Six ottoman documents on mughal-ottoman relations during the reign of Akbar

Journal of Islamic Studies

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 32-48

  Farooqi, N R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 36049035198     PISSN: 09552340     EISSN: 14716917     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jis/7.1.32     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. For a detailed analysis of the Ottoman claim to universal khilafa and the Mughal response to this claim see N. R. Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations: A Study of Political and Diplomatic Relations between Mughal India and the Ottoman Empire 1556-1748 (Delhi, 1989), 173-221.
2. For Sidi Ah Reis and his adventures in India, Persia, and Central Asia see his Mirat al-Mamaltk, Persian translation (Tehran, 1975). For an English translation of this book see A. Vambrey, The Travels and Adventures of the Turkjsh Admiral Sidi Alt Rets (London, 1899). Prior to his departure from India, the Sidi had also met Akbar. The letter carried by him was therefore probably approved by the new king also.
3. Mirat al-Mamalik, 201-2.
4. Also see Joseph de Hammer, 'Memoir on Diplomatic Relations between the Courts of Delhi and Constantinople in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries', Transactions of the Royal Astatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 2 (1830), 476.
5. Sultan Murad III was the son of Sultan Selim II (ruled 1566-74) and grandson of Sultan Sulayman the Magnificent. For the career of Murad III see Şekir Kutukoglu, 'III Murat', Islam Ansiklopedtsi, viii. 615-25.
6. Also see Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modem Turkey (Cambridge, 1976), i. 179-84.
7. The letters were addressed to Sharif Abu Numay II (1524-84).
8. For the sharifs of Makka see I. H. Uzuncarsih, Mekke-t mukerreme Emirleri (Ankara, 1972).
9. Also see Gerald De Gaury, Rulers of Mecca (London, 1952).
10. For Hasan Pasha see Cengiz Orhonlu, Habes Eyaleti (Istanbul, 1974), 10, 82, 99.
11. Bajbakanlik Arjivi is the closest equivalent to a national archive in Turkey and consisted originally of the records of the Imperial Council (Divan-i Humayun) and of the office of the Grand Vazir (Bab-i Asafi). Later the financial records of the earlier periods (Maliyyeden Mudewere Defterleri) and cadastral survey registers (Tapu Defterleri) were brought from the Defterhane (House of Registers) and deposited in it. For Basbakanlik Arjivi and its holdings see Midhat Sertoglu, Muhteva Baktmindan Basvekalet Arsivi (Ankara, 1955)
12. Also see Jan Reychman and Anamasz Zajaczkowski, Handbook of Ottoman Turkish Diplomatics (The Hague, 1968), 24-31
13. S. J. Shaw, 'Archival Sources for Ottoman History: The Archives of Turkey', journal of American Oriental Society (1960), 1-12
14. H. N. Howard, 'Preliminary Materials for a Survey of the Libraries and Archives of Istanbul', JAOS (1939), 227-46
15. Bernard Lewis, 'Basvekalet Arsivi', Encyclopaedia of Islam1, l. 1089-91
16. id., Notes and Documents from the Turkish Archives (Jerusalem, 1952)
17. id., 'Studies in Ottoman Archives 1', Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 16 (1954), 469-501
18. Paul Wittek, 'Les Archives de Turquie', Byzantion, 13 (1938), 691-9
19. Abdurrahman Şeref, 'Evrak-i atika ve vesik-i tanhiyemiz', Tdrih-i OsmanTEncttmeni Mecmuasi, l (Istanbul, 1329), 9-19
20. Musa Kazim, 'Vesaik-i tarihiyemiz' ' For the value of Name-i Humayun Defterlen as a source for medieval Indian history
21. see N. R. Farooqi, 'The Turkish Archives as a Source for Medieval Indian History', Indica, 28 (1991), 113-22.
22. There is, however, practically no difference between the original firmans and their copies found in the Miihimme Defterlen. See Uriel Heyd, Ottoman Documents on Palestine 1SS2-1615: A Study of the Firmans according to the Muhimme Deftarlan (Oxford, 1960), 11-12.
23. B. Lewis, The Ottoman Archives as a Source for Jewish History (Jerusalem, 1952), 3 3-4 .
24. S. J. Shaw, 'Cairo's Archives and the History of Ottoman Egypt', Report on Current Research on the Middle East (Washington, DC, 1956), 59-72
