Selin

Res. Assist.

Oracle of Apollo in Kalkhedon

Kazım

Mamluk and Golden Horde relations began and developed toward common interests by virtue of the initiatives of Sultan Baibars. The Ilkhanid were pivotal to these relations as a common enemy, and the diplomatic agenda of the parties was shaped by a prospective joint operation against the Ilkhanid. The joint operation against the Ilkhanate remained and could even be claimed to have been exclusively kept on the agenda for nearly half a century. However, this study reveals no such operation was ever launched due to what beclouded the relationship between the parties and the policy the Mamluks adopted. Nevertheless, preserving the discourse on a possible joint expedition had well suppressed the Ilkhanate.Until the third reign of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad, Mamluk–Golden Horde political and diplomatic relations remained within the above-mentioned framework, and the parties showed complete alliance, at least diplomatically. However, Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad’s ascension to the throne for a third time was a milestone in the course of this relationship and may be closely associated with Abu Said Bahadur Khan’s ascension to the Ilkhanid throne in 1317 and adoption of a different policy than the previous Ilkhanid rulers. The Ilkhanid abandoned their aggressive policies against the Mamluks and took a pro-peace stance, one which the Mamluks reciprocated. A peace treaty was signed in 1323 pursuant to negotiations. This treaty shifted the course of Mamluk–Golden Horde relations. Sultan al-Nasir had abandoned the traditional policy in which the Mamluks were fully allied with the Golden Horde and began following a policy of balance between the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanid states. This attitude fell far below the expectations of the Golden Horde and caused diplomatic problems between the two states. Despite these above-mentioned problems, the Mamluks and Golden Horde preserved their diplomatic relations.The death of Sultan al-Nasir and Uzbek Khan and the end of the political existence of the Ilkhanate during this period also altered Mamluk–Golden Horde relations after the 1340s. Both parties leaned toward reestablishing and developing friendly relations and made diplomatic initiatives accordingly. However, the internal conflicts in both states and the absence of the threat of a common enemy hampered this construction for a while.Akin to the Ilkhanid case, Timur’s rise and influence in the Iranian region grew into a new threat for both the Mamluk and Golden Horde states. As a common enemy, Timur encouraged a renewed alliance between the Mamluks and the Golden Horde. The measures and prospective joint operation against this new common enemy was at the core of the diplomatic contacts that had started becoming more frequent after 1385. However, Timur managed to be effective in the domain of the Golden Horde through his campaigns against Tokhtamysh Khan in the 1390s.&nbsp;Timur was also a threat to political elements in Anatolia as well. Thus, diplomatic contacts were established among the Ottomans, Mamluks, and Kadi Burhan al-Din in order to form an anti-Timur front, with an alliance being established accordingly. Later, the scope of the alliance was expanded with the participation of the Golden Horde. These above-mentioned efforts suppressed Timur for a short period. However, Timur would later on enter Anatolia and Syria, which was under Mamluk domination.Limited diplomatic contact is known to have occurred between the Mamluk and Golden Horde states in the first quarter of the 15th century. However, the collapse of the Golden Horde’s central authority after Tokhtamysh Khan hindered diplomatic relations and a strong alliance discourse from being reestablished. Eventually, Mamluk–Golden Horde political and diplomatic relations came to an end with few weak contacts in the late 1420s.The diplomatic relations between the Mamluk and Golden Horde states had important consequences. The alliance established through these relations had through suppression prevented the Ilkhanid from concentrating all their power on the Mamluks or the Golden Horde. Therefore, this alliance in question in fact had significant results for both states. However, no joint operation against the Ilkhanate and later on against Timur was ever launched, despite being kept on the agenda in diplomatic correspondence. At this point, discussing the Mamluks’ political stance would be useful.Despite their common origin, certain historical enmities had existed between the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate. Both states claimed rights over the Azerbaijan region in particular, and these problems also frequently brought the two states into conflict. Thus, a permanent resolution could not be claimed to be achievable unless the Golden Horde or the Ilkhanid state renounced their claims and interests in the Azerbaijan region. The khans of the Golden Horde saw the suppression of the Ilkhanate as a political gain by virtue of the alliance established with the Mamluks, and they wanted to strengthen this alliance. However, the ultimate goal of the Golden Horde State was to completely get rid of the Ilkhanate by organizing a joint campaign against this enemy.In their correspondence, the Mamluk and Golden Horde states had agreed on a strategy to launch a campaign against the Ilkhanate where one of these two states would advance from the north and the other from the south. As stated by other researchers, the long distance between these states and the dominance of Byzantium in a significant part of this distance had nevertheless made the communication and organization necessary for a joint operation against the Ilkhanate very difficult. However, whether the Mamluks could even have organized an expedition into the central lands of the Ilkhanate in practice should also be questioned.&nbsp;The Euphrates River represented the eastern border of the Mamluk State, and the Mamluks’ sphere of influence and activity never exceeded Mesopotamia. Unlike the Golden Horde, the Mamluks claimed no dominance over Azerbaijan or Iran. Under these circumstances, organizing a campaign on the central lands or domination area of a strong state and leader like the Ilkhanid or Timur would not have been a very realistic goal for the Mamluks, nor would it have sounded easy or beneficial. What was essential for the Mamluks to protect their area of rule and interests from both the Ilkhanid and Timur. Instead of embarking on a common campaign, which would have been very difficult with uncertain results, the Mamluks developed a common operation discourse by virtue of the relations established with the Golden Horde. They tried to suppress the Ilkhanid and Timur by keeping this discourse on the agenda. Therefore, unlike the Golden Horde, the Mamluks attempted to protect their rule and interests by maintaining the discourse on a prospective expedition rather than directly organize a very difficult joint campaign. During the third reign of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad, the Ilkhanate had to abandon their claims and actions in Mamluk Syria as a result of a peace treaty. Thus, Sultan al-Nasir changed his traditional Mamluk policy as he no longer needed an anti-Ilkhanid rhetoric by virtue of the peace treaty that had been signed. With this peace treaty, the sultan managed to protect Mamluk dominance and interests and began to follow a policy of balance between the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanid states. Although Uzbek Khan negatively reacted to this policy, Sultan al-Nasir did not abandon it. The Ilkhanid state, which had already been weakened, would come to an end shortly after. By reviving their relations, the Mamluk and Golden Horde states tried to establish a new alliance against Timur and to revive the discourse of a common operation. This discourse had a certain degree of diplomatic effect. However, carrying out a joint expedition was just as difficult as it had been in the time of the Ilkhanid and appeared just as useless and unrealistic for the Mamluks. Ultimately, it never happened.&nbsp;

The Political and Diplomatic Relations of the Mamluks and  Golden Horde After the Third Enthronement of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad

Saim

Assoc. Prof.

