Ekrem

Prof. Dr.

A Turkic Instrument Found In Mongolia: Altay Harp

Burak

Res. Assist.

This study focuses on the life of Shams al-Dawla Chökermish and seeks an answer to the question of the role of the umarā class during the Seljuk struggle for the throne and their relationship with the weakening of the state through Chökermish's life. Shortly after its foundation, the Seljuk State had succeeded in expanding the territory it ruled over a wide area. As a result of this expansion, the administration of the captured lands became an important issue. In this respect, local dynasties or emirs appointed by the centre assumed an important role and a strong administrative class emerged to govern the new cities. Especially the struggle for the throne that started after the death of Malik Shah would bring these emirs to an even more important position. The region of al-Jazīra, which was captured by the Seljuks, was important with its strategic location, developed cities and commercial potential. From the early years of the Seljuk Empire, its interest in this geography began to shift and the most significant gains in the region were achieved during the reign of Malik Shah. With these gains, the Seljuk authority in the region was consolidated and rulers loyal to the Seljuk centre took over the administration in the cities of al-Jazīra. Shams alDawla Chökermish, who started to make a name for himself in the region shortly after the death of Malik Shah, was one of these ruling emirs.&nbsp;Chökermish, one of the emirs of Turkish origin, first established his rule in Jazīra Ibn ‘Umar and succeeded in extending it to Mosul, Nusaybin and Harran, the major cities of the region. After Jazīra Ibn ‘Umar, he could not immediately establish the control of Mosul, which was his main target, and had to obey Kurboga for a while. Chökermish, who knew politics well, adopted a peaceful attitude towards Kurboğa, whom he realised he could not overcome, and sided with him. In the sultanate struggles of the reign of Berkyārūk, he endeavoured to take part in the side of Kurboga. The real rise in his career started after the death of Kürboga. The transfer of Mosul administration to Turkmen Musa’s control mobilised Chökermish and he was able to dominate the city after a while. Chökermish's era of prosperity began after he seized control of Mosul. Chökermish's expanding sovereignty in al-Jazīra and his increasing wealth are covered in detail in the sources of the period. Chökermish, who belonged to the class of wealthy and landowning emirs, set a good example for the umarā of the period in his administration and political career. Chökermish, who prioritised his own interests and did not hesitate to fight even against members of the Seljuk dynasty when necessary, did not hesitate to propagandise his victory over Muhammad Tapar against his other rivals. Chökermish, who never saw war against his enemies as the primary solution, drew attention with his wise and foresighted politics and endeavoured to collapse his rivals from within or to buy them off with money.&nbsp;Chökermish’s main regional struggle was with the Artuqids and he confronted Soqman many times. Due to their common interests, the two formed an alliance against the Crusaders in Harran, but their relationship was not good in this particular incident. Chökermish captured the Count of Urfa, one of the Crusader leaders captured during the war, from Soqman's tent and made him a prisoner on his own behalf. Yāqutī, a descendant of the Artuqids, also encountered Chökermish and lost his life during a battle with him. Another Artuqid, Ilghazi, also confronted Chökermish but was unable to gain the upper hand against him. Chökermish was able to break the alliance of IlghaziRıdvan formed against him thanks to his political intelligence and he was able to remove this threat by separating his rivals from each other. His rule in Mosul also crossed the paths of Chökermish and Imâdeddîn Zengî, and Zengî, who would make his name in the near future of the Islamic world, lived under his patronage in the city.Chökermish’s dominance over the rich cities of al-Jazīra increased his influence and he confronted Muhammad Tapar, a member of the Seljuk dynasty and the future sultan of the state. Muhammad Tapar, who besieged Mosul, could not overcome Chökermish’s strong defence and could not capture the city. Meanwhile, the news of Berkyārūk's death stopped Chökermish and he went to Muhammad Tapar and made peace with him. Muhammad Tapar, who should have focused on the struggle for the throne, had to leave Chökermish in his place and postpone the problem with him to a later date. Chökermish’s successful defence of Mosul cannot be explained solely by military motives. Chökermish had a characteristic not seen in all the umarās of the period, for he was a ruler who was very popular with his people. The people of Mosul had great affection for Chökermish and did not hesitate to fight the Seljuk dynasty for him. When they saw Chökermish go to Muhammad Tapar to discuss the terms of surrender, the people were in great mourning and this did not escape the attention of the future sultan. Muhammad Tapar kept his meeting with him short and told him to return to his people, and the people of Mosul showed loyalty to his family even after the death of Chökermish. His success against Muhammad Tapar further increased Chökermish's prestige and in time he showed some disobedience towards the Seljuk capital. Muhammad Tapar, who had not forgotten the problem he had had with him in the past, removed Chökermish from his duties and appointed another emir, Chavli, in his place. Chökermish disobeyed this order and preferred to fight. Although Chavli was a formidable opponent, Chökermish was confident in himself and believed that his army, which was larger than his rival, would prevail. Meanwhile, Chökermish, who was advanced in age and paralysed, personally participated in the battle with Chavli, but his army was defeated. With the death of his guards who were in charge of protecting him, Chökermish was captured. His captivity with Chavli was difficult and humiliating, and he died after a while. Chökermish became one of the most important symbols of the Seljuk rule in al-Jazīra and established a rich power by winning the love of his people. He is a good example for the emirs of the Seljuk period with his administrative approach, activities, policy and independent behaviour. His career started from the lower ranks of the military organisation and, thanks to the opportunities and weaknesses offered by the Seljuk administrative system, he rose to become the number one name in Al-Jazīra, but he died at the peak of his power.&nbsp;

A Seljuk Governor In al-Jazīra: Shams al-Dawla Chokermısh

Nilgün

Assoc. Prof. Dr.

Politics and Gender in the Last Period of the Ilkhāns: The Case of Bagdād Khatun

Gökhan

Res. Assist. Dr.

It is possible to say that inequality studies generally focus on the post-industrialization period. However, the most important reference that attract economic historians' attention to the pre-industrial period and perhaps encourages them to study the course of long-term inequality in recent years is Zanden's study of the Dutch Republic. Zanden studied the pre-industrial Netherlands and observed an increase in inequality accompanying long-term economic expansion. Thus he suggested that a “Super Kuznets Curve” can be defined that connects pre-modern with industrial economic growth. The "Super Kuznets Curve" paved the way for literature on inequality, which is assumed to be stagnant, especially for the pre-industrial period. The Super Kuznets Curve has been questioned by economic historians in two different ways. First, if economic growth and the increase in inequality acted together, what happened to inequality during the periods of economic contraction? Secondly, if the main trend in the pre-industrial period was indeed the increase of inequality, was this accompanied by a continuous economic growth? In other words, was the economic expansion sine qua non for inequality?Economic historians have created a long-term literature on inequality covering the late medieval and early modern periods by examining the left side of the Kuznets curve. It should be note that a significant part of these studies contradicts the Kuznetsyan paradigm and causes economic historians to rethink about the possible explanations of inequality. It should also be noted that the content of inequality is at least as important as its evolution. Ottoman historians have tended to be imagine an Ottoman society in which inequality was low for many reasons, such as land ownership regime, egalitarian Islamic law of inheritance until recently. But in recent years, some scholars who used tax and probate records as primary sources, have shown that the Ottoman Empire also witnessed serious inequality. These studies are very important in the context of comparisons with Western literature. It is the aim of this paper both to contribute to this literature and to understand the content of inequality.Probate records provide invaluable insights into the lives of common people. These are court records created after an individual’s death that regarding the distribution of the estate. Firstly, it should be emphasized that these documents are personal. Additionally, in Ottoman practice, if the separation principle of property in Islam is taken into account, women's whealth may not be a direct indicator of the level of prosperity they are in. Therefore, the most reasonable approach would be to compare women with each other. On the other hand, it can be expected that probate records for men would be more capable of reflecting household wealth.This study is based on 919 probate records found scattered in Galata court registers. A significant part of these belongs to men (675), while the limited part belongs to women (244). Firstly the net worth used in the study is calculated by subtracting all liabilities from all assets. And then, these amounts is adjusted for inflation. There are different measures to describe inequality. Firstly, the GINI coefficient, which is the most common measure, was used. Because it provides the opportunity to compare with different regions. These results show that there was a remarkable inequality in Galata in the first half of the 17th century with 0,71 Gini score. It can even be said that it was more unequal than similar port cities. But beyond the GINI, different methods were also used to understand the content of inequality. Theil Index offers a more nuanced perspective on inequality because it is naturally decomposable by population subgroups. Thus, it is possible to evaluate inequality within and between groups by using information such as title and place of residence found in probate records. Theil index results show that inequality within groups accounts for very much more of total inequality than inequality between groups does. This result confirms that although some titles have a significant relationship with wealth, the titles should not be considered as a direct determinant of wealth.Last exercise in exploring the nature of inequality is to decompose inequality by wealth type. There are seven types of wealth: real estate, investments, debts, receivables, cash, slaves and moveable goods. The Gini coefficient for each wealth source, its share of total wealth, the percentage contribution of each to the overall Gini, and the elasticity of total inequality to an increase of one percentage point in the source of wealth was examined. According to the findings in male sample, moveables were more equally distributed than other forms of wealth and had an equalizing effect on the distribution of total wealth. Real estate and slaves, no matter how unequally distributed, they were in favor of poors. Indebtedness, which can be thought of as a negative wealth component, has worked against the poors. In females, moveables goods were more equally distributed and had equalizing effect on total inequality similarly. It must be remarked, receivables had unequalizing effect on total inequality. Considering that an important part of these receivables is “mahr”, it can be said that the application of mahr was in favor of the rich.&nbsp;To summarise, this article proposes that Galata had serious inequality in the first half of the 17th century. The wealth distribution was more polarized among man than women. There is a significant relationship between the net wealth and having a high-class military title, sayyid, pilgrim, and captain titles as a professional identity, but still the total inequality was largely due to inequality within groups. Lastly one should not expect that a source of wealth, which has a relatively high Gini, will directly increase total inequality. For example, slaves were dramatically unequally distributed but favored poors in both males and females.&nbsp;

Wealth Inequality in Galata in the First Half of the 17th Century: Evidence from Probate Records

Filiz

Assist. Prof. Dr.

An Example of Political Ritual in the Ottoman Empire: The Sword of Prophet David

Selda

L’Institut d’Égypte Between Colonialism and Orientalism (1798-1801)

Serkan

This work examines the Caucasus as both a periphery and a centre of interaction between three competing empires —Russia, the Ottomans, and Iran—each seeking to shape the region to serve their strategic ambitions. While the mountainous terrain provided a stronghold against Russian influence, the presence of Christian communities like Armenians and Georgians played a key role in imperial struggles. While Russia’s military successes in the early XIXth century initially fostered positive perceptions among Armenians in Tbilisi and Karabakh, attitudes varied in regions with stronger trade and cultural ties to Iran and the Ottoman Empire. When Russia’s influence declined, religious leaders like the Armenian catholicos played a greater role in shaping allegiances through religious rhetoric. During the Russian-Iranian (1826-1828) and Russian-Ottoman (1828-1829) wars, Russia’s advances were welcomed by some Armenians in frontier regions. The Treaties of Turkmenchay and Adrianople allowed non-Muslims to migrate under Russian protection and sell their property. Russia viewed Christian Armenians and Georgians as potential allies in governing the region’s large Muslim population.By the late XIXth century, demographic shifts became a strategic tool in imperial conflicts. Migrations became more systematic, leading to what can be described as "demographic warfare," with both non-Muslims and Muslims relocating between Russian, Ottoman, and Iranian territories. The mass migration of Iranian and Ottoman Armenians to the Russian Caucasus was a gradual process, encouraged—and at times coerced—by local Armenian clergy and Russian military officials, some of whom were of Armenian descent. Unlike the forced deportations of Armenians by Shah Abbas I in the XVIIth century, this migration occurred as a post-war movement. Following the Treaties of Turkmenchay and Edirne, an estimated 150,000 Armenians left Iranian and Ottoman territories, settling in newly acquired Russian regions such as Revan, Nakhchivan, Akhalkalak, and Akhaltsyhe. There was a significant divide between the educated, affluent Armenian elites in the imperial capitals and the majority of Armenians—peasants, artisans, and small farmers —living in Anatolia and the South Caucasus. Many rural Armenians did not even speak Armenian, sharing little with the urban elite beyond their religion. To maintain influence over this dispersed population, Armenian elites relied on economic, financial, and religious networks. This arrangement also benefited the Iranian and Ottoman authorities, as they could use the elites to manage and appease the Armenian population in the provinces, particularly during periods of unrest.The 1813 Treaty of Gulistan brought several key khanates, including Derbent, Baku, Ganja, and Karabakh, under Russian control, while Revan and Nakhchivan remained under Iran. Russia’s growing military prestige was particularly welcomed by Armenians in Tbilisi and Karabakh. In Tbilisi, the headquarters of the Caucasus Independent Corps, Armenians benefitted from cultural and intellectual opportunities, while in Karabakh, Russia relied on the Armenian elite, the maliks, to govern the region despite their fragmented leadership. Their political and military struggles with the local khans were driven more by local interests than by ethno-national conflicts. Armenians around the Caspian Sea, engaged in trade, maintained ties with both Russia and Iran, while those in Revan and Nakhchivan remained distant from Russian influence. In regions where Russia’s military presence was strong, Armenians aligned with Russian interests. However, in areas where Russian influence weakened, alternative powers filled the vacuum, shaping the pragmatic choices of Armenian elites and rural populations. Religious rhetoric also played a role in shaping Armenian loyalties, especially during crises.Karabakh was divided into mountainous and lowland regions. The mountainous areas, controlled by Armenian lords, provided a military advantage, and Russian studies indicated that Armenians were the majority in these areas, while Muslims dominated the plains. Under Safavid rule, Karabakh maliks enjoyed privileges, which were later renewed by Nadir Shah after they resisted the Ottomans. As Russia expanded into Georgia, the maliks saw its growing power and sided with Russia against Iran during the Russo-Iranian War (1804–1813), seeking military protection amid shifting regional dynamics. The Aras River Valley and the Ararat Plain were key agricultural and trade centres in the South Caucasus, serving as an important corridor for the Ottomans, Iranians, and Russians. The Khanate of Revan, home to the Armenian Catholicosate of Echmiadzin, remained under Iranian influence, allowing Armenians in Revan and Nakhchivan to maintain their religious and cultural identity while having relatively strong ties with Iran.&nbsp;In the Ottoman Empire, the Armenian community was disorganized at the start of the XIXth century. However, the wealthy Armenian amiras in İstanbul held significant influence, both within the Armenian Patriarchate and in the Ottoman administration. The Russo-Ottoman War (1828-1829) highlighted the Patriarchate's role in influencing the Armenian population, many of whom viewed Russia positively, causing concern for the Ottoman authorities. The Armenian Church had a long tradition of lay participation in leadership, which in the early XIXth century resulted in control by the affluent Armenian elite in İstanbul. The amiras’ loyalty to the Ottoman regime contrasted with the weaker influence of the Patriarchate over Armenians in the eastern frontier provinces.&nbsp;In the 1840s, Russian authorities sought greater control over the South Caucasus. In 1840, the Armenian province was dissolved and merged into the Georgian-Imeret province, with all administration conducted in Russian. This reorganization failed to stabilize the region. In 1845, Emperor Nicholas I appointed Prince Mikhail Vorontsov as governor-general to improve governance by involving local elites. In 1846, he divided the South Caucasus into four provinces along ethno-religious lines. In 1849, to strengthen Russian control, he created a fifth province—the Yerevan province—by separating Armenian-majority areas from neighbouring provinces, though its southern half remained predominantly Muslim.In 1845, Emperor Nicholas I appointed Prince Mikhail Vorontsov as governor-general of the Caucasus to address unrest in the region. Vorontsov aimed to integrate local elites into the administration and in 1846 convinced the tsar to divide the South Caucasus into four provinces along ethno-religious lines. Seeking Armenian support, he later reestablished an Armenian province. On 9 June 1849, he created the Yerevan province by separating it from Tbilisi province and incorporating the predominantly Armenian Aleksandropol region. This new province was larger, had improved transport links, and had an Armenian-majority north, while the south remained Muslim-majority.

