9. THE HISTORY OF THE TURKIZATION OF TRABZON- A BRIEF AND TENTATIVE SKETCH

Bernt Brendemoen 2001

9.1.The first Turks

The contacts between the Byzantine Kingdom of Trebizond and Turkish groups began not long after the Grand Comnenoi had fled the Byzantine capital following the Latin occupation in 1204 and established themselves as an exile dynasty in Trabzon, which was the capital of the θέμα of the Chaldia, one of the few parts of the Byzantine Empire that had not been conquered by the Seldjuks.

             Turkic-speaking groups may have set their foot (and perhaps remained) in this part of Anatolia considerably earlier (Cf.e.g.Bilgin 1999:58-71), although many claims to this effect are based on dubious arguments, such as fanciful interpretation of modern toponyms.  What is of interest to our subject is contact with and settlement by Turkic groups in the OAT period, since we are unable to date coherent linguistic features further back than the line 13th-14th century. In the  following we shall examine reports by comtemporary historiographers and also the views of modern historians, partly baesd on archival material, which indicate changes in the ratio Orthodox: Muslims or possibly Greek – speakers: Turkish- speakers from the establishment of the Comnenian kingdom up to the 17th century.

 9.1.1. The Kipchak element

A special mentionshould be made of possible Cuman settlements: Several years before the Comnenoi established themselves at Trabzon, the Georgian king David Aġmašenebeli (1089-1125), determined to liberate his country from the Seldjuks, employed  Cuman army of perhaps 200 000 people thaks to the fact he was married to a Cuman princess. Most of the solders seem to have become Christians, but retained their original names (which were not Arabic Muslim names but traditional names of Turkic origin, cf. Zachariadou 1995 : 285-288). Thus, Kipchak Turks played an important role as a stabilizing factor in Mediaeval Georgian history, cf. Golden 1992:280. Several matrimonial alliances were forged between the Georgian royal families and the Grand Comnenoi not only after they settled in Trabzon, but also when they still were the reigning dynasty in Istanbul. It is quite possible that the entourage of the Georgian princesses who were sent to Trabzon to be married contained Cuman soldiers who may subsequently have settled there.  Early attestations such as the name Λέων ό Κουμάνοζ , registered in the acts of the Vazelon monastery as a resident of Maçka in 1284 (cf. Shukurov 1999b:17), are unequivocal proofs of an early Cuman presence in Trabzon although we do not know how extensive it was/For the possible Kipchak elements in the Vazelon document, cf. Shukurov 1999b:29). According to Bilgin (1999:74-75; no sources given), Queen Thamar’s Cuman general Kubasar sought refuge in the Eastern Black Sea mountains, where he became the eponymous ancestor of the Kumbasaroğulları clan, who their centre in Çimil in teh very southern part of İkizdere, but also have spread to places such as Sürmene. From the middle of the 13th century there were several half independent principalities in the Çoruh valley and in other of the mountainous areas between Erzurum and Tbilisi dominated by Orthodox, Georgianized Cumans (mostly retaining their Turkic names)  up to the middle of the 16th century, when they were included in the Ottoman vilayet of Erzurum. As shown by Kırzıoğlu (1992:148-181), interesting toponyms still prevail in the region, and both toponyms and personel names of Kipchak origin are frequent in contemporary Georgian and Ottoman documents dealing with these principalities. These districts may be the starting-point for the Kipchak  groups expanding towards the west (cf. Bilgin 1999:82-83); at least it is known that thanks to the marriage of Alexios II (1297-1330) to his  daughter, the Kipchak atabeg of one of those principalities, Beka, got access to the Black Sea. Bilgin shows (1999:77) that in an Ottoman tax register from the year 1515/16, THE VİLLAGE OF Zavli (today: Muratlı) in Sürmene figures with 55 Christians households of which nine were Cuman. The same defter also contains indications of Christians having Turkic names such as “Hoşoğlan”, “Timurci” and “Şişman”. One of the most important land-owners in Zavli figures as Nikola Komanit, who most probably lent his name Komanit (Bilgin 1990:233). Similiar toponyms, especially in the western part of Trabzon and even further west, are quite Similiar toponyms, especially in the western part of Trabzon and even further west, are quite frequent, cf. Bilgin (1999:79), who also gives great importance to clan names which he claims to be Cuman origin, still in use or at least still known today, from all over the province of Trabzon, such as Konguroğlu, Şişmanoğlu, Uzunoğlu, Demircioğlu, Türütoğlu, Cordanoğlu and Tertoğlu,and other names which have parallels e.g. in Cuman names in Hungary (ibid.p. 81-82). However, it has also quite possible that there were Kipchak elements in thhe Akkoyunlu confederation that entered Trabzon after the Akkoyunlu retreat from Iran, cf.9.1.4 . The hypothesis of the settlement of a considerable Cuman population element in pre-Ottoman times, especially as presented by Bilgin (1999), involving a partial loss of ethnic identity (because of conversion to Christianity) sounds plausible, and is supported by our linguistic data, where Cuman elements are largely confined to relic features, cf.7.4. (For Kipchak elements in other Anatolian dialects, cf. Korkmaz 1971:21-22. For Kipchak elements along the Black Sea coast, cf.Karahan: 181.

9.1.2. Warlike encounters between the Comnenes and different Oghuz groups

In the first period after the Comnenoi had established themselves in their new capital Trabzon, their kingdom was a a crescent extending along the coast from Sinop in the west almost to Batum in the east, and confined in the south by the Pontic chain. Especially the western parts, fluctuation, between Kingdom of Trabzon and the Seldjuks, were exposed to incursions ( Bryer 1975:126-132) by what Bryer calls “Turkmen” groups,i.e. Oghuz groups who had not become sedentary, and who partly participated in military operations arranged by the Seldjuks or Seldjuk principalities, partly wandered with their flocks in search of suitable grazing land in the Anatolian highland clanwise, but mostly in a quite unorganized manner. It may be recalled that the Turkic groups that started engulfing major parts of Anatolia after the defeat of the Byzantine emperor in 1071 seem to have been almost exclusively Oghuz while those following the hordes of Chingis Khan, who conquered the Seldjuks in 1237, were more mixed, comprisiğng also smaller groups of Kipchaks, Uighurs, and even Mongolian-speking tribes (Golden 1992:383)

