The return of the Halcyon Days in 2003 to the Institute for Mediterranean Studies at Crete University has resulted in yet another excellent volume of essays. The four previous conferences and their subsequent proceedings edited by Elizabeth Zachariadou had themes ranging from the “Ottoman Emirate” to “Natural Disasters in the Ottoman Empire.” The present volume, Provincial Elites in the Ottoman Empire, was produced under the direction of Antonis Anastasopoulos. The book, containing eighteen essays by many notable Ottomanists, is heavily weighted toward the Ottoman European provinces. This is a welcome move in a field that has seen the majority of studies on provincial elites focus on Anatolia and the Arab provinces.

In his introduction, Anastasopoulos, a specialist on 18th-century Karaferye, addresses the question, “Who is an elite?” Within Ottoman studies, the mention of provincial elites is generally associated with the aʿyān. However, this volume goes well beyond the ayanlık to cover various elites from the 15th through the early 20th centuries. His discussion of Ottoman elites stresses the centrality of location. Throughout this volume it is very clear that elites are a product of their locality, and you cannot understand elites without examining those around them. The issue of location is furthered by establishing elites as either state or society centered. As is aptly stated, available sources make it much easier to apply the state-centered definition. Only with the incorporation of more locally based sources—including court records, memoirs, and nontraditional sources, such as folktales—will the relationship between Ottoman provincial elites and the local society in which they reside be fully understood.

The first section of the volume, “Aspects of Elite Identity and Culture,” contains six finely written works by György Hazai, Nicolas Vatin, Jane Hathaway, Hülya Canbakal, Aleksandar Fotić, and Pinelopi Stathi. In her piece, “On the ‘Nobility’ of Provincial Notables,” Canbakal discusses the increased claim of descent from the Prophet. By the late 16th century, the Ottoman state was troubled by the number of ashrāf whose true pedigree was questionable. Canbakal states that “false ennoblement was a defensive response to the consolidation of the Ottoman state” (pp. 40–41). The situation became more problematic in the 18th century as the state left certification of the ashrāf in the hands of the local nakibüleşraf, who were products of the system, eventually turning notability into nobility. A note must be made about the contribution made by Fotić, “Belgrade: A Muslim and Non-Muslim Cultural Centre (Sixteenth–Seventeenth Centuries).” This piece is an invaluable survey of cultural life in early Ottoman Belgrade because the vast majority of literature on Ottoman Serbia is in Serbo-Croatian and thus inaccessible to most Ottoman scholars.

The second section, “Provincial Elites in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” includes pieces from Melek Delilbaşi on Christian sipahis in Tirhala and from Leslie Peirce, who presents a detailed study of one member of the 16th-century Ayntab elite. Peirce's work provides intricate details of village management based on information obtained in court records.

The third and longest section, “The Consolidation and Heyday of Ottoman Provincial Elite,” includes works from Eleni Gara, Rossitsa Gradeva, Svetlana Ivanova, Michael Ursinus, Antonis Anastasopoulos, Yuzo Nagata, Suraiya Faroqhi, and Filiz Yenişehirlioğlu. In her essay, “Towards a Portrait of ‘the Rich’ in Ottoman Provincial Society: Sofia in the 1670s,” Gradeva uses tereke defteri to illustrate the lifestyle of the wealthy in Sofia, both Muslim and non-Muslim. Despite the fact that her sources force her to undertake a great deal of conjecture, she correctly asserts their importance to the study of Ottoman social history. It is interesting that Gradeva points out that the wealthy in Sofia rarely dedicated property as vakıf and no one established new ones. This situation greatly differs from that seen with the aʿyān in the 18th century. In “Varoş: The Elites of the Reaya in the Towns of Rumeli, Seventeenth–Eighteenth Centuries,” Ivanova provides a detailed analysis of the overlapping administrative institutions and general activities of the Orthodox community in Rumeli. This fascinating study presents important information for understanding the relationship between Christian elites and the aʿyān and their dealings with both the state and foreign powers. In his contribution, Yuzo Nagata, the symposiarch, presents a case study of the Karaosmanoğlu family, the subject on which he has published extensively. Using Halil Inalcik's standard definition of the aʿyān, Nagata uses the Karaosmanoğlu family to demonstrate that truly successful aʿyān, those extending beyond one or two generations, did not invest all of their socioeconomic strength in a single institution but rather maintained a well-diversified portfolio of iltizam, çiftliks, and vakıfs. The one issue that he tends to ignore with regard to aʿyān wealth and power is the role of banditry. Although this was not implemented by the Karaosmanoğullari, it was prevalent among aʿyān in the Balkans as well as those in some areas in Anatolia.

The final section, “Provincial Elites in the Late Ottoman Period,” includes articles from Émilie Thémopoulou on Salonica's urban elites during the Tanzimat and Martin Strohmeier on Abd al-Rahman Pasha al-Yusuf.

As a whole, this volume is a most welcome addition to the field of Ottoman provincial studies. The articles are professionally edited and appeal to a wide range of Ottoman specialists as well as those outside the field interested in elite studies. The only shortcoming of the volume is the absence of a comprehensive bibliography and index; however, this is a minor point. If the past is to be any measure, future Halcyon Days are greatly anticipated.