This article explores the life, especially the political and military activities of Mahmūdshāh I, the founder of the Khaljī dynasty, who ruled in the Mālwa region of India during 1436 to 1531.Mahmūdshāh I is from the Khaladj Turkish tribe, who came to India from Central Asia. He is descended from the same lineage as the Delhi Khaljīs. Malik Mughīth, whose father held high positions, such as commander and vizier in the Mālwa Sultanate, is the sister of Dilāwar Khan Ghūrī, the mother of the founder of the Mālva Sultanate. Because of his intelligence and talent at a young age, Mahmūdshāh attracted the sultan’s attention. Thus, when he was only 16, he was given the title of “khan” by Hūshangshāh, the Sultan of Mālwa (1419). While Hūshangshāh was on his deathbed, he appointed his eldest son Ghaznī Khan as heir to the throne and delegated his responsibility to Mahmūdshāh. In 1436, Ghaznī Khan, who succeeded Hūshangshāh, conspired to have his brother-in-law Mahmūdshāh killed. Mahmūdshāh learned of this conspiracy beforehand and had the sultan poisoned and took control of the administration in Mālwa. He offered his father, Malik Mughīth, the opportunity to become the Sultan of Mālwa. His father, however, declined his offer. Therefore, he took the throne himself (May 1436). Although he faced resistance from the Ghūrid princes and commanders (amīrs and maliks) initially, he asserted his dominance gradually. He appointed some commanders to distant provinces. However, this policy did not yield the expected result. And his rivals started a great revolt in the state. Malik Mughīth was able to suppress this rebellion with much difficulty.The Gujarat Sultan Ahmadshāh I, who wanted to take advantage of this confusion in Mālwa, entered the Mālwa territory in 1438 to support Mas’ūd Khan. Meanwhile, Omar Khan, the uncle of Mas’ūd Khan, rebelled against the Mahmūdshāh. Mahmūdshāh’s situation became precarious when a large army from Gujarat, under the command of Muhammad Khan, son of the Sultan of Gujarat Ahmadshāh, moved to Chanderi to help Omar Khan. Mahmūdshāh firstly prevented the two sides from uniting, and then defeated and killed Omar Khan and took control of Chanderi. He was relieved when the Sultan of Gujarat returned to his state due to an epidemic that broke out in his army. He ensured that the governor of Narwar, Bahār Khan, was on his side. Mahmūdshāh then started an operation to subdue the Hindu rulers who resisted him in Mālwa and in 1440 ̶ 1442, he compelled the Hindu rulers (mukaddamān) of Kandwa, Kherla, Khirki, Khora, Sarguja, Ratanpur, Raypur accept his superiority. Then, upon the invitation of certain nobels from the Delhi Sultanate, he organized an expedition to the Delhi Sultanate (1442). Although he won the war in Tughluqābād, he quickly retreated when he heard about the news of a rebellion in Mandū (1442).Relations between the states of Mālwa and Gujarat had been tense since the Mālwa Sultan Hūshangshāh Ghūrī was imprisoned by Muzaffarshāh, the Sultan of Gujarat, during 1406 ̶&nbsp;1407. In the first years of Mahmūdshāh’s reign, Ahmadshāh I tried to occupy Mālwa for a while, but they became friends when Mahmūdshāh consolidated his position. Muhammadshāh succeeded to the throne of Gujarat after the death of Ahmadshāh I. Muhammadshāh’s weak character gave Mahmūdshāh the opportunity he had been waiting for to invade Gujarat. Heading directly to Ahmadabad, the center of Gujarat, Mahmūdshāh first saved the Raja of Champaner from Muhammadshāh’s pressure and established good ties with the Raja, creating a buffer zone on the Gujarat border. Then Mahmūdshāh, marching into Gujarat with a large army, captured Sultanpūr, and plundered Nandurbar, Broach, Vadodara. However, he was defeated in the war with the Gujarat army in Kaparbanj (1451). Despite this, Mahmūdshāh continued to raid Gujarat, until the Gujarat Sultan Ahmadshāh II offered peace. Thus, a sense of lasting peace was established with the Sultanate of Gujarat after a long struggle (1452). Meanwhile, there was disagreement with the Jaunpur (Sharqī) Sultanate over the issue of who should have control over the lands of the sultanate. Mahmūdshāh managed to take Rath, Mahoba, Erach as well as rescued Kālpī from the Sharqī Sultanate. In 1457, he attacked the lands of the Bahmanids to expand towards the Deccan. However, when faced with a strong defense, he realized that he could not succeed and decided to withdraw. Eight years later, he entered the Deccan again and defeated the Bahmanī army. However, this time, he had to return after the Gujarat Sultan Mahmūd Begerha lent his support to the Bahmanids. Although Mahmūdshāh, who attacked the Deccan lands again in 1461, briefly had control over the city of Daulatābād, the Gujarat army that came to help the Bahmanids forced him to retreat again. As a result, peace was signed between the two sultanates on the condition that Elichpur was made the border (January 1467).Mawar ruler Rana Kumbha seized control of the Hadoti region in 1433, taking advantage of the conflict between the Mālwa Sultanate and the Gujarat Sultanate. Rana Kumbha also supported the revolt of Omar Khan against Mahmūdshāh when he ascended the throne. However, at the beginning of 1441, the situation changed in favor of Mahmūdshāh. The asylum of Khem Karan, brother of Kumbha, in the Mālwa Sultanate came up with an excuse for Mahmūdshāh to invade Mawar. He first campaigned against Hadoti and took the region from Rana Kumbha (1442). However, he could not capture Chittorgarh, his main target, despite a long siege. In 1444, he conquered Gagron. Although he could not take Gwalior in his campaigns between 1446 and 1448, he conquered Hadoti. The rulers of Ranthambore, Bayana, Hindaun recognized Mahmūdshāh’s rule. He conquered Ajmer at the request of the Muslim population in 1455. After a long siege, he took the fort of Mandalgarh, something he had long desired to seize (October 20, 1457). Later that year, he made punitive campaigns against Kilwara, Dilwara, Chappan as well as the Gujarat Sultan Qutb al-Din II. Together with Ahmadshāh, he besieged Chittorgarh, which was in the hands of Rana Kumbha. Although Chittorgarh could not be taken, Kumbha, who was defeated at the battle in front, agreed to pay an annual tax.&nbsp;In 1466, Mahmūdshāh became the first Mālwa Sultan to receive a robe of honor and diploma (manshūr) from the Abbasid Caliph in Cairo in recognition of being an independent sultan. With Mahmūdshāh’s reputation as a powerful ruler spreading outside India, the Timurid ruler Abū Saīd sent envoys to Mahmūdshāh (1467). The rulers of Mecca and Jeddah often mistreated envoys, pilgrims, merchants (1468). Mahmūdshāh brought this situation to the notice of the Mamlūk Sultan and thus played a crucial role in rectifying the situation.Mahmūdshāh Khaljī, who spent most of his 33-year reign on the battlefields, fell ill on May 31, 1469 during a campaign against the Raja of Kichiwara. Mahmūdshāh, who considered himself to be a forward-thinking ruler, was accused of being oppressive in his understanding of religion, as he converted several Hindu temples into mosques during his conquests with the Hindu rajas. However, some sources report that he generally did not interfere with the beliefs of non-Muslims and also appointed Hindu officials at higher ranks in his administration. Along with the castles he built in many parts of Mālwa, he also had a palace and a mosque built in Mandū. Mahmūdshāh built hospitals and madrasahs and always encouraged scholars and merchants. It is rumored that he was particularly meticulous about the protection of his crop fields during his expeditions&nbsp;

A Turkish King in Medieval India:  Sultan of Mālwa Mahmūdshāh Khaljī I (1436–1469)