Thanks especially to Panaretos, but also other Byzantine (to some extent also Arab) historiographers, we know of quite a number of attacts against of Trabzon by different Turkish emirates and principalities through the 13th and above all the 14th century. One of the most agressive emirs was the Seldjuk Melik of Erzurum, who launched an attack on the city of Trabzon which ended with his own defeat in 1222. The campaign and miraculous defeat of the Melik is the subject of along account by John Lazaropoulos (metropolite ofTrabzon 1364-1370) [Cf. Rosenqvist 1996: 50-63, 309-335, and 434-459. The old toponyms Melikşah in Tonya and Şahmelik in the Beşikdüzü area in Vakfıkebir (cf.130/2) could be interpreted as indications of a Turkish settlement dating back to the Melik’s campaign, but on the other hand it should be kept in mind that the Melik’s defeat gained fame s a amiracle created by St.Eugenios, Trabzon’s great martyr and patron saint. Thus the villages may have got their names as an act of reverence to the saint. (on the other hand, the village Şahmelik could also have been  uncommon in the region at least in the 15th century,cf. Shukurov 199b:21. Cf also Bilgin 1990.147) The same area has also interesting old name as Turalı, cf.123/31. How the story about the first settlements in Tonya related in text 24 should be interpreted is a problem we are unable to solve, but cf. further 9.4], but there are no indication that any of his soldiers remained in the area after he retreat. In this context, Faroqhi’s claim (2000:216-217) that the H(w)arezmian soldiers who were not killed in connection with a defeat by the Seldjuks in 1231 “sought refuge in Trapezuntine territory” [This information originates from the Syrian ecclesiastic and polyhistor Ibn al_Ibri Grighor Abu-‘l Farağ (1225-1286), also called Yuhanna Gregorius Barhebraeus (Fallmerayer calls him Abulfaragius), and is reproduced by Fallmerayer (1827:107) in connection with his account of attemps of Celal-al-din H(w)arezmşah to collct troops by making alliances with various kingdoms, among others the Grand Comnenoi, in order to fight the Seldjuk sultan ‘Ala’-ad-din Keykubad. In the final battle at Ahlat by Lake Van, the Harezmians were defeated.....For a modern translation, cf. Budge 1932:395.], could be significant, but unfortunately no further details are known about these soldiers and their destiny.

           In the 14th century, numerous attacks were made against parts of the kingdom by the ilhan of Sivas and the Emirs of Karahisar, Erzincan, and Bayburt (Shukurov 1994:23-41), but none of them were succesfull.

Bryer strongly emphasizes the role played by the Çepnis in military campaigns against the Trapezuntines, probably because he believes that the first Turkish settlers must have been Çepnis [E.g. “After 1461 a proprtion of the more active Greek population was deported and an Ottoman official class was settled in the walled city from which all Christians and tiny Jewish colony were excluded. In the country there were proportionately fewer official settlers, principally local Çepni and new Ottoman and Albanian castle and military fief holders (timariots)” Bryer 1970:37-38] stating clearly that the first settles were “not Ottoman but Çepni Turkoman” (1970: 42, cf.1969:191). Most of the incidents of Turkish attacks recorded in Panaretos, chronicle do not contain information on what tribe or clan the Turks in question belonged to, but still Bryer interprets them to be Çepnis (1975: 132-133). The only cases in the history of Trabzon in the 13th and 14th centuries where the sources mention the Çepnis specifically are the following:

1)     ın the period after the fall of Sinop in 1277, the Çepnis are recorded to have been active in the area between Sinop and Samsun (Canik) [According to Bryer (1975:127), based on the Planhol, the word Canik”seems to have served as a synonym for kışla, winter pasture”Cf. however our text 105/29, where it obviously means “coastal region”, cf.footnote] and to have defeated Trapezountine forces arriving by sea (Bryer 1975: 125, Sümer 1992a:242).

2)     The second unequivocal mention is 1348, when they attacked Trabzon together with the emirs of Erzincan and Bayburt, the Akkoyunlus and Ποσδογάνηζ [Bozdoğan, which most probably is the name of a tribe and not of a person, cf. Shukurov 1994: 53. However, if the name should be interpreted as the name of a leader, Panaretos’ text should be understood to the effects that he was one of the ‘Αμιτιώται’ (Akkoyunlus), cf. Zachariaiou 1979:340.] (cf. Lampsides 1958:68, Bryer 1975:132, 144).

3)     In 1380 the Emperor undertook a campaign against the Çepnis “by land and sea”. It is obvious that the Çepn stronghold then was along the Harşit river, i.e. outside the borders of the present province of Trabzon (but still within the borders of the kingdom), namely in the first valley south of the Pontic Chain. Immediately to the south of what is the Çepni area today this valley (and the river) bends northüwest and comes to the sea close to Tirebolu. It is obvious from Panaretos’ description that the winter camps of the Çepnis at that time were close to the upper course of the Harşit river(cf. Bryer ibid. p.133, 147, Lampsides 1958:79).

Thus, there is nothing that proves a very close contact between the Çepnis and the Trapezuntines in the OAT period, and there is no evidence for Çepni settlementes within the present borders at that time. [Cf. also Shukurov 1994:66-67]. Since we have already shown that the most arcaic Trabzon dialects have nothing to do with the Çepni dialect, the earliest settlers in the area comprised by the present province borders must have belonged to a different group. But a later expansion of the Çepnis must have taken place along the summer pastures eastwards on the Pontic ridge, not only because the Harşit valley got the name Çepni nahiyesi after the Ottoman conquest, but also because the Harşit valley got the name Çepni nahiyesi after the Ottoman conquest, but also because place-names in the southern part of Trabzon and Rize close to the summer pastures and all the way to Armenia [I thank Prof. Robert Dankoff for having drawn my attention to the toponym Çetni in Armenia. Further, an informant from the village Dağbaşı in Arakli (not in the corpus) mentions a Çepni sırtı close to the village Ayven (Köprüsütü or Kükürtlü). Perhaps also the Surname Çebi, which is quite common in Araklı, has something to do with the Çepnis.] and Batum testify to their presence (cf.1.3.2.[çepniler köyü]),5.4, 5.6, and Sümer 1992a:246-247). Sümer claims that there was a compact Çepni immigration to the Eastern parts of Trabzon and the western parts of Rize- not only the mountains areas, but also the valleys- in the 18th century [Sümer 1992b:5 and 94-95. None of his arguments is convincing. The fact that a brigand in the İkizdere valley was called Çepni Ali shows that it was an exception, not a rule, to be a a Çepni. However, the remark by the philologist and linguist Michael Deffner, who visited Of in the late nineteenth century, that the villagers of Zsino were extremely afraid of the Çepnis, whom they regarded as bandits, shows that the Çepnis were still active in (and beyond) the summer pastures at that time, cf. Meeker 1971:339.].He admits, however, that no study of archival material fromthis region has made that could suport this theory.