A Subject Between Russian, Ottoman and Iranian Rivalry: The Situation of Armenians in the Caucasus in the First Half of the XIXth Century (1801-1849)

Abdullah

Bedirhan Bey, who was in control of Cizre and its surroundings, was captured and exiled to Crete in 1847 when he started rebellious behaviour against the orders and prohibitions of the government. Cizre and its surroundings were taken under state control and Tanzimat reforms were started to be implemented in the region. In this context, Cizre was turned into a sanjak and Mustafa Pasha, was appointed as District Governor (6 December 1847).&nbsp;After taking office in Cizre, Mustafa Pasha first ensured the formation of the sanjak council. Afterwards, he showed meticulousness in matters such as maintaining public order, determining taxes fairly, and avoiding cruelty and corruption in all kinds of state affairs. However, shortly after he took office, he was complained to the Sublime Porte that he oppressed the people, did not act fairly in tax assessment, took bribes and was involved in some murders.The presence of Reshid Pasha, the Commander of the Anatolian Army, among those who conveyed the complaints to Istanbul put Mustafa Pasha in a very difficult situation. He was investigated and dismissed for the sake of the investigation. His replacement, Mesrur Agha, who was appointed District Governor of Cizre, did not find any evidence of corruption by Mustafa Pasha during the handover process. The Sanjak Council of Cizre came to the same conclusion. However, both Reshid Pasha and the Porte were not convinced.The Sublime Porte asked Esrar Efendi, who was sent to the region on a special mission from Istanbul, to personally deal with the issue. Esrar Efendi worked together with Esad Pasha, the Governor of the Kurdistan Province. The first findings revealed that Mustafa Pasha was innocent. Especially some aghas, whom Mustafa Pasha had arrested and sent to Muş, had not made any accusations against Mustafa Pasha, even though they were his enemies. Although Esad Pasha and Esrar Efendi were convinced of Mustafa Pasha's innocence, they continued the investigation in the belief that Reshid Pasha would find the investigation suspicious.&nbsp;Mustafa Pasha's first judgement was held at the Sanjak Council of Cizre. The allegations of irregularities raised in the court were as follows: Raising the taxes beyond the tolerance of the people, awarding the tenders of taxation to his own men, taking bribes on a large scale in the appointments made to district and tribal aghas, taking money and goods from some people unjustly… etc. Mustafa Pasha gave clear and comprehensive answers to the accusations. He stated that the taxation tenders had been made before him, that the tax was determined by the Sanjak Council, that only one of his men had taken the abolished tax and that he was immediately punished, that he did not take bribes, and that he did not take even an acre more from the fees than the law stipulated. The Council's secret and public investigations did not find any evidence to prove the accusations against Mustafa Pasha.&nbsp;Esad Pasha, having received the report of the Sanjak Council of Cizre and the relevant documents, requested that the matter be examined by the Sanjak Council of Diyarbekir. Esrar Efendi also participated in the discussions here. All allegations, defences and evidence were examined one by one. As a result, it was decided that none of the accusations against Mustafa Pasha were true, that he was innocent, and that he was victimised because of the slander. The result of the trial was conveyed to the Porte with a joint letter dated 28 February 1850 by Reshid Pasha, Esad Pasha and Esrar Efendi.Emin Pasha, who had been the District Governor of Cizre before Mustafa Pasha, wrote a letter to the government claiming that Mustafa Pasha had been involved in incidents such as murder, poisoning, bribery and oppression. Emin Pasha's allegations were deemed serious since he was one of the senior pashas who had served in the region. He found the murder and poisoning cases particularly important. Grand Vizier Mustafa Reshid Pasha concluded that the investigation had not been conducted properly and that negligence had been shown, and sternly warned Esad Pasha to be meticulous in the investigation. Thus, everything was restarted in Cizre and Diyarbekir.&nbsp;Thus, an intensive investigation into the alleged crimes committed by Mustafa Pasha in Cizre was resumed. However, it was concluded that he had nothing to do with the murders committed in the region, but that he had received bribes and gifts in various amounts from a significant number of people. Mustafa Pasha was not present when these matters were discussed in the Sanjak Council of Cizre and could not make a defence. Therefore, the report of the Sanjak Council of Cizre was not a court decision but an indictment.&nbsp;The report of the Sanjak Council of Cizre was discussed in the court established in the Sanjak Council of Diyarbekir, attended by Esrar Efendi. Mustafa Pasha and some of the claimants were also present in the court. Based on the report sent from Cizre, the Sanjak Council asked Mustafa Pasha about the allegations one by one. As a result of the testimonies of the witnesses, the deeds sent by the people who were related to the incident but were not present, and the archive researches made when necessary, it was proved that Mustafa Pasha did not commit any of the alleged offences. The Council decided that he was not guilty of any offence and that he had been subjected to slander as a result of grudge and enmityAs a result, the Sublime Porte was convinced that Mustafa Pasha was innocent. Thus, Mustafa Pasha, whose judgement was concluded, was appointed as the District Governor of Yozgat after a great deal of effort and started to be employed in the state service again.

Facing Accusations of Atrocities, Bribery, and Murder: The Legal Struggle of Mustafa Pasha, the Kâimmakam of Cizre

In addition to being one of the most significant intellectual figures of the Ottoman Empire during the nineteenth century, Teodor Kasap was also one of the most prominent publishers of the period, particularly in the field of humour magazine publishing. The primary reason for his distinctive position in the history of the Turkish press is that he pioneered new frontiers and established the benchmarks for humor magazine publishing within the Ottoman Empire. One of the factors that contributed to Kasap's significant position in the history of the Turkish press is the publication of the 'Karagöz in chains' caricature. In this caricature, Karagöz was depicted in chains in order to critique the 12th article of the Kanun-i Esasi pertaining to freedom of the press. This caricature was regarded as a seminal exemplar of the tension between freedom of the press and censorship during this period. As a consequence of this caricature, Kasap was subjected to trial in 1877 on charges of insulting the Constitution and humiliating the government, and was sentenced to a period of three years' imprisonment. Following a six-month incarceration, Teodor Kasap was released on bail and subsequently fled to Paris. The literature on Turkish press history provides only limited information on what happened after Kasap's trial, his escape and his return to Istanbul. Furthermore, the information that is available is incomplete or contradictory. This study aims to determine what happened between Teodor Kasap's escape to Paris and his return to Istanbul. Additionally, it aims to contribute to Turkish press history with the new information obtained. The content analysis method was used in the study, which was designed with the descriptive research motif. The European press also addressed the issue of Teodor Kasap's three-year imprisonment. The European press was unconvinced by the accusations of 'insulting the Constitution and humiliating the government', which were the reason for the sentence. Instead, they based Teodor Kasap's sentence on facts such as Mithat Pasha's dismissal as grand vizier and his friendship with Namik Kemal, who was arrested for a verse he read. In the context of Turkish press history, Teodor Kasap's conviction is also linked to the closure of humour magazines in the Ottoman Empire in June 1877. The publication of the final issue of Hayal magazine, which he owned, on 30 June 1877 marked the end of Turkish humour magazines being produced in the Ottoman Empire during the nineteenth century.On 3 October 1877, Teodor Kasap fled to Paris and revealed his dissident identity in the work Lettres à Son Excellence Said Pacha. In this work, in which he offered criticism of Abdülhamit II and his advisors, Kasap asserted that the Kanun-i Esasi did not result in the anticipated reforms, that the constitutional order remained merely superficial, and that Abdülhamit II's despotic style of governance had been presented in a constitutional guise. This work, which has not hitherto been the subject of discussion in the literature on Turkish press history, constitutes an important source of information regarding the intellectual foundations of the opposition movement that developed in Europe against Abdülhamit II's regime.Following the publication of his work, Lettres à Son Excellence Said Pacha, Teodor Kasap was compelled to depart from Paris, where he had been pursuing initiatives on behalf of the Ottoman Empire, and relocate to Naples. The year 1878 was a period of significant turmoil for the Ottoman Empire and Abdulhamid II. First, the Çırağan Raid and then the discovery of the Scalieri-Aziz Bey Committee resulted in the opposition to Abdülhamit II being identified as a 'criminalised' formation. This situation resulted in the categorisation of the opposition actions of the exiled Teodor Kasap as 'revolutionary'. In particular, his meeting in Naples with Ali Şefkati, a member of the Scalieri-Aziz Bey Committee, reinforced the perception that Kasap might be involved in any potential opposition to Abdülhamit II and the Ottoman Empire. Consequently, an investigation was initiated by the Ottoman authorities, targeting both Kasap and Şefkati. In Naples, Kasap and Şefkati initiated the publication of the newspaper İstikbal on 26 October 1879. This newspaper constituted a significant development in the opposition movement that had emerged in Europe against the rule of Abdülhamit II.In 1879, Teodor Kasap was granted clemency through a petition submitted by his wife to Abdülhamit II and returned to Istanbul in 1880. Following his return to Istanbul, Kasap was appointed to the Palace library and remained in the publishing sector until the end of his life.Teodor Kasap (d. 25 July 1897) is regarded as one of the most significant publishers of Ottoman humour magazines. However, he is erroneously referred to as 'the first humour magazine publisher' in Turkish Press History. His humour magazines, Diyojen, Çıngıraklı Tatar and Hayal, are not only seminal works of the period in the field of humour magazine publishing, but also form a prominent part of the canon of Turkish press history, having set the standards for such publications. Following his release on bail following a three-year prison sentence, Teodor Kasap fled to Europe, where he died at the age of 63. The final two decades of his life were shaped by his relationship with Abdülhamit II. The study has revealed that the nature and process of this relationship has not been sufficiently analysed in the existing literature on Turkish press history. Furthermore, the existing information on this topic is unreliable. The principal cause of this state of affairs is the reiteration of erroneous and inadequate data without substantiation. For instance, three distinct dates are presented in the existing literature as the date of Teodor Kasap's demise. However, none of these dates are accurate. It is of the utmost importance that a significant number of these data points be revised and corrected in order to present a comprehensive history of the Turkish press. Furthermore, the study has revealed new information regarding the date of Teodor Kasap's escape to Paris, the content of the book he published in Paris, the process and date of his return to Istanbul, and the cause of his death.

The Last Publisher of Tanzimat Humour Theodor Kasap’s Escape to Europe and Return to Istanbul

Toroshan

After the silkworm diseases that spread to the Ottoman provinces after the 1860s, the indigenous Baghdad white silkworms began to disappear. Consequently, healthy yellow silkworm eggs were imported to the Ottoman Empire from the Var, Alpes-Maritime, and Corsica regions of France. Due to their compatibility with the prevailing climatic conditions in the Ottoman Empire and their capacity to produce high yields of cocoons, the French yellow silkworm race came to dominate the market for silkworm eggs between the years 1880 and 1890. However, Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA), the Ottoman authority responsible for the collection of silk taxes, initiated initiatives aimed at the reproduction and popularization of the indigenous Baghdad race of silkworm eggs. However, these efforts posed a threat to the interests of French silkworm egg producers and traders, who had secured a significant market share in the Ottoman Empire. Consequently, the French capital, which constituted the most significant actor within the Ottoman silk industry, and OPDA became rivals in the production of silkworm eggs. This rivalry can be observed in the reports published by the French Chamber of Commerce and the Lyon Silk Merchants Association. In particular, the Revue Commerciale du Levant, a monthly bulletin of the French Chamber of Commerce in Istanbul, which published reports from its members and French consular staff operating in the major commercial centers of the Ottoman Empire, frequently mentioned this rivalry. This study addresses matters pertaining to the response of French merchants to the OPDA silkworm egg production initiatives and the competition between indigenous and French silkworm eggs in the domestic and foreign markets. It is based on the Revue Commerciale du Levant bulletin.In order to facilitate the development and popularization of indigenous silkworm egg production, the OPDA initially established the Bursa School of Sericulture (Bursa Harîr Dâruttalîmi). Those who received diplomas from the school and the incentives offered by the Ottoman government saw a significant increase in the amount of indigenous silkworm eggs used in Bursa and Izmit, two regions with a high production of cocoons. At the time of the founding of the Bursa School of Sericulture in 1888, the proportion of native Bursa silkworm eggs of the Baghdad white race used in the aforementioned regions was only 20%. However, by 1890, this figure had reached 65%, and by 1896, it had reached 98%. Consequently, the market share of French silkworm eggs in Bursa and Izmit was effectively negligible. In the Aleppo, Beirut, and Damascus provinces, the second largest silk production center and the largest silkworm egg market of the Ottoman Empire, the use of indigenous silkworm eggs never reached the desired levels, remaining at approximately 10-15% of the total. In the aforementioned provinces, which the French merchants designated as the Syrian region, it can be posited that both physical and political factors contributed to the underutilization of indigenous silkworm eggs. One of the main physical reasons is that indigenous silkworms consume more mulberry leaves than French silkworms. In addition, the raw silk factories of the region were very conservative in spinning cocoons produced from French yellow silkworms. Political factors are associated with the influence of France in the region. It is a historical fact that the region, especially around Beirut, was perceived as a natural area of political expansion for the French. It can be surmised that this fact was instrumental in exempting the region from silkworm eggs regulations and practices. As a matter of fact, even though the OPDA was engaged in activities such as the promotion of mulberry cultivation in the region, it is understood that it did not make intensive efforts in the use of indigenous races.&nbsp;Bursa region became a leading exporter of silkworm eggs during this period. Especially after 1895, more than half of the silkworm eggs produced in the Bursa region were exported to Iran, Caucasus and Turkestan. Before the introduction of Bursa silkworm eggs, one of the most important suppliers of these regions was France. Therefore, Bursa silkworm eggs became the biggest competitor of French silkworm eggs not only in the domestic market but also in Iran, the Caucasus and Turkestan. Bursa producers exported an average of 400.000 boxes of eggs to these regions annually with an estimated value of 2.500.000 francs. It should be noted that these figures do not include possible unregistered exports from eastern Anatolia, where OPDA control was weak. Thus, even with their exports to the Caucasus and Turkestan alone, Bursa producers reduced the volume of trade in French silkworm eggs. On the other hand, it should be noted that French merchants in Bursa acted as intermediaries in exports to these regions.French merchants, who were the dominant element in the Ottoman silk industry, showed different reactions to indigenous silkworm egg production. The French operating in the Bursa and Izmit regions recognized that indigenous eggs increased cocoon yields and thus raw silk production. They also established companies producing indigenous silkworm eggs in the region and started to earn income from the egg trade. The French operating in Aleppo, Beirut and Damascus provinces, on the other hand, were prejudiced against indigenous silkworms and criticized the work of the Ottoman government and OPDA. They even believed that OPDA was harming French interests in the Ottoman silk sector.&nbsp;In the end, OPDA's efforts to produce indigenous silkworm eggs, supported by the Ottoman government, were successful and made the Ottoman Empire an important actor on a global scale. Nevertheless, it would not be inaccurate to assert that OPDA, which in our economic history is often discussed with concepts such as imperialism and resource exploitation, created a new resource for the Ottoman finance and farmers, at least in this sector, rather than exploitation.&nbsp;

Indigenous Silkworm Egg Production and Competition in the Ottoman Empire According to the Istanbul French Chamber of Commerce (1890-1912)

