Abstract:
The sicils (Ottoman court records) have been utilized as a 'historical source' in studying different areas of Ottoman history since 1930s. Many historians have seen them very fruitful source to construct history of the Ottoman State and Society from 'below' considering the lively language of the records that take place in the sicils. At this point, it can be claimed that the process of making and utilizing the sicils as a 'historical source' go hand in hand with the tendencies developed in historiography thorough the making social and micro history. Historians who approach to the sicils from this perspective with no doubt contributed great deal to historical studies that focused on the Ottoman state and society. They at least presented to other historians daily experiences, though in a limited scope, of very different geographies located in the Ottoman territory. But many historical studies that are based on the sicils have neglected to a certain extent the questioning of historiographical side of their issues and of the sicils' ability to reflect the 'fact or truth' of the information they gave and to represent the 'local' in which they are placed. In this context, the present study questions, first, the relationship between historiography and a historical source and, second, the above-mentioned representation/reflection problem in the case of four sicil defters of Mudanya (Bursa).In short, this study asks questions rather than giving answers to them. In general it suggests that the sicils, being just one source for certain problematique, should be read as a "text" and evaluated within a "context" in which they took place in order for their shortages to be minimized in reflecting the "truth" of information they gave and in representing the whole people and the period in which they existed.