9.1.3.The Akkoyunlus

A population element in the immediate vicinity of the ream of the Trabzon which became much more integrated in the kingdom than any other Turkish group was the Akkoyunlus.[Two of the Turkish chieftains mentioned by Panaretos in addition to the ones who are explicitly desribed as Akkoyunlu my have been of Akkoyunlu descent.  The toğan ‘falcon’ element is especially common in Akkoyunlu onomastic, which may have to do with the fact that the doğan or laçin (falcon or hawk) was the totem of the Bayındır clan (Shukurov 1994:48, cf.however, the statement found in other sources that the sungur [also kind of a falcon] was the common totem of both the bayındır and Çepni clans, Sümer 1953:317). In he genealogy in the “official” history of the Akkoyunlus, the Kitab-i Diyarbakriyya, four of the more or less mythical ancestors of the Akkoyunlus had toğan as a component of their names (cf. Shukurov 1994:48, just as there are also several sungurs, cf. Woods 1976:187).One person mentioned by Panaretos wihout any ethnical or tribal label, whose name, however, might indicate that he belong to the Akkoyunlu clan, is Κουστουγάνηζ (which I have no hesitation in interpreting Oğuz Toğan), who was overwhelmed and defeated by the  Trapezuntines at Giresun in 1301 (Lampsides 1958:63,cf. Bryer [1975:133-134], who believes him to be Akkoyunlu. As pointed out by Zachariadou [1979:340], however, Panaretos does not mention any clan or tribe at all in connection with this name). Another is the above –mentioned Ποσδογάνηζ (Lampsides 1958:68, Bryer 1975:132, 144, Zachariadu 1979:340). In fact Κονστονγάνηζ could be identical with the Toğan Cuk in the Akkoyunlu genealogy and the ruler Toğancuk mentioned by the Arab historian ‘Umari, whose realm was to the west of the city of Trabzon (cf. Shukurov 1994:51). (This identification  would imply that Oğuz tOğan/ Toğancuk was active somewhat earlier than what is implied in Zachariadou’s dating [1979:346], according to which he died in 1346/47). (In connection with my identification of Κονστονγάνηζ with Oğuz Doğan it should be recalled that there is a certain confusion between Turkish postvelar stops and fricatives on one hand and their rendering by the Greek velar stop and postvelar fricative on the other, cf. footnote 478 to 8.2.2. above)] It was Kutlu Bey who was married to Alexios III’s sister Maria in 1352, four years after the big joint attack by the Akkoyunlus, the emirs of Erzincan and Bayburt, Bozdoğan, and the Çepnis.[For the connection between this marriage of Han Turalı to the daughter of the tekfur of Trabzon related in the Dede Korkud Kitabı, cf.1.2 above and especially Bryer 1987 with references, and Woods 1976: 238, footnotes 26 and 27. Woods emphasizes 81976.46] that an  identification od Panaretos “Αμιτιώται” with the Akkoyunlus is not certain- a reservation which does not seem to have been made by other scholars]. Although it is not known from where in Anatolia the Akkoyunlus came, it is known that Pehlivan Bey engaged “in operations against the Byzantines near Bursa” (Woods 1976:40). This may be the background for the claim made by informant 83, who belongs to the clan of the Turalıoğulları (82/26), that is ancestors originally came from Bursa. (His notion that Turalı was some kind of nazır engaged in the silver mines in Gümüşhane at least testifies to his presence south of the Pontic chain). (sf.288)The Akkoyunlus at first represented a continuous menace to the Trapezuntines, hence the endeavour to appease them by the royal marriage, which nay in fact helped greatly, as Panaretos does not relate any incidents of Turkish incursions after 1352. Quite on the contrary, there are even accounts to the effect that the Trapezuntine king wanted to assist his Oghuz brother-in-law Kutlu Bey, and also that Kutlu Bey and Maria came to visit Alexios in Trabzon for a week in 1365 (cf.Lampsides 1958:76, Bryer 1975:146). This must be the time when peaceful interaction between Greeks and Turks in the summer pastures started to render knowledge o one another’s languages necessary. At the same time , for those Akkoyunlus who decided to become sedentary, profound knowledge of Greek became a prequisite. In short,the latter half of the 14h century must have been a periodof Greek- Turkish cultural and linguistic interacton, which thwn continued for centurie- possibly with certain interrupts such as the turmoil caused by Timur lenk’s invasion into Anatolia at the very end of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century.

              Shukurov has launched the fascinating idea that the Akkoyunlus were more integrated in internal life in trabzon than one would assume, i.e. that they were engagedin the civil war in Trabzon between the royal family and certain noble families on the initiative of the family of Scholarioi (1994:55-62) . Using the genealogy in the Kitab-i Diyarbakriyya, he points out that the Akkoyunlus probably conducted another raid into Trabzon between 1348 and 1352 in revenge for the killing of a Yusuf  of the Duharlı tribe by the Trapezountines, whereupon the Akkoyunlus took a Trapezuntine princess prisoner. [Cf.also Woods (1976:47), who, however, interprets this account in Kitab-i Diyarbakriyya as referring to the same event as what Panaretos calls marriage, pointing out that by presenting the alliance as abduction, Tihrāni (the author of Kitāb-i Diyārbakriyya) conceals the fact that the Akkoyunlu rulers were on friendy terms with Christian powers.]This event (Sf.289) which was not recorded by Panaretos, Shukurov argues, must have been the direct reason for whyAlexios III gave his sister in marriage to the son of the Akkoyunlu chieftain, thereby forcing the Akkoyunlus to break their alliance with the Scholarioi. As Shukurov points out, seeking aid from the Turks in connection with internal struggels must have been regarded as unacceptable. Thus Panaretos, who is the offical historiographer or the Comnenoi, does not mention that the kingemployed Turkish forces in his conquest of the fortress of Giresun from the rebellious Scholarioi in 1355, which is, however, recorded bythe contemporar Andreas Libadenos does not mention the connections his patron, the Scholaroi, had with the Turks.

               One of the new sources we have for a Turkish population element in trabzon this early is the church registers from the Vazelon Monastery (cf.text 84) in the Maçka valley (cf. Ouspensky & Bénéchévitch 1927). These registers, which cover the 13th to the 15th century, together with other texts from the same period, have been studied by Shukurov (19991 and b), partly with our assistance, in order to exract personel names of Turkish, Persian, Arabic or Mongolian origin, which may serve as indications of a on-Greek population element in Trabzon in that period. [For some of the names, a more through dişscussion is foun in Shukurov 1995]. The names that are not identifiable as Greek amount to approximately half of the names in the Vazelon acts (Shukurov 199b:8). Partly based on these names, partly on the other sources, Shukurov shows that the cultural interaction between the Turks and the Orthodoks must have been considerable. He points out that names such as  Καλκανάζ ‘ shield maker’ (kalkan+ Greek nomen agentis suffix –άζ) must have ben formed after the stem kalkan was aqdopted into Greek 8ibid.p.15,32), and also that the extensive use of Turkish terminology by authors such as Panaretos in spite of the effort these authors showed to imitate Attic prose as much as they could, proves that these words had become an integrated part of the language (ibid.33,34), cf. 8.3 above. The fact that members of the royal family had Turkish nicknames by which they are referred to by Panaretos (ibid.33) corroborates our impression of the Byzantine attitude towards the Trapezuntines: They were barbarians. Thus, according to the  Byzantine historian Pachymeres (1242-ca.1310) , the Patriarch Germanos III (1265-1266), who came from the Trapezuntine Gabras family, used to be called by Turkish nickname (όνομα Περσικόν) by his enemies, who said that he “originated from the same place as the Turks. They did all because the Patriarch was a Lazian which in Pachymeres’ terminology means a Trapezuntine” (Zachariaddu 1979:338) [A similiar attitude seems to have met Orthodoks refugees from the Eastern Black Sea coast when they came to Greece after the Lausanne treaty. (cf. Vergeti 1991:384-387).

         Shukurov especially draws our attention to the fact that many of the Turks or speakers of Turkish in Trabzon at this early stage must have become Christians, but also  to the great probability of a presence of Muslim merchants in this important trade centre in the Middle Ages. Based on archival and other  evidence Shukurov suggest that there were sedentery Muslims in Trabzon, and concludes with the following claim, which is very much in copmliance with our hypothesis based on the modern dialcets. (1999b:35).

