An Overview of Ottoman Archival

An Overview of Ottoman Archival
Documents and Their Relevance for

Medieval Indian History
N. R. Farooqi*
The significance of Ottoman archives for the reconstruction of Europe’s past

is well known but its relevance for the study of Medieval Indian History has
so far eluded the attention and interest of Indian historians. Several series of
documents preserved in the Turkish National Archives (Başbakanlik Devlet
Arşivi) in Istanbul, especially Mühimme Defterleri, Name-i Hümayun
Defterleri and Tapu Tahrir Defterleri, can yield significant dividends for
understanding many little known or even unknown episodes of India’s
medieval past. This article explores the nature of the documents available in
the Turkish archives and underscores the utility of some of these documents
for unravelling certain unknown facets of the journey of the Indian pilgrims,
including the ladies of Emperor Akbar’s harem, to the Hijaz along with the
Mughal Hajj caravans in the 1570s. The article also examines four select
documents available in this archive. Three of these documents furnish so far
unknown evidence on the history of medieval Gujarat, Kerala and Ahmad
Nagar respectively, while the fourth provides significant information regarding
Mughal Emperor Farrukhsiyar’s relations with the Ottoman Empire.
I
At the height of their power, the Ottoman Sultans ruled over an
intercontinental empire spread over Asia, Africa and Europe. In fact, the
territories of the empire now comprise as many as 22 modern nations. Such
* Department of Medieval & Modern History, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, India.
E-mail: naim.farooqi@rediffmail.com
The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

Sage Publications  Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC/
Melbourne
DOI: 10.1177/0971945816687687
An Overview of Ottoman Archival Documents  193
a large empire naturally produced an enormous amount of state documents

for whose preservation the Ottoman government devised a method that
was faithfully observed by the central as well as provincial functionaries.
For instance, every piece of information pertaining to matters of state was
recorded on a daily basis either on registers or papers. ‘These registers
and documents’, writes a modern Turkish historian,
were put into sealed and tagged bags at the end of each month. The monthly
bags accumulated, and at the end of each year were put into leather covered
boxes, tagged with the name of the office and the year they belonged to. They
were then stored in specially constructed buildings for future reference. All
these documents were guarded day and night. Whenever there was a need to
send a set of documents or registers from the provinces to the Porte or vice
versa, they were accompanied by a contingent.1
The documents were originally stored in two buildings known as Hazine-i

Amire (the royal treasury) and the Enderune-i Hümayun (private apartments
of the Sultan) situated within the Topkapı Palace complex (residence of
the Ottoman Sultans till the mid-nineteenth century). In 1845, a separate
department Hazine-i Evrak (the treasury of papers) was established to
preserve and catalogue these documents in a systematic manner and, four
years later, a separate building was built for this department by the order
of Sultan Abdul Mejid I (r. 1839–61). The classification and cataloguing
of the documents received further impetus with the establishment of the
Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni (Ottoman Historical Society) in 1911 and the
launching of the Society’s journal Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuasi
the same year. In 1927, the Hazine-i Evrak became a part of the Prime
Minister’s Office and was renamed Hazine-i Evrak Müdür Muavinligi
(Deputy Directorate of Treasury of Papers).
In order to further improve archival services in the country Hazine-i
Evrak Müdür Muavinligi and the Directorate of Documents in Ankara
were merged and a new department, Başvekalet Evrak ve Hazine-i Evrak
Müdürlüğü (Directorate of Prime Ministry Documents and Treasury of
Documents), came into existence in 1933. Subsequently, the Deputy
1
Ilhan, ‘An Overview’: 23. For another account of the methods of keeping and preserving
the documents and registers in the Ottoman archives, see Uzunçarşili, Osmanli Devletinde
Merkez ve Bahriye Teşkilati: 76–110.
The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