Murat

The First Balkan War resulted in the loss of the last lands of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans (Albania, Macedonia). But not only that, the whole of Western Thrace and a very important part of Eastern Thrace had also fallen into the hands of Bulgaria. Especially the loss of Edirne and Kırklareli was seen as a disaster among the Muslim subjects of the Empire. However, the fact that Bulgaria, which could not achieve the expected gains from the First Balkan War, entered into a conflict with its former allies Serbia and Greece in order to force a new partition in the Balkans and was additionally attacked by Romania, was perceived as an opportunity by the Ottoman-Islamic public opinion to at least take back Edirne and Kırklareli from the Bulgarians. The Ottoman army, mobilised especially with the efforts of Enver Bey, recaptured Edirne, Kırklareli and Dimetoka from the Bulgarians on 21-23 July 1913 almost without encountering any resistance.Signed on 10 August 1913, the Treaty of Bucharest ended the war between Bulgaria and the other Balkan states. With this treaty, the Bulgarians had to say goodbye, at least for the time being, to their dream of possessing Macedonia, while they had to cede Dobrudja to Romania. The most unacceptable loss for the Bulgarians was North Macedonia. According to the compromise they had reached with the Serbs before the Balkan Wars and under the guarantee of the Russians, most of North Macedonia would belong to Bulgaria if the war was won. However, the Serbs, who actually fought the Ottoman armies in North Macedonia during the war and occupied the region step by step, did not comply with this agreement and annexed the region, while Russia did not react to this. For the Bulgarians, who had been fighting for the autonomy of North Macedonia or its annexation to Bulgaria for a very long time, especially through the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO), by resorting to terrorist methods against the Ottoman administration and the Muslim population, this was a real devastation. In the words of British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey, the Bulgaria was ‘sore, injured and despoiled of what she believed belonged to her' and ‘any future Balkan peace was impossible as long as the Treaty of Bucharest remained'.However, the Bulgarians, realising that it would not be possible even in the distant future to fight against the Serbs, Greeks and Romanians at the same time, considered it necessary to achieve their ambitions gradually and in stages. In order to achieve these ambitions, they also found it necessary to form an alliance with the Ottomans and to obtain at least the neutrality of the Romanians.The Bulgarian government was initially very keen and in a hurry to establish an alliance with the Ottoman Empire. So much so that the Sublime Porte was encouraged to conduct the alliance negotiations in parallel with the peace negotiations. As a result, peace was achieved with the Treaty of Constantinople dated 29 September 1913. Eastern Thrace remained with the Turks and Western Thrace with the Bulgarians. In the meantime, the 'Provisional Government of Western Thrace', which had been formed in Western Thrace with the efforts of an irregular force that could be considered as the nucleus of Ottoman Special Organisation (OSO) (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa) under the leadership of Süleyman Askerî Bey, was to be disbanded. Following the treaty, diplomatic relations between the two countries were re-established.However, the issue of alliance could not be concluded so quickly. The initial eager attitude of the Bulgarians gave way to a more cautious and procrastinating approach. They stalled the Turkish side by constantly amending their territorial demands. Moreover, despite the Treaty of Constantinople, they displayed an attitude towards the Western Thrace Turks that caused the reaction of the Porte. As a result, they were not in a position to start a war immediately, and the Bulgarian government avoided actions that might arouse suspicion in the Serbian, Greek and Romanian governments.On the other hand, the leaders of IMRO thought differently from the Bulgarian Government and wanted immediate action, especially for Macedonia. In this direction, they were working to create a ground where they could carry out activities in Macedonia. If the Macedonian Turks, along with the Serbs and Greeks who dominated the region, were to turn against them, their ability to act would be greatly restricted. In this direction, the leaders of IMRO made contact with the leaders of the Committee of Union and Progress and negotiations were held in Istanbul in October and November 1913. As a result, a compromise was reached on the basis of the autonomy of Macedonia and a protocol was signed. According to the agreement, Western Thrace would be left to the Ottoman Empire if Bulgaria gained an exit to the Aegean Sea via Kavala. The parties confirmed that the Turkish and Bulgarian Macedonian committees were ready to work together for the autonomy of Macedonia by resorting to all legal and illegal methods.However, it took time for this compromise to be reflected on the field. The reason for this was the cautious and indecisive attitude of the Radoslavov Government. However, Austria's declaration of war against Serbia was seen as an opportunity for IMRO and it was thought that the time for the Macedonian operation had come. Meanwhile, the Turkish side, which had concluded a secret alliance agreement with Germany on 2 August 1914, wanted this operation to be launched immediately in order to bring Bulgaria into the war and thus support the Central Powers. OSO, to which the armed groups that would participate in the operation on behalf of the Turkish side would be affiliated, was officially formed on 4 August 1914. After that, the necessary instructions were given to the Turkish gangs that would participate in the Macedonia operation and their dispatch to Bulgaria began. Turkish and Bulgarian gangs gathered in Ustrumca in August and September and started to enter Serbian Macedonia. The aim was to incite the Muslim and Bulgarian population there to revolt against the Serbian rule in North Macedonia and to sabotage the bridges over the Vardar River in order to break the communication between the Serbs and the Entente states. The propaganda-oriented activities of the Turkish gangs during this period were quite effective. The propaganda in question was supported by the narrative that the Turkish and Bulgarian armies would enter the region in a short time and expel the Serbs from the region. During this period, many Muslims living in Serbian Macedonia were recruited into the organisation. However, the indecisive attitude of the Bulgarian government prevented the IMRO from giving strong support to the Turkish gangs in the region. In the face of the activities of the Turkish gangs, the Serbian administration started to use violent methods against the Muslim population of the region and also neutralised the Turkish gangs in a short period of time. During this period, many Muslim peasants were forced to leave their lands and seek refuge in Bulgaria. Although the Turkish embassy in Sofia objected to the continuation of the operation in the face of this outcome, the Minister of War Enver Pasha, on the contrary, wanted the activities of the Turkish gangs to gain momentum and the Bulgarians to be encouraged. He believed that joint gang activities would encourage the Bulgarian government to enter the war on the side of the Central Powers.&nbsp;In 1915, new gangs affiliated to OSO were sent to the region. Some of the Muslims who had taken refuge in Bulgarian lands also joined these gangs. The leadership of the IMRO also decided to take a more active stance. The number and intensity of joint actions gradually increased and especially effective acts of sabotage were carried out against railway bridges. The Serbs gradually began to lose the initiative in the region. On 2 April 1915, a mixed Turkish-Bulgarian force of 1000-1500 men, supported by the Austrian Intelligence Service, carried out a large-scale action. In this action, known as the "Valandovo incident", a battalion of Serbian soldiers in Valandovo suffered heavy casualties and the railway bridge near Udovo was blown up. After the incident, the gangs retreated back to Bulgaria.&nbsp;After the Valandovo incident, the Entente Powers accused the Bulgarian government of supporting the aggressors. The Bulgarian government denied this, but Bulgarian public opinion reacted strongly against the centres that were trying to drag the country into the war. Turkish gangs withdrew from Bulgaria to Turkey. Then the Serbs started a new wave of violence against Muslims in the region. In the following months, the failures of the Entente on the fronts, especially at Gallipoli, were important data for Bulgaria's final decision. The Entente's promises to Bulgaria of gains in Macedonia, Greece and Romania if it joined the war on their side were also more miserly than those of the Central Powers'. Finally, on 6 September 1915, Bulgaria signed treaties of alliance and friendship with Germany and AustriaHungary, as well as secret military agreements that envisaged Bulgaria's immediate action against Serbia. One of the incentives for the Bulgarians to enter into these treaties was that the Ottoman Empire had agreed to cede to the Bulgarians a piece of territory on the banks of the Maritsa river, including Dimetoka and Karaagac, in a treaty signed on the same day. In October, Bulgaria finally declared war on Serbia, ending its neutral position and taking its place on the side of the Central Powers.

Forcing Bulgaria Into War: North Macedonia Operation of the Ottoman Special Organization (Teşkilât-ı Mahsusa) (1914-1915)

Ünsal

The primary focus of this study is the investigations which conducted by the Greek Parliament's commission of inquiry following the Cyprus Peace Operation. In the aftermath of this operation, which proved to be a significant setback for Greece, the question that Greek officials are attempting to address is as follows: What factors did Greece fail to anticipate in Türkiye's intervention in Cyprus in 1974, and what were the underlying reasons for its inability to prevent the Turkish operation?In 1975, Greece initiated a preliminary investigation in an attempt to address this question; however, due to the prevailing political circumstances of the era, this endeavour remained unfinished.Subsequently, in 1986, a parliamentary investigation committee was established with the objective of ascertaining the errors that had occurred. The committee's comprehensive investigations spanned a duration of two and a half years, concluding on 31 October 1988. The committee held a total of 154 sessions to investigate the mistakes made in Cyprus from the coup attempt against Makarios on July 15, 1974 until Turkey's intervention in the island. In addition, the committee conducted faceto-face interviews with 86 people, mostly high-ranking military officers, who played a role in the political, military and diplomatic events of the period.The results of the Committee's investigations were disseminated to the public in Greek in 2018. The study's primary focus is on the deficiencies in the decisions made by Greece's senior state and military officials prior to and during the peace operation. In this context, the committee reports emphasise the lack of initiative on the part of senior military officers due to the presence of inaccurate intelligence data.In the Committee reports, it is stated that an effective counter-intervention could not be carried out due to Turkey's geographical proximity to Cyprus and the range problems of the armed forces of Greece at that time. Furthermore, it was emphasised that the Greek National Guard army units lacked preparation due to the internal conflict on the island. Additionally, although a possible Turkish intervention had been expected since 1964, the plans developed in this direction were incomplete and unrealistic.Whilst examining the committee reports as part of the study, it became evident that there were notable discrepancies in opinion amongst Greece's senior military leaders, in addition to deficiencies within the crisis management apparatus. It was noted that substantial deliberations took place between the commanders of the Greek Naval and Air Forces and the Greek Chief of General Staff concerning intervention on the island. Furthermore, there was a recurring emphasis on discordant directives, particularly with regard to the deployment of submarines and fighter jets to the region.A further issue that emerged from the Committee's investigation pertains to the fact that, since the night of July 18, 1974, Greek intelligence officers, particularly those stationed in Cyprus who were proficient in Turkish, reported heightened Turkish activity to their superiors in Nicosia and to the Greek General Staff in Athens. However, the leaders of the Greek junta in power in Athens disregarded these warnings and concluded that Turkey was preparing a routine exercise, that it was merely bluffing Greece, and that the Western powers would never permit the Turks to intervene on the island.Despite the efforts of the committee reports to maintain objectivity in their treatment of military missteps, a discernible bias and a certain degree of historical inaccuracy were evident in their accounts. For instance, EOKA, a terrorist organisation that sought to massacre the Turkish population on the island, was presented in the committee reports as an organisation operating for independence. Similarly, Colonel Grivas, a founder of EOKA and responsible for the massacre of many Turks, is unilaterally described in the report as an important freedom fighter of the Greek nation.In the context of this study, the analysis will encompass the examination of committee reports on the subject, a novel approach in the context of Turkish academia.The study will draw upon a range of sources to enrich its analysis, including committee reports, the memoirs of Greek senior officials from the period, and Greek literature on the subject. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the errors committed by Greece in relation to Cyprus, a matter that continues to be a significant point of contention between Turkey and Greece despite the passage of over five decades since the Peace Operation. A thorough examination of the committee reports reveals that Greece has learned from past missteps and has since 1993 developed a military strategy focused on providing support to Southern Cyprus.

Greece’s Mistakes in the 1974 Cyprus Peace Operation According to the Reports of the Investigative Committee of the Greek Parliament: “Fakelos Kyprou (Cyprus File)”

Gültekin

Kırım Özel Sayısı - Yazı Çağrısı

Moğolistan’da Bulunan Bir Türk Enstrümanı: Altay Arpı

el-Cezîre’de Bir Selçuklu Valisi: Şemsü’d-Devle Çökürmüş

İlhanlıların Son Döneminde Siyaset ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet: Bağdat Hatun Örneği

17. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Galata’da Servet Eşitsizliği: Tereke Kayıtlarından Bulgular

Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Siyasi Bir Ritüel Örneği: Davut Peygamber’in Kılıcı

Kolonyalizm ve Şarkiyatçılık Arasında L’Institut d’Égypte (1798-1801)

Rusya, Osmanlı ve İran Arasındaki Rekabette Bir Tebaa: XIX. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Kafkasya’daki Ermenilerin Durumu (1801-1849)

Mezâlim, Rüşvet, Cinayet İthamları Karşısında Cizre Kâimmakamı Mustafa Paşa’nın Hukuk Mücadelesi

Tanzimat Mizahının Son Yayıncısı Teodor Kasap’ın Avrupa’ya Kaçışı ve İstanbul’a Dönüşü

İstanbul Fransız Ticaret Odası’na Göre Osmanlı Devleti’nde Yerli İpek Böceği Tohumu Üretimi ve Rekabet (1890-1912)

Bulgaristan’ı Savaşa Zorlamak: Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa’nın Kuzey Makedonya Harekâtı (1914-1915)

Yunan Meclisi Araştırma Komisyonu Raporlarına Göre Yunanistan’ın 1974 Kıbrıs Barış Harekâtı’ndaki Hataları: “Fakelos Kiprou (Kıbrıs Dosyası)”