Abdulkasım

The relationship between the Janissaries and the Bektashi order, namely Bektashism of the Janissaries and the Janissary Corps, attracts much attention among researchers and readers. The reason for this interest naturally involves the parties in the relationship, because this relationship between the organization that had the greatest influence on Ottoman politics and society and the Bektashi order, a cult and religious sect, had some quite exciting aspects. For this reason, not only historians but also those studying the Alevi-Bektashi belief have focused on this issue. In this way, a very large volume of literature has been formed on the subject, with many ideas having been expressed and many books and articles having been written on the evidence and nature of the relationship between these two structures.Despite the many studies, the developmental line and nature of the relationship has yet to actually be determined. On the contrary, the literature has resulted in the issue becoming even more mysterious and legendary. The main reason for this involves the attempts to generally understand the connection by going back from the historical line in general or to focus on its signs and consequences by accepting its existence as absolute and extremely common in all eras. 1826 is when Bektashism was banned and its Janissaries abolished and has generally been the main starting point from which to go back; the intensity of the relationship at that time became a punishment for both institutions by the state while at the same time is considered to have deepened the relationship. Aside from this date, however, even the works and official records of the 17th century or the information pertaining to the period that followed are no help at understanding the founding period, as records and other resources are not at all abundant. Records related to the Janissary-Bektashism relationship and that have information about the Janissary Corps have undergone many changes over the centuries. In addition, some developments have occurred since the second half of the 18th century involving both the Janissaries and Bektashi in which both groups found themselves opposite the empire. However, the Ottoman empire’s resentment for both institutions was due to their involvement as its opposition rather than their connection with one another.The origin and historical development of their connection has not been able to be fully determined, as reflected in the opinions of those who’ve studied it. Except for some who’ve claimed that a very tight connection had previously existed, people have maintained reservations about this issue or completely rejected the connection. This article aims to illuminate all the points that have caused hesitation and therefore to also discuss the history of the relationship between the Janissary and the Bektashi order in line with its development. The article is shaped under four headings that consider the purpose and the various aspects of the subject.&nbsp;The first part of the article examines the historical process of the relationship (i.e., its founding and developments) up to its maturation based on archival records and Ottoman writers. Only the one element, which strengthens the rumor about the Janissary based on akbörk [a Bektashi symbol Janissary would wear with permission] and the conditions that were required for this to be accepted, was attempted to be displayed in terms of both parties. According to the findings, the actual connections (i.e., symbols) of the relationship between the Bektashis and the Janissary emerged at the end of the 16th century when the bond was became well-established in minds. The relationship grew stronger in relation to the change the Janissaries experienced, becoming both official and legendary in the early 17th century.The second part of the article involves the nature of the bond whose development was described in the first section. In other words, the second part discusses the nature of Bektashi order in the Janissaries based on the results obtained in the first part. It attempts to understand whether or not being a member of the Hearth mean being in a sect and whether the soldiers held the belief structure of Bektashism. Although the sheikhs and dervishes of the Bektashi order were within the body of the Janissary organization, and the soldiers were also members of this order, the relationship is understood to have actually developed through the spiritual personality of Haji Bektash Veli. Therefore, the heterodoxy of Bektashism, which did not comply with the official religious understanding, is understood to have not had much connection with the organization or the Janissaries.The third part evaluates the existence and soundness of some of the practices, customs, and other issues that have been presented as evidence of this relationship using archival records and Ottoman sources. The particular purpose of this section is to show that the acceptance of myth and the intensity of the relationship actually originated from the literature. Although this section does make some general evaluations of the literature, it specifically addresses the essential studies in terms of their inclusiveness and impact. As a result, the following points have been determined: The literature is constantly repeating other works within it, and the information that is produced is used without looking at its soundness; also, some issues from the last period have been generalized for the entire history of the Janissary organization, with the mythologizing having increased and continuing to still, even after the abolition of Janissaries.The fourth part of the study discusses the state of the connection during the time leading up to the abolition of the Janissary and the prohibition of Bektashism. Although Bektashi-Albanian Janissaries and their supporters have existed and the janissaries did resort to the traditional defense mechanism of the Haji Bektash Hearth for their existence, this link was not the main reason for the abolition of Janissaries. Nor was the reason for the prohibition of Bektashism their direct relations with the Janissaries. Both of these institutions suffered a similar fate because of their positions opposite the Ottoman power and the sultan. The Rumelian-centered opposition, which became evident in the second half of the 18th century, included both groups, and they became a common enemy opposing the state. Movements against the weakening legitimacy of the empire included certain nations and the Janissaries, from whom the empire who felt endangered and who were its biggest opposition.These decisions affected the fate of both institutions in 1826 and determined the history of their ties and the shape they would take in the future. Upon retrospection, this decision fed the conviction that they had had a very strong connection that had roots in the past. The fact that the Bektashi order is future-oriented is why the mythicizing gradually increased after this date. The most important issue affecting the future was that the Bektashi order, which would carry forward the reason why they had experienced the same victimization as the Janissary, would continue to survive. The Bektashi had always ensured the development and richness of the relationship and tried to express their past qualities as strongly as possible when they were revived during the reign of Abdulmejid I (reign 1839-1861). Bektashi greatly influenced the literature after this period, and in this way, they became entwined with the Janissaries in almost all aspects. This situation still continues, with researchers constantly developing this legend with their studies.&nbsp;

The Power of a Legend: Examining the Historical Development of  the Relationship Between the Janissaries and Bektashi

Diren

The economic and legal capitulations the Ottoman State gave to foreign states resulted in negative impacts on socioeconomic life in the 18th century and the abuse of certain institutions. One of these was the institution of tercumanlık [dragoman], which was responsible for conducting the consuls’ work and communicating with the Ottoman state authorities in particular. Consul dragomans, regardless of whether they were actually Ottoman dhimmi [nonMuslim subjects] or not, were subject to the law of müstemen [foreign nationals permitted to reside on Ottoman lands]. In this way, dhimmi merchants, who had the opportunity to be exempt from the tax burden and other obligations of the dhimmi law, started racing to become dragoman. The fact that each dragoman was appointed two hizmetkar [servants] to his entourage who were also able to benefit from the same exemptions caused the problem to grow and deepen over a short time. This problem became famous over time as the beratlı-fermanlı tüccarıs [certified merchants].The city of Salonica was a commercial center where the issue of beratlı-fermanlı tüccarıs was on the agenda throughout the 18th century due to the diversity of its demographic structure and the abundance of consulates there. At the beginning of the 18th century, France, and England first established consulates there, after which consulates from other European states increased in number. This situation made getting permission to work as a dragoman or servant easier for the dhimmi of Salonica, as it also increased the need for these types of workers.According to the document from 1797 that is the subject of this study, the number of people who were allowed to work as dragoman and servants in Salonica until that date had been 70. The consuls from France, England, Spain, Sweden, Austria, the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Venice, Denmark, Prussia, and Dubrovnik claimed patronage over the merchants in Salonica with this method. Until 1806, the numbers of dragomans and servants in Salonica had changed little. Except for the dragomans provided to the newly established Septinsular Republic and those under the protection of Russia, the number of other countries remained unchanged. This is because Selim III only gave a new certificate after the death of the old holder, in order to keep the number of licensed merchants under control. According to the new decisions made during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid I, the charter holders had to strictly abide by the rules to which they were subject. Otherwise, they were in danger of losing their charters. In order to implement the decisions taken by his uncle Selim III, Abdulhamid I had inspections made in many cities. In 1802, however, he offered the dhimmi merchants an alternative to obtaining the same status as an Avrupa tüccarı without the patronage of a consul.The beratlı controls in Salonica in 1806 had important results. During the inspection, a total of 75 people consisting of 27 dragomans and 48 servants were evaluated as being&nbsp;assigned to 11 different country consulates in Salonica. As a result, 35 people were understood to have left Salonica due to death or abandonment and their status was revoked. A total of 22 people who were on duty in Salonica accepted becoming Ottoman dhimmi again and to being subject to the statue on non-Muslims. Because some did not volunteer, the administrators resorted to a little coercion. At the end of the audit, the total number of 75 people (i.e., 27 dragomans and 48 servants) from Salonica had decreased to 18. In this framework, only a few people remained under the auspices of the consulates of France, England, Sweden, Prussia, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. During the checks in Salonica, a total of 45 people who had obtained documents to become dragomans or servants in another city were understood to lived in Salonica. Due to them having to reside in the city where their consuls were located, their statuses were revoked, their charters were confiscated, and they were allowed to live in Salonica as dhimmi. In light of all this, Selim III’s checks are understood to have started in Salonica in 1806 and to have had significant success in the city.In 1806, Yakomi of the Paico family was among those who had given up on being an dragoman and returned to being a dhimmi. His great-grandfather had been Constantin Paico, an dragoman in Salonica at the beginning of the 18th century. Costantin’s son, Andronic Paico, and his grandchildren were registered as dragomans and servants on the 1797 list. The family’s chartered status continued until the merchant Yakomi gave his up voluntarily in 1806. In fact, the merchant Yakomi received a charter as an Avrupa tüccarı from the state during this time. According to the archival document dated 1815, only one Avrupa tüccarı was residing in Salonica at that time, and that was Yakomi, son of Paico. The success of Selim III’s policy also resulted in success in the Paico family.After 1815, the number of Avrupa tüccarıs began to increase. However, the Greek Revolt of 1821 and the subsequent independence of Greece caused the Greeks of Salonica to stop seeking Avrupa tüccarı status they had initially sought. As in the example of the merchant Plato who was executed in 1821, properties were confiscated from some of the Avrupa tüccarı who’d been involved in the revolt. The risk of losing their lives and property had caused Greek merchants to prefer being müstemen rather than an Avrupa tüccarı. As a matter of fact, only two Greeks were registered as Avrupa tüccarı in the census records from 1830. However, the Jews in the city became more interested in being Avrupa tüccarı over time, and by 1830 their number had reached at least 11. Isak, son of Santo Odini was among them and one of the first Avrupa tüccarı to be granted a charter as of 1816. The Jewish Karasu family, who gave up becoming dragoman in 1806 and accepted being dhimmi, also became interested in becoming Avrupa tüccarı over time. Avram Karasu, the son of Isak Karasu, gave up his duty as a dragoman for the Spanish consul in 1806 and accepted the law for non-Muslim subjects with his brothers; he also became an Avrupa tüccarı. The importance of the family in Salonica business life lasted until the 20th century. Just like the Karasu family, Salamo Amar, a member of the Jewish Amar family, had the charter for being an Avrupa tüccarı. His children and grandchildren took their place among the important bankers of Salonica at the end of the 19th century.According to the records in the Sicill archives of Salonica from 1839 just before the Tanzimat [Reforms], Salonica had 18 Avrupa tüccarıs 6 of them were Greek and 12 were Ottoman Jews. Behor Francis is included in this list and was one of the best examples in terms of the wealth and social status that being called an Avrupa tüccarı in Salonica could gain. Behor Francis was the representative of the Jewish community in the Salonica Assembly, which had been established after the proclamation of the Tanzimat. In this sense, he was a significant name in Salonica and was also respected by the state. When he died in 1861, the amount of wealth he left behind was more than one and a half million gurush [Ottoman currency].Selim III's successful policy in Salonica removed the issue of beratlı from the city’s agenda after 1825. A significant number of the Greeks from Salonica, who’d avoided being subject to the law on dhimmis had opted for illegal means such as obtaining a patent. The Jews also made such attempts. However, the opportunities the Avrupa tüccarı institution offered to the Jews who’d remained subjects of the state led them to become stronger in their socioeconomic lives in the second half of the 19th century.&nbsp;