194  N. R. Farooqi
Directorate of Treasury of papers was given the status of the General

Directorate of the Prime Ministry Archives and was renamed Başvekalet
Arşiv Umum Müdürlüğü (1943). Another step towards the reorganisation
of archival administration was taken in 1984 with the establishment of
the General Directorate of State Archives and the subsequent attachment
of the Istanbul archives with the new directorate.2 This Department was
commissioned to ‘control, preserve, and arrange archival materials according
to archival methods and techniques, and to carry out scientific and technical
activities for the assessment of these records by the state, science, and other
bodies and individuals’.3 Accordingly, in 2013, the Başvekalet Arşivi was
shifted to a new building situated in the Kağithane district of Istanbul.
Equipped with modern and advanced research facilities, the new facility
has a research room (araştirma odasi) with approximately 75 computer
terminals allowing the researchers to search the required documents by
using the catalogue software of the archives. A substantial number of the
documents preserved in the archives have now been digitised that can also
be accessed through these computer stations. If the required documents are
not available in digitised format, the patrons are permitted to consult the
original documents in the document viewing room (inceleme odasi).
The first catalogue of the holdings of the Ottoman archives, presently
known as Başbakanlik Osmanli Arşivi/Başbakanlik Devlet Arşivi, was
published in 1955.4 Several other catalogues have since then appeared
and have proved to be extremely useful tools for the students and scholars
of Ottoman history.5 The catalogues of other major repositories of the
Turkish documents, for instance, the Directorate of Republic Archives
(established in 1976), the Directorate of Turkish General Staff Military
History and Strategic Studies as well as the holdings of the Turkish
Historical Society and the National Library (Ankara) are also under
2
Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry General Directorate of State Archives, Ankara:
3–4.
3
Binark, ‘The Importance and Value of Archives’: 262.
4
Sertoğlu, Muhteva Bakimindan Başvekalet Arşivi. Prior to this, two volumes of the
catalogue of the holdings of the Topkapı Palace Archives (records of the court and treasury
of the Ottoman Sultans and their family) had appeared. See Oz, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi
Arşivi Kılavuzu. Also see Oz, ‘Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivinde’: 49–56.
5
Çetin, Başbakanlik Arşivi Kılavuzu; Genç et al., Başbakanlik Osmanli Arşivi Rahberi;
Kuçuk et al., Başbakanlik Osmanli Arşivi; Aktaş, Osmanli Arşivi Daire. Also see Binark, A
Short History; Aktaş and Binark, Ottoman archives; Binark, ‘Bizde Devlet’: 57–66.
 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

preparation. The last named contains a large number of court records

(sicillat) that are invaluable for the study of the ‘affairs of towns people
and villagers and deal with almost every aspect of the lives of the subjects
be personal status, taxes, loans, sales, price regulations, complaints,
flight or theft’.6
The Başbakanlik Devlet Arşivi originally contained the records
of the Divan-i Hümayun (the Imperial Council) and the Bab-i Asafi
(Office of the Grand Vizier) only. Subsequently, records of other
offices of the Ottoman government notably the records of the Bab-i
Defteri (Department of Finance) were brought to the archives, which
are estimated to have in its possession approximately 150 million
documents now.7 These can be broadly classified into two categories:
Evrak (papers) and Defatir (registers). Evrak are individual documents
consisting mostly of fermans (royal edicts), berats and menşurs (royal
diplomas and patents of ranks and offices) issued in the name of the
Ottoman Sultans, papers of various offices of the Ottoman government,
minutes of the meetings, reports of the ambassadors, title deeds issued
by the courts, and so on, and their total number has been estimated
at approximately 40 million.8 A substantial number of these papers
have now been classified and catalogued. These catalogues have been
named after the head of the committee that prepared them. The first of
these, Ali Emiri Tasnifi (compilation) appeared in 1921 and comprised
of 180700 documents. It was followed by Ibnulemin Tasnifi (1921),
Cevdet Tasnifi (1935) and Feket Tasnifi (1937) that classified 47,145,
225,506 and 4,642 papers respectively.9 Many other catalogues of these
6
Güçlü, ‘Will Untapped Ottoman Archives’: 37. For an excellent account of the Turkish
court records and their significance for the writing of Ottoman history, see Akgündüz, Şeriye
Sicilleri. Also see, Singer, ‘Tapu Tahrir Defterleri’: 95–125.
7
Ibid.: 35. Also see Ilhan, ‘An Overview’: 22. Çetin, however, says that there are more
than 100 million documents in the archives. See Çetin, Başbakanlik Arşivi Kılavuzu: xi.
8
Shaw, ‘Archival Sources for Ottoman History’: 4. Also see Reychman and Zajaczkowski,
Handbook of Ottoman–Turkish Diplomatics: 24–31. For an excellent account of Ottoman
paleography and diplomatics, see Kütükoğlu, Osmanli Belgelerinin Dili.
9
Çetin, Başbakanlik Arşivi Kılavuzu: 7–12. It may not be, however, out of place to mention
here that serious efforts for cataloguing the archives began in the 1930s when it became
known that two wagon loads of documents from the Başbakanlik Arşivi were purchased by
a Bulgarian paper mill for recycling. See Ilhan, ‘An Overview’: 22. There is also evidence
that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Ottoman archival practices were far from
efficient resulting in loss of many valuable documents.