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

Vural

It is well known that many Iranian scholars and intellectuals traveled between Ajam and Rum towards the end of the 15th century, in order to secure wealthy and benevolent patrons. The reason for the mobility of scholars, which can be traced back to the reign of Murad the Second (1421-1451), was undoubtedly related to the changes occurred across the Islamic world. Of these changes, the conquest of Istanbul was the most important. Adding “the protector of Islam” to his extant titulatures with this conquest, Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, proclaimed that he was the only representative of the Islamic world. The second reason was the decline of Timurid Empire after the demise of Shahrukh (d. 1447) who were the reputed patron of science and art like&nbsp;his father towards the second half of the 15th century. By exiling scholars and crafters from newly conquered lands to his capital Samarqand, Timur created a Renaissance era and bequeathed this cultural heritage to his successors. Timurid princes’ fights for the throne perpetuated in Iraq, Fars, Mazandaran, Mawara al-Nahr and Khurasan, and several handovers and plunders of Samarqand and Herat precipitated the exodus of Timurid scholars and craftsmen in order to secure wealthy patrons and safe places, after the demise of Shahrukh. This chaotic atmosphere pervaded in Iran and on the other hand Ottoman sultans’ patronage of science and art made the Ottoman lands a safe and inviting shelter for Iranian scholars and literary men. Based on the claims that they were the only representative of Islam, the Ottomans’ superiority over the Aqquyunlus who presented themselves as Timur’s licit heirs, led this competition to another phase. Reputed with his wealth, benevolence and power, Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror made his capital Istanbul a center of attraction for Iranian scholars and poets.&nbsp;His patronage of science and art had spread across Iran so much so that his palace was replete with Iranian scholars and encomiasts at the very beginning of his reign. Along with scholars and bureaucrats such as Şemseddin Fenârî, Molla Gürânî, Mevlana Şeyh Ebu İshak Tebrizî and Ali Kuşçu, encomiasts and man of letters such as Ma’âlî, Kâşifî, Hamidî, and Kabûlî presented their works to Sultan Mehmed and, made contributions to sultan’s imperial image from the viewpoint of Ajamness. It is also well known that Sultan Mehmed endeavored to take famous Iranian scholars under his patronage and, for this purpose he sends them enticing gifts.&nbsp;Benevolent and wealthy image of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror and, his capital’s hallmark as a center for a multi-cultural junction, attracted another Ajam known as Riyâzî. He was less known among the Ajams in Sultan’s palace. Neither contemporary chroniclers nor collection of the biographies of poets mention him. Beside his Persian epistle, which he penned on the occasion of Sultan Mehmed’s conquest of Akçahisar and constitutes the subject of the present study, there are at least three copies of his Divan survived to this date. None of these primary sources provide any information concerning his migration from Ajam to Rum and his residence in Istanbul. According to his Divan, his full name was Mawlana Riyâzî-i Samarqandî. This specifies the fact that he was native of Timurids’ cultural center Samarqand. Most probably in order to escape the political chaos and seeking a new patron, he headed towards Istanbul, after the decline of the Timurid Empire in Iran and Mawara al-Nahr. In the patrimonial states of the 16th-century Islamic world, scholars and craftier were more depended on court patronage. Because of that sultans were the only resorts. When the scholars fell from the grace of their patron(s), they set on a journey seeking for welfare and patronage in another sultan’s court.&nbsp;Riyâzî’s venture was not different from the scholars and bureaucrats who lost their patronage and set out to secure a new one in 15th and 16th centuries Islamic world. Although it is not known how and when he managed, he might have come to Istanbul and secured Sultan Mehmed’s patronage prior to 1479. Beyond the Sultan Mehmed’s personal interest to attract many Iranians, this phenomenon should be supported with the role which sultan played himself. Eventually, patronizing Muslim scholars and craftsmen was an indispensable source of legitimacy for the sultan who had claims for superiority in the Islamic world.&nbsp;&nbsp;Although his contemporaries Ma’âlî and Kabûlî gave huge details on their journeys, observations on the palace and how they managed to secure Sultan’s patronage, neither in his Persian epistle presented to Sultan Mehmed nor in his Divan replete with poems of love and separation Riyâzî-i Samarqandî does not provide any information about himself and his personal experiences. In contrast to Ma’âlî, Kabûlî, and Hamidî, he has never presented a panegyric to his patron. The only information about his life in Istanbul was his disease, which he could not recuperate and finally died in 884/1479-80. Though he did not relate his observations on the palace and the Sultan, and how he behaved, accounts of other Ajam’s provide details about the perception of Ajamness in the Ottoman palace, which we can further elaborate on. Furthermore, it is well known that there was a competition of superiority between highly-educated Ajams and their rival Rumîs in Sultan Mehmed’s palace.Riyâzî-i Samarqandî penned his Persian epistle entitled with Risâle-i Tehniyet-i ‘Iyd ve Nevrûz Berây-ı Ebu’l-feth Sultan Mehmed or Tehniyet-i ‘Iyd ve Fethnâme-i Akçahisar in 1479 on the occasion of the conquest of Akçahisar in Albania and presented to the Sultan. The seal of Sultan Mehmed on the folios verifies that the epistle was accepted to the personal library of Sultan. The coincidence of Sultan Mehmed’s conquest of Akçahisar with Nawruz feast was a double occasion for Riyâzî to present himself to the Sultan. Unlike his fellows in this genre, he merely confined his epistle to create an imperial image for the Sultan with titles and titulatures, which he formulated for him. He furthermore explained the reason for giving these titles to the Sultan under each titulatures. It should also be specified that this Persian epistle penned and presented to the Sultan to proclaim Ottoman dynasty’s superiority over the other dynasties such as Aqquyunlu and Mamluk, and to show them how Ottomans were the only protectors of Islam.As a wealthy, powerful, benevolent and just sultan, Mehmed the Conqueror took many Iranian scholars, encomiasts, and craftsmen under his patronage. Thus, he commenced “Eastern Renaissance” which would last in his successor’s reign Bayezid the Second (1481-1512). Thanks to this cultural mobility, those who came from Ajam, penned and presented many epistles and panegyric to the Sultan. It should not be forgotten that Iranian shahnama-writers had major contributions for the creation of the imperial image of Sultan Mehmed, which would be imitated in Bayezid the Second’s reign as well. It can be concluded that like his Iranian contemporaries’ pieces, Riyâzî-i Samarqandî’s Persian epistle was also a contribution to create an imperial image for the Sultan from the viewpoint of an Ajam.

FATİH’İN EMPERYAL İMAJINA BİR ACEM’İN KATKISI: RİYÂZÎ-İ SEMERKANDÎ

Arda

Assist. Prof.

The efforts for founding an Israeli state in Palestine, which gained momentum with the Balfour Declaration issued in the end of World War I, constituted one of the most important problems causing instability in the Middle East during the interwar period. In this process, when Jewish immigration to Palestine increased and Arabs and Jews began to have serious conflicts in the region, Turkey did not get involved in the developments in Palestine. The conflicts became bitterer following World War II when the victorious USA began to back up the efforts for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The ambitions of Western countries and the Jews for Palestine became the prominent issue for Arab countries after World War II. Arab nationalists gathered around anti-Westernism and the Palestine issue.&nbsp;&nbsp;Unlike its passive position in the interwar period, Turkey began to take more active involvement in the Palestine issue after the war. Turkey’s increasing interest in the issue following 1945 was due to its convergence with Arab nations, rather than religious or nationalist considerations. Turkey was left alone against the Soviet Union by Western nations. With no alternative but to create stronger bonds with the states in the region against the Soviet threat, Turkey approached its Arab neighbours and realized that the Palestine issue was the first item on their agenda. When the Palestine issue was brought to UN, Turkey supported Arab nations due to its sense of solidarity with Arab nations and its concern that a Jewish state to be founded in the area might cause instability. Turkey’s support to Arab nations for the Palestine issue would come to an end with the improvements in Turkey’s relations with Western nations and the outbreak of the First Arab-Israeli War.As a result of its strategic alliance with Western nations against the Soviet Union threat, Turkey felt the need for acting in concert with its allies in the international area. Meanwhile, it became clear to Turkey during the First Arab-Israeli War that military alliance with Israel would be more beneficial than with Arabs. At this stage, the UN decided to set up a Conciliation Commission for resolution of the Palestine issue. Acting uniformly with Western nations in the Conciliation Commission and carrying out missions together with the USA and France, Turkey made it clear that it would no longer take an approach supporting Arab theses in the Palestine issue.The UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine was important in that it was the first multilateral attempt for resolution and Turkey’s first critical alliance with Western nations following World War II. Turkey was included in the conciliation commission with the USA and France due to its support for Arab countries in the conflict, but it did not maintain its support in the works of the commission. Commission membership increased Turkey’s diplomatic contact with Israel, and as a result&nbsp;of these interactions Turkey’s concerns over Israel disappeared and led Turkey to become the first Muslim country to recognize Israel.&nbsp;The Conciliation Commission was set up with great expectations and strong international support. At the time the Commission made serious efforts for resolution of the problem, the disagreement between the two parties was new and so there were suitable grounds for resolution. However, the biggest disadvantage of the Commission was its Western identity which caused lack of trust with Arab nations. France, a member of the Commission that aimed to provide suitable conditions for lasting peace following the First Arab-Israeli War, was known for its colonial past among Arab nations. Turkey’s membership was also met with mistrust due to memories from the Ottoman Empire period and the Hatay issue, which was seen as a conspiracy set against Arab countries by Turkey and Western nations. The USA was the only nation with no colonial past from the point of view of Arab nations. However, the USA’s strong support for the founding of a Jewish state in Palestine following World War II was known by the Arab public. For these reasons, the Commission’s neutrality was questioned by Arab nations.&nbsp;Between the Commission’s most active years of 1949 and 1952, Arab nations were devoid of strong governments that could sign a peace treaty with Israel, as they were struggling with political and military depression caused by the First Arab-Israeli War. Israel, on the other hand, had seen the weaknesses of Arab troops during the War, and aimed to extend and strengthen its boundaries through further conflicts rather than make peace with Arab nations. The works of the Conciliation Commission failed as they were trying to reconcile those with no power for making peace and those with no intention of doing so. After the Paris Conference of 1951, the Commission acknowledged that it would be unable to reach its aim of ensuring a peace accord, and decided to focus on the resolution of the problems of Arab refugees. However, it failed to gain effective results in its smaller targets because the parties of the Arab-Israeli conflict adopted more uncompromising attitudes as the Cold War began to influence the Palestine issue. During the course of the work of the Commission after 1952, the relations between some of the Arab nations that were expected to be made better through the joint efforts of the members, namely Turkey, the USA, and France, became even worse. With Arab nations being supported by the Soviet Union, and Israel by the USA in the international area, the parties of the conflict began to manifest their uncompromising attitudes more comfortably, which put the Conciliation Commission in a situation where it could no longer function.&nbsp;The Conciliation Commission was an unsuccessful experience on the part of Turkey. Turkish foreign policy pursued until the 1960s did more harm than good on&nbsp;the works of the Conciliation Commission. During the 1950s, Turkey formed closer economic and political relationships with Israel, while its relations with important Arab nations such as Egypt and Syria deteriorated. Such direct conflicts between Western and Arab nations as the Suez Crisis did not only worsen the relations between Western and Arab nations in the Conciliation Commission, but also caused Turkey to lose its role of mediator. With Cold War and the Soviet Union becoming more influential over Middle East, Turkey’s policies on Arab nations, especially Egypt and Syria, became stricter. When Turkey and Syria were on the brink of war in 1957, the two nations had no chance of cooperation and resolution under the Conciliation Commission. Egypt and Syria also sharpened their irreconcilable attitudes against Turkey both in terms of regional policies and of international relations with the support they received from the Soviet Union. Because Egypt perceived a Muslim state’s contribution to the resolution of the Palestine issue as interference in the internal affairs of Arab nations at a time when it saw itself as the protector of Arab nations, it did not support Turkey’s efforts for conciliation. The Conciliation Commission for Palestine was imbedded in history as another UN initiative that failed to provide solutions to international relations under the existing structure of the UN.

FİLİSTİN UZLAŞTIRMA KOMİSYONU VE TÜRKİYE

@JOURNAL_BOX_FEATURED

Known as the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles, the cuneiform texts were compiled (copied) by Babylonian scribes and mostly concern the historical events of both the recent and distant past. Recorded concisely and chronologically, they detail events starting from the Babylonian king Nabunassar era in 747-734 BC and continue to the period just after the capture of Babylonia by the Persians in 539 BC. In this study, the records concerning the illnesses and disabilities of the Mesopotamian and Elamite kings in these chronicles will be discussed. We will attempt to determine the historical importance of these medical problems of the kings with regards to the medical history of Mesopotamia. Some assessments will be made concerning the relations between these records and the political, religious, and traditional aspects of Babylonian historiography. Additionally, other pieces of information in other chronicles such as Esarhaddon, Weidner, and Chronicle of Early Kings will be referred to when needed. Although numerous Babylonian and Assyrian kings are mentioned concerning political events in the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles, the only king whose illness is mentioned is the Neo-Assyrian king Esarhaddon (681- 669 BC). The king fell ill during one of his campaigns and subsequently died. There is not much detailed information about the king’s illness in the relevant chronicles. Similarly, the chronicles do not mention the illnesses of the Babylonian kings in much detail. While the Neo-Babylonian king Nabunassar (747-734 BC) died after becoming sick in his palace, another Babylonian king Nabonidus (555-539 BC) was also ill but recovered. In brief, it is observed that the medical backgrounds of some of the numerous Babylonian and Assyrian kings are mentioned in the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles and that these references are only superficial. However, it is very clear that the illnesses and disabilities of the Neo-Elamite kings, who reigned during the 1st millennium BC, are mentioned in more detail by the chronicle scribes. What is the reason behind the fact that no detailed information is given about the illnesses of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, while the health situations and deaths of their contemporary Neo-Elamite kings include more details? There might be more than one answer to this question. One answer might be that the scribes could not find sufficient information in the ancient sources about these issues while compiling the chronicles. In addition, statements indicating that the demise of the kings did not result from an illness and particularly that some of them “died in the palaces” are either proof of&nbsp;the fact that there is not sufficient information about the cause of death of these kings or it is possible that these individuals were accepted as “well-remembered figures” in Babylonian history. However, another answer (and one which is the main focus of the study) should be sought in the relation between the medical knowledge and tradition of Babylonian historiography, in which political and religious ideologies are dominant. It is possible to find pieces of information about the health problems of kings such as Esarhaddon and Nabonidus in other cuneiform sources such as the royal inscriptions and correspondence. However, only in the chronicles is it possible to encounter details about the illnesses of the Elamite kings. The records of the death of two Neo-Elamite kings following a stroke and/or paralysis can be considered as an example of the reflection of a pro-Babylonian attitude towards historiography. It is certain that the scribe or scribes, who mentioned these pieces of information, are eager to leave no stone unturned about information and the details concerning the disabilities or deaths of the Elamite kings. It should be considered that a conscious preference in deciding which pieces of information to be recorded might be related to the world views of the scribes, the relevance of the kings, the form of the illnesses to be mentioned, divine background, and the political/ideological aspects of historiographical tradition. Similarly, this relation is conspicuous in the health problems of the Sargon of Akkad and Isin king Erra-imitti written in the records of the Chronicles of the Early Kings and Weidner as well.It is possible that some of the details concerning the illnesses of the kings might contain fabrications, exaggerations, or personal comments. However, even if these details are supported by information from other cuneiform sources or even if it is medically possible, it doesn’t change the possible views asserted in the study about the intentions behind adding them to the chronicles. Sometimes concise and sometimes relatively longer, the information provided by the chronicle writers about the illnesses of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Elamite kings, and even about the Isin king Erra-imitti contribute to our knowledge about the medical history of ancient Mesopotamia. Independent from the individuals, since these medical cases (such as stroke, paralysis, fever, insomnia, and respiratory problems) are common in royal correspondence and literary texts and particularly in medical texts, they have no particular privilege. However, these medical details in the chronicles are important with regards to Babylonian historiography. It is observed in the chronicles that only the health problems of the kings are detailed with interest. However, some kings like the Neo-Babylonian King Nabonidus (who recovered after the illness), or kings who died without getting sick, are also discussed. Particularly in the latter case, it was also relevant that some of the scribes did not have knowledge about the causes of deaths of the kings. Additionally, it was recorded that some of the kings (like the Babylonian king Nabunassar) died in the palaces, even without getting sick. The Babylonian scribes were probably informed about the details of the illness of the Neo-Assyrian king Esarhaddon; however, they did not mention it. In fact, Esarhaddon was a Neo-Assyrian king, who was trying to revive the city of Babylonia and return it to its old magnificent days after his father, Sennacherib, wrathfully devastated the city. It can be considered that these kings were not remembered with ill feelings by later generations. However, this interpretation can involve problems, since it is a result of an overall general view about the whole life of the individual. It is also possible that they were punished with illnesses resulting in death by the gods due to their misconduct in any period of their kingdom or in any issue that might annoy (!) the gods.Therefore, all of these examples have great importance since they reflect the dominant understanding concerning the ancient Mesopotamian historiography: a religious belief that the illness is a divine punishment arising from the faults of an individual. The common trait of almost all of the kings, about whom the chronicles give detailed information concerning their illnesses, is that they were all remembered negatively with regards to the history of Babylonia. It is possible that there was an attempt to create a perception that the patron deity of the city of Babylon Marduk (Bel) punished these kings who were in the wrong. Illnesses and deaths related with these situations were remarkable events since they demonstrated the proof of the relation between the crime and the punishment. Thus, the motives behind the intention to abstain from recording the known or fabricated medical causes of deaths of some kings should not be examined, to a large extent, in the epistemological concerns. These motives should be investigated in the relations between historiography and its political, religious, and traditional aspects. For example, mentioning the insomnia problems of Sargon of Akkad doesn’t have a medical or historical importance in itself. This record reaches significance when there is an attempt to establish relations between the current ideologies and compilation of literary narratives, whose “reality is suspicious”, that are dated to the 1st millennium BC. It might also be mentioned that, sometimes while narrating, the role and influence of these relations are behind the inclusion of the themes and contents, which are thought to arouse curiosity and interest, with a high potential of speculation.

TIBBİ BİLGİNİN İDEOLOJİK KULLANIMI ÜZERİNE OKUMALAR: YENİ BABİL KRONİKLERİNDE HASTALIKLAR VE BABİL TARİH YAZICILIĞI

Ebru

Prof.