25. Also see the following observation of Professor Bernard Lewis: 'There remains, however, the difficulty of reading and understanding the documents-and it is not a small one. The first problem is that of script. With relatively few exceptions, the documents are written in the Arabic alphabet, of which a number of different forms are used. These present considerable paleographic problems, and for the earlier periods specially the decipherment of a single document is often a long and exacting task.' 'The Ottoman Archives: A Source for European History', Report on Current Research on the Middle East (Washington, DC, 1956), 22.
26. The title Sheikh al-Haram was usually given to the civil governor of Makka. For the duties and responsibilities of the Shaikh al-Haram of Makka and Madina see Suraiya Faroqhi, Pilgrims and Sultans: The Hajj under the Ottomans (London, 1994), 152-6
27. Chawushes served as the messengers of the Ottoman imperial council and were members of the palace corps of pursuivants. They worked under Chawush basi. 31 A judicial and administrative district in the Ottoman empire was known as a kaza and was placed under the charge of a qadl. The qadis performed a host of administrative duties including the maintenance of l aw and order, mobilization of local troops, supervision of markets, and regulation of price controls. Kazaya Defter was perhaps the monthly report of the district which was sent regularly to the Pone. For kaza and functions of the qadTs, see S. J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire, I. 122, 135-6, 138-283.
28. Nizam al-Din Ahmad, Tabaqat-i Akbari, English translation (Calcutta, 1936-9), ii. 472.
29. Abu '1-Fadl, Akbar Nama, English translation (Calcutta, 1891-1921; reprinted 1972), iii. 205-6.
30. Abd al-Qadir BadaunI, Muntakhab al-Tawartkh, English translation (1899-1925; reprinted Delhi, 1973), ii. 472.
31. Tabaqat-t Akbari, ii. 472.
32. Faroqhi, Pilgrims and Sultans, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
33. Evliya Celeb!, Seyahatnamesi (Istanbul, 1896-1939), ix. 7 7 2-3
34. Akbar Nama, u. 197, 207, 421; in. 72.
35. Tabaqat-t Akban, u. 520
36. Akbar Nama, lii. 395-9
37. Muntakhab al-Tawankh, li. 266-7.
38. Tabaqat-i Akban, u. 472.
39. For details of the Ha;/ caravans dispatched by Akbar see N . R. Farooqi, Mughal- Ottoman Relations, 18-20, 113-19.
40. Abu I-Fadl, Maktubdt-i 'AllamT (Lucknow, 1863), 3 4-9
41. Riazul Islam, A Calendar of Documents on Indo-Perstan Relations (1S00-17S0) (Tehran and Karachi, 1982), li. 302-4.
42. M. N. Pearson, Pious Passengers: The Hajj in Earlier Times (London, 1994), 160-2.
43. Saif al-Din Qazwini, AnTs al-Hujaj, quoted by Pearson, op. cit. 53.
44. AnTs al-Hujjaj, quoted by Pearson, op. cit. 140
45. Joseph Pitts, The Red Sea and Adjacent Countries at the Close of the Seventeenth Century as Described by Joseph Puts [c. 1685], ed. William Foster (London, 1949), quoted by Pearson, op. cit . 140.
46. Muntakhab al-Tawartkh, li. 246.
47. Maktubat-i 'Allami, 23-4
48. RiazuJ Islam, Calendar, u. 210-12.
49. For Ottoman-Portuguese hostility see Salih Ozbaran, 'Ottoman Turks and the Portuguese in the Persian Gulf", Journal of Asian History (1972), 45-90
50. Andrew C. Hess, 'The Ottoman Seaborne Empire 1453-1525', American Historical Review (1970), 1892-1919
51. E. Demson Ross, 'The Portuguese in India and Arabia between 1507-1517', Journal of Royal Astatic Society (1921), 545-62; (January 1922), 1-8
52. R. B. Serjeant, The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (Oxford, 1963)
53. R. L. Playfair, A History of Arabia Felix or Yemen (Bombay 1859), 98-104.
54. E. Rehatsek, 'A Letter of Akbar asking for the Christian Scriptures', The Indian Antiquity (April 1877), 135. M.D., vol. 62, f. 203, firman no. 453, addressed to the Beylerbey of Yemen, 10 Muharram 996 (1 December 1587). The Portuguese chronicles refer to a mission sent toEthiopia by the Portuguese authorities in Goa Father Monserrate was also a member of this mission. The Portuguese ship was captured by the Ottomans at Dhofar in south Arabia in 1588. Father Monserrate and his companions were taken to Eynan and then to Sana. Monserrate remained prisoner in Sana for seven years, was ultimately released after the payment of ransom, and returned to Goa in 1596.
55. See Abu M-Fadl, Akbar Nama (Delhi, 1989)