 (Sf.290)   On emay sugeest, that there existed in the Pontos some linguistically influential group of Turkophones or Turkish-speaking Byzantines, who introduced the Turkic lexical elements in to the Pontos. [Shukurov is right in his claim that certain groups of Turkish-speakers must have been “linguistically influential” for some time after the royal marriage in 1352 (as this is the only way to explain the occurence of Turkish words in various contemporary sources), but this influence (which must have been associated with the high status the Akkoyunlu ruler house enjoyed at that time) most probably diminished considerably after the Akkoyunlus moved their political centre further south (and eventually established their capital in Tabriz)].

 Besides, the rural districts are of extreme importance. As there are vast areas that are not covered conquest, but as pointed out several times, the areas in the upper part of the valleys, close to the summer pastures, were most probably settled by semi- sedentary Akkoyunlus already in the Middle Ages, who were forced to interact linguistically and otherwise with their Greek-speaking neighbours both in the summer pastures and further down the valleys. It should be kept in mind that there were large areas in some of the valleys which according to the Ottoman tax-registers seem to have been pratically uninhabited up to the 16th century [As. E.g. the Monahos valley (cf.Bilgin.1990:188).(In spite of an equivocal wording, Bilgin’s sentence should be interpreted to the effect that the village of “Manahos” was the only village in the Monahos valley up to the 1553 tax registers and that sevral villages were established between 1553 and 1583).

             There are two types of forcible language interaction which may have been of importance for the spread of bilingualism: One is an attempt to fill the lack of manpower by kidnapping (which is found also elsewhere along the Black Sea,cf. 31/13-16) or making prisoners-of work as slaves. Thus, Panaretos relates that the Trapezuntines set free a large number of captives taken by the Çepnis during the raid 1380 ( Lampsides 1958:79, Bryer 1975:147). In some cases the raids seem to have halved the population of a village(ibid.p.139) and the name Esiroğlu for a nahiye of Maçka still conveys the original meaning ofits Greek name, Αίχμάλωτοζ (may be more ‘refugee’ than ‘prisoner’ which must have been the lakap (niğckname) of one of its founders,cf.Bryer ibid.) Even if Turkish probably was not the favourite language of these prisoners when (or if) they returned to their own villages, they must have become quite proficient in Turkish during their enforced stay with the Akkoyunlus, and also contributed to the Akkoyunlus knowledge of Greek.

        The other type of inevitable language interaction, although perhaps less forcible, was created by convertions of Muslims to Christianity in connection with the employment of Turks as soldiers in the army of the king of Trabzon. In 1900, Franz Coumont, a famous Belgian historian of religions, acquired an interesting manuscript in Trabzon, containing possibly the oldest written version known of the formula used in the Orthodoks church by priests at ceremonies of apostasy,i.e. for the abjuration of Islam by Muslims who wanted (or were forced)  to embrance Christianity. The manuscript also contains the ritual for the initiation of the renegades in to the “vera fides” (cf. Montet 1906:145-147). The manuscript is probably from the reign of the Comnenes in İstanbul before the Latıin occupation, when the employment of Turkish apostates in the Byzantine army became quite common. The fact that the manuscript (of which later versions are known elsewhere in Asia minor)was found by Coumnont in Trabzon, however, most probably reflects the fact that this practise continued under the Comneneoi in Trabzon; it may have been used both in order to christianize early Cumans, but also individulas from the different Turkish tribes in the surroundings who forcibly or willingly joined the army of the Comnenoi.In any case, we may assume that Turkish- Greek bilingualism progressed also due to cases such as these.

9.1.4. The second coming of the Akkoyunlus

As we do not know anything about the language of the Akkoyunlus, we cannot ascribe specific lingusitic characteristic of the present Trabzon dialects to them. Instead we have to assume that the language of the Akkoyunlus was a variety of OAT, icluding all the variation a non-codified language may imply. Even if the Akkoyunlus extended their rule from a clan to principality towards the end of the 14th century and from a principality to an empire in the 15th, comprising all of East Anatolia and Iran, they did not forget their kinship with the Trapezuntines, which was renewed by additional marriages,e.g. the alliance of Uzun Hasan with the Theodora Comnena, a niece of the king of Trabzon, in 1458 (cf.Woods 1976:100-101). As a dowry Theodora got the revenue from the littoral districts of the village in various part of Trabzon today who clim that their clan orinatedfrom Baghdad, Kurdish areas, or other places in East Anatolia, actually are referring to the geographical whereabouts of their Akkoyunlu ancestors during the zenith of the Akkoyunlu empire.

              After Şah İsmail and his Kızılbaş Shiite army had overthrown Akkoyunlu rule in İran in 1501, a regular persecution of the Akkoyunlu chieftains and their families commenced, in spite of Şah İsmail’s own Akkoyunlu descent. Those who decided to remain in İran had to accept a very subordinate tribal status. This led to large-scale defections of Akkoyunlus, who fled from Iran and back to Anatolia (cf. Gökbilgin 1951). In Anatolia they most probably preferred to settle in their old lands, i.e. the parts of Uzun Hasan’s Akkoyunlu emopire that were now in the hands of the Ottomans, including Trabzon, an area they probably felt they special ties to due to the marriages between their the first settlements perhaps 150 years earlier facilitated the settling of their relatives. Some of the members ofthe Akkoyunlu dynasty who returned to Anatolia are known from historical sources, such as Ferruhşad Bey, the son of one of Uzun Hasan nephews, who settled in Bayburt, where some families still are reported to be aware of their Akkoyunlu descent (cf. Akkoyunlu 1992, especially 199-253). It seems that the settlement of the descendants of the Akkoyunlus in Trabzon in the early 16th century took (Sf.292) place at the behest of Yavuz Sultan Selim (cf.Bilgin 1999:84). As indicated by Brendemoen (1998b), this may have been the occasion when Iranian, but also Azeri, linguistic elements partly became consolidated in the Trabzon dialects, partly entered them for the first time. It is tempting to suggest that some of the settlement of the last generation of Akkoyunlus in the 16th century took place especially in parts of the Sürmene- Yomra district because the dialect there shows features that suit this datinbg very well, cf.e.g. Bilgin’s comment (1990:223-224) on the village Purnak, which he claims to be founded by Akkoyunlus settled there by Yavuz Sultan Selim. Especially the fact that the Akkoyunlus through Uzun Hasan’s marriage probably saw themselves as the rightful owners of the Sürmene-Yomra area obviously also contains several other population elements (some of which immigrated later from Rize, cf.9.2.2).