From Beratlı Tüccar to Avrupa Tüccarı: The Pursuit of  "Nizâm-ı Raiyyet" in Salonica

Eralp

The Ottoman-Persian War between 1820-1823 was the last war between the Ottoman and Persian States who had been struggling with one another in the East for centuries and concluded with the signing of the treaty known in the literature as the First Treaty of Erzurum. This Treaty was established based upon the Treaty of Kerden, which both states had signed in 1746. Negotiations over the treaty were conducted in Erzurum, and fierce disputes occurred over the articles of the treaty to be signed. As a consequence of these fierce disputes over the text of the treaty, copies of the letter that had been confirmed by the representatives both states had assigned were sent on July 28, 1823 to both Fath Ali Shah of Persia and the Ottoman Emperor Mahmud II for their confirmation. This study has been prepared with the aim of addressing the falsifications in the letters of agreement that had been sent to the rulers of both states in 1823 and that weren’t even brought up during the treaty negotiations, the consequences of these falsifications, and some of the problems that resulted from them in the Ottoman-Persian relationships that would follow.Before carrying on with this study, some data were found in the Persian sources regarding these issues. However, these data were not compiled or interpreted by means of comparing and analyzing the Turkish and Persian sources side by side. Research regarding this subject has comprehensively addressed both Ottoman archival documents and major Persian and Turkish resources of the era in attempts to clarify the issue in detail. In this respect, the Ottoman and Iranian states are seen to have attempted to resolve the situation through the envoys they sent one another after signing the Treaty of Erzurum. The Ottoman envoy Necip Efendi was the one who brought the letter of agreement to Persia in the name of the Ottoman Empire and faced an unexpected situation there. The Iranian diplomatic delegation declared that Persia was displeased with the Treaty and had made revisions upon the letter. They infused their revised text into the one to be sent to the Ottoman Empire for acceptance. Afterwards, the Iranian envoy Qasim Khan brought the Persian version of the letter on the First Treaty of Erzurum to Istanbul in the name of Persia and presented a text contradictory to the one that had been agreed upon earlier. The envoy demanded Sultan Mahmud II approve this letter. The Foreign Ministry of the Ottoman Empire recognized that the letter regarding the First Treaty of Erzurum was not the same as the one that had been agreed upon earlier. Thereupon they declared the letter the Persian envoy Qasim Khan had brought to be unacceptable. Once Qasim Khan realized that this circumstance would create a diplomatic crisis, he requested to meet the Chief of the Scribes, the Ottoman Foreign Minister of the time. Representatives from both lands discussed this issue over protracted negotiations. The Ottoman side stated finding this behavior from Persia to be diplomatically improper and inadmissible with regard to international law and therefore they would never present that version of the letter to the Sultan unless the previously agree upon letter was brought to them. Despite the Iranian envoy Qasim Khan seeking to defend his state against these claims from the Ottoman representatives, the issue was resolved in favor of the Ottoman Empire after protracted discussions. The Ottoman Empire detained the Iranian envoy Qasim Khan in Istanbul and provided the emended letter that Persia was to have brought to Istanbul. However, the problem of which letter of agreement that emerged at the end of this process was the emended one could never be settled. The Turkish and Persian letters involving the articles of the First Treaty of Erzurum that exist in the archives, main sources, and other publications of both parties differ from one another. This indetermination that our study places along its main axis as well as the tensions that occurred between the two powers following the agreement, which we assess to have been caused by this circumstance, went on for many years. Issues such as political interventions in the Baghdad region that was under Ottoman possession, efforts at sustaining the problem regarding tribes located along the borderline and ownership of the castles located on the Eastern border that were used with military aims were the first of these problems. Iran had pressured the Ottoman Empire politically over these issues for many years, despite having no rights in terms of the agreement. Although the war had come to an end and the treaty had been signed at its conclusion, Iran continued its interventions into the Baghdad region where, according to the treaty, it had no right to be politically involved. On the other hand, the attempt was made in this regard to exploit the issue of the tribes that had caused the Ottoman-Persian War between 1820-1823. Troubles between the Ottoman Empire and Persia that resulted from the falsifications in the letters of agreement were not just limited to these mentioned issues. The matter of the ownership of Kotur Castle located on the border between Ottoman and Persian lands continued to create a problem, as did the other castles on the border. Even though this matter was brought up at the initiation of Galip Pasha, the Governor of Erzurum of the time, Iran continued to act contrary to the letter of the treaty in these negotiations. The points upon which compromises had been made during the negotiations were not fulfilled by Persia. As a result, political problems arose again between the parties. Although the Russia-Persian war that started in 1826 had cooled the temperature of this issue on the agenda, it maintained itself enough to again create a problem between both states after the Ottoman-Russian war that broke out later on. With regard to the Kotur Issue that had come down from the First Treaty of Erzurum and remained unresolvable through the Second Treaty of Erzurum signed in 1847 between the Ottoman Empire and Persia, no final solution was able to be found in the later years of the century as well. Great Britain saw the heavy results the Ottoman Empire bore from the Treaty of Berlin that was signed in 1878 as a kind of opportunity and added the article to this treaty that the Kotur area was to be included in Persian territory, even though England had not been a party to the war; this made the problem worse. This issue regarding the Kotur area, which the Ottoman Empire seized again after this process, could not be resolved even through the Istanbul Protocol that the Ottoman Empire and Persia signed in 1913, which attempted to identify the borders of both states. This issue even continued into the days of the Republic. The Kotur issue that had come to the fore after the First Treaty of Erzurum and didn’t get resolved until after the boundary treaty the Republic of Türkiye signed with Persia in 1932, which redrew Türkiye’s Eastern borders, was the product of several centuries.This study has attempted to explain how the problems that arouse during the process of the First Treaty of Erzurum had affected the agreement and its application and drawn out the matter. All the mentioned details did not get finalized through the First Treaty of Erzurum due to the text of the First Treaty of Erzurum being composed of falsified articles and the serious problems the occurred during its application in this respect. Ultimately, today no agreement is found regarding which emended version of the letter regarding the First Treaty of Erzurum is the actual one. In addition, Persia was a party to this treaty and aware of the fact that differences existed between the two copies that were signed at the time. Persia considered this issue a lot and attempted to take advantage of it for a long time in accordance with its political aims and to provide for its self-interests.&nbsp;

Falsifications in the Letter About the First Treaty of Erzurum and  the Resultant Problems in Implementing the Treaty

Gürsoy

Prof.

