and a special hierarchy (raybers, pīrs and murshids) were far advanced. Ocaks (and “two sources” – the Wafā‘ī and Shah İsmaʿīl’s – that construct them) have a big role in this. Also the emphasis on nature worship in Dersim gives an idea of the transformation and adaptation of old beliefs that were adopted by Alevism (for a detailed work about this symbolism and hierarchy, see Deniz, 2012; Gezik, 2013).
İE.EV. 23/2725, 5 Jumādā al-ʿĀkhirah 1102/6 March 1691.
This article does not take into account the effects of the Dersim Operation of 1938 which, although a significant milestone, comes after the considerations here.
See C.DH. 76/3766, 29 Zū al-hijjah 1255/4 March 1840. At the end of the nineteenth century there is now a “Şeyhhasanlı Nahiye” (parish) added to the Pülümür District (see Y.MTV. 171/81, 20 Shaʿbān 1315/14 January 1898).
In Ottoman documents of the second half of the eighteenth century, members of both confederations are referred to as “bandits” and as people who do not pay taxes. Both tribes are mentioned together in the documents. This means that they shared the region (see AE.SMST.III, 299/23900, 29 Zūʾa-l Hijjah 1177/29 June 1764 and C.DH. 304/15158, 29 Rajab 1213/6 January 1799). Also, in Dersim, idioms that compare these two confederations with each other are still used: such as “Dersim Bese Gawo Şexse Lese Gawo” (“If Dersim is the forehead of the ox, Şeyhhasan is the ox’s body”). For a detailed history and local tradition about the confederations, see Yıldırım (2012).
For the forgiveness of Hamdullah Efendi who was exiled to Amasya see İ.HD. 32/1518, 18 Zū al-hijjah 1856/10 February 1841.
The most important accusation against the different communities that suffered during the reign of Abdulhamid II was that they were “on the way to Kizilbash” and were preparing to rebel to revive the Kizilbashism (see Çakmak, 2019).
Today, the Çelebis, carrying the Ulusoy surname, protect their holy places in all the ocaks. For instance, Hüseyin Solmaz, one of the dedes of Imam Rıza Ocak in Çorum, calls Ulusoy, with whom he met in Hacibektaş town, “efendi” (master). Solmaz also talks about Çelebi Cemaleddin Efendi as “my efendi” (see Erdem, 2013: 260).
From the interview with Şahin Pertek Dede, one of the dedes of the central Anatolian Imam Riza ocak (see Seven, 2010: 360).
The information about the tribes and districts mentioned in this article is obtained from my field work between 1999–2019 and based on direct observation and interviews.
Hamidification is an operation under the rule of Abdulhamid II that organised the Kurdish tribes in the form of light cavalry regiments and thus directly connected them to the Ottoman administration since 1894 (for details, see Klein, 2016).
Sunni Kurds always kept a distance from the Ottoman government and lived within their traditional social and political order, including religious practices. For a comprehensive reading, see van Bruinessen (1992); Özoğlu (1996, 2004); Aydın et al. (2019).
Certain tribes such as İzoli, Dımili, Atmanki and Milli that dispersed to south and became a part of the Sunni Kurdish world preserved their Alevi cultures and traditions in the north. Milli tribe members in Amasya-Tokat are still Alevi today. While the southern part of the İzoli tribe whose villages spread from Malatya to Urfa is Sunni, the İzoli in Dersim have preserved their Alevism and remained bound to the Baba Mansur ocak.
According to the Mühimme Defterleri published by Colin Imber, the Rişvan tribe was one of the Kizilbash tribes that followed the “false Ismaʿīl” (“Düzmece İsmail”) who rebelled under the name of Shah Ismaʿīl Safavī in the sancak of Malatya in 1578 (see Imber, 1979: 252).
H. Christoff argues that the pastoral-nomadic way of life based on livestock breeding poses a great obstacle to the practice of Sunni doctrines (see Christoff, 1935: 50).
Even today, the Şavak tribe speaking Kurmanji consists of Sunni and Alevi parts. In times of transhumance, this difference seems to disappear within tribes moving together (see Gültekin, 2013).
The Ginni and Çarek branches of the tribe speak Kırmanjki, while the Canbeg, Kurmeş and Direjan branches speak Kurmanji (see Baran, 2011: 134).
For a comprehensive historical evaluation of the Sinemilli tribe, see Karakaya-Stump (2006b).
For the Koçgiri Rebellion, see Kızıldağ-Soileau (2017: 157–343).