The Last Penetration of The Crusader Armies into the Seljuḳ Territory of Anatolia: Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa’s Crusade (1089-1190)In the 12th century, Anatolia witnessed the great struggles between the Crusaders and the Turks, and the Crusaders penetrated into Seljuḳ territory for the last time during the Third Crusade (1189–1192). By conquering Jerusalem in 1187, the Egyptian-Syrian ruler, Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn, put an end to the Crusaders’ domination in Jerusalem, which lasted 88 years. It was at this point that German Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa, who had accompanied his uncle Conrad III, King of Germany during the Second Crusade, once again agreed to participate in the Crusade—this time as a 70-year-old ruler. He formed an immense army with the goal of capturing Jerusalem from Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn. While the English and French kings traveled by sea to the Holy Land with their forces, Friedrich tried to reach the East through Anatolia. This paper discusses the march of the German Crusaders under the command of Friedrich Barbarossa in Anatolia, and the Seljuk-Crusader relations in this period.&nbsp;Emperor Friedrich, who started to prepare for the expedition after accepting the cross, sent ambassadors to Hungarian King Bela III, Byzantine Emperor Isaakios Angelos II, and Seljuk Sultan Ḳilidj Arslan II to ask for permission to pass through their countries. In response, Emperor Isaakios said that the Crusaders would be allowed to enter the territory of the empire if they promised not to take any action against the Byzantine State. When this stipulation was accepted by Friedrich, the Byzantine emperor agreed to provide guidance and suitable markets to the Crusaders during the transition from Anatolia. After that, Emperor Isaakios took the necessary measures in accordance with the agreement reached; however, Barbarossa’s contact with the enemies of Byzantine Serbs and Seljuks increased Isaakios’s concerns. Faced with such danger, Isaakios found it appropriate to contact Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn for the interest of his country. According to Ibn al-Asir, when Isaakios learned of the German emperor’s movement, he sent an envoy to Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn and promised that he would prevent Friedrich from passing through the Byzantine land.After the year-long preparations, Friedrich finally moved from Regensburg to the East in May 1189. His enormously large and well- organized army seemed almost invincible. Barbarossa passed Hungary, where he was welcomed by King Bela, and by crossing the Danube near Belgrade, he entered the Byzantine territory in 1189. The Crusader army was said to have 50,000 horsemen and 100,000 infantrymen. Meanwhile, the Serbs and Bulgarians’ attempt to form an alliance with the German emperor destressed the Byzantines.Because of the events in the Balkans, the relations between the two sides became so bad that Friedrich even contemplated attacking Istanbul. Eventually, Friedrich, who intended to arrive in Palestine after spending the winter months in Adrianople, went to Gallipoli in March 1190, and by crossing through the Dardanelles into Anatolia, he entered the path that Alexander the Great had followed about 15 centuries prior. After crossing the Granikos Stream and the Angelokomites River, the Crusaders followed a Byzantine military road between Miletopolis and today’s Balikesir (Akhyraous), and they moved southward through Balikesir-Ala Shehir before heading toward Seljuḳ territory after the Byzantine border town of Laodiceia (Denizli). The German emperor thought that he would easily pass from Anatolia, in accordance with the old friendship and the agreements between Ḳilidj Arslan II and him. In the last two years, he sent ambassadors to the sultan several times, and he stated that his intention was to go to Jerusalem. When the German army was in Adrianople, Sultan Ḳilidj Arslan and his son Malik Shah’s envoys had gone to Friedrich and promised to help him. Meanwhile, the Anatolian Seljuk State had lost its political unity. Sultan Ḳilidj Arslan did not actually have power. The feuds for the throne had begun among the Maliks soon after he allocated the country between his 11 sons in 1187. Because of these circumstances, the Turks were not in a position to openly fight against this enormous army, but they also did not want to let them pass through Anatolia. As a result, they followed the German Crusader army and harassed them. In the meantime, the Turkmens, who acted on their own at the borders, also pursued the Crusaders along the road from Denizli. The Turkmens initially retreated to the mountains and grazed large herds of animals (around 5,000) along the Germans’ way and therefore condemned the horses of the Crusaders to starvation. Then they suddenly attacked the Crusaders, who were devastated by fatigue and starvation. As&nbsp;a result of these attacks in the mountains and passages in the Uluborlu region, the Germans suffered great losses. While the attacks of the Turkmens continued along the way, the Germans were forced to carry out a series of fierce battles (from April 28 to May 18). The Turks also continued their activities around the Crusader camp at nights, shouting and shooting arrows until the morning, causing the Germans sleepless and troubled nights. In the meantime, under the rain of arrows that pierced the tents, the Crusaders were sometimes killed while they were asleep. For this reason, most of the Crusaders were unable to remove their armor at night for weeks. This situation created an exasperating impact on them. Also, the water resources along the way of the Crusader army were rendered unusable, all kinds of foodstuffs were destroyed, cities were evacuated, and the people hid in the forests and mountains.As a result of the war tactics applied by the Turks, the German army, which was miserable because of both the lack of food and water and the constant Turkish attacks, suffered heavy losses. They set Aḳshehir on fire and marched toward Iconium (Konya). After a fierce battle, Emperor Friedrich finally managed to enter Iconium by force on May 18th. However, after leaving Iconium, Friedrich drowned while crossing the Saleph River (Silifke /Salūḳiya). As a result of this, the German army disbanded (June 10, 1190), and only a small part of the army, led by his son Friedrich VI of Swabia, reached Acre.

HAÇLI ORDULARININ ANADOLU’DA SELÇUKLU TOPRAKLARINA SON GİRİŞİ: İMPARATOR FRIEDRICH BARBAROSSA’NIN HAÇLI SEFERİ (1189-1190)

@JOURNAL_BOX_MOSTREAD

Tarih Dergisi (Turk J Hist), İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi’nin çift-kör hakemli açık erişimli bilimsel yayın organıdır. Dergi Şubat, Haziran ve Ekim aylarında olmak üzere, yılda üç sayı olarak yayınlanır. Yayın dili Türkçe ve İngilizce’dir.
Tarih Dergisi (Turk J Hist); ulusal, bölgesel tarih ve dünya tarihiyle ilgili her konuyu kapsayan araştırma makalesi ve çeviri makaleler yayınlamaktadır. Dergide aynı zamanda eleştiri ve değerlendirme yazılarına da yer verilmektedir.
Tarih Dergisi (Turk J Hist); ulusal, bölgesel tarih ve dünya tarihiyle ilgili her konuyu kapsayan nitelikli makaleler yayınlayarak, literatüre katkıda bulunmayı amaçlar. 
Tarih Dergisi (Turk J Hist); ulusal, bölgesel tarih ve dünya tarihiyle ilgili araştırma makalesi ve çeviri makaleler yayınlamaktadır. Dergide aynı zamanda eleştiri ve değerlendirme yazılarına da yer verilmektedir.

Scopus

Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

EBSCO

ERIH PLUS

TR Dizin

DOAJ

SOBIAD

Gale Cengage

Ulrichsweb

@METRIC_VOLUMES

@METRIC_ISSUES

@METRIC_ARTICLES

@METRIC_OPENACCESS

Tarih Dergisi

@INFO_TAB_ABOUT

Editor in Chief

Co Editor in Chief

Section Editor

Ethics Editor

Editorial Management Board Member

Editorial Relations Manager

Publicity Manager

Editorial Assistant

Editorial Board Member

@INFO_TAB_BOARDS

Tarih Dergisi (Turk J Hist); ulusal, bölgesel tarih ve dünya tarihiyle ilgili her konuyu kapsayan nitelikli makaleler yayınlayarak, literatüre katkıda bulunmayı amaçlar. Tarih Dergisi (Turk J Hist); ulusal, bölgesel tarih ve dünya tarihiyle ilgili araştırma makalesi ve çeviri makaleler yayınlamaktadır. Dergide aynı zamanda eleştiri ve değerlendirme yazılarına da yer verilmektedir.

Amaç Kapsam

SCOPUSWeb of Science Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin  EBSCO Historical AbstractsEBSCO Historical Abstracts with Full TextDOAJERIH PLUSSOBİAD<a href="https://go.gale.com/ps/dispAdvSearch.do?userGroupName=anon~84c5a0c7&amp;prodId=AONE" target="_blank">Gale Cengage</a><a href="https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/Ulrichsweb/" target="_blank" style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Ulrichsweb</a>

Dizinler

Dergi yayın etiğinde en yüksek standartlara bağlıdır ve <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, <a href="https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/#principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)</a>, <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a> ve <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> tarafından yayınlanan etik yayıncılık ilkelerini benimser; Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing başlığı altında ifade edilen ilkeler için: <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing</a> Gönderilen makaleler derginin amaç ve kapsamına uygun olmalıdır. Orijinal, yayınlanmamış ve başka bir dergide değerlendirme sürecinde olmayan, her bir yazar tarafından içeriği ve gönderimi onaylanmış yazılar değerlendirmeye kabul edilir. Makale yayınlanmak üzere Dergiye gönderildikten sonra yazarlardan hiçbirinin ismi, tüm yazarların yazılı izni olmadan yazar listesinden silinemez ve yeni bir isim yazar olarak eklenemez ve yazar sırası değiştirilemez.İntihal, duplikasyon, sahte yazarlık/inkar edilen yazarlık, araştrma/veri fabrikasyonu, makale dilimleme, dilimleyerek yayın, telif hakları ihlali ve çıkar çatışmasının gizlenmesi, etik dışı davranışlar olarak kabul edilir. Kabul edilen etik standartlara uygun olmayan tüm makaleler yayından çıkarılır. Buna yayından sonra tespit edilen olası kuraldışı, uygunsuzluklar içeren makaleler de dahildir.İntihal Ön kontrolden geçirilen makaleler, iThenticate yazılımı kullanılarak intihal için taranır. İntihal/kendi kendine intihal tespit edilirse yazarlar bilgilendirilir. Editörler, gerekli olması halinde makaleyi değerlendirme ya da üretim sürecinin çeşitli aşamalarında intihal kontrolüne tabi tutabilirler. Yüksek benzerlik oranları, bir makalenin kabul edilmeden önce ve hatta kabul edildikten sonra reddedilmesine neden olabilir. Makalenin türüne bağlı olarak, bunun oranın %15 veya %20'den az olması beklenir.Çift Kör Hakemlikİntihal kontrolünden sonra, uygun olan makaleler baş editör tarafından orijinallik, metodoloji, işlenen konunun önemi ve dergi kapsamı ile uyumluluğu açısından değerlendirilir. Editör, makalelerin adil bir şekilde çift taraflı kör hakemlikten geçmesini sağlar ve makale biçimsel esaslara uygun ise, gelen yazıyı yurtiçinden ve /veya yurtdışından en az iki hakemin değerlendirmesine sunar, hakemler gerek gördüğü takdirde yazıda istenen değişiklikler yazarlar tarafından yapıldıktan sonra yayınlanmasına onay verir. *Akademik alanda herhangi bir üniversiteye mensubiyeti olmayan yazarların ve lisansüstü eğitimi devam eden öğrencilerin çalışmalarına dergide yer verilmemektedir. *Dergide yazısı yayınlanan bir yazarın iki seneden önce başka bir makalesine yer verilmemektedir.

Politikalar

Dergi açık erişimlidir ve derginin tüm içeriği okura ya da okurun dahil olduğu kuruma ücretsiz olarak sunulur. Okurlar, ticari amaç haricinde, yayıncı ya da yazardan izin almadan dergi makalelerinin tam metnini okuyabilir, indirebilir, kopyalayabilir, arayabilir ve link sağlayabilir. Bu <a href="https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/translations/turkish-translation" target="_blank">BOAI</a> açık erişim tanımıyla uyumludur. Derginin açık erişimli makaleleri Creative Commons Atıf-GayrıTicari 4.0 Uluslararası (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.tr" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) olarak lisanslıdır.

Derginin tüm giderleri İstanbul Üniversitesi tarafından karşılanmaktadır. Dergide makale yayını ve makale süreçlerinin yürütülmesi ücrete tabi değildir. Dergiye gönderilen ya da yayın için kabul edilen makaleler için işlemleme ücreti ya da gönderim ücreti alınmaz.

Yazarlar dergide yayınlanan çalışmalarının telif hakkına sahiptirler ve çalışmaları  Creative Commons Atıf-GayrıTicari 4.0 Uluslararası (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.tr" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) olarak lisanslıdır. CC BY-NC 4.0 lisansı, eserin ticari kullanım dışında her boyut ve formatta paylaşılmasına, kopyalanmasına, çoğaltılmasına ve orijinal esere uygun şekilde atıfta bulunmak kaydıyla yeniden düzenleme, dönüştürme ve eserin üzerine inşa etme dâhil adapte edilmesine izin verir.

Editörler, yayınlanan makalede, bulguları, yorumları ve sonuçları etkilemeyen küçük hatalar tespit edilirse düzeltme yayınlamayı düşünebilirler. Editörler, bulguları ve sonuçları geçersiz kılan büyük hatalar / ihlaller söz konusu olduğunda, makaleyi geri çekmeyi düşünmelidir. Yazarlar tarafından araştırma veya yayını kötüye kullanmaya yönelik olasılık söz konusu ise; bulguların güvenilir olmadığına ve yazarların kurumlarının olayı soruşturmadığına dair kanıtlar var veya olası soruşturma haksız veya sonuçsuz görünüyor ise, editörler endişe ifadesi yayınlamayı düşünmelidir. Düzeltme, geri çekme veya endişe ifadesi ile ilgili olarak <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/complete-set-english" target="_blank">COPE</a> ve <a href="https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/" target="_blank">ICJME</a> yönergeleri dikkate alınır.Geri ÇekmeDergi geri çekme durumunda <a href="https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/retraction-guidelines-cope.pdf" target="_blank">COPE Retraction Guidelines</a>’ı izler. Editör, aşağıdaki durumlarda bir makaleyi geri çekme hakkına sahiptir: <ul><li>Büyük bir hata (örn. yanlış hesaplama veya deneysel hata), uydurma öğeler  (örn. veri) veya tahrifat (örn. görüntü manipülasyonu) gibi bulguların güvenilmez olduğu sonucunu çıkarmaya dair açık kanıtlar varsa; </li><li>İçerikte intihal varsa; </li><li>Uygun atıf yapılmadan başka bir yerde yayınlanmışsa;</li><li>Kullanım izni olmayan materyal veya veri içeriyorsa;</li><li>Telif hakkı ihlali veya başka bir ciddi yasal sorun varsa;</li><li>Etik olmayan araştırma içeriyorsa; </li><li>Hakem değerlendirme sürecinin bozulduğuna veya manipüle edildiğine dair kanıt varsa;</li><li>Yazar(lar), editörün görüşüne göre, çalışmanın yorumlanmasını veya editörlerin ve hakemlerin tavsiyelerini önemli derecede etkileyebilecek, kritik bir çıkar çatışmasını açıklamamış ise.</li></ul>Geri çekme durumunda aşağıdaki adımlar izlenir:<ul><li>Makale başlığını da içeren geri çekme bildirimi derginin bir sonraki sayısında yayınlanır. Geri çekme bildirimi  içindekiler tablosunda sayfa nosu verilerek listelenir. </li><li>Elektronik versiyonda geri çekme bildirimi ile orijinal makale arasında link sağlanır. </li><li>Online makaleden önce geri çekme bildirimini içeren sayfa gelir; okuyucu daha sonra makalenin kendisine geçebilir.</li><li>Orijinal makale, her sayfadaki .pdf üzerinde “geri çekildiğini” belirten bir filigran dışında değişmeden kalır.</li></ul>Yasal Nedenlerle Makalenin KaldırılmasıAşağıdaki durumlarda, üst veriler (başlık ve yazarlar) hariç olmak üzere, makale metni kaldırılır ve makalenin yasal nedenlerle kaldırıldığını bildiren bir sayfa makalenin yerini alır. <ul><li>Makalenin karalayıcı içerik ihtiva ettiği veya başkalarının yasal haklarını ihlal ettiği tespit edilir ve geri çekmenin yeterli bir çözüm olmadığı düşünülürse;</li><li>Makale bir mahkeme kararına konu olmuşsa veya olacağına dair makul bir neden varsa;</li><li>Kamu sağlığı açısından önemli bir risk söz konusu ise;  </li></ul>

Dergide yayınlanan tüm yazıların korunmasını ve kalıcı olarak erişilebilir olmasını sağlamak için makaleler, ulusal bir arşiv sitesi olarak hizmet veren ve aynı zamanda LOCKSS'in içeriği toplamasına, korumasına ve sunmasına izin veren Dergipark'ta saklanmaktadır.Ek olarak, yazarların kendilerinin makalelerinin son PDF sürümünü Open Archives Initiative (<a href="https://www.openarchives.org/" target="_blank">https://www.openarchives.org/</a>) standartlarına uygun açık elektronik arşivlerde arşivlemeleri önerilir. Yazarlar, yayınladıkları arşiv versiyonundan, İ.Ü. Yayınevinin dergi web sitesinin URL'sine bağlantı sağlamalıdır.