Located at the intersection of Europe, Middle East, and Africa, Cyprus is one of the ancient residential areas of the Mediterranean region. With its first settlement dating back to 9000 BC, the island appears like an outdoor museum with a history coming from the Byzantines, the House of Lusignan, the Venetians, and the Ottomans. Due to this feature, Cyprus became a center of attention for European and American investigators of antiquities during the 19th century.This study examines the activities of diplomats from countries such as America, England, France, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Denmark who investigated or bought antiquities in Cyprus during the second half of the 19th century. Similarly, the study also reveals the Ottoman State’s policy toward investigations into antiquities on the island of Cyprus.The Ottoman archival documents show that consuls or vice-consuls from France, the United States of America, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, and England had bought antiquities on the island or requested permission from the Ottoman government for performing investigations. In this sense, diplomat archaeologists including the French consul Tiburce Colonna-Ceccaldi, the English vice-consul Robert Hamilton Lang, the Italian consul Riccardo Colucci, and the American consul Luigi Palma di Cesnola can be ranked among the most popular names to have made investigations into antiquities on the island. These names played very important roles in transferring antiquities from the island to different countries around the world. These diplomat archaeologists searched for works using their own means on the island and sold or donated the works they had found to museums in Europe and America.Interest in the island’s ancient history during the 19th century formed a part of the Western point of view that is more closely interested in classical and Near East antiquities. The emergence of Hellenism as an academic tradition and the changes in the perceptions related to the antiquities of Cyprus in light of new archaeological discoveries were shaped in an intellectual environment that went beyond national borders. Although the antiquity rivalry among diplomat archaeologists in Cyprus in the 19th century clearly had nationalist implications, it was generally accompanied by important collaborations among individual researchers, collectors, and scholars. The consuls who were actively involved in Cyprus archaeology between the 1850s and 1870s sometimes acted friendly and other times acted in a spirit of cutthroat competition on behalf of their own nations. Moreover, they made personal contacts by collaborating with each other as well as with their colleagues in Western Europe and America. Meanwhile some researchers also carried out inquiries into antiquities for various financial motivations in addition to their sense of duty to their own governments.&nbsp;The Ottoman government issued the first Law of Antiquities in 1869 in order to regulate the inquiries into antiquities in different regions of the empire. However, preventing antiquities from being exported was impossible despite the legal regulation. The American consul Cesnola who was in charge in Cyprus exported a great number of antiquities in 1872 as if challenging the 1869 regulation; this led the Ottoman Government to take new precautions. In this sense, a more comprehensive Law of Antiquities was prepared in 1874, with the Ottoman administrators being prompted by the increase in requests from diplomat archaeologists and by the great number of works being transferred abroad. As the American consul Cesnola in particular was transferring antiquities piece by piece from the island, the Director of the Imperial Museum Dr. Philipp Anton Dethier went to Cyprus and was assigned personally by legal regulation to have a share of the works the American consul possessed. A great number of works were transported to the Imperial Museum in Istanbul in this way.Control over the antiquities on the island also was transferred to the English government when the administration of Cyprus was temporarily transferred to England in 1878. For more than 20 years after this, the Ottoman Law of Antiquities that had been enacted in 1874 was maintained on the island. This law ensured that a significant portion of the excavated finds were received by the English government. In 1882, an official committee composed of the Cadi [magistrate] of Cyprus, the Mufti of Cyprus, and the Archbishop of Cyprus presented a petition to the English High Commissioner for the establishment of a museum on the island. As a result, the English administrative officers ensured the opening of a museum belonging to Cyprus on the island in 1888.The Ottoman government felt great discomfort upon hearing about antiquities being transported from the island to England in the forthcoming period. While some of the antiquities that were unearthed as a result of the excavation on the island were held for the Cyprus Museum, a large portion were sent to the British Museum in London. The issue was presented to the English government by means of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on August 16, 1892. The Ottoman government reminded England that it was also required to give a portion of the antiquities excavated on the island to the Müze-i Hümâyun [Imperial Museum]. However, nothing fruitful likely came of this attempt.&nbsp;

Diplomat Archaeologists’ Inquiries into Antiquities in Cyprus  During the Second Half of the 19th Century

Serap

Assist. Prof.

The olive tree has maintained its importance throughout history thanks to its hardiness and ability to survive for centuries, as well as the wide areas in which its fruit can be used. In addition to cooking, olive oil is used as an important raw material in multiple sectors including in particular lighting, soap production and drug making, which are vital for preserving public health, as well as for lubricating industrial machinery and on wool in the textile industry. In addition to these, the Ottoman Empire saw olive oil used to lubricate sledges in the shipyard and horse harnesses in the palace. Moreover because the plain butter and vegetable needs of the army were unable to be met during World War I (1914-1918) in particular due to the conditions of that period, olive and olive oil, being high in calories, nutritious, and relatively easy to transport, became the basic food of the Ottoman army. Therefore, the controlled and healthy maintenance and development of olive agriculture and olive oil production constituted one of the leading issues in the Ottoman Empire, which had large olive groves in its fertile lands that were able to consistently meet these needs. Being considered a basic need, the empire followed a systematic policy to ensure that olive oil, regularly, uninterruptedly, and affordably way arrived in Istanbul, the largest consumption center. Similar policies were applied to soap as well as a basic cleaning product made from olive oil.As can be understood from what has been explained so far, olive oil had the characteristics of being a commercial product that was extremely important in meeting the needs of the domestic market, especially in Istanbul. Olive oil was used in many business lines and also became a commodity of great importance in the foreign market as a result of the increase in international competition in trade in parallel with the acceleration of industrialization in Europe in the 19th century. However, during this time olive farming and olive oil production in the Ottoman Empire was not happening in proportion to its importance. The large olive groves the empire owned were unable to be utilized at the desired level due to reasons such as policy absence, negligence, financial difficulties, and some administrative weaknesses. Another issue that caused great distress in the sector was the issue of the oil being impure or mixed with others; this started to spread widely at the end of the 19th century. This food adulteration had manifested itself in the form of mixing cottonseed oil with olive oil and reduced the commercial value of oil; it reached a level that not only caused a loss of prestige, market, and value in the international trade of olive oil produced in the Ottoman Empire, but&nbsp;also threatened the people’s food security. This mixing of cottonseed oil with olive oil has been frequently discussed and was also an issue with legal, financial, and political dimensions. Being aware of the seriousness of the problem, the state tried to take some measures to prevent this fraud by banning the import of cottonseed oil into the empire. However, states such as England and France objected to and protested the ban, claiming that they had suffered economic harm from it. The issue of importing cottonseed oil into the Ottoman Empire had gained a completely different dimension with the intervention of the USA, which produced a large amount of cottonseed oil; the USA not only damaged the empire’s right to oppose food fraud but also made the issue an international one. However, despite its struggle, the Ottoman Empire could not prevent cottonseed oil from entering the country as a result of being bound regarding the commercial privileges it had previously granted to foreign states. The problem of impure oil grew more and more over time, and various vegetable oils in addition to cottonseed oil were mixed with olive oil, such as sesame and peanut oil, and olive oil could not be kept pure.&nbsp;Apart from these facts, the political and financial instability of the Ottoman Empire made olive farming and olive oil production more difficult, especially with the effect of the relentless wars it had experienced since the beginning of the 20th century. The growing avalanche of sector problems such as the loss of labor in the sector, shortage of resources, insufficient steps taken toward industrialization, inability to modernize production, decrease in olive groves due to soil loss, and neglect shown toward existing olive groves became chronic and difficult to solve over time. In other words, all these factors caused a decrease in the yield of olives and olive oil, which was an important international trade product at that time that the Ottoman Empire owned, thus both damaging its commercial reputation and resulting in large financial losses.Experts in this matter put forth some ideas for solving the problems regarding olive growing and olive oil production, which had ossified and accumulated and were based on multiple factors, as explained above. From this point of view, this article examines some original reports on the benefits olive farming and olive oil production would provide to the empire’s economy by pointing out the problems of olive agriculture and olive oil production, which the Ottoman Empire looked at as part of its national wealth and by developing and competing with foreign states in the international arena to reveal what needed to be done in order to protect this national wealth. The common starting point of these reports was that the olive groves in the fertile lands of the Ottoman Empire and thus the olive oil industry were not at the global level they deserved. For this reason, one of the most important goals in the reports was to take steps to ensure the industrialization of olive oil, which had become a valuable commercial product with the influence of industrialization in Europe as well as in the Ottoman Empire. This was because olives as the raw material required for the&nbsp;industry were available in abundance in the Ottoman lands and were of a higher quality than what competitors had. However, the recommendations in the reports can be summarized as establishing olive oil and soap factories with certain standards, improving olive groves, producing high-quality edible olive oil, and exporting them to Europe, and these were not easy to implement due to the severe financial crisis, the devastating wars, and lack of workforce the state was experiencing. On the other hand, these reports contain opinions and suggestions for developing the olive oil industry that is still present today, for making it a worldwide commercial product, and for developing the country’s economy and are an extremely valuable resource in terms of illustrating the state of olive agriculture and olive oil production in the last period of the Ottoman Empire.&nbsp;