9.2. Immmigration by minor groups

9.2.1. The İkizdere Basin

 There are two important routes of migration into Trabzon which may have been  of major importance for the ethnical structure of Trabzon through the ages,i.e. mountain passes that give relatively practicable access to the district from the hinterland, and yhrough which different population elements have descended towards the Black Sea and to a great extent settled not far from the their route of migration. One of these is the İkizdere valley, which seems to have attracted immigrants since times immemorial, cf.1.2. above. As shown by Günay (1978:28), this valley has a very strong Turkih population element, especially on the eastern side. Neverthless, as pointed out by myself (Brendemoen 1996:54-55), toponyms along and in the close vicinity of this valley testify to migrations of a large range of peoples and tribes from the inland. It is impossible to date tp migrations. As ı have demonstrated, this valley was an important passage from the hinterland and a funnel of immigration also in ntiquity. Meeker, analyzing Umur’s data from the Ottoman tax registers, points out (1971:342-344) that the Muslim population in Of, which increased considerably during the 16th century 8cf.9.4), was concentrated along the lower Baltacı Deresi, i.e. the easternmost of the two valleys in Of (the one closest to the İkizdere valley). As shown by Meeker, this most probably has to do with the fact that the İkizdere valley “is known Of and in the province of Rize as the corridor by which new settlers have entered the coastal lowlands from the Pontic mountains and from Anatolia (ibid.p.343). The recent character of the Turkish settlements in this area is, however, only partly corroborated by our dialect data, as it is only the easternmost villages closest to the İyidere (texts 1-3, including partly text 13) that constitute a group of their on, cf.5.4., while the Baltacı and Maki Deresi villages belong to the same group as the Solaklı Deresi texts. It is quite probable that the dialect in the Solaklı region (where the Turkish population was more stable and accordingly more homogeneous, cf. Meeker 1971:343) (cf.293) has spread to the Baltacı and Maki valleys as a secondary phenomenon, since the Baltacı and Maki Deresi texts share some interesting features with texts 1-3 which must have come from the hinterland, perhaps even farther away (or represent a Kartvelian feature). Some of these linguistic features include an independent present time copula (cf.5.5, parameter 16) and a special construction corresponding to the verb “to have”(this last feature is attesed only in text 2,cf. Brendemoen 1997a:6-7). These features could be explained as due to copying from Greek, but the astonishing geographical distribution makes one suspect another origin: As very similiar features are also found in Halaç, they may have come with Turkic groups from Iran. Similiarly, the directional use of the locative forms of pronouns(e.g.bunda ‘hither’) , which is found in the same area (alongside locational use of the dative in regular nouns, such as samsona bulunύyyrum 8/2), is also found in Chaghatay and Uzbek (cf. Brendemoen 1996:45_52), where the lack of case differentation between direction and location was discused as a possible proof of a Kartvelian substrate). It is not inconceivable that Turkic population groups having these linguistic features came from Iran together with the Akkoyunlu refugees in the 16th century, or at an earlier date.

9.2.2.The Karadere Basin

Another route of migration is Karadere valley, which seems to have attracted different Turkish-speaking groups especially from the 16th century onwards, as becomes obvious from inguisic data such as the stage of development of voicedness and aspiration in stops, vowel harmony, etc. It is probable that this route, too, was of great importance for the Akkoyunlu refugees from Iran. From the Karadere valley proper the immigrats spread to the next valleys east and west, althpugh a passage to the Yanbolu valley directly from the hinterland is alsopossible. The special features in this area (shown as isoglosses in 5.7 above) show an affinity w.h the hinterland; however, there are few orno villages where the whole spectrum of isoglosses characteristic of the hinterland is found simultaneously. One interesting feature is the diffusion of backing of /ö/ and /ü/ and fronting of /ı/ (paramater4): In some villages in the northern part of the region, fronting and backing do not occur. However, fronting and backing do occur in most places, and these processes extend into Gümüşhane on the north side of the mountains (cf.6.1). At the same time the Sürmene-Yomra area shows a late stageof development of initial stops, most stops having already gone through a voicing process (except where voicing of the initial stop is prevented by a following unvoiced stop, cf. 4.2.1.1.3). Initial velar stops followed by back vowels are in different stages of development; while some are already voiced or have lost their aspiration, some are still aspirated as in ST, cf. 2.2.1.2.3.At the same time, most parts of the area have strongly palatalized velar stops preceding front vowels 85.2, parameter 10), and dental realization of affricates (parameter 11). To our knowledge, the only other place in Anatolia where there is a similiar combination of (sf.294)features is Rize, and especially Günay’s district I (1978:26-28). [In this area, initial velar stops before vowels are aspired as in ST, but MLs or voiced further to the east]. As stated in the introduction (1.3.2), there was a migration of Christian or Muslim Hemşinlis having Armenian as their mother tongue or as a substrate language, to the Karadere and neighboring valleys before the beginning of the 18th century. However, phonological features of the Hemşinli districts in Rize today (Günay’s III. Ağız bölgesi) are very different from both the Rize dialects further to the west nd the Karadere dialects. The Hemşinli dialect includes systematic backing of/e/  (cf.4.1.3.4) and less systematic raising of low  vowels (Güany 1978:65, 67-69), features which are not found in the Karadere dialects. These phonological characteristics of the Hemşimli dialects should be evaluated from a diachronic point of view in order to establish whether they could be evaluated from a diachronic point of view in order to establish whether they could be the result of a recent development due to copying from East Anatolian dialects. Perhaps the resemblance between the Sürmene- Yomra dialects and the dialects in Günay’s district I may be explained as follows: In spite of all reports on migration from the Hemşin region,non-Hemşinli migration from districts further to the west  in Rize must have been more numerous in the 17th and 18th century. In that case features such as the backing of/ü/ and /ö/ and the fronting of /ı/, the strongly palatized velar stops before vowels, and the dental affricates would have been caused by a considerably older Armenian or Caucaisan substrate or adsrate in the Rize region [Dipnot:510 : A Greek substrate would not explain the strongly palatized velar stops or the dental affricates]. In addition, if the Sürmene- Yomra region had a population speaking the same archaic Turkish dialect as in Of and Çaygara at the arrival of the immigrants from Rize (which was subsequently assimilated to or driven out by the newcomers), this dialect may also have had a preserving effect on features in Rize dialect such as the absence of /ö/, /ü/, and /ı/.

                       Although it is obvious that the Karadere basin has served as a funnel for migration from the interior, one inevitably asks if the lack of backing of /ı/ and fronting of /ü/ and /ö/ in the villages in Arsin and Yomra closer to the sea (5.7., parameter 4) may prove that these villages were populated by speakers of Turkish prior to those further inland.  We could suggest that these villages may be examples of settlement from the sea and not from the interior, since they do not show of the other special features characteristic of the dialects further south in the valleys [Dipnot 511: There is also some evidence for immigration of Laz groups from the east, cf. villages as Hara (modern name: yol üstü) in Arsin, whose population must have come from a Laz village by the same name in Fındıklı in Rize (cf. Bilgin 1990:196). Four of the six households that were registered in that village in 1486 figure as Laz. Toponyms  such as Lazanat (today’s Çimenli) in Sürmene also indicate a Laz population element, cf. further 1.3.3. according to Mehmet Bilgin (oral communication) one of the 16th century defters also contains information on a not insignificant laz immigration to Of.].

9.3.Deportations (Sürgünler)

Different aspects of the Islamization and Turkization of Trabzon in the period from the Ottoman conquest in 1461 to 1583 are the subject of interesting studies by three scholars: Umur (1951), who concentrated on the history of Of (including Çaykara ane the “Holo” villages of Sürmene, which where then a part of Of); Lowry (1981), whose main scope is the city of Trabzon; and Bilgin (1990), whose subjects is the history of Sürmene. Their material from the first century after the conquest,i.e. the mufassal tharirr defterleri from 1486, 1515, 1523,1553 and 1583. The defter from 1515 is also the main subject of the study by Gökbilgin (1962).

