An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire from Earliest Times to the End of the Sixteenth Century Review Author[s]: Rifaat Ali Abou-EI-Hi Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 97, No. 2 (Apr. = Jun., 1977), 203-204. Stable URL: hhup//links,jstor.org/sici?sici~0003-0279% 28197 7104%2F06%2997%3A2%3C203%3AAHGOTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6 Journal of the American Oriental Society is currently published by American Oriental Society. ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hhup:/www.jstororg/about/terms.huml. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at bup:/swww jstor.org/journals/aos hin. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission, ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. hupswww jstor.org/ ‘Tue Feb 15 08:01:07 2005Reviews of Books ‘An Historieal Geogrephy ofthe Otloman Empire from Ear- Uiest Times to the End of the Slsteenth Century. By D.B, Preeen. Pp, x +171, 36 mapsin color. Lexox E, J. Brust, 1972, 1. 275.0, In nine chapters and the corresponding thirty-six maps, Pitcher traces the expansion of the Ottoman state from . 67 and 115... the usage of the term “Turkey* to Aesignate Ottoman possessions in the 15th century is rather jarring to historical sense. Sols the use of Fassia for Muscovy on p. 97 .68... the name Valona stands by itself and only ‘on 69s It rendered *Valona/(Avlenya).” This is but one of several examples ofthis ietating practee. D. TL... Gogereialik is rendered in the index: Ger: inl: without explanation, . 76... *rathert™ should read rather. p. 77... Pitcher delineates the Candar-ogullat dy- nasty’s oss of position and then adds without much ex- planation there or elsewhere “the family long remained 45 honourable members of the Ottoman aristocracy ‘There is no explanation of which aristocracy Is meant . 106... Himg (Humus). The alternate in brackets ‘isnot explained. For a Turkish acceptable pronunciation, Redhouse’s Ottoman Dictionary has it as Hims, vue Hams, D. 124... “eyalet-sancak-kaza-nahiye begins to cor- respond with that of province-country-ruraldistiet- parish.” Parish is a more likely translation of Kara than of Nahiye which is better rendered as sub-tetrit P1384... In his dlseusson of the "Extent of the Em= pire." Pitcher shows in a graph caleslations in square mnlles for the extent of the Ottoman slate from 1200 to 1006 subdivided under contineats. At the end of the paragraph he adds: “For the sake of interest and com parison the graph is extended to cover the last three204 ‘centuries, but the period after 1606 has been calculated with less precision.” Though admittedly valuable, this, information is unfortunately omitted. .196 and 137... the statement "Map 24 (opp. P. 124)" Is unnecessary since the maps are not bound with the text of each chapter, but are assembled at the end of the book, . 197-38 .. . Are liste and Bosna sancats, as Pitcher ‘has them Usted or are they eyalts by ca. 1650.7 . 138... (and map 28 for Dalmatia-Bosna). Author ‘885 beyond is chronological limits and takes Into ‘conseration the 1700-1703 demareations of the Venetian- Ottoman frontier In accordance with the treatles of Karlowitz (and of Belgrade in 1738). These are valuable additions, though they are uneven, for the treaties of Karlowite were signed with Muscovy, Poland, the Habs- Durgs as well as Venie. There were also corresponding Aemareations of their respective frontiers with the Otto- rman state? . 138... (map 29. The Danube Lands). The author points out that: “The Zitvatorok frontler of 1606 was ‘more lasting than most, but its accuracy cannot be guar- anteed as the written treaty makes no mention of any placenames, while the Ottoman saneak-lists continue to include places reeaptured for Christendom.” Neither ‘the Ottomans nor any of the European states of 16th the for 17th centuries had a clearly demareated border. At ‘peace conferences the states and their diplomats were satsted with zonal frontiers. The first clear demareations of a lineal border between states in early modern history were the ones delineated 2s consequence and in Im- plementation of the treatles of Karlowitz and Istanbul (1698 and 1700 respectively) 199... 1astline "seen9. 135, pga. 136," should read. P. 143. In discussing the Barbary Coast states and ‘thelr status by the middle of the 17th century in terms of the suzerainty of the Ottoman Court, the author ‘contends that "They enjoyed a degree of autonomy whieh progressed towards virtual independence.” Ottoman ar- chival sources for the 1600's suggest that when called upon, the Barbary states took part in the Ottoman campaigns in southeast Europe Ruraar Att Anou-EL-HAy ‘casavona Srarm Usivenairy, Lone Baactt * For the treaties of Karlowitz see the author's, “Otto- ‘man Diplomacy at Karlowitz,” JA0S, 87.4, 1967. 3 These probloms are discussed by the author in “The Formal Closure of the Ottoman Frontler in Europs 1699-1703," JAUS, 89.3, 1969 and by G. N. Clark, The ‘Seventeenth Century, Oxford, rev. ed, 1947, reprinted 1961, 1440 Eg., Itanbul, Mublmme Defter| not, 105-109, (Bag- Journal of the American Oriental Soctety 97.2 (1977) A History of Islamic Sicily. By Az Annan. Pp. 147, 1 map, $ ius. (Islamie Surveys 10). Edinburgh. 1975. Although the stated purpote of the Islamie Surveys series Is to give “the educated reader something more than ean be found in the usual popular books” and not only to present “an outline of what was known and enerally accepted, but also (to indicate) the points at which scholarly debate continued,” thelitte volume under review here signally fails to achieve that goal. The editor states, perhaps eorreetly, that the excellence of Michele Amaris Storla det musulmant di Sicilia has apparently eterred other writers from embarking on the general ‘subject. He goos on to Justify the publication of MF ‘Amad’s essay inthe feld on the grounds that, although relatively restricted” in its seope, no other comprehensive work exists in English, French, or German. This is not quite accurate. Denis Mack Smith's A History of Sicily: Medieoal Sicily 800-1713, London, 1988, upon which Mr. Ahmad draws almost as heavily as he does upon ‘Amari, surely fills the erteria intended by the Islamic Surveys series while Mr. Ahmad’s book remains exactly ‘that Which the editor of the series hoped to go beyond. Mr. Ahmad’ history of Siily remains merely @ ehronile of dates and of the names of personalities and batt ‘There is virtually no attempt to analyze the sfnifieance of the material presented and there isa glaring disregard {or anything that smaeks of analysis in soelal or economic isto. ‘As far as It goes, the work is difficult to criticize. A ‘comparison with Amari and Mack Smith shows that, at the evel of chronicler of events, Mr. Ahmad has done his homework well enough: dates are in conformity with the ‘authorities, as are the names and places cataloged. This, however, Is no longer sutfielent. The reader, and the reviewer, hopes tofind material that will challenge his own, knowledge and arouse his intellectual curiosity. Here, hae finds only alist of facts, Ina perlod when the keynote ‘theme of the 1974 MESA conference was the desperate need, In the fleld of Near Eastern Studies, for & higher level of analytic sophistication and the abandonment of ‘strictly philological approach to our research; in period ‘when we begin to expect the sophisticated histocial Dakan ArsivL.) Also, ina private communication Andrew Hess discussed this matter with the author and pointed fut that “The French historians who have, by and lage, formed our modern opinion of 18th and 19th century North African history have emphasized the lack of any strong connection between the Maghrib and Istanbul. ‘This, however, from the Ottoman side is not correct. ‘The North Afican states—Algeria, Tunisla, Tripol never rejected Ottoman authority and eultu