Opinions and Recommendations on the Development of Olive  Agriculture and Olive Oil Manufacturing in the Late Ottoman Empire

Arzu

@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.

THE CONTRUBUTION OF AN IRANIAN LITERARY MAN TO THE IMPERIAL IMAGE OF THE MEHMED THE CONQUEROR: MAWLĀNĀ RIYĀZĪ-I SAMARQANDĪ

Arda

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.

PALESTINE CONCILIATION COMMISSION AND TURKEY

@JOURNAL_BOX_FEATURED

Gökhan

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.

IDEOLOGICAL READINGS THROUGH THE MEDICAL RECORDS: ILLNESSES IN THE NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES AND BABYLONIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

Ebru

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.

THE LAST PENETRATION OF THE CRUSADER ARMIES INTO THE SELJUḲ TERRITORY OF ANATOLIA: EMPEROR FRIEDRICH BARBAROSSA’S CRUSADE (1089-1190)

@JOURNAL_BOX_MOSTREAD

Turkish Journal of History (Turk J Hist) is an international, scientific, open access periodical published in accordance with independent, unbiased, and double-blinded peer-review principles. This is a scholarly, international, peer-reviewed and open-access journal published three times a year in February, June and October.

The publication languages of the journal are Turkish and English. Turkish Journal of History (Turk J Hist) aims to contribute to the literature by publishing manuscripts at the highest scientific level on all fields of history. The journal publishes original articles and translations.

Turkish Journal of History (Turk J Hist) aims to contribute to the literature by publishing manuscripts at the highest scientific level on all fields of history.

Turkish Journal of History (Turk J Hist) publishes research articles and translations on national, regional and world history. The journal also includes book reviews and critiques.

Scopus

Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

EBSCO

ERIH PLUS

TR Dizin

DOAJ

SOBIAD Sosyal Bilimler Atıf Dizini

@METRIC_VOLUMES

@METRIC_ISSUES

@METRIC_ARTICLES

@METRIC_OPENACCESS

Turkish Journal of History

@INFO_TAB_ABOUT

Editor in Chief

Co Editor in Chief

Editorial Management Board Member

Editorial Assistant

Editorial Board Member

@INFO_TAB_BOARDS

Turkish Journal of History (Turk J Hist) aims to contribute to the literature by publishing manuscripts at the highest scientific level on all fields of history. Turkish Journal of History (Turk J Hist) publishes research articles and translations on national, regional and world history. The journal also includes book reviews and critiques.

Aim and Scope

SCOPUSWeb of Science Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Index EBSCO Historical AbstractsEBSCO Historical Abstracts with Full TextDOAJERIH PLUSSOBİAD

Indexing and Abstracting

The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and pays regard to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) on <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> The subjects covered in the manuscripts submitted to the Journal for publication must be in accordance with the aim and scope of the Journal. Only those manuscripts approved by every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Changing the name of an author (omission, addition or order) in papers submitted to the Journal requires written permission of all declared authors.Plagiarism, duplication, fraud authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, salami slicing/salami publication, breaching of copyrights, prevailing conflict of interest are unethical behaviors. All manuscripts not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards will be removed from the publication. This also contains any possible malpractice discovered after the publication. Plagiarism Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. If plagiarism/self-plagiarism will be found authors will be informed. Editors may resubmit manuscript for similarity check at any peer-review or production stage if required. High similarity scores may lead to rejection of a manuscript before and even after acceptance. Depending on the type of article and the percentage of similarity score taken from each article, the overall similarity score is generally expected to be less than 15 or 20%. Double Blind Peer-Review After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by the editors-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. The editor provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles and hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.

Policies

The journal is an open access journal and all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Except for commercial purposes, users are allowed to read, download, copy, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the <a href="https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read" target="_blank">BOAI</a> definition of open access.The open access articles in the journal are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) license.

All expenses of the journal are covered by the Istanbul University. Processing and publication are free of charge with the journal. There is no article processing charges or submission fees for any submitted or accepted articles.

Authors publishing with the journal retain the copyright to their work licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" target="_blank">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/</a> ) and grant the Publisher non-exclusive commercial right to publish the work. CC BY-NC 4.0 license permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Editor should consider publishing correction if minor errors that do not effect the results, interpretations and conclusions of the published paper are detected. Editor should consider retraction if major errors and/or misconduction that invalidate results and conclusions are detected.Editor should consider issuing an expression of concern if there is evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors; there is evidence that the findings are not reliable and institutions of the authors do not investigate the case or the possible investigation seems to be unfair or nonconclusive. The guidelines of COPE and ICJME are taken into consideration regarding correction, retractions or expression of concern.

To guarantee that all papers published in the journal are maintained and permanently accessible, articles are stored in Dergipark which serves as a  national archival web site and at the same time permits LOCKSS to  collect, preserve, and serve the content.Additionally, authors are encouraged to self-archive the final PDF version of their articles in open electronic archives with  that conform to standards of Open Archives Initiative (<a href="https://www.openarchives.org/" target="_blank">https://www.openarchives.org/</a>). Authors should provide a link from the deposited version to the URL of IUPress journal website.

Turkish Journal of History is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and pays regard to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) on <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-bestpractice-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-bestpractice-scholarly-publishing</a>All submissions must be original, unpublished (including as full text in conference proceedings), and not under the review of any other publication synchronously. Each manuscript is reviewed by one of the editors and at least two referees under double-blind peer review process. Plagiarism, duplication, fraud authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, salami slicing/salami publication, breaching of copyrights, prevailing conflict of interest are unnethical behaviors. All manuscripts not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards will be removed from the publication. This also contains any possible malpractice discovered after the publication. In accordance with the code of conduct we will report any cases of suspected plagiarism or duplicate publishing.