          One efficient method of stabilizing new areas that added to the Ottoman empire through conquest was forcible population transfer or deportation (sürgün). This had been used for the same purpose by the Romans, Persians, and Byzantines, and was taken over by the Ottoman from the Byzantines (cf. Todorova 1996:63.For an interesting study of the importance of deportations in the Ottoman empire, cf. Barkan 1949-1954). As pointed out by Lowry (1981:21), extensive deportations took place to Trabzon soon after the conquest, notably from areas in the inland not very far from Trabzon, such as Amasya, Samsun, Niksar etc. The aim of these deportations must have been to increase the Muslim population. Thus, in the defter of 1486, the deportees constituted  78% of thr total Muslim population of the city, which was approximately 1290 persons (which again was less than 20 % of the total population). However, since their places of origin were relatively close, quite a number of teh families deported obviously took the opportunity of returning home, as is evident from the decrease of the Muslim population in the period between 1486 and 1523, the year of one of the next defters (ibid.p.45,54).

           There is no evidence that these earliest deprtations from the inland had any impact on the rural districts. However, just as there were extensive deportations- according to Bilgin (1990:136 and 138-141), six times- from Trabzon to Istanbul and the Blakans during the first 25 years after the Ottoman conquest, so were there extensive deportations from the Balkans to Trabzon. The people deported from Trabzon were to a large extent Orthodox Christian noblemen and their families (who accordingly did not have Turkish as their main language).[“Hristiyan sipahiler” cf. Barkan 1954:217]. Barkan very aptly describes the Ottoman policy of pacifying recently conquered, critical areas by deporting its aristocracy, giving them noble and important, but also dangereous postings abroad] The deportations to Trabzon seem to have had a strong impact on the rural districts. Among the newcomers from the Balkans, quite a number were Albanians (cf. Bilgin 1990:143-144). Thus, remarks that a person was an “Albanian deported from Rumelia” occur quite frequently in the tax registers for the villages of Trabzon. [Cf.e.g. Gökbilgin, 1962: 319,322. Deportations to Trabzon were usually made to strengten the Muslim population element, but the Albanian deportations seem made more in order to punih and remove potentially insidious elements from Albania after the unsuccesful upheaval of Skanderberg (who died in 1468), as the deported Albanians seem to have contained a proportion of  Christians alongside the Muslims, cf. Bilgin 1990: 143-144, compare Barkan 1954:222. The fact that so many of the Albanians were given timars in Trabzon and Rize indicate that they had belonged to the aristocracy in their home country. Bilgin’s claim (p.146) that Christian Turks were transferred to Trabzon from the Balkans by means of these deportations needs furher investigation]from the Pelopponnese [Cf. the following remark about a timariot in a defter. “Mahmud veledi Ali Bey Mazrai an, sürgünani Mora” (Umur 1951:41,cf also 43,44,45,etc). (Mazraki is an important Albanian clan, cf. Bilgin 1990:143)],they probably spoke Greek, which may be the explanation of Tzitzilis’ interesting cailm that there are Tsakonian elements in some of the Greek loanwords in the Turkish Black Sea dialects (1987:157-158). Albanians occur in the archival material especially as timar sahipleri, i.e. fief holders, as do occasionally also deportees from places such as Bosnia, Kosovo and Skopje (Üsküp) (cf. Bilgin 1990:144,190). In fact,of the 207 t.mars listed in the liva of Trabzon approximately 25 years after the conquest, 101 belonged kapu kulu askerleri, i.e. pensioned janissaries etc. For 51 timars there is no record of the provenience of their holder. 25 timars were in the hands of Albanians from Peloponnese, and 21 belonged to non-Muslim sipahis from Torul on the south slopes of the mountains. The remaining timars belondeg to Çepni noblemen, judges and dervish orders (Barkan 1954:221). How many Albanian (and South-Slavic speaking) ordinary people,i.e. commoners, arrived together with the noblemen is not known, but they were not sufficient to have a notice able impact on the Turkish dialect. We have not any lingusitic element that may have been caused by influence of Albanian or any South Slkavic language; as sugeested by Bilgin (1990:144), the Christians probably were assimilated to the Greek-speakers whilw the Muslims were assiimilated to the Turkish-speakers. The assumption that the newcomers did not know any Turkish explains why the 14th century kind of Turkish with its heavy adoptions from Greek which was already established in the area was the variety of Turkish that spread among them.

9.4. Conversions

According to the archival data from the rural districts of Trabzon, there is a slow increase in Muslim population during the first hundred years after the Ottoman conquest. E.g., from the data based on the population registers for Of studied by Umur (1951), which have been turned into an easily readable table by Bryer (1970:45), we may deduce the following percentages for the whole kaza of Of for the years studied by Umur:

Census year      Christians        Muslims

1515                  97,9 %          2,1 %

1554                  88,4 %          11,6 %

1583                  76 %             24 %

(Sf.297)This slow increase has made scholars such as Bryer suggest that “rather than a sudden mass conversion in the late seventeenth century, of popular tradition, the muslim population may simply have overtaken the Christians in those years by natural increase” (Bryer 1970:45). It should be recalled that Umur does not discuss how the demographic profiles of the villages changed- whether the change was caused by conversions or by settlement by Muslim newcomers (expect for remarks such as “Şurada burada kalan hristiyan azınlılardan başka hristiyan dinini terkedip Türklük camiasına katılanların bulunduğunu kabul etmek mecburiyetindeyiz” Umur 1950:20). Furthermore, it should be mentioned that the popular tradition of a mass conversion is confined to the southernmost parts of Of, which correspond to parts of the present ilçe of Çaykara. As this region remained outside Turkization and Islamization proceses throughout the 16th century (cf.Umur 1951:23), the tradition of a mass conversion by missionaries from Maraş in Sothern Anatolia (possibly in the 17th century) may be based on a real  event (cf.texts 4 and 18/40-51 and Poutouridou in the 1998:53-55) [The story as related by Umur reproduced e.g. Poutouridou does not have a reflect anything but the fact that Çaykara was islamized by missionaries from the south. The claim that the ancestors of these missionaries originally came from Of (and that this is the reason why they could speak Greek) and that they had had a dream where their mission was revealed to them (ibid p.54) may of course be later additions. Cf.also Meeker 1971:341 and the Greek tradition that the population of Of converted to Islam together with their apostate bishop Alexander, when he became İskender Paşa of Trabzon (reproduced by Bryer [1968:109-110] with additional interesting comments)].

 Bryer  makes the interesting remark that there is no literary or monumental  evidence for any Greek settlement in Of or Tonya in the Middle ages (1970:45). It is not inconceivable that Of was very thinly populated indeed in the Middle Ages, as was the Monahos valley (Cf.9.1.3), and that the population increased drastically when the İkizdere valley began to serve as a funnel for settlers during the population movements we have already mentioned (9.2.1), perhaps especially with the arrival of the Akkoyunlus in the 14th century . However, the fact that Of had a bishopric for a short time in the latter 15th century (against the trend that time, when bishoprics were being abolished rather than established,cf. Bryer& Winfield 1985: 323-324) shows that at least in the last centuries before the conquest, the Orthodox population must have been considerable.

