In this paper, a pre-assessment of the Byzantine era of Aigai will be presented. Besides the western Anatolian cities of Pergamum, Ephesus and Smyrna, Aigai is the only city which achieved to cope with the rough terrain among the Aspordenon Mountains north of Smyrna. This city located 17 km east of the Yeni Şakran town in the province Izmir, also known as Köseler castle due to its location on Mount Gün near the Köseler village in the province of Manisa, and (...) is one of the twelve cities within the Aeolian region mentioned by Herodotus. Thanks to the detailed studies by R. Bohn and C. Schuchhardt on inscriptions from Aigai, the city was first introduced to the academical world in 1889. Archaeological studies started in 2004 and were conducted by Prof. Dr. Ersin Doğer. While the archaeological and written sources about the history and civilization of pre-Byzantine Aigai are rather well-known, in this paper it will be attempted to give an overview of the scarce written sources about the Byzantine era and to evaluate them in the light of so-far unpublished architecture and small finds. Since 2004, area based excavations have been carried out in the necropolis of the city, at Demirkapı and the insula situated east of the Tiberius gate which are the entrance points of the city, in the Bouleuterion, Agora and Macellum to its east, in the cisterns nos. I and II and in the easternmost part of the acropolis. The residential areas, built by the last inhabitants of the region, the Byzantines, by using spolia of older buildings, are badly preserved. The architecture, which, due to its location on a hillside, has been harmed by landslides and torrents, but also by human destruction such as treasure hunts and stone borrowing, is very fragile. The only preserved architecture so far is a sacral building dated to the 12th or 13th century. Abundant pottery and glass small finds, together with some metal objects and coins, enable us to get an idea of the Byzantine era in Aigai and provide a foresight to further studies. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Byzantinische Zeitschrift Jahrgang: 109 Heft: 1 Seiten: 9-32.

In this paper, a pre-assessment of the Byzantine era of Aigai will be presented. Besides the western Anatolian cities of Pergamum, Ephesus and Smyrna, Aigai is the only city which achieved to cope with the rough terrain among the Aspordenon Mountains north of Smyrna. This city located 17 km east of the Yeni Şakran town in the province Izmir, also known as Köseler castle due to its location on Mount Gün near the Köseler village in the province of Manisa, and (...) is one of the twelve cities within the Aeolian region mentioned by Herodotus. Thanks to the detailed studies by R. Bohn and C. Schuchhardt on inscriptions from Aigai, the city was first introduced to the academical world in 1889. Archaeological studies started in 2004 and were conducted by Prof. Dr. Ersin Doğer. While the archaeological and written sources about the history and civilization of pre-Byzantine Aigai are rather well-known, in this paper it will be attempted to give an overview of the scarce written sources about the Byzantine era and to evaluate them in the light of so-far unpublished architecture and small finds. Since 2004, area based excavations have been carried out in the necropolis of the city, at Demirkapı and the insula situated east of the Tiberius gate which are the entrance points of the city, in the Bouleuterion, Agora and Macellum to its east, in the cisterns nos. I and II and in the easternmost part of the acropolis. The residential areas, built by the last inhabitants of the region, the Byzantines, by using spolia of older buildings, are badly preserved. The architecture, which, due to its location on a hillside, has been harmed by landslides and torrents, but also by human destruction such as treasure hunts and stone borrowing, is very fragile. The only preserved architecture so far is a sacral building dated to the 12th or 13th century. Abundant pottery and glass small finds, together with some metal objects and coins, enable us to get an idea of the Byzantine era in Aigai and provide a foresight to further studies. (shrink)

Ömer Naci Soykan'ın ülkemizde yayımlanan armağan kitaplar konusunda eleştirel bir yaklaşımı vardı. Bu eleştiri, armağan kitapların büyük çoğunluğunun "armağan" edildikleri düşünür ya da filozofla ilgili neredeyse hiçbir ciddi çalışmayı içermemesiyle ilgiliydi. Ona göre bir armağan kitabın öncelikli amacı "armağan" edildiği kişinin felsefi görüşlerine yer vermek olmalıydı. Dolayısıyla Soykan hayattayken kendisiyle ilgili bir armağan kitap çıkarmayı düşündüğümüzü dile getirdiğimizde ilk sözü "İçinde benim düşüncelerimle ilgili yazılar olacaksa olsun, yoksa istemiyorum!" olmuştu. "Sağdan soldan toplama yazılarla, tematik (...) bütünlüğü olmayan yazıların art arda getirilmesiyle oluşturulmuş bir armağan kitap olmaz. Armağan kitap, (bir "Festschrift") öncelikle o kişiyle, o kişinin düşünceleriyle ilgili yazılardan oluşması gerekir" diye de eklemişti. Bu kitabın gecikmesinin bir başka nedeni belki de Soykan'ın bu kadar açık biçimde dile getirdiği bu sözlerdi çünkü eleştirdiği türde bir armağan kitap hazırlamak görece kolay olabilirdi. Geç oldu ancak olması gereken gibi oldu! Kitaptaki her yazarın katkısı Soykan'ın görüşleri üzerine, onları açımlayan, değerlendiren, belki yer yer de eleştiren değerli çalışmalar olarak ortaya çıktı. Böylelikle onun isteğini de bir bakıma yerine getirmiş olduk. (shrink)