Yapay Zeka konusundaki gelişmeler ve akademik yayıncılıkta görülen uygulamalar dikkate alınarak oluşturulan Yapay Zeka Politikası, yazarların, hakemlerin ve editörlerin bu türden teknolojilerin kullanımında uymaları gereken editöryal ve etik ilkeleri içerir. Yapay Zeka politikasının oluşturulmasında, aşağıdaki kaynaklar dikkate alınmıştır:Committee on Publication Ethics <a href="https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools" target="_blank">(COPE) - Authorship and AI tools</a>; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors <a href="https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#four" target="_blank">(ICMJE) - Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology; World Association of Medical Editors  (WAME) Chatbots, Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts</a><a href="https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#four"></a>Yapay Zeka destekli teknolojiler (Büyük Dil Modelleri [LLM'ler], sohbet robotları veya görüntü oluşturucular gibi), metin, görüntü, ses ve sentetik veriler dahil olmak üzere çeşitli içerikler geliştirebilmekte ve üretebilmektedir. Bu yetenekleri etik ve güvenli bir şekilde kullanıldığında üretkenliği artırabilir ve yeniliği teşvik edebilir; ancak insan yönlendirmesi olmadan kullanımında doğru olmayan ve taraflı sonuçlar; atıf verme konusunda eksikler ve hatalar; gizlilik ve fikri mülkiyet haklarının korunmasında eksiklikler; yazar ve yayıncıların haklarının potansiyel ihlali gibi riskler taşımaktadır. IUPress, Yapay Zeka kullanımı konusunda söz konusu riskleri bertaraf etmeyi amaçlayan aşağıdaki temel ilkeleri benimser:  <ul><li>İçerik üretiminde kullanılan (metin, şekiller, resimler ve kod dahil ancak bunlarla sınırlı olmamak üzere) her türlü Yapay Zeka ile ilgili ayrıntılar çalışmanın uygun bölümünde (bilgi notu olarak ve/veya metod kısmında) beyan edilmeli ve net biçimde açıklanmalıdır. </li><li>Hiçbir Yapay Zeka aracı hiçbir bilimsel çalışmada yazar olarak listelenemez. </li><li>Yazarlar, herhangi bir şekilde Yapay Zeka kullanımı durumunda da çalışmalarının doğruluğu, bütünlüğü ve özgünlüğünden sorumludur; başkalarının fikirleri, verileri, kelimeleri veya diğer materyallerini doğru referanslama ve atıf ile sunmakla yükümlüdürler. </li><li>Hakemler ve editörler gönderilen çalışmayı tamamen ya da kısmen hiçbir üretken Yapay Zeka uygulamasına yükleyemez. </li></ul>IUPress yayınlarının editöryal süreçlerinde, Yapay Zeka ile üretilmiş içerikleri tespit eden yardımcı araçlar editörlerin kullanımındadır. Öte yandan okunurluğu, dil ve grammeri iyileştirme ve geliştirme konusunda önerilerde bulunan Yapay Zeka araçlarının kullanılması yaygındır ve IUPress  yayınlarında bu türden Yapay Zeka araçları editörlerin ve yazarların gözetiminde kullanılabilir.

Yapay Zeka Politikası

<ul><li>Yazarlar, gönderdikleri çalışmayı oluştururken <a target="_blank">Yapay Zeka destekli teknolojiler (Büyük Dil Modelleri [LLM'ler], sohbet robotları veya görüntü oluşturucular gibi) </a>kullandılarsa, bunu  beyan etmekle yükümlüdür. </li><li>Yazarlar hem ön yazıda hem de sunulan çalışmanın uygun bölümünde (bilgi notu olarak ve/veya metod kısmında), hangi Yapay Zeka aracını ve hangi versiyonunu ne amaçla kullandıklarını açıklamalıdır. </li><li>Yapay Zeka destekli teknolojilerden yararlanılarak oluşturulan içeriğin ve alıntıların doğruluğu, geçerliliği ve uygunluğunun sağlanması, olası hata, tutarsızlık ve taraflı sonuçların giderilmesi yazarların sorumluluğundadır. </li><li>Yazarlar, Yapay Zeka destekli teknolojiler ile üretilmiş metinlerde intihal potansiyeli olduğunu dikkate alarak, olası intihali bertaraf etmek için orijinal kaynakları mutlaka kontrol etmelidir. Kontrol ettiğini ve kaynakların orijnal kaynaklar olduğunu teyid etmelidir.  </li><li>Yapay Zeka destekli araçlar (ChatGPT gibi) yazar olarak listelenemez çünkü çalışmanın doğruluğundan, bütünlüğünden ve orijinalliğinden sorumlu olamazlar ve bu sorumluluklar yazarlık için şarttır. Bu nedenle, Yapay Zeka destekli teknolojilerin kullanımını içeren tüm materyallerden yazarlar sorumludur. Yazarlar, makalede yer alan ve çalışmanın hipotezlerini, yorumlarını, sonuçlarını, sınırlamalarını ve çıkarımlarını bildiren tüm ifadelerin kendi fikirlerini temsil ettiğinden emin olmalıdırlar.  </li><li>Yazarların, Yapay Zeka araçlarını temel araştırmacı ve yazar sorumluluklarının yerini alacak, aşağıdaki şekillerde kullanarak oluşturdukları çalışmalar bilimsel yayıncılık ve yayın etiği ilkelerine aykırıdır ve bu türden çalışmaların yayınlarda yer almasına izin verilmez: <ul><li>Titiz revizyon olmadan metin veya kod oluşturma, </li><li>Sağlam bir metodoloji olmadan eksik verileri ikame etmek için sentetik veri üretimi,  </li><li>Özetler veya ek materyaller de dahil olmak üzere her türlü hatalı, sentetik içerik oluşturulması </li><li>Yapay Zeka kullanımı ile görüntü ve şekillerin (resimler, çizelgeler, veri tabloları, tıbbi görüntüler, görüntü parçacıkları, bilgisayar kodları ve formüller) veya orijinal araştırma verilerinin oluşturulması ve manipüle edilmesi (bir görüntü veya şekil içinde belirli bir özelliğin artırılması, gizlenmesi, taşınması, kaldırılması veya eklenmesi).</li></ul></li></ul>

Hakem sürecinde gizliliğin korunması, değerlendirilen çalışmanın bu süreçte paylaşılmaması veya kullanılmaması esastır.  <a></a><a href="https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-cope.pdf" target="_blank">(COPE – Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers</a>) <ul><li>Hakemler, kendilerine değerlendirme için gönderilen bir makaleyi veya herhangi bir bölümünü gözden geçirme, değerlendirme veya karar verme sürecine yardımcı olması için üretken Yapay Zeka araçlarına veya Büyük Dil Modellerine yüklememelidirler; zira hakemlerin bu türden Yapay Zeka araçlarına içerik yüklemesi yazarların gizlilik ve mülkiyet haklarını ihlal eder.  </li><li>Bilimsel bir makalenin incelenmesi, yalnızca insanlara atfedilebilecek sorumluluktur. Hakem değerlendirmesi için gereken eleştirel düşünme ve orijinal değerlendirme bu teknolojinin kapsamı dışındadır ve teknolojinin makale hakkında yanlış, eksik veya önyargılı sonuçlar üretme riski vardır. Hakem raporu ve karar mektupları, hakemlerin ve editörlerin gönderilen içeriğe ilişkin kişisel değerlendirmelerini yansıtmalıdır. Hakem, raporunun içeriğinden sorumludur ve hesap vermekle sorumludur. </li><li>Yapay Zeka araçları, hakem değerlendirmesi ile bağlantılı olarak hakem değerlendirme raporu dilinin kalitesini artırmak için (çeviri veya dil düzenlemesi için) sınırlı bir şekilde kullanılabilir. Böyle bir kullanım olduğunda, hakem raporu iletirken, kullanımı beyan etmelidir. </li><li>Bir başvuruda üretken Yapay Zekanın uygunsuz veya açıklanmamış kullanımından şüphelenen hakemler, endişelerini dergi editörüne bildirmelidir. </li></ul>

Editörler dergiye gönderilen makalelerin değerlendirme sürecinde gizliliğinin korunmasını sağlamakla yükümlüdürler, değerlendirilen çalışmanın bu sürece dahil olan taraflar dışında paylaşılmaması veya kullanılmaması esastır <a href="https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf" target="_blank">(COPE – Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)</a>.<ul><li>Editörler, yazarların gizlilik ve mülkiyet haklarını ihlal edebileceğinden, gönderilen bir makaleyi veya herhangi bir bölümünü gözden geçirme, değerlendirilme veya karar verme sürecine yardımcı olması için üretken Yapay Zeka  araçlarına veya Büyük Dil Modelleri'ne yüklememelidir. </li><li>Bilimsel bir makalenin editoryal değerlendirmesini yönetmek, yalnızca insanlara atfedilebilecek sorumluluklar anlamına gelir. Üretken Yapay Zeka veya Yapay Zeka destekli teknolojiler, editörler tarafından bir makalenin değerlendirme veya karar verme sürecine yardımcı olmak için kullanılmamalıdır, çünkü bu iş için gereken eleştirel düşünme ve orijinal değerlendirme bu teknolojinin kapsamı dışındadır ve teknolojinin makale hakkında yanlış, eksik veya önyargılı sonuçlar üretme riski vardır. Editör, editoryal süreçten, nihai karardan ve bunların yazarlara iletilmesinden sorumlu ve mesuldür.</li><li>Editörler, karar mektupları veya yayınlanmamış araştırmaların özetlerini oluşturmak için üretken Yapay Zeka aracı kullanmamalıdır. </li><li>Editörler, uygun hakemleri bulma konusunda yardımcı olması için üretken Yapay Zeka araçlarını kullanabilir.</li><li>Editörler, gönderilen bir makalede veya gönderilen bir hakem raporunda üretken Yapay Zeka kullanıldığından şüphelenirse konuyla ilgili editoryal bir değerlendirme yapmalı ve politikayı göz önünde bulundurmalıdır. </li></ul>

Tarih Dergisi (Türk J Hist), yayın etiğinde en yüksek standartlara bağlıdır ve <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, <a href="https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/#principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)</a>, <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a> ve <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> tarafından yayınlanan etik yayıncılık ilkelerini benimser; Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing başlığı altında ifade edilen ilkeler için: <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing</a> Gönderilen tüm makaleler orijinal, yayınlanmamış ve başka bir dergide değerlendirme sürecinde olmamalıdır. Her bir makale editörlerden biri ve en az iki hakem tarafından çift kör değerlendirmeden geçirilir. İntihal, duplikasyon, sahte yazarlık/inkar edilen yazarlık, araştrma/veri fabrikasyonu, makale dilimleme, dilimleyerek yayın, telif hakları ihlali ve çıkar çatışmasının gizlenmesi, etik dışı davranışlar olarak kabul edilir.Kabul edilen etik standartlara uygun olmayan tüm makaleler yayından çıkarılır. Buna yayından sonra tespit edilen olası kuraldışı, uygunsuzluklar içeren makaleler de dahildir.

Etik

Tarih Dergisi araştırma etiğinde en yüksek standartları gözetir ve aşağıda tanımlanan uluslararası araştırma etiği ilkelerini benimser. Makalelerin etik kurallara uygunluğu yazarların sorumluluğundadır.<ul><li>Araştırmanın tasarlanması, tasarımın gözden geçirilmesi ve araştırmanın yürütülmesinde, bütünlük, kalite ve şeffaflık ilkeleri sağlanmalıdır.</li><li>Araştırma ekibi ve katılımcılar, araştırmanın amacı, yöntemleri ve öngörülen olası kullanımları; araştırmaya katılımın gerektirdikleri ve varsa riskleri hakkında tam olarak bilgilendirilmelidir.</li><li>Araştırma katılımcılarının sağladığı bilgilerin gizliliği ve yanıt verenlerin gizliliği sağlanmalıdır. Araştırma katılımcıların özerkliğini ve saygınlığını koruyacak şekilde tasarlanmalıdır.</li><li>Araştırma katılımcıları gönüllü olarak araştırmada yer almalı, herhangi bir zorlama altında olmamalıdırlar.</li><li>Katılımcıların zarar görmesinden kaçınılmalıdır. Araştırma, katılımcıları riske sokmayacak şekilde planlanmalıdır.</li><li>Araştırma bağımsızlığıyla ilgili açık ve net olunmalı; çıkar çatışması varsa belirtilmelidir.</li><li>Deneysel çalışmalarda, araştırmaya katılmaya karar veren katılımcıların yazılı bilgilendirilmiş onayı alınmalıdır. Çocukların ve vesayet altındakilerin veya tasdiklenmiş akıl hastalığı bulunanların yasal vasisinin onayı alınmalıdır.</li><li>Çalışma herhangi bir kurum ya da kuruluşta gerçekleştirilecekse bu kurum ya da kuruluştan çalışma yapılacağına dair onay alınmalıdır.</li><li>İnsan öğesi bulunan çalışmalarda, “yöntem” bölümünde katılımcılardan “bilgilendirilmiş onam” alındığının ve çalışmanın yapıldığı kurumdan etik kurul onayı alındığı belirtilmesi gerekir.</li></ul>

Makalelerin bilimsel ve etik kurallara uygunluğu yazarların sorumluluğundadır. Yazar makalenin orijinal olduğu, daha önce başka bir yerde yayınlanmadığı ve başka bir yerde, başka bir dilde yayınlanmak üzere değerlendirmede olmadığı konusunda teminat sağlamalıdır. Uygulamadaki telif kanunları ve anlaşmaları gözetilmelidir. Telife bağlı materyaller (örneğin tablolar, şekiller veya büyük alıntılar) gerekli izin ve teşekkürle kullanılmalıdır. Başka yazarların, katkıda bulunanların çalışmaları ya da yararlanılan kaynaklar uygun biçimde kullanılmalı ve referanslarda belirtilmelidir.Gönderilen makalede tüm yazarların akademik ve bilimsel olarak doğrudan katkısı olmalıdır, bu bağlamda “yazar” yayınlanan bir araştırmanın kavramsallaştırılmasına ve dizaynına, verilerin elde edilmesine, analizine ya da yorumlanmasına belirgin katkı yapan, yazının yazılması ya da bunun içerik açısından eleştirel biçimde gözden geçirilmesinde görev yapan birisi olarak görülür. Yazar olabilmenin diğer koşulları ise, makaledeki çalışmayı planlamak veya icra etmek ve / veya revize etmektir. Fon sağlanması, veri toplanması ya da araştırma grubunun genel süpervizyonu tek başına yazarlık hakkı kazandırmaz. Yazar olarak gösterilen tüm bireyler sayılan tüm ölçütleri karşılamalıdır ve yukarıdaki ölçütleri karşılayan her birey yazar olarak gösterilebilir. Yazarların isim sıralaması ortak verilen bir karar olmalıdır. Tüm yazarlar yazar sıralamasını <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/BCBF605901234F42B7485526E85D55E1" target="_blank">Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formunda</a> imzalı olarak belirtmek zorundadırlar.Yazarlık için yeterli ölçütleri karşılamayan ancak çalışmaya katkısı olan tüm bireyler “teşekkür / bilgiler” kısmında sıralanmalıdır. Bunlara örnek olarak ise sadece teknik destek sağlayan, yazıma yardımcı olan ya da sadece genel bir destek sağlayan, finansal ve materyal desteği sunan kişiler verilebilir.Bütün yazarlar, araştırmanın sonuçlarını ya da bilimsel değerlendirmeyi etkileyebilme potansiyeli olan finansal ilişkiler, çıkar çatışması ve çıkar rekabetini beyan etmelidirler. Bir yazar kendi yayınlanmış yazısında belirgin bir hata ya da yanlışlık tespit ederse, bu yanlışlıklara ilişkin düzeltme ya da geri çekme için editör ile hemen temasa geçme ve işbirliği yapma sorumluluğunu taşır.