 According to Meeker’s interesting report from Of (1971:339),

“... migration from the highlands [probably meant to be “highland outside Trabzon”, i.e. the hinterland] to the lowlands in Of is still taking place today and has probably accelerated in recent years, The families that have migrated within the past 100 years or so are called mountainers (dağlı) by the older families and constitute about 10 percent of the population in the district. The earely comers among the mountainers have become almost indistinguishable from the natives (yerli) in their customs...”

From a linguistic point of view it should be stressed that the newcomers must have continiously become assimilated to the dialect of the older families. In this connection it should be mentoned that according to Meeker’s interpretation of Umur’s figures, the settlement of Muslims migration from the hinterland into the Baltacı Deresi, caused a migration of Christians from that valley to the southern, mountainous areas of the Solaklı valley, i.e. today’s Çaykara (1971:343). Thus several new settlements with practically only Christian households appear in Çaykara in the period between the 1515 and the 1553 defters, and also between 1553 and 1583 (Poutouridou 1998:49). It should, however, be kept in mind that the upper parts of the Solaklı valley already had a Christian population at the time of the first defters, but that the drastic increase of this population most probably have an external cause as the one suggested by Meeker.

           In the valleys belonging to the district of Sürmene, Islamization seems to have taken more slowly than northern parts of Of( cf. Bilgin 1990:180-238). [Except for the villages such as Aho (Bilgin 1990:181), where 65% of the households wrere Muslims by 1583, Ivyan (ibid. p.202), where the percentage was 48, and Mahura [ibi.p 216], 54%].The same is the case with Akçaabat, cf. Lowry (1981:138-140), except for some villages especially in the southern part of the area, which had a strong Muslim population in 1583. [The present whereabouts of the different villages in the defters is often difficult to establish, partly because the Ottoman officials who wrote them down did not perceive the non-Turkish names properly, partly because the writing is extremely difficult to interpret when one does not have a clue about how a certain word should be read, and finally, because many of the villages have changed names several times during the last centuries].Although Lowry gives no information on the population in Akçaabat based on data in the earlier defters we could assume that the Muslim population in this southernmost area, as with adjacent areas in Maçka (cf.text.82), were of Akkoyunlu descent, still preferring to live in the mountainous areas close to the hinterland they had come from. The legeds about cooling climatic conditions and migrations towards the sea (e.g. texts 80/40-74, 119,and 124) would theb be based on eventes subsequent to the 1583 defter, which is in concordance with what is assumed about climatic changes, cf. 1.5.2. The fact that the persons in the legends as related by our informations are Greek and that the names of the cattle (119/14-16) or brothers (124-11) who lead the migrations are not Turkish (although the name Sakar [119/16] surely could be Turkish) might reflect the mixed Greek- Turkish culture that had developed in the southern areas. However, we shall refrain from further iğnterpretation of these legents, which would be speculative.

            Although the data for the rural districts in the defters have been studied to a very limited extent (and hardly any researches on the parts concerning Rize seems to have been made at all), [An exception is Bilgin (1993:60-64), who goes through parts of the 16th century registers which concern the easternmost parts of Rize. Rize has also been treated superficially by Gökbilgin (1961:321-328)]. We may say that the sparse Muslim presence in the rural districts of trabzon up to the end of the 16th century to a great extent may be explained as caused by the expansion of the Muslim element that had already been present the conquest, and the migration. In the city of Trabzon, however, conversions played a very important role in the 16th century. We have pointed above (9.3) the lack of increase of the Muslim population i

N the city between 1486 and 1523, but between 1523 and 1553, the Muslim population increased by 183% and reached 47% of the total population of the city (cf.Lowry 1981: 76-77), and by 1583 it had reached 54% (ibid.p.113). While some of this increase was caused by migration of new Muslim families, some must be explained as due to conversions to Islam. Based on a quite sophisticated method of analyzing patronymics esatblished by Victor Menage and Ömer Lütfi Barkan (cf. Lowry 1981:119-139). Lowry proposes the interesting hypothesis that 29% of the Muslim population in the defter from 1553 and 23% of the Muslims in the one from 1583 were 1st generation converts. It should be added that 45% of the Muslim population in 1583 were either 1st or 2nd generation converts. It should be added that conversiion by marriage, i.e. Greeek women (and their future offspring) becoming Muslim when when married to Muslim men, must have been quite common. As the opposite was forbidden by the şeri’at and religion followed the male lineage, this must have been an important factor in the increase of the Muslim population which does not appear clearly in the tax registers (cf. Jennigs 1986: 147).

       There are no similiar defters from the 17th and 18th centuries (cf. Umur 1951:7) which could throw light on the subsequent development in the rural discrits (or the city). However, there is no reason why we should assume that conversions did not take place in the rural discrits in the 17th century. (The lag between the urban and rural developments seems to be a universal principle). In our view, the most important reason for converting to Islam (except, of course, for cases of concviction yhat the Muslim faith was the only true faith) must have been economics; as Lowry puts it, “onaltıncı yüzyıl Trabzon’unda Müslüman olmak, hristiyan olmaktan dha ucuzdu” (1981:136). It should be kept in mind that especially the 17th century was a period of turmoil in several parts of the Ottoman Empire: The realtively sudden increase in population seen also in Europe during the same period, possible effects of the Celalirebellations, climate changes which did not make farming easier (cf.1.5.2), and a weakening central goverment demanding more tax revenue in order to keep the empire together may all have affected daily life of the rural population, making it more difficult to subsist economically than before. As non- Muslims had to pay haraç, which amounted to a considerably higher sum than the taxes imposed on Muslims (the proprtion seems to have varied considerably from the period to period), conversion was a way to make one’s life more secure- at least economically. There are many obscure features about economic life in the Ottoman Empire in 17th century, but it is surely no coincidence that this is the period when large scalşe conversions took place in Bosnia, too, also most probably mainly for economic reasons (cf.Todorova 1996:63-64). Bryer (1970:42-43) suggests that there are also waves of persecution against the Orthodoks in Trabzon during the reign of mehmet IV (1648-1687), pointing to the fact that the Orthodox church got some new saints who were martyred in the area in this period. Although Bryer attributes this to political causes, the general poverty and discontent among the population caused by the factors we have mentioned may have been enough to create waves of antipathy and hatred between population groups.