Antalya, which is today’s attraction center with its historical and natural beauties, was described as “a city like heaven” since ancient times. This city hosted many civilisations and states until the 13th century and became an important seaport after The Seljuks took over the region. The Seljuks applied civilization and urbanization policy also in Antalya, like other regions they ruled. The mosques, madrasahs (Islamıc theology institutions), schools, baths, caravansearis (hostels), hospices, and water cisterns in this period changed the structure of (...) the city and paved the way for improvements of public life. During the Ottomans some of these social institutions were kept active while the others no longer served to the public. However, with the construction of new social institutions, urbanization was resumed. The madrasas were generally built near or adjacent to the mosques, and had a significant role in developing the society and cultural structure. Although the madrasas in Antalya were mainly the institutions that maintain the education system, the research on these madrasas mostly focuses on their architectural features. The majority of these madrasas that are not comprehensively studied. Therefore, the functioning structures and the problems of Antalya Madrasas (Antalya, Korkuteli and Elmalı), which are reflected in the archive documents between the 17th and 20th centuries and also both individuals and institutions that had influence on these madrasas are going to be investigated in this study. Thus, this paper will shed more light on Antalya Madrasas.Summary: Antalya city, which was completely under the Seljuk sovereignty during the reign of Sultan Alaeddin Keykubat I (1219-1236), was named as Alâiyye dedicated to the Sultan's name and became an important port city of the Seljuk State after then. In the process of the fall of the Seljuk State and the beginning of the Emirates (Beylikler) period, the city became a land of Teke-Oğulları, a part of a Hamid-oğulları, and in 1390 the city became an Ottoman city after the struggle of Yıldırım Bayazid with Teke-oğuları. Antalya was home to the madrasahs, one of the formal education institutions during both the Seljuk and the Ottoman Empire. The madrasahs were built next to the mosque or in a detached area built by sometimes administrators or statesmen, sometimes by members of the dynasty or by the citizens who were wealthy. In Antalya, both single floor and second floor madrasahs were built. This study based on the documents from Prime Ministry Ottoman Archive, the travel books of İbn Bibi and Evliya Çelebi, the works on Antalya Madrasahs to be determine the madrasah in the districts of Antalya as Korkuteli and Elmalı. In addition to the Seljuk madrasahs such as Imaret Madrasah, Atabey Armagan Madrasah and Karatay Madrasah, there are also some madrasahs belonging to the Ottoman period, in Antalya. As a matter of fact, the madrasahs increased in number in the period of the Ottoman. Antalya madrasahs which are reflected in archival documents for any reason are as follows: “Süleyman Madrasah” located in Hatip Süleyman Street, “Madrasah built by Haci Mahmed” located in Elmali Street, “Hacı Abbaszâde Hacı Süleyman Madrasah” in Süleyman Street, “İsmail Efendi Madrasah” in Tahtapazarı Kızılsaray Street, Kasab Hacı Ahmed Madrasah, Hacı Cafer Ağa Madrasah, Murad Ağa Madrasah, Esir Hacı Ali Madrasah, Hacı Hasan Madrasah,“Madrasah built by Hasan Efendi” in Keçiyalar Street, in the Kadılar Street of Gediz County “Madrasah built by Yusuf Efendi”, “Madrasah built by Hızır Efendi” in Cami-i atik Street, Murat Pasha Madrasah, “Sefer Ağa Madrasah” located outside the city wall, “Büyülü Minaret Madrasah, Hatuniye Madrasah, Sheik Sinan Camii Madrasah located outside the city Wall, In addition to these madrasahs mentioned in some studies in Antalya, it is also stated that there are madrasahs such as Müsellim Madrasah, Kesik Minaret Madrasah, Karakas Madrasah, Varsakli Mehmet Efendi Madrasah, Meydan Madrasah, Surmeli Madrasah, Canmülk Madrasah, Ahi Kız Madrasah, Hacı Naim Efendi Madrasah, Susam Madrasah, Çömlekçi Madrasah, Değirmenönü Madrasah, Ak Mescid Madrasah, Âşık Doğan Madrasah and Çukur Madrasah.According to archive documents, in the sub-district of Antalya, which is used as a plateau or plateau area, some madrasahs were