Baş editör, makaleleri, yazarların etnik kökeninden, cinsiyetinden,  uyruğundan, dini inancından ve siyasi felsefesinden bağımsız olarak değerlendirir. Yayına gönderilen makalelerin adil bir şekilde çift taraflı kör hakem değerlendirmesinden geçmelerini sağlar. Gönderilen makalelere ilişkin tüm bilginin, makale yayınlanana kadar gizli kalacağını garanti eder. Baş editör içerik ve yayının toplam kalitesinden sorumludur. Gereğinde hata sayfası yayınlamalı ya da düzeltme yapmalıdır.Baş editör; yazarlar, editörler ve hakemler arasında çıkar çatışmasına izin vermez. Hakem atama konusunda tam yetkiye sahiptir ve dergide yayınlanacak makalelerle ilgili nihai kararı vermekle yükümlüdür.Hakemlerin araştırmayla ilgili, yazarlarla ve/veya araştırmanın finansal destekçileriyle çıkar çatışmaları olmamalıdır. Değerlendirmelerinin sonucunda tarafsız bir yargıya varmalıdırlar. Gönderilmiş yazılara ilişkin tüm bilginin gizli tutulmasını sağlamalı ve yazar tarafında herhangi bir telif hakkı ihlali ve intihal fark ederlerse editöre raporlamalıdırlar. Hakem, makale konusu hakkında kendini vasıflı hissetmiyor ya da zamanında geri dönüş sağlaması mümkün görünmüyorsa, editöre bu durumu bildirmeli ve hakem sürecine kendisini dahil etmemesini istemelidir.Değerlendirme sürecinde editör hakemlere gözden geçirme için gönderilen makalelerin, yazarların özel mülkü olduğunu ve bunun imtiyazlı bir iletişim olduğunu açıkça belirtir. Hakemler ve yayın kurulu üyeleri başka kişilerle makaleleri tartışamazlar. Hakemlerin kimliğinin gizli kalmasına özen gösterilmelidir. Bazı durumlarda editörün kararıyla, ilgili hakemlerin makaleye ait yorumları aynı makaleyi yorumlayan diğer hakemlere gönderilerek hakemlerin bu süreçte aydınlatılması sağlanabilir.

Daha önce yayınlanmamış ya da yayınlanmak üzere başka bir dergide halen değerlendirmede olmayan ve her bir yazar tarafından onaylanan makaleler değerlendirilmek üzere kabul edilir. Gönderilen ve ön kontrolü geçen makaleler iThenticate yazılımı kullanılarak intihal için taranır. İntihal kontrolünden sonra, uygun olan makaleler baş editör tarafından orijinallik, metodoloji, işlenen konunun önemi ve dergi kapsamı ile uyumluluğu açısından değerlendirilir.Seçilen makaleler en az iki ulusal/uluslararası hakeme çift taraflı kör hakemlik ile değerlendirmeye gönderilir; yayın kararı, hakemlerin talepleri doğrultusunda yazarların gerçekleştirdiği düzenlemelerin ve hakem sürecinin sonrasında baş editör tarafından verilir.

Hakemlik Hakkında

Baş editör, makaleleri, yazarların etnik kökeninden, cinsiyetinden, uyruğundan, dini inancından ve siyasi felsefesinden bağımsız olarak değerlendirirler. Yayına gönderilen makalelerin adil bir şekilde çift taraflı kör hakem değerlendirmesinden geçmelerini sağlar. Gönderilen makalelere ilişkin tüm bilginin, makale yayınlanana kadar gizli kalacağını garanti eder. Baş editör içerik ve yayının toplam kalitesinden sorumludur. Gereğinde hata sayfası yayınlamalı ya da düzeltme yapmalıdır. Baş editör; yazarlar, editörler ve hakemler arasında çıkar çatışmasına izin vermez. Hakem atama konusunda tam yetkiye sahiptir ve dergide yayınlanacak makalelerle ilgili nihai kararı vermekle yükümlüdür.Hakemler, araştırma, yazarlar ve/veya araştırmaya fon sağlayanlarla çıkar çatışması içinde olmamalıdır. Hakemler değerlendirmelerinin sonucunda tarafsız bir yargıya varmalıdırlar. Gönderilmiş yazılara ilişkin tüm bilginin gizli tutulmasını sağlamalı ve yazar tarafında herhangi bir telif hakkı ihlali ve intihal fark ederlerse editöre raporlamalıdırlar. Hakem, makale konusu hakkında kendini vasıflı hissetmiyor ya da zamanında geri dönüş sağlaması mümkün görünmüyorsa, editöre bu durumu bildirmeli ve hakem sürecine kendisini dahil etmemesini istemelidir.Değerlendirme sürecinde editör hakemlere gözden geçirme için gönderilen makalelerin, yazarların özel mülkü olduğunu ve bunun imtiyazlı bir iletişim olduğunu açıkça belirtir. Hakemler ve yayın kurulu üyeleri başka kişilerle makaleleri tartışamazlar. Hakemlerin kimliğinin gizli kalmasına özen gösterilmelidir. Bazı durumlarda editörün kararıyla, ilgili hakemlerin makaleye ait yorumları aynı makaleyi yorumlayan diğer hakemlere gönderilerek hakemlerin bu süreçte aydınlatılması sağlanabilir.

Daha önce yayınlanmamış ya da yayınlanmak üzere başka bir dergide halen değerlendirmede olmayan ve her bir yazar tarafından onaylanan makaleler değerlendirilmek üzere kabul edilir. Gönderilen ve ön kontrolü geçen makaleler iThenticate yazılımı kullanılarak intihal için taranır. İntihal kontrolünden sonra, uygun olan makaleler baş editör tarafından orijinallik, metodoloji, işlenen konunun önemi ve dergi kapsamı ile uyumluluğu açısından değerlendirilir.Baş Editör, makaleleri, yazarların etnik kökeninden, cinsiyetinden, uyruğundan, dini inancından ve siyasi felsefesinden bağımsız olarak değerlendirir. Yayına gönderilen makalelerin adil bir şekilde çift taraflı kör hakem değerlendirmesinden geçmelerini sağlar.Seçilen makaleler en az iki ulusal/uluslararası hakeme değerlendirmeye gönderilir; yayın kararı, hakemlerin talepleri doğrultusunda yazarların gerçekleştirdiği düzenlemelerin ve hakem sürecinin sonrasında baş editör tarafından verilir.Baş editör; yazarlar, editörler ve hakemler arasında çıkar çatışmasına izin vermez. Hakem atama konusunda tam yetkiye sahiptir ve dergide yayınlanacak makalelerle ilgili nihai kararı vermekle yükümlüdür.Hakemlerin değerlendirmeleri objektif olmalıdır. Hakem süreci sırasında hakemlerin aşağıdaki hususları dikkate alarak değerlendirmelerini yapmaları beklenir.-Makale yeni ve önemli bir bilgi içeriyor mu?-Öz, makalenin içeriğini net ve düzgün bir şekilde tanımlıyor mu?-Yöntem bütünlüklü ve anlaşılır şekilde tanımlanmış mı?-Yapılan yorum ve varılan sonuçlar bulgularla kanıtlanıyor mu?-Alandaki diğer çalışmalara yeterli referans verilmiş mi?-Dil kalitesi yeterli mi?Hakemler, gönderilen makalelere ilişkin tüm bilginin, makale yayınlanana kadar gizli kalmasını sağlamalı ve yazar tarafında herhangi bir telif hakkı ihlali ve intihal fark ederlerse editöre raporlamalıdırlar. Hakem, makale konusu hakkında kendini vasıflı hissetmiyor ya da zamanında geri dönüş sağlaması mümkün görünmüyorsa, editöre bu durumu bildirmeli ve hakem sürecine kendisini dahil etmemesini istemelidir.Değerlendirme sürecinde editör hakemlere gözden geçirme için gönderilen makalelerin, yazarların özel mülkü olduğunu ve bunun imtiyazlı bir iletişim olduğunu açıkça belirtir. Hakemler ve yayın kurulu üyeleri başka kişilerle makaleleri tartışamazlar. Hakemlerin kimliğinin gizli kalmasına özen gösterilmelidir.

Dil Dergide Türkçe ve İngilizce makaleler yayınlanır. Gönderilen makalelerde makale dilinde öz, İngilizce öz olmalıdır. Yazıların Hazırlanması ve Gönderimi Makaleler sadece <a href="https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iutarih" target="_blank">https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iutarih</a> adresinde yer alan derginin online makale yükleme ve değerlendirme sistemi üzerinden gönderilebilir. Diğer mecralardan gönderilen makaleler değerlendirilmeye alınmayacaktır. Gönderilen makalelerin dergi yazım kurallarına uygunluğu ilk olarak Editoryal Ofis tarafından kontrol edilecek, dergi yazım kurallarına uygun hazırlanmamış makaleler teknik düzeltme talepleri ile birlikte yazarlarına geri gönderilecektir. Yazarların; <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/BCBF605901234F42B7485526E85D55E1" target="_blank">Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formu’nu</a> ilk gönderim sırasında online makale sistemine yüklemeleri gerekmektedir. &#65279;Tarih Dergisi'ne gönderilen tüm yazılar, dipnot ve kaynakça hariç 12.500 kelimeyi geçmemelidir. Tarih Dergisi’ne gönderilen tüm yazılar, A4 boyutunda MS Word uyumlu programda Times New Roman yazı karakterinde 11 punto olarak yazılmalıdır.Türkçe hazırlanan makalelerde TDK yazım kılavuzu esas alınır. Başlık, 14 punto, koyu ve büyük harf olmalıdır. Başlık ortadan hizalı olmalıdır. Metinde ana ve ara başlıklar kullanılabilir. Ana başlıklar 11 punto, küçük harf ve koyu olarak sola dayalı; ara başlıklar 11 punto, koyu ve küçük harf yazılmalı sola dayalı olmalıdır. Başlıklar ve paragrafların arasında 6 nk aralık bırakılmalıdır. - Alıntılar, 5 satırı geçtiğinde paragraf girintisinden 1 cm içeriden başlatılmalı, tırnak içinde italik olarak yazılmalıdır. 5 satırdan az olan alıntılar metin içerisinde tırnak içinde italik olarak verilir. Vurgulanması gereken ifadeler de italik yapılır. Dipnotlar Times New Roman yazı karakterinde, 9 punto tek aralık yazılmalıdır. Hizalaması iki yana dayalı ve paragraf girintisi 0.5 cm ve artan satır ilk satır hizasında olmalıdır. Tüm noktalama işaretlerinden sonra bir boşluk bırakılmalı ve tüm dipnotların sonuna, mutlaka nokta konulmalıdır. Metin içindeki atıflar sayfa altına dipnot şeklinde 1’den başlayarak numaralandırılmalıdır. Bunun dışında metin içinde atıf yapılmamalıdır. Dipnotlarda kaynaklar verilirken, kitap ve dergi ismi italik olmalı, makale isimleri tırnak içerisinde düz olarak verilmelidir. Dipnotlarda, ilk geçtiği yerde yazar ismi ve kaynak künyesi tam olarak verilmeli, daha sonra sadece yazar soyadı ve a.g.e., a.g.m., veya a.g.t. gibi yazarın belirlediği kısaltmalarla yazılmalıdır. Bir yazarın birden fazla kitap ve makalesi kullanılıyorsa ikinci eserin ilk kullanımından sonra, yazarın soyadı, sonra kitap veya makalenin kısaltılmış adı verilmelidir. Çok yazarlı kaynakların ilk geçtiği yerde yazarların tümü yazılmalı, daha sonrakilerde kısaltılarak verilmelidir. Dipnotlarda makale, kitap içinde bölüm veya ansiklopedi maddesinin tamamına yönelik bir atıf mevcutsa, başlangıç ve bitiş sayfaları gösterilmelidir. Özet: Özgün araştırma makalelerinde 80-100 kelime Türkçe ve İngilizce özet bulunmalıdır. Özet bölümü alt başlık içermeyecek şekilde hazırlanmalıdır.İngilizce genişletilmiş özet: Türkçe yazılan makalelerin uluslararası platformda görünürlüğü ve atıf oranını arttırmak amacıyla, yalnızca araştırma makaleleri için 1.000 kelimelik İngilizce geniş özet hazırlanıp sisteme yüklenmelidir. İngilizce geniş özet makalenin hipotezini, çıkarımlarını ve yorumların kapsamlı bir biçimde özetleyecek şekilde hazırlanmalıdır. Anahtar Sözcükler: Araştırma makaleleri en az 3 en fazla 6 anahtar kelimeyle birlikte gönderilmelidir. Anahtar kelimeler İngilizce ve Türkçe olarak hazırlanıp ilgili özetin altına yazılmalıdır. Makale Türleri Araştırma Makalesi: Ana metin, araştırmanın konusuna uygun şekilde alt başlıklara ayrılmalıdır. Alt başlıklar konusunda yazarlar serbest bırakılmışlardır. Çeviri: Çeviri türündeki yazılarda, orijinal makalenin yazarından alınan izin ile orijinal makalenin bir kopyası ve asıl metnin tam bibliyografik künye bilgilerini içeren dosyalar da online makale sistemine yüklenmelidir. Tablolar Tablolar ana dosyaya eklenmeli, kaynak listesi sonrasında sunulmalı, ana metin içerisindeki geçiş sıralarına uygun olarak numaralandırılmadır. Tabloların üzerinde tanımlayıcı bir başlık yer almalı ve tablo içerisinde geçen kısaltmaların açılımları tablo altına tanımlanmalıdır. Tablolar Microsoft Office Word dosyası içinde “Tablo Ekle” komutu kullanılarak hazırlanmalı ve kolay okunabilir şekilde düzenlenmelidir. Tablolarda sunulan veriler ana metinde sunulan verilerin tekrarı olmamalı; ana metindeki verileri destekleyici nitelikte olmalılar Resim ve Resim Altyazıları Resimler, grafikler ve fotoğraflar (TIFF ya da JPEG formatında) ayrı dosyalar halinde sisteme yüklenmelidir. Görseller bir Word dosyası dokümanı ya da ana doküman içerisinde sunulmamalıdır. Alt birimlere ayrılan görseller olduğunda, alt birimler tek bir görsel içerisinde verilmemelidir. Her bir alt birim sisteme ayrı bir dosya olarak yüklenmelidir. Resimler alt birimleri belli etme amacıyla etiketlenmemelidir (a, b, c vb.). Resimlerde altyazıları desteklemek için kalın ve ince oklar, ok başları, yıldızlar, asteriksler ve benzer işaretler kullanılabilir. Makalenin geri kalanında olduğu gibi resimler de kör olmalıdır. Bu sebeple, resimlerde yer alan kişi ve kurum bilgileri de körleştirilmelidir. Görsellerin minimum çözünürlüğü 300DPI olmalıdır. Değerlendirme sürecindeki aksaklıkları önlemek için gönderilen bütün görsellerin çözünürlüğü net ve boyutu büyük (minimum boyutlar 100x100 mm) olmalıdır. Resim altyazıları ana metnin sonunda yer almalıdır. Makale içerisinde geçen tüm kısaltmalar, ana metin ve özette ayrı ayrı olmak üzere ilk kez kullanıldıkları yerde tanımlanarak kısaltma tanımın ardından parantez içerisinde verilmelidir. Tüm kaynaklar, tablolar ve resimlere ana metin içinde uygun olan yerlerde sırayla numara verilerek atıf yapılmalıdır. Revizyonlar Yazarlar makalelerinin revizyon dosyalarını gönderirken, hakemlerin istediği düzeltmeleri ve hakemlerin sorularına yanıtlarını ana metin içerisinde renklendirerek belirtmelidir. Revize makaleler karar mektubunu takip eden 30 gün içerisinde dergiye gönderilmelidir. Makalenin revize versiyonu belirtilen süre içerisinde yüklenmezse, revizyon seçeneği iptal olabilir. Yazarların revizyon için ek süreye ihtiyaç duymaları durumunda uzatma taleplerini ilk 30 gün sona ermeden dergiye iletmeleri gerekmektedir. Yayına kabul edilen makaleler dil bilgisi, noktalama ve biçim açısından kontrol edilir. Yayın süreci tamamlanan makaleler, yayın planına dahil edildikleri sayıyla birlikte yayınlanmadan önce erken çevrimiçi formatında dergi web sitesinde yayına alınır. Kabul edilen makalelerin baskıya hazır PDF dosyaları sorumlu yazarlara iletilir ve yayın onaylarının 2 gün içerisinde dergiye iletilmesi istenir.

