17. Yüzyıl Osmanlı İmparatorluğu için bir dönüm noktasıdır. Tarihçilerin budönem hakkında farklı yorumlara sahip olmasına rağmen, hepsi gerilemedenziyade gelişmeyi vurgularlar. Halil İnalcik’a göre 17. Yüzyıl Osmanlımüesseselerinin “değişim” asrıdır. Sureyya Faruqhi ise bu dönemi siyasi veekonomik anlamda “kriz ve değişim”in yaygın bir şekilde görüldüğü bir dönemolarak tarif eder. Benzer düşüncelere sahip olan Linda Darling ise ayni şekilde 17.Yüzyıl Osmanlı tarihi ile ilgili olarak yapmış olduğu değerlendirmelerinde budönemi “güçlenme/yeniden yapılanma” ve devlet yapısının şartlara uyumunsağlandığı bir dönem olarak görür. Bu bağlamda Rhoads Murphey 17. YüzyılOsmanlı tarihi ile ilgili değerlendirmelerde bulunurken söz konusu zaman dilimini“idari uygulamalar ve keşiflerin” yapıldığı ve devlet idaresinin yeniden gözdengeçirildiği bir devir olarak değerlendirir.Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivindeki 50’yi aşkın avârizhâne ve nüzül defterlerindekikayıtlı bilgilerin temel başvuru kaynağı olarak kullanıldığı bu çalışma KaramanEyaleti içerisinde 1628-1700 tarihleri arasında kullanılan defterlerde bahsı geçen 8liva ve 48 adet kaza ve bu liva/kazalar dahilinde kayıtlı avarız vergi nispetlerini ilkdefa sistematik bir şekilde incelemekte ve daha önce üzerinde pek çalışılmamışolan 17. Yüzyılda Osmanlı’da halkın vergi yükü üzerinde Karaman Eyaleti esasalınarak değerlendirmelerde bulunulacaktır

The seventeenth century was a turning point for the Ottoman Empire. Althoughhistorians differ in their precise interoperations of this, all stress the notion ofdevelopment rather than decline. From İnalcik's point of view it was a century of'transformation' of Ottoman institutions, while Faroqhi describes it as an era ofwidespread 'crisis and change' both politically and in socio-economic terms.Darling sees a period of 'consolidation' and of adaptation of the state structure tocircumstances; Murphey stresses the 'significant administrative experiments andinnovation' and a re-assessment of government practicesThis study is the first to use avâriz/nüzul defters systematically to examine theavâriz-nüzul tax burden on the tax-paying people over a significant period of time.Given the huge number of unstudied avâriz defters which exist, covering largeareas of Anadolu and Rumeli over two-hundred years, it was decided to confine thepresent study to one specific geographic area, the Anatolian province of Karaman,to cash avâriz (avâriz akçesi) and cash nüzul (bedel-i nüzul) levies only, and to theperiod 1628-1700.The seventeenth century was a turning point for the Ottoman Empire. Althoughhistorians differ in their precise interoperations of this, all stress the notion ofdevelopment rather than decline. From İnalcik's point of view it was a century of'transformation' of Ottoman institutions, while Faroqhi describes it as an era ofwidespread 'crisis and change' both politically and in socio-economic terms. Darlingsees a period of 'consolidation' and of adaptation of the state structure to circumstances;Murphey stresses the 'significant administrative experiments and innovation' and a reassessment of government practices.1The avâriz levies were among the most important of the regular sources of governmentrevenue in the Ottoman empire during the seventeenth century, but there has beenrelatively little study of them. Originating in the late fifteenth century as irregularimposts levied at times of military need, it is clear that by the first quarter of theseventeenth century avâriz and related levies had become virtually annual leviesthroughout the majoriy of the Rumelian and Anatolian provinces.2This study is the first to use avâriz/nüzul defters systematically to examine the avâriznüzul tax burden on the tax-paying people over a significant period of time. Given thehuge number of unstudied avâriz defters which exist, covering large areas of Anadoluand Rumeli over two-hundred years, it was decided to confine the present study to onespecific geographic area, the Anatolian province of Karaman, to cash avâriz (avârizakçesi) and cash nüzul (bedel-i nüzul) levies only, and to the period 1628-1700. First,however, it will be useful to define what avâriz/avârizhâne was in the Ottoman practice.Avâriz. The term avâriz as used by the Ottoman