              This is also the period when large population groups started to pretend to converted to Islam in order to avoid paying the haraç and also to take refuge in remote mountains areas such as Santa in order to avoid paying regular Muslim taxes. Crypto-Christian communities were established and remained until 1856, when they were granted freedom of religion. One additional cause not only for the establishment of such communities, but possibly also for continued waves of conversion, was the shift of local rulers from timariots to derebeys. By taking advantage of the weakness of the Ottoman administration, the timar holders attained virtual independence from the Sultan, and established themselves as “valley lords”, who were practically local kings. According to scholars such as Bryer, life under derebeys, which must have been quite miserable in general, was even more so for Christians than for Muslims, which may have added a new reason for converting to Islam (or for seeking refuge in the mountains outside the reach of the derebeys)

9.5.Concluding Remarks on the Turkization process

As we shown, the Islamization processes in Trabzon did not follow a straight line of development, and there is also considerable local variation as to the factors that have caused Islamization and Turkization, e.g. migration (possibly combined with a high birth rate) v.s. conversion. This vey cmplicated picture (we could not call it a pattern, as a pattern implies regularly) becomes even more intriguing when we look at isolated cases, such as groups of muslim Turks settling in Çaykara, thus acquiring Greek language (cf.Meeker 1971: 344). However, although there are important exceptions, Turkish language must in most cases have followed the religion. And the fact that there must have been a continuous dialect area from Of to Vakfıkebir (where the Turkish dialect had preserved features from the 14th century) before the arrival of the ancestors of the present inhabitants of the Sürmene-Yomra area in the 17th and 18th century, i.e. in a period not long after the completion  of the last 16th century defter (but perhaps not before “the second coming of the Akkoyunlus”, which was in the 16th century). Since the archaic dialect is relatively homogeneous, at least in the core areas we havementioned, we may ssume that it attained a high status not only among converts, who may have got their religious instruction in this dialect, but also among settlers its existence in Trabzon probably at the lower end of the social spectrum as a minority language, Greek. When it became the dominant language also among the converts during the 17th century, the copying process went on with these new speakers imposing further elements (primarilary lexical) into their new code. A smiliar imposition process may of course also have taken place among the part of the population which knowledge of Turkish gradually became more important. The situation is not unlike the one described by Johanson (2001) from The Kama-Volga region, where a “drama of convergence” has taken place between Finno-Ugrian and Turkic languages. However, while “The Volga-Kama area experienced a coplex interplay of  adoption and imposition socially dominated codes” (ibid.), in the Trabzon area, Turkish has mainly been the receiving part in spite of changes in social status. As we have pointed out above (8.3), adoption of Turkish elements into Greek mainly seems to have taken place on the lexical level up to the 20th century; after the departure of the Orthodoks Greekspeakers, however, more fundomental adoptions from Turkish have occured.

10.CONCLUSION 

          Based on the phonological analysis of the dialect material we have transcribed in as unbiased a way  as possible, we have established the phonological characteristics of the Trabzon dialects. We have furthermore established parameters for the classication of the dialects in groups, and established dialect borders. The westernmost border (runnig through the western part of Vakfıkebir from north to south) is a conspicuous isogloss bundle which simultaneously forms the border between the Eatern Black Sea and the Central (or Western) Anatolian dialcet groups; the other borders are made up by less solid bundles of isoglosses. We have classified the characteristics of the dialects as archaisms or innovations, or such archaisms which have been preserved thanks to the existence of Greek as sub- or adstrate language. By establishing a dating of the archaism to the middle part of the Old Anatolian Turkish period, we have proposed that the variety of OAT from which the Trabzon dialects developed, became isolated from the general development of Anatolian Turkish in the 13th or 14th century, and historical events show taht this is plausible, as cultural interaction took place between the Byzantine kingdom of Trebizond and the Akkoyunlu confederacy ofTurkish tribes in the second half of the 14th century. Probably an Akkoyunlu settlement in Trabzon took place at that period.

           The innovations are mainly adoptions from Greek, but in Sürmene-Yomra region, which to some extent is inhabitated by migrants from Rize, there is also certain Armenian element. Inour discussions  of the different features we have also proposed new hypotheses on the genesis of the present tense formation in the Oghuz languages and on the vowel development in Greek loanwords in Greek.

           What still remains not fully explained is how Turkish language spread in the area. It is not completely clear how the Turkish which developed during the interaction between the Akkoyunlus and the Greek-speaking Christians before the Ottoman coquest basically was the only variety of Turkish to spread in the area. It is also completely unclear if there was a specific part of the province this language spread from. We assume that the speakers of teh archaic language attained a role as religious teachers which gave the dialect a special status both among converts and muslim immigrats from elsewhere, i.e. a status which promoted its diffusion.

             Details regarding the diffusion of the language cannot be fully explained until further archival material has been found analyzed. The existing analyses of the tahrir defterleri from 1486 andthe ones from the 16th century  have not been exhaustive, since not all parts of the liva of Trabzon were included in the analyses, the names of the inhabitants were not analyzed (except for Lowry’s 1981 work), and the very few scholars who have attempted to analyze material from Rize do not indicate to what denomination the Christians belong. Furthermore, the nlack of archival material from the 17th and 18th centuries will cause the hypotheses proposed by myself and others to remain hypothetical level perhaps infinitely.

               Nevertheless, a lot of new research may be done in Trabzon and Rize in order to understand the dialectogical status of the area better. Some of the desiderata are the following:

a)     Fieldwork should be done all over the Sürmen-Yomra region to assess the information given by T’orlak’yan (1981) about the demograpfic structure of this region (cf. 1.3.2). Simultaneously fieldwork should be done in Rize in order to obtain a more detailed picture of the Hemşin dialects, so that a closer comparison between data from Rize and Trabzon can be made.

b)     A large-scale onomastic project should be initiated, comprising both old toponyms and names form the Easter Black Sea region. An iğnternational team with knowledge of different Turkic and Caucasian languages, and Greek and Armenian, would sort out the etymology of the toponyms, while an assessment of the different clan names and their connection to different Turkic groups would enable us to classify the older Turkish population elements more closely.

c)     It would be very interesting to ivestigate to what extent the Çepni dialect in Trabzon shares features with other Çepni dialects,  and to draw the borderline between genuine Çepni features and adoptions forms the old Trabzon dialect. This could easily be done by performing an investigation based on fieldwork, e.g. among Çepnis in the Edremit region.

d)     Furthermore, the status of the dialects in Turkey today should be studied: As most of my material was collected more than twenty years ago, modern society hasmade an even stronger impact on village life, and thanks  to the media, Standard Turkish may be heard in almost every home ad infinitum from the television set. It would be extremely interesting to find out what changes this has caused- and still causes- in the dialects themselves (e.g., phonological and syntactical adoptions from ST), but also if it has caused the development of any kind of diglossia, and, if that is the case, what social context are required for dialect vs. ST to be used by rural population familiar both with the local dialect and ST.

However, my main desideratum extends outside the Eastern Black Sea Coast: There are so may districts in Turkey where no proper dialectological field-work has been done, e.g. Giresun. Considering the fact that Turkish language authorities,.e. the Türk Dil Kurumu, is plannig to prepare a dialect atlas of Turkey, Turkologists in Turkey have obviously realized that the dialects are a gold mine for understanding the diachronic development of the language, and probably also that dialectological methodology has developed greatly since Caferoğlu’s time. It would be an interesting experiment if TDK would establish  dialectological teamwhich would be instructed about recent developments in methodology before they plan their fieldwork, and which would be instructed about recent developments in methodology before they plan their fieldwork, and which would prepare a questionnaire in accordance with dialectometrical principles, cf.1.7.5. Although diachronically oriented dialectology in Europe has yielded considerably to sociolonguisytic dialectology, there are still such huge gaps in the establishment of the geographical distribution of even quite uncomplicated isoglosses in Turkey that traditional dialectology should not be forgotten, but on the contrary should be armed with a new and better methodology.

 *from the book of The Turkish dialects of Trabzon Faculty of Arts University of Oslo