recorded as follows: Pınarbaşı Madrasah, Hızır Efendi Madrasah, Mustafa Efendi Madrasah, Emir Sinaneddin Madrasah, Hacı Menlü (Mevlüt) oğlu Ömer Medrese, Abu Bakr Agha Madrasah, Koca Hafız Medrese, Hacı Mollaoğlu El-Hac Ömer Madrasah, Sheikh İsmail Efendi Madrasah. However, Süleyman Fikri Erten, who works on Antalya, stated that the number of madrasahs is eight as: Haci Ahmet Madrasah of Kalkanlı, Sultan Hatun Madrasah, Koparanzade Hacı Hüseyin Madrasah, Karabayırlı Hacı Hüseyin Madrasah, Kaşlı Ali Efendi Madrasah, Hacı Hüseyin Madrasah, Şalaka Ahmet Madrasah and Oyunyeri Madrasah.The madrasahs built in Elmalı, another distict of Antalya, were as follows: Ketenci Ömer Paşa Madrasah, Esbak Mir-i Ahur Hacı Mehmet Bey Madrasah, Haydar Baba Madrasah, Arifî Ahmed Paşa Madrasah, Hüseyin Efendi Madrasah, Debbağ Baba Madrasah, Şeyh Ümmi Sinan Madrasah, Babazade Hacı Abdurrahman Madrasah, Hacı Şeyh Efendi Madrasah, Mustafa Efendi Madrasah, Hasan Efendi Madrasah, Salih Efendi Madrasah, Halil Efendi Madrasah, Çankırlı Madrasah, Osman Efendi Madrasah and “Mehmet Efendi Madrasah in Örtekiz village”. In addition, two madrasahs, except from these, were also found in the archive documents.A madrasah was built almost at every Street of Antalya and the madrasahs were usually named by the name of their builders. Madrasah students were provided with a certain amount of scholarship to continue their education according to the level of the education in the madrasahs and the level of the courses taught, salaries of the scholars, the status of the builder of the madrasah. The scholars who worked in the madrasahs worked with a document called berat-i sharif and in the case of the disappearance of this document a new berat-i sharif would be prepared by the Shaykh al-Islami. Scholars working without this document were also determined. In the scholar appointments foundation, board of trustees, müfti, and the city regents were very influential. There were also some appointments resulted from death, promotion besides leaving job with their own will. There were some problems with the appointments in Antalya and the foundation revenues to which the madrasah was attached were delivered to certain individuals until these problems were resolved.In madrasahs of Antalya, science was given a great importance and all kinds of monetary issues were tired to be eliminated with donations given to both scholars and students. However, it is observed that madrasahs were involved in some events in Antalya. As a matter of fact, among those who participated in the Şah Kulu Rebellion that took place in 1510-1511, there were also madrasah students and education training had therefore been disrupted for a long time. it is known that the state sent orders to the judges (qadi) in the region consecutively in order to prevent the rebellion. Also during this period some madrasahs were used as the activity center of armed students or people who disguised them.One of the issues that negates the education and training in the madrasahs in Antalya is that in 1890 the immigrants started to be hosted in Antalya and the guests visiting were accommodated in madrasahs as there were no other available places. This situation had been continued for a long time and even telegrams have been sent about the students living on the sidewalks.Another important issue that disrupts education was epidemic diseases. It was reported that too many people died in the district of Istanoz because of smallpox, there was no doctor and the health personnel should go to the region urgently. Despite all the problems experienced in madrasahs, they continued their activities in Antalya and while continuing their activities under the control of foundations in 1826, with the establishment of the Ministry of Foundations, they were connected to this institution. (shrink)

Aḥmed Cevdet Pasha (d. 1312/1895) is one of the influential and prominent Ottoman scholars in history and law. Besides history and law, he also produced works on literature, sīra (the life of the Prophet) and tafsīr (the Qur’anic exegesis). In the last years of his life, Cevdet Pasha aimed to translate the Qurʾān including short comments on the verses, but this work was remained limited to the sūrah al-Baqara. Correspondingly to this translation named Terjeme-i Sharīfa, he prepared a glossary to (...) the Qurʾān called Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa for expressions and terms that require detailed explanation. Hereby, this work could only include the sūrah al-Baqara. After Cevdet Pasha’s death, his books passed to his daughter Ms Fāṭima ʿAliyye (d. 1936). The director of the Library of Maʿārif, Nācī Qāsim (d. 1963) gave a deed stipulating that he would take the first part of the Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa and Terjeme-i Sharīfa from her and return them as they are. Later on, he published only the Muqaddima (introduction) and Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa in the work named Tercemeli Ḳurʾân-ı Kerîm (İstanbul: 1927). Placing the Muqaddima at the beginning of the book and Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa at the end misled some people by making them to think that the translation belongs entirely to Cevdet Pasha. Sulayman Tevfīq reprinted these two works together within his translation named el-Beyān fī ʾāyāti’l-Qurʾān in 1928. Terjeme-i Sharīfa has not been published anywhere else. Emine Armağan recently found and published a notepad in which Cevdet Pasha wrote Terjeme-i Sharīfa, mentioned Muqaddima and Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa. In her book Emine Armağan printed the pages belonging to Cevdet Pasha as thumbnails, but she did not publish them in Latin. In this article, Muḳaddime and Lâḥika-i Şerîfe are Latinized and compared to the Terceme-i Şerîfe. The relevant parts of the translation are given in the footnotes. This study is an attempt to determine to what extent the translation in the manuscript form corresponds to the glossary and the soundness of relating the text to the author. In addition, many errors in the Ottoman edition of the glossary were also corrected. In the Muqaddima, Cevdet Pasha draws attention to the necessity of God’s existence, the illiteracy and the trustworthiness of his Messenger, and that the revelation is the primary source of knowledge for people. He summarizes the process of the Qurʾān’s revelation, notification and compilation. He briefly touches on the issues related to ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān. Cevdet Pasha, who passed from here to the miracle of the Qurʾān, talks about the qadim (pre-existing) nature of the divine word and teḥaddī. Cevdet Pasha emphasizes that understanding the Qurʾān is possible only by knowing the Arabic language very well and whithout this knowldege the Qurʾān cannot adequately be translated into another language. On the other hand, he also believes that the first meanings can be externally translated in order to explain the first meanings of the verses to those who do not know Arabic. Cevdet Pasha’s preface is considerably concise in structure. He shortly pointed to the crucial issues in one sentence and passed to the other subjects. While writing Terjeme-i Sharīfa, Cevdet Pasha left the extensive explanations of the polysemous words and terms that cannot be translated literally to the tafsīr and Lāḥiqa. Cevdet Pasha’s Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa is entirely original and not merely a translation of any Qurʾānic dictionary. He compiled the meanings of a word existing in different verses, and he was very meticulous in choosing the meanings the words. He summarized very detailed informations in the sources in a simple, concise and fluent style. The arrangement of the words was based on the abbreviated versions used in the Qurʾān. In addition to the lexical meaning of the word, he sometimes mentioned the words’ roots, form, singular and plural forms, ism al-fāʿil, ism al-mefʿūl, ism al-mekān, synonym/antonym, lexical aspects, the meaning and terminology it expresses in different recitations of the Qur’an (al-qırāat). He in particular highlighted if the word is one of the al-asmāʾ al-ḥusnā. He explained the changes in the meaning of a word when it is used for Allah or for humans. He shortly touched on the legal rulings. Cevdet Pasha clearly expressed in his work the most vital issues that the community should know without tiring the general reader of scientific disputes, philosophical discussions and literary analysises. Cevdet Pasha did not refer to any sources in his work and did not mention the transmission chain of the narrations. As a result of our research, we determined that he benefited from the commentaries of al-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1144), al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210), al-Qurṭūbī (d. 671/1273) and Beyḍāvī (d. 685/1286). We have seen that there are some similarities between the explanations of the words in the Lāḥiqa-i Sharīfa and the famous Qurʾānic dictionaries such as al-Mufredāt, Umdet al-ḥuffāẓ and Beṣāir. (shrink)

Bu yazıda bir sanat yapıtının sahte olmasının ne anlama geldiği incelenmektedir. Bu amaçla iki tür sahtecilik türü olan yapıt kopyacılığı ve biçem kopyacılığı birbirinden ayırt edilmektedir. İlk tür kopyacılık ile ilgili temel tartışma bir yapıtın aslından ayırt edilemeyecek kadar iyi bir kopyası neden yine de sanatsal olarak aslından daha değersiz bulunur, sorusuyla ilgilidir. İkinci tür kopyacılıkta ise temel soru bir sanatçının biçemini taklit ederek "yeni" yapıtlar üretmenin sanatsal açıdan nasıl değerlendirilmesi gerektiğidir. Yazıda bu ikinci tür kopyacılık, Hollandalı ressam Van Meegeren'in (...) Vermeer'in biçemini taklit ederek yapıp Naziler'e sattığı tablolar üzerinden tartışılmaktadır. (shrink)