Ethics

Turkish Journal of History adheres to the highest standards in research ethics and follows the principles of international research ethics as defined below. The authors are responsible for the compliance of the manuscripts with the ethical rules.<li>Principles of integrity, quality and ransparency should be sustained in designing the research, reviewing the design and conducting the research.</li><li>The research team and participants should be fully informed about the aim, methods, possible uses and requirements of the research and risks of participation in research.</li><li>The confidentiality of the information provided by the research participants and the confidentiality of the respondents should be ensured. The research should be designed to protect the autonomy and dignity of the participants.</li><li>Research participants should participate in the research voluntarily, not under any coercion.</li><li>Any possible harm to participants must be avoided. The research should be planned in such a way that the participants are not at risk.</li><li>The independence of research must be clear; and any conflict of interest or must be disclosed.</li><li>In experimental studies with human subjects, written informed consent of the participants who decide to participate in the research must be obtained. In the case of children and those under wardship or with confirmed insanity, legal custodian’s assent must be obtained.</li><li>If the study is to be carried out in any institution or organization, approval must be obtained from this institution or organization.</li><li>In studies with human subject, it must be noted in the method’s section of the manuscript that the informed consent of the participants and ethics committee approval from the institution where the study has been conducted have been obtained.</li>

It is authors’ responsibility to ensure that the article is in accordance with scientific and ethical standards and rules. And authors must ensure that submitted work is original. They must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere or is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere, in any language. Applicable copyright laws and conventions must be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) must be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. Any work or words of other authors, contributors, or sources must be appropriately credited and referenced. All the authors of a submitted manuscript must have direct scientific and academic contribution to the manuscript. The author(s) of the original research articles is defined as a person who is significantly involved in “conceptualization and design of the study”, “collecting the data”, “analyzing the data”, “writing the manuscript”, “reviewing the manuscript with a critical perspective” and “planning/ conducting the study of the manuscript and/or revising it”. Fund raising, data collection or supervision of the research group are not sufficient roles to be accepted as an author. The author(s) must meet all these criteria described above. The order of names in the author list of an article must be a co-decision and it must be indicated in the <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/23902FFD8AED477FACB35089D3B27DD8" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form.</a> The individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria but contributed to the study must take place in the acknowledgement section. Individuals providing technical support, assisting writing, providing a general support, providing material or financial support are examples to be indicated in acknowledgement section. All authors must disclose all issues concerning financial relationship, conflict of interest, and competing interest that may potentially influence the results of the research or scientific judgment. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published paper, it is the author’s obligation to promptly cooperate with the Editor-in-Chief to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. He/She provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication and ensures that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential before publishing.Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. He/She must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers. Only he has the full authority to assign a reviewer and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders. Their judgments must be objective.Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees must be ensured. In particular situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by editor-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope.The editor hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for double-blind peer review evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.

Peer Review

Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. He/She provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication and ensures that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential before publishing. Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. He/She must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed. Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers. Only he has the full authority to assign a reviewer and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders. Their judgments must be objective. Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side. A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees must be ensured. In particular situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by Editor-in-Chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors and ensures a fair double-blind peer review of the selected manuscripts.The selected manuscripts are sent to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and publication decision is given by Editor-in-Chief upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.Reviewers’ judgments must be objective. Reviewers’ comments on the following aspects are expected while conducting the review.- Does the manuscript contain new and significant information?- Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the manuscript?- Is the problem significant and concisely stated?- Are the methods described comprehensively?- Are the interpretations and consclusions justified by the results?- Is adequate references made to other Works in the field?- Is the language acceptable?Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees is important.

Language Articles in Turkish and English are published. Submitted manuscript must include an abstract both in the article language and in English.Manuscript Organization and Submission Manuscripts can only be submitted through the journal’s DergiPark submission system, available at <a href="https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iutarih" target="_blank">https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iutarih</a> manuscripts submitted via any other medium will not be evaluated. Manuscripts submitted to the journal will first go through a technical evaluation process where the editorial office staff will ensure that the manuscript has been prepared and submitted in accordance with the journal’s guidelines. Submissions that do not conform to the journal’s guidelines will be returned to the submitting author with technical correction requests. All manuscripts submitted to the Turkish Journal of History must be written in Times New Roman font style in 10 font size using MS Word or MS Word compatible program, and must be in A4 size. Authors are required to submit the following: • <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/23902FFD8AED477FACB35089D3B27DD8" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a> • <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/2042B071CBF64926AE8330D517106754" target="_blank">Title Page</a> A separate title page should be submitted with all submissions and this page should include: • The full title of the manuscript as well as a short title (running head) of no more than 50 characters, • Name(s), affiliations, and highest academic degree(s) and ORCID ID(s) of the author(s),• Grant information and detailed information on the other sources of support, • Name, address, telephone (including the mobile phone number) and fax numbers, and email address of the corresponding author, • Acknowledgment of the individuals who contributed to the preparation of the manuscript but who do not fulfill the authorship criteria. Abstract: An abstract should be submitted with all research articles. The abstract should be unstructured and a maximum of 80 words in length. Keywords: Each submission must be accompanied by a minimum of three to a maximum of six keywords for subject indexing at the end of the abstract. The keywords should be listed in full without abbreviations. Manuscript Types Research Articles: This is the most important type of article since it provides new information based on original research. The main text of original articles should be structured in accordance with the context of the article. Translations: This type of manuscript should be submitted with a file that contains the original text with its full bibliographic information. A formal consent letter from the author of the original text is also required.Tables Tables should be included in the main document, presented after the reference list, and they should be numbered consecutively in the order they are referred to within the main text. A descriptive title must be placed above the tables. Abbreviations used in the tables should be defined below the tables by footnotes (even if they are defined within the main text). Tables should be created using the “insert table” command of the word processing software and they should be arranged clearly to provide easy reading. Data presented in the tables should not be a repetition of the data presented within the main text but should be supporting the main text. Figures and Figure Legends Figures, graphics, and photographs should be submitted as separate files (in TIFF or JPEG format) through the submission system. The files should not be embedded in a Word document or the main document. When there are figure subunits, the subunits should not be merged to form a single image. Each subunit should be submitted separately through the submission system. Images should not be labeled (a, b, c, etc.) to indicate figure subunits. Thick and thin arrows, arrowheads, stars, asterisks, and similar marks can be used on the images to support figure legends. Like the rest of the submission, the figures too should be blind. Any information within the images that may indicate an individual or institution should be blinded. The minimum resolution of each submitted figure should be 300 DPI. To prevent delays in the evaluation process, all submitted figures should be clear in resolution and large in size (minimum dimensions: 100 × 100 mm). Figure legends should be listed at the end of the main document. All acronyms and abbreviations used in the manuscript should be defined at first use, both in the abstract and in the main text. The abbreviation should be provided in parentheses following the definition. All references, tables, and figures should be referred to within the main text, and they should be numbered consecutively in the order they are referred to within the main text. Limitations, drawbacks, and the shortcomings of original articles should be mentioned in the Discussion section before the conclusion paragraph. Revisions When submitting a revised version of a paper, changes made according to the reviewers’ comments should be highlighted in the revised document. Revised manuscripts must be submitted within 30 days from the date of the decision letter. If the revised version of the manuscript is not submitted within the allocated time, the revision option may be canceled. If the submitting author(s) believe that additional time is required, they should request this extension before the initial 30-day period is over. Accepted manuscripts are copy-edited for grammar, punctuation, and format. Once the publication process of a manuscript is completed, it is published online on the journal’s webpage as an ahead-of- print publication before it is included in its scheduled issue. A PDF proof of the accepted manuscript is sent to the corresponding author and their publication approval is requested within 2 days of their receipt of the proof.