papers have since then been published and have proved to be a boon for
generations of researchers.10
There are approximately 50,000 registers in the Başbakanlik
Devlet Arşivi.11 They have been classified according to subject matter,
geographical location of their origin, chronological order and departmental
provenance and can be broadly divided into two categories: political,
comprising orders and decrees issued by the imperial council in the
name of the Sultan as well as the documents received from the provincial
and local officials and financial, containing statistical data pertaining to
Aukaf (pious foundations), Timar (fief), population, land tenure, revenue
regulations and so on. Among the important series of registers are, for
instance, Şikayet Defterleri (orders issued in response to complaints against
provincial officials, 208 volumes running from 1649 to 1813), Ahkam
Defterleri (orders and decrees dispatched to provincial officials, arranged
in geographical sequence, 530 volumes, 1742–1914), Cizye Defterleri
(statistical registers concerning poll tax paid by the non-Muslim subjects
of the empire, 418 volumes (1551–1840), Düvel-i Ecnebiye Defterleri
(dealing with matters concerning foreign states, 107 volumes, 1567–1913),
Gayr Müslim Cemaatlere Defterler (orders regarding the rights and
privileges of the non-Muslims living in the Ottoman empire, 18 volumes,
1837–1914), Kilise Defterleri (orders regarding the construction and repair
of churches, orphanages and schools for the non-Muslim subjects of the
empire, 7 volumes, 1861–1921), Ayniyat Defterleri (registers containing
the correspondence of the Grand Vizier with foreign states and provincial
officials, 1561 volumes, 1812–79), Rüus Defterleri (registers containing
appointment and promotion letters of minor state officials, 261 volumes,
1704–1903), Tahvil Defterleri (registers documenting appointment letters
of ministers, governor generals, provincial judges, fief holders and other
high officials of the state, 85 volumes, 1615–1897), and so on.12
10
For a detailed account of these catalogues, see Çetin, Başbakanlik Arşivi Kılavuzu:
12–47. Also, see note 5 above and Shaw, ‘Archival Sources for Ottoman History’: 4–6.
11
Lewis, ‘The Ottoman Archives’: 19. According to a 2013 report of the Ottoman State
Archives approximately 300,000 registers are preserved in the Istanbul archives.
12
For a detailed account of the registers preserved in the archives, see Çetin, Başbakanlik
Arşivi Kılavuzu: 48–111. Also see Lewis, ‘The Ottoman Archives as a Source for the History
of the Arab Lands’: 142–44; idem., ‘Studies in the Ottoman Archives—1: 470–71; idem., The
Ottoman Archives as a Source for Jewish History: 2–4; Shaw, ‘Archival Sources’: 1–3.

II
However, the series of registers most likely to yield significant dividends
for the study of medieval Indian history are Mühimme Defterleri (registers
of important affairs, 263 volumes, running from 1553 to 1905), Name-i
Hümayun Defterleri (registers of royal correspondence, 17 volumes,
1687–1917) and Tapu Tahrir Defterleri (registers of cadastral surveys,
1080 volumes, 1431–1873–74).13 Several Mühimme registers have also
been published by the Başbakanlik Devlet Arşivi Genel Müdürlüğü
(General Directorate of Archives).14
The Mühimme Defterleri is not a collection of original Ottoman
documents but consists of the copies of fermans of the Ottoman Sultans
addressed to the provincial, military, judicial and religious officials in
all parts of the empire.15 Letters written by the Ottoman Sultans to the
Sherifs of Makka16 and other foreign potentates during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries are also recorded in this series.17 Many Mühimme
volumes have either been lost or are preserved in other archives in Turkey
and Europe.18 The registers available in the Başbakanlik Devlet Arşivi
13
According to Genç, there are 419 volumes of Mühimme Defterleri covering the period
1553–1915 and 18 volumes of Name-i Hümayun Defterleri running from 1687 to 1918
in the Başbakanlik Archives. See Genç, Başbakanlik Osmanli Arşivi Rehberi: 7, 44. A
set of 250 volumes of Tapu Tahrir registers are preserved in the Tapu ve Kadastro Umum
Müdürlügu Arşivi (Archives of the General Survey Directorate) in Ankara. According to a
recent estimate, over 1500 volumes of these registers are preserved in Istanbul and Ankara.
See Coşgel, ‘Ottoman Tax Registers’: 88.
14
For instance, Mühimme Defterleri, vols. 3 (1558–60), 5 (1565–66), 6 (1564–65), 7
(1567–69) and 12 (1570–72) have been published by the General Directorate of Archives
from Ankara. See Faroqhi and Fleet, The Ottoman Empire: 599.
15
There is, however, practically no difference between the original fermans and their
copies found in the Mühimme Defterleri. See Heyd, Ottoman Documents on Palestine:
11–12. For the format of the Ottoman fermans and imperial letters, see Reychman and
Zajaczkowski, Handbook: 135–52.
16
For Sherifs of Makka, see De Gaury, Rulers of Mecca. Also see Faroqhi, Pilgrims
and Sultans.
17
See, for example, Mühimme Defterleri (henceforth MD), vol. 6, f. 166, Letter to the
king of Portugal; MD, vol. 64, ff. 71–72, letter to Queen Elizabeth of England; MD, vol. 7,
ff. 90–92, letter to the king of Sumatra.
18
The earliest volume of Mühimme Defterleri discovered so far is preserved in the
Topkapı Sarayı Archives, Istanbul. Listed as no. 12321 in the archives, it contains fermans
issued between November–December 1544 and April–May 1545. This volume, consisting
of 231 folios and 557 fermans, has recently been published. See Sahillioğlu, Topkapı Sarayı