administration originally denotedvarious types of levy set by the central government in the sultan's name, and thereforereferred to in full as avâriz-i divaniye. Avâriz-i divaniye and the closely related tekalif-iörfiye were 'blanket terms' for a large number of dues which began as extraordinarylevies originally paid in cash, kind or services according to the needs of the governmentand the circumstances of the community upon which they were levied.3 They originatedas emergency levies during time of war, and were payable by all Ottoman tax-payers,urban and rural, Muslims and non-Muslims. Built into the system were exemptions forparticular services rendered, and flexibility to take into account the ability to pay.4Avârizhâne. The term avârizhâne denotes an administratively-defined 'tax household' or'tax house unit'. In the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries one avârizhâne comprisedjust one gerçekhâne (real household) but by the seventeenth century the system hadchanged to one of larger groupings, with one avârizhâne comprising severalgerçekhânes.The number of gerçekhânes in an avârizhâne unit varied over time and place, accordingto government need, to administrative practice, and to the estimated financialcircumstances of the tax-payers in a given area. The principle was simple. Eachavârizhâne unit was required to pay the same amount in avâriz levies. However, thegovernment recognised different levels of prosperity- edna (poor), evsat (average) andala (rich) - and adjusted the number of gerçekhânes in each avârizhâne accordingly. Forinstance, if in an averagely prosperous area, 7 gerçekhânes comprised one avârizhânewhich was required to contribute 400/600 akçe per year depending on the type of levy,then in a richer area 3 or 4 gerçekhânes might comprise one avârizhâne to yield thesame sum, and in a poor area perhaps 12 or more gerçekhânes would be groupedtogether to generate this amount. This fine tuning took place at the local level, withinurban mahalles (town quarters) and villages, and was an essential part of the assessmentprocess.5In this case study we use only the akçe for calculation of financial issues, despite thefact that the akçe was only one of several denominations in use. The reason for this isthat avâriz-nüzul registers themselves continue to calculate in akçe throughout thecentury and that work on commodity prices also is in akçe. This study helps us todetermine how far avariz/nüzul taxation was a significant imposition/burden on the taxpaying population, or not. We can also see when these became regular taxes whetherthey were levied separately or together. Before c.1600 it is assumed that they were notlevied annually and not they levied on the same groups of people. The position in theseventeenth-century appears significantly different.An assessment of tax burden on the tax-paying subjectThe registers examined for this study have shown that avâriz and bedel-i nüzul taxationin Karaman was fairly standardised and fairly stable during the seventeenth century,particularly from c.1659 onwards. Initial comparison with registers from otherprovinces suggests also that this was the case in other areas of Anadolu and northernSyria. Variations in yield occurred due to changes in the number of avârizhânes, not tofrequent changes in the rate of assessment. Taken together at standard levels, the avârizakçesi (400 akçe) and the bedel-i nüzul (600 akçe) give an annual total of 1000 akçe dueper avârizhâne for the main avâriz-i divaniye levies (see table 1 below for occasionalvariations). The fact that these levies were collected efficiently and with relatively fewcomplaints (as far as is known) suggest that the level of taxation which they representwas acceptable to taxpayers. What might 1000 akçe per avârizhâne have meant morespecifically to the gerçekhânes or nefers within each group?An attempt may be made here to establish how much money was regarded as 'wealth' in17th-century Ottoman society, in order to be able to place the avâriz and nüzul taxes insome kind of perspective for the tax payers. How many akçe was normal accumulationand how many akçe constituted substantial wealth? Halil İnalcik attempted to define theeconomic status of individuals at the end of the fifteenth century on the basis of estates