Author Guidelines

While citing publications, preference should be given to the latest, most up-to-date publications. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of references. References should be prepared according the detailed information and examples provided below. In-text references should be stated in superscripts and numbered starting from 1 as footnotes. Footnotes should be written in Times New Roman style, type size 9 with one space. All footnotes should be end with a full stop. While stating references in footnotes, the title of books and journals should be in italic whereas the title of articles should be plain text font in quotation marks. In the footnotes, the author name and source must be given exactly in the first place, then only the author’s surname and abbreviation ibid should be written. When citing different publications of the same author, last name of the author and the abbreviated title of the book or the article should be provided after the first citation of the second work. In books with multiple authors, all authors must be written in the first citation and only the surnames of the authors should be given in the following citations of the same book. While citing an article, book section or an encyclopedia item, start and end pages should be provided.Examples: Books with a Single Author: Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, Menteşe Sancağı 1830 (Nüfus ve Toplum Yapısı), TTK Yay., Ankara 2010, p. 115.For following citations: Kütükoğlu, ibid., p. 123 or Kütükoğlu, p. 123. Different publications of the same author: Arzu Terzi, Hazine-i Hassa Nezareti, TTK Yay., Ankara 2000, p. 98 (Terzi, Hazine-i Hassa). If the same book will be cited again, the abbreviated title of it should be provided in the parenthesis as shown in the example. To indicate the volume of the book, only the volume should be written in Roman numerals. 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. Book Translations: Philippe du Fresne-Canaye, Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, tran. Teoman Tunçdoğan, İstanbul 2009, p. 51.Encyclopedia items: Feridun M. Emecen, “Başmukataa Kalemi”, DİA, V, 135. Books with multiple authors: 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, p. 25. For following citations of the same book: Anhegger-İnalcık, ibid, p. 36. Editor(s) or compiler(s) as authors: Osmanlı Uygarlığı, eds. Halil İnalcık-Günsel Renda, Kültür Bakanlığı Yay., I-II, Ankara 2009. Book section: Terzi, Arzu, “II. Abdülhamid’in Emlakı ve Irak Petrolleri”, Sultan II. Abdülhamid ve Dönemi, ed. Coşkun Yılmaz, İstanbul 2014, s. 181-188. Journal Article: Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “Osmanlıdan Günümüze Yer Adları”, Belleten, LXXVI/275 (2012), p.149. Bekir Kütükoğlu, “Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, Ma‘rûzât”, Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, issue 10-11, İstanbul 1983, p. 251. Mücteba İlgürel, “Şer‘iyye Sicillerinin Toplu Kataloğuna Doğru”, Tarih Dergisi, issue 28-29 (1975), p. 164. Journal article with multiple authors: Kayhan Orbay-Hatice Oruç, “Sultan II. Murad’ın Edirne Câmi‘-i Şerîf ve Dârü’l-hadîs Vakfı (1592- 1607)”, Tarih Dergisi, issue 56 (2012/2), İstanbul 2013, p. 10. For the following citations of the same book: Orbay-Oruç, ibid, p. 15. Journal Translations: Géza Dávid, “XVI. Yüzyılda Osmanlı-Habsburg Mücadelesinin Bir Kaynağı Olarak Mühimme Defterleri”, tran. Özgür Kolçak, Tarih Dergisi, issue 53 (2011/1), İstanbul 2012, pp. 295-349. Articles of the authors with the same surname: Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “Osmanlıdan Günümüze Yer Adları”, Belleten, LXXVI/275 (2012), 149. Bekir Kütükoğlu, “Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, Ma‘rûzât”, Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, issue 10-11, İstanbul 1983, p. 251. For the following citations of the same authors: M. S. Kütükoğlu, ibid, p. 160 or B. Kütükoğlu, ibid, p. 250. Thesis: Sinem Serin, Yıldız Çini/Porselen Fabrikası, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Tarih Anabilim Dalı Osmanlı Müesseseleri ve Medeniyeti Tarihi Bilim Dalı, Unpublished Master Thesis, İstanbul 2009, p. 146.Archive Documents: In the footnotes; the name of the archive, the title of the classification, file and the document number should be stated respectively. Abbreviated classifications of the archives may be written in the footnote, however the full title of the classification should be given in the bibliography. • BOA, Maliyeden Müdevver Defterler (MAD), nr. 9146, s. 200. • BOA, Mühimme Defteri, nr. 120, s. 103, h. 250.Bibliography All sources that are cited in the footnotes should be stated in alphabetically by the surnames of the authors under Bibliography heading. Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, Menteşe Sancağı 1830 (Nüfus ve Toplum Yapısı), TTK Yay., Ankara 2010. Hoca Sa‘deddin Efendi, Tâcü’t-tevârîh, I-II, İstanbul 1279-80. Translated texts: Fresne-Canaye, Philippe du, Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, tran. Teoman Tunçdoğan, İstanbul 2009. *The edition number of the book should be indicated as superscript. Terzi, Arzu, Sultan Abdülhamid’in Mirası, Petrol ve Arazi, Timaş Yayınları, İstanbul 20142. Thesis: Sinem Serin, Yıldız Çini/Porselen Fabrikası, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Tarih Anabilim Dalı Osmanlı Müesseseleri ve Medeniyeti Tarihi Bilim Dalı, Unpublished Master Thesis, İstanbul 2009, p. 146. Archive Documents: Archive classifications that are stated in footnotes should be written in full in bibliography, abbreviations should be stated in parenthesis. When references are used from different archives, these archives should be classified. Since the document numbers of the archives are stated in the footnotes, only the document classifications should be stated in bibliography section. • Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (BOA) • Cevdet Bahriye Evrakı (C.BH.) • Şura-yı Devlet (ŞD.) • Deniz Tarihi Arşivi (DTA) • Bahriye Nezareti (BN.)

Ensure that the following items are present:<ul><li>Confirm that the category of the manuscript is specifed.</li><li>Confirm that “the paper is not under consideration for publication in another journal”.</li><li>Confirm that disclosure of any commercial or financial involvement is provided.</li><li>Confirm that last control for fluent English was done.</li><li>Confirm that journal policies detailed in Information for Authors have been reviewed.</li><li>Confirm that the references cited in the text and listed in the references section are in with Chicago Manual of Style.</li></ul>● <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/23902FFD8AED477FACB35089D3B27DD8" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a>● Permission of previous published material if used in the present manuscript● <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/DA78A786D02C4904947053E76EE62450" target="_blank">Title page</a><ul><li>The category of the manuscript</li><li>The title of the manuscript both in the language of the article and in English</li><li>All authors’ names and affiliations (institution, faculty/department, city, country), e-mail addresses</li><li>Corresponding author’s email address, full postal address, and phone number</li><li>ORCIDs of all authors.</li><li>Grant support (if exists)</li><li>Conflict of interest (if exists)</li><li>Acknowledgement (if exists)</li></ul>● Main Manuscript Document<ul><li>Important: Please avoid mentioning the the author (s) names in the manuscript</li><li>The title of the manuscript both in the language of the article and in English</li><li>Abstract (100-150 words)</li><li>Key words: 3-6 words</li><li>Body text sections</li><li>References</li><li>All tables, illustrations (figures) (including title, explanation, captions)</li></ul>

<div><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/23902FFD8AED477FACB35089D3B27DD8" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/7A2F0FC168C64E8F99ABD2AB598E6363" target="_blank">Title Page</a></div>

Issue Type	Regular
Issue Date	20.07.2022
Editor(s)	Arzu Terzi
Cover (PDF)
Front Pages (PDF)

Turkish Journal of History

ISSUE 77, 2022

Oracle of Apollo in Kalkhedon

The Political and Diplomatic Relations of the Mamluks and Golden Horde After the Third Enthronement of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad

A Turkish King in Medieval India: Sultan of Mālwa Mahmūdshāh Khaljī I (1436–1469)

The Power of a Legend: Examining the Historical Development of the Relationship Between the Janissaries and Bektashi

From Beratlı Tüccar to Avrupa Tüccarı: The Pursuit of "Nizâm-ı Raiyyet" in Salonica

Falsifications in the Letter About the First Treaty of Erzurum and the Resultant Problems in Implementing the Treaty

Diplomat Archaeologists’ Inquiries into Antiquities in Cyprus During the Second Half of the 19th Century

Opinions and Recommendations on the Development of Olive Agriculture and Olive Oil Manufacturing in the Late Ottoman Empire

INFORMATION

SHARE