are estimated to contain copies of approximately 200,000 fermans.19

They are recorded in chronological order without any classification at
all. Thus copies of fermans addressed to the Kadi of Edirne, the captain
of the Alexandria fleet and the governor general of Rumeli are copied on
the same folio along with a ferman to Vizier Piyale Pasha.20
The fermans generally consist of four parts. The first part commences
with the name or the designation of the addressee and ends with the words
ehüküm ki (order to) or name-i hümayun ki (imperial letter to). If the ferman
was addressed to more than one official, the name and rank of the senior
official always precede that of the junior functionary. This is followed by
a succinct summary of the incoming communication. Since most of these
are not extant, the Ottoman practice of summarising the incoming reports
in the fermans is of considerable value to historians. The third part of the
ferman narrates the Sultan’s reaction to the report concerned. Consisting
of one or at the most two sentences, this part begins with the phrase imdi
(now, this being so) or eyle olsa (matters being so) and concludes with
emr edup (I have commanded). Occasionally this clause also ends with
an expression such as rıza-i şerifim yokdir (my noble consent is not given
to) or icazat-i şerifim olmuşdir (my noble permission has been granted).
The last part of the ferman begins with the words buyurdum ki (I have
commanded that) or gerek dir ki (it is imperative that) and conveys in
precise words the Sultan’s instruction to the addressee regarding the
execution of his commands. The ferman concludes with a firm directive to
Müzesi. Many other Mühimme registers have been published by the General Directorate of
Archives. See, for instance, 3 Numarali Mü himme Defteri 966–968/1558–1560. Another
volume preserved in the Topkapı Sarayı Library contains fermans issued between Muharram
959 and Muharram 960/December 1551–December 1552 (Koğuşlar, 888). According to
Professor Shaw, this register contains documents concerned with the department of religious
endowments (Aukaf) and therefore cannot be placed in the category of Mühimme registers.
Likewise, two Mühimme registers containing documents from May 1562 to July 1564 and
December 1674 to November 1675, respectively, are preserved in the National Library in
Vienna. See Shaw, ‘Archival Sources for Ottoman History’: 3. On the other hand, 13 registers
included in Mühimme series are really Rüus Defterleri. A few Mühimme registers have
survived only in fragments. They have been placed in a separate series known as Mühimme
Zeylli Defterleri (14 volumes, 1572–1746). Çetin, Başbakanlik Arşivi Kılavuzu, 57. There
are 10 volumes of secret Mühimme registers (1788–1877) and another 15 volumes of secret
Mühimme registers dealing with Egypt (1707–1914). See ibid.: 59–60.
19
Heyd, Ottoman Documents on Palestine: 8.
20
MD, vol. 7, f. 259, ferman nos. 723, 725, 726, 724.