Yazım Kuralları

Referans Stili ve Formatı Yayınlara atıf yapılırken en son, en güncel yayınlar tercih edilmelidir. Kaynakların doğruluğundan yazar(lar) sorumludur. Referanslar dip not sistemine uygun olarak belirtilmelidir. Metin içi referansları ve kaynakça bölümü için dikkat edilmesi gereken detaylar aşağıda belirtilmiştir. Metin içi referanslar üst simge ile 1’den başlayarak gösterilmelidir. Dipnotlar, Times New Roman yazı karakterinde, 9 punto tek aralık yazılmalıdır. Tüm noktalama işaretlerinden sonra bir boşluk bırakılmalı ve tüm dipnotların sonuna, mutlaka nokta konulmalıdır. Metin içindeki atıflar sayfa altına dipnot şeklinde 1’den başlayarak numaralandırılmalıdır. Bunun dışında metin içinde atıf yapılmamalıdır. Dipnotlarda kaynaklar verilirken, kitap ve dergi ismi italik olmalı, makale isimleri tırnak içerisinde düz olarak verilmelidir. Dipnotlarda, ilk geçtiği yerde yazar ismi ve kaynak künyesi tam olarak verilmeli, daha sonra sadece yazar soyadı ve a.g.e., a.g.m., veya a.g.t. gibi yazarın belirlediği kısaltmalarla yazılmalıdır. Bir yazarın birden fazla kitap ve makalesi kullanılıyorsa ikinci eserin ilk kullanımından sonra, yazarın soyadı, sonra kitap veya makalenin kısaltılmış adı verilmelidir. Çok yazarlı kaynakların ilk geçtiği yerde yazarların tümü yazılmalı, daha sonrakilerde kısaltılarak verilmelidir. Dipnotlarda makale, kitap içinde bölüm veya ansiklopedi maddesinin tamamına yönelik bir atıf mevcutsa, başlangıç ve bitiş sayfaları gösterilmelidir. Örnekler: Kitap: Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, Menteşe Sancağı 1830 (Nüfus ve Toplum Yapısı), TTK Yay., Ankara 2010, s. 115. Sonraki atıflarda: Kütükoğlu, a.g.e., s. 123 ya da Kütükoğlu, s. 123. Bir yazarın birden fazla yayınına atıf yapılacak ise, ilk atıfta tam künye verilmeli; daha sonra yine kullanılacaksa nasıl kısaltılacağı parantez içerisinde gösterilmelidir: Arzu Terzi, Hazine-i Hassa Nezareti, TTK Yay., Ankara 2000, s. 98 (Terzi, Hazine-i Hassa). Eserin cildine işaret etmek için (cilt ya da c. yazılmadan) sadece Romen rakamıyla cilt sayısı yazılmalıdır: Hoca Sa‘deddin Efendi, Tâcü’t-tevârîh, I, İstanbul 1279, 25. Tayyâr-zâde Atâ, Osmanlı Saray Tarihi Târîh-i Enderûn, haz. Mehmet Arslan, Kitabevi, III, İstanbul 2010, 138. Çeviri eserler: Philippe du Fresne-Canaye, Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, çev. Teoman Tunçdoğan, İstanbul 2009, s. 51. Ansiklopedi maddeleri: Feridun M. Emecen, “Başmukataa Kalemi”, DİA, V, 135. Bir yazarın iki ayrı çalışması aynı dipnotta peş peşe gösterilecekse: Mustafa Akdağ, Celali İsyanları, 1550-1603, Anlara 1963, s. 110; keza büyük kaçgunluk için bk. ayn. yzr. ya da ayn.mlf., “Celâlî İsyanlarından Büyük Kaçgunluk, 1603-1606”, Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, II/2-3 (Ankara 1964), 1-50. Birden çok yazarlı bir eser kullanılacaksa: Robert Anhegger-Halil İnalcık, Kānūnnāme-i Sultānī Ber Mūceb-i ‛Örf-i ‛Osmānī, II. Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine Ait Yasaknāme ve Kānūnnāmeler, TTK Yay., Ankara 2000, s. 25. Aynı eser daha sonraki kullanımlarda sadece yazar soyadlarına yer verilmelidir: Anhegger-İnalcık, a.g.e., s. 36. Makale: Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “Osmanlıdan Günümüze Yer Adları”, Belleten, LXXVI/275 (2012), 149. Bekir Kütükoğlu, “Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, Ma‘rûzât”, Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, sayı 10-11, İstanbul 1983, s. 251. Mücteba İlgürel, “Şer‘iyye Sicillerinin Toplu Kataloğuna Doğru”, Tarih Dergisi, sayı 28-29 (1975), s. 164.Kitap İçinde Bölüm:Ayten Altıntaş, “Dârüşşifâlar Hakkında”, Karşılıksız Hizmetin Muhteşem Abideleri İstanbul Şifahaneleri, haz. Abdullah Kılıç, İstanbul 2009, s. 19-38.Christoph K. Neumann, “XVIII. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Saray Mutfağında Baharat”, Soframız Nur Hanemiz Mamur, Osmanlı Maddi Kültüründe Yemek ve Barınak, ed. Suraiya Faroqhi - Christoph K. Neumann, İstanbul 2016, s. 145-183.İdris Bostan, “Osmanlı Bahriyesinde Sağlık Hizmetleri”, Osmanlılarda Sağlık, ed. Coşkun Yılmaz-Necdet Yılmaz, İstanbul 2006, c. I, s. 111-115.Sempozyum Tebliğleri: İdris Bostan, “Kuyûd-ı Mühimmat Defterlerinin Osmanlı Teşkilât Tarihi Bakımından Önemi”, OsmanlıTürk Diplomatiği Semineri, 30-31 Mayıs 1994, İstanbul 1995, s. 145. Birden çok yazarlı bir makale: Kayhan Orbay-Hatice Oruç, “Sultan II. Murad’ın Edirne Câmi‘-i Şerîf ve Dârü’l-hadîs Vakfı (1592-1607)”, Tarih Dergisi, sayı 56 (2012/2), İstanbul 2013, s. 10. Aynı makalenin daha sonraki kullanımlarında sadece yazar soyadlarına yer verilmelidir: Orbay-Oruç, a.g.m., s. 15. Çeviri yazıları: Géza Dávid, “XVI. Yüzyılda Osmanlı-Habsburg Mücadelesinin Bir Kaynağı Olarak Mühimme Defterleri”, çev. Özgür Kolçak, Tarih Dergisi, sayı 53 (2011/1), İstanbul 2012, s. 295-349. Aynı soyadlı iki yazarın makalelerinin gösterilmesi: Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “Osmanlıdan Günümüze Yer Adları”, Belleten, LXXVI/275 (2012), 149. Bekir Kütükoğlu, “Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, Ma‘rûzât”, Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, sayı 10-11, İstanbul 1983, s. 251. Daha sonraki kullanımlarda: M. S. Kütükoğlu, a.g.m., s. 160 ya da B. Kütükoğlu, a.g.m., s. 250. Tez atıflarında; tezi yapan, tez adı (italik), kurum ismi sırasıyla verilmelidir: Sinem Serin, Yıldız Çini/Porselen Fabrikası, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Tarih Anabilim Dalı Osmanlı Müesseseleri ve Medeniyeti Tarihi Bilim Dalı, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul 2009, s. 146.Arşiv Belgelerinin Kullanımı: Arşiv belgeleri dipnotta kullanılırken öncelikle arşivin adı, sonra tasnifin adı, dosya ve evrak numarasına sırasıyla yer verilecektir. Tasnif için arşivlerin kullandıkları kısaltmalar kullanılabilir. Kaynakçada bunların açılımı yapılmalıdır. Mesela: BOA, A.MKT, nr. 145/629. Arşivden defter tasnifinden bir bilgi kullanılacaksa: BOA, Maliyeden Müdevver Defterler (MAD), nr. 9146, s. 200. BOA, Mühimme Defteri, nr. 120, s. 103, h. 250. Kaynakça: Makalelerde kullanılan kaynak ve araştırmalar makale sonunda bu başlık altında gösterilmelidir. Kaynakça, bu başlık altında yeni bir sayfadan başlamalı ve 11 punto yazılmalıdır. Sadece dipnotlarda kullanılan kaynaklar yer almalı ve yazarların soyadına göre alfabetik olarak düzenlenmelidir.  Kütükoğlu, Mübahat S., Menteşe Sancağı 1830 (Nüfus ve Toplum Yapısı), TTK Yay., Ankara 2010.Hoca Sa‘deddin Efendi, Tâcü’t-tevârîh, I-II, İstanbul 1279-80.Birden çok yazarlı bir esere yer verilecekse:Anhegger, Robert -Halil İnalcık, Kānūnnāme-i Sultānī Ber Mūceb-i ‛Örf-i ‛Osmānī, II. Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine Ait Yasaknāme ve Kānūnnāmeler, TTK Yay., Ankara 2000.Sadece editör veya yayına hazırlayanlar var ise bu isimler kitap adından sonra yer almalıdır:Osmanlı Uygarlığı, yay. haz. Halil İnalcık-Günsel Renda, Kültür Bakanlığı Yay., I-II, Ankara 20093.Kitap içinde bölüm olarak geçen makaleler: Terzi, Arzu, “II. Abdülhamid’in Emlakı ve Irak Petrolleri”, Sultan II. Abdülhamid ve Dönemi, ed. Coşkun Yılmaz, İstanbul 2014, s. 181-188.Çeviri eserler:Fresne-Canaye, Philippe du, Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, çev. Teoman Tunçdoğan, İstanbul 2009.Kitabın kaçıncı baskısı olduğunu belirtmek üzere basım tarihinin üzerine üst simge şeklinde basım sayısı yazılmalıdır:Terzi, Arzu, Sultan Abdülhamid’in Mirası, Petrol ve Arazi, Timaş Yayınları, İstanbul 20142.Kaynakçada yer alan makalelerde makalenin başlangıç ve bitiş sayfalarına yer verilmelidir:Kütükoğlu, Mübahat S., “Osmanlıdan Günümüze Yer Adları”, Belleten, LXXVI/275 (2012), 147-165.Sempozyum Tebliğleri: Bostan, İdris, “Kuyûd-ı Mühimmat Defterlerinin Osmanlı Teşkilât Tarihi Bakımından Önemi”, Osmanlı-Türk Diplomatiği Semineri, 30-31 Mayıs 1994, İstanbul 1995, s. 143-163.Ansiklopedi maddeleri: Emecen, Feridun M., “Başmukataa Kalemi”, DİA, V, 135.Kaynakçada teze yer verirken; tezi yapan, tez adı (italik), kurum ismi sırasıyla verilmelidir:Arşiv Belgelerinin Gösterilmesi:Kaynakçada dipnotlarda kullanılan arşiv tasnifleri açık bir şekilde yazılır, kısaltma kullanıldıysa bunlar parantez içinde belirtilir. Farklı arşivlerden kaynak çalışması var ise bu arşivler tasniflenir. Dipnotlarda kullanılan arşiv belgelerinin numaraları burada sıralanmalıdır. Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (BOA)Cevdet Bahriye Evrakı (C.BH), 123/3500; 350/8560.Şura-yı Devlet (ŞD), 21350; 103953.Deniz Tarihi Arşivi (DTA)Bahriye Nezareti (BN), 180/4050; 181/4063; 333/11830.Makale dipnotlarında kullanılacak kısaltmalarTürkçe makaleler için:                                        çev.     :         çeviren                                        trc.      :         tercüme eden                                        yay.     :         yayınlayan                                        haz.     :         hazırlayan                                        sad.     :         sadeleştiren                                        nşr.     :         neşreden                                        ed.      :         editör                                        a.g.e.   :         adı geçen eser                                        a.g.m.  :         adı geçen makale ya da madde                                         a.g.t.    :         adı geçen tez                                        ayn.yzr.         :     aynı yazar                                        ayn.mlf.         :     aynı müellifYabancı Dildeki makaleler için:                                        id.        :         aynı yazar                                        ibid., loc.cit, op.cit., passim      : aynı yerdea.g.e., s. 27; a.g.m., s. 28; a.g.t., s. 29 şeklinde kullanılmalıdır.

Aşağıdaki listede eksik olmadığından emin olun:<ul><li>Makalenin türünün belirtilmiş olduğu</li><li>Başka bir dergiye gönderilmemiş olduğu</li><li>Sponsor veya ticari bir firma ile ilişkisi varsa, bunun belirtildiği</li><li>İngilizce yönünden kontrolünün yapıldığı</li><li>Referansların derginin benimsediği sistemin kurallarına uygun olarak düzenlendiği</li><li>Yazarlara Bilgide detaylı olarak anlatılan dergi politikalarının gözden geçirildiği</li></ul>● <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/BCBF605901234F42B7485526E85D55E1" target="_blank">Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formu</a>● Daha önce basılmış materyal (yazı-resim-tablo) kullanılmış ise izin belgesi● <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/CC507719743F4AAC8BAA30A731B3F054" target="_blank">Kapak sayfası</a><ul><li>Makalenin kategorisi</li><li>Makale dilinde ve İngilizce başlık</li><li>Yazarların ismi soyadı, unvanları ve bağlı oldukları kurumlar (üniversite ve fakülte bilgisinden sonra şehir ve ülke bilgisi), e-posta adresleri</li><li>Sorumlu yazarın e-posta adresi, açık yazışma adresi, iş telefonu, GSM, faks nosu</li><li>Tüm yazarların ORCID’leri</li><li>Finansal destek (varsa belirtiniz)</li><li>Çıkar çatışması (varsa belirtiniz)</li><li>Teşekkür (varsa belirtiniz)</li></ul>● Makale ana metni<ul><li>Önemli: Ana metinde yazarın / yazarların kimlik bilgilerinin yer almamış olması gerekir.</li><li>Makale dilinde ve İngilizce başlık</li><li>Öz: 80-100 kelime</li><li>Anahtar Kelimeler: 3-6 adet makale dilinde ve 3-6 adet İngilizce</li><li>İngilizce Genişletilmiş Özet (Extended Summary) 800-1000 kelime (İngilizce olmayan makaleler için)</li><li>Makale ana metin bölümleri</li><li>Kaynaklar</li><li>Tablolar-Resimler, Şekiller (başlık, tanım ve alt yazılarıyla)</li></ul>

<div><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/BCBF605901234F42B7485526E85D55E1" target="_blank">Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formu</a><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/CC507719743F4AAC8BAA30A731B3F054" target="_blank">Kapak Sayfası</a></div>

Sayı Türü	Regular
Editör(ler)	Gültekin Yıldız
Kapak (PDF)
Tam Metin (PDF)
Ön Sayfalar (PDF)