the official concerned to take action immediately. Sometimes the addressee

is warned of dire consequences in the event of his failure to carry out the
royal command.21 In some fermans, the same fact, especially the royal
command, is mentioned more than once, though not in the same words.
These repetitions are of great help to the historians for deciphering badly
copied fermans.
The name and designation of a person appear in the text of the ferman
only once. Thereafter the person concerned is alluded to by phrases
such as mezbur, merkum or müşarileyh (aforementioned). However, the
person deputed to carry the ferman to its destination is rarely mentioned
in the body of the ferman. Certain notes found above the text provide this
information, which identify the messenger whose name is mentioned along
with the word verildi (given to). The fermans addressed to high officials
like the provincial governors were given to their representatives at the
court known as Kethüda or Kapu Kethüdasi.22 Sometimes the ferman was
handed over to the Çavuş (steward) attached to the Sublime Porte. In many
instances, the ferman was given neither to the agent of the addressee nor
to the attendant of the court but to the messenger of the reporting official.
More often than not the ferman was handed over to the petitioner or the
complainant himself whose name was mentioned in the ferman along
with the word darende (bearer). The notes above the text also specify, in
most cases, the date on which either the ferman was handed over to the
messenger or the date on which it was copied in the register.23 This was,
21
See, for example, MD, vol. 28, f. 40, ferman no. 99, 8 October 1576, addressed to
the Sancak Bey (governor) and Kadi of Safed (Palestine). The ferman concludes with the
warning: ‘If it becomes known to us that the matter has been handled in a manner contrary
to our noble command, then assuredly it will not end with your deposition, but you will
also be most severely punished.’ For a similar kind of warning, see MD, vol. 31, f. 184,
ferman no. 411, 22 August 1577, addressed to the Kadis of Mansura and Quneitra. Quoted
by Lewis, The Ottoman Archives as a Source for Jewish History: 33–34.
22
Kethüda or Kapu Kethüdasi was the permanent representatives of the Beylerbeyıs
(Governor Generals) and Sancak beyıs (Governor) at the Ottoman court. They served as
the main link between the central government and their masters and kept them informed of
the happenings at the court.
23
Many documents contain two dates above the text. Among these, the first was the date
of registration of the fermans in the Mühimme register, while the second was the date when
the ferman was handed over to the messenger. See Heyd, Ottoman Documents on Palestine:
25–28. Sometimes the date was mentioned at the bottom of the document; see MD, vol.
62, f 205, ferman no. 456.

however, not always true for in many instances the ferman was copied
in the register a long time after it was drafted in the office of the Beylikçi
Efendi (Secretary of the Imperial Council) whose department was entrusted
with the responsibility of drafting and recording the fermans in Mühimme
registers. Some fermans were duplicated and dispatched to other officials
for information and speedy implementation of the Sultan’s orders. Notes
written at the bottom of such fermans identify the officials.24 The scribes
employed for drafting and copying the Mühimme documents were called
Mühimme Nüvis and were required by law to maintain the confidentiality
of the documents they drafted or copied. Top secret fermans were written
by the Beylekçi Efendi himself or under his personal supervision.25
The language of the fermans is Turkish, the style simple and
straightforward, but the handwriting of many of the scribes who copied the
fermans in the Mühimme volumes leaves much to be desired. Diacritical
marks are very often missing. The script is therefore difficult to read and
decipherment of the fermans is a time-consuming task.26 Notwithstanding
this handicap, the importance of the Mühimme Defterleri can hardly be
exaggerated. Professor Heyd has aptly remarked that ‘no similar wealth of
documents has come down to us from any other state of the Muslim Near
and Middle East, and even among the treasures of the Ottoman archives with
their millions of documents this Register occupies a central place’.27
The Name-i Hümayun Defterleri is a collection of 17 registers/volumes
containing the letters that the Ottoman Sultans wrote to and received from
the rulers and dignitaries of foreign states between 1687 and 1917. The
first four volumes, however, contain copies of agreements and treaties
concluded by the Ottoman Empire with foreign states between 1699 and
1791. The Sultans’ mandates addressed to the Grand Vizier regarding
matters related to foreign affairs are also copied in these volumes. The
outgoing letters, in the remaining 13 volumes, have been invariably
copied in the original Turkish language while the incoming letters, mostly
from the Persian speaking world, including India, have been recorded in
24
See, for example, MD, vol. 43, f. 54, ferman no. 107; MD, vol. 39, f. 160, ferman no.
349, etc.
25
Faroqhi, ‘Mühimme Deterleri’: 470–72. Also see Ilhan, ‘An Overview’: 24–25.
26
For various scripts used in Ottoman documents, see Raychman and Zajaczkowski, A
Handbook: 106–28. On problems of Ottoman paleography, see Elker, Divan Rakamlari;
Shaw, ‘Cairo’s Archives’: 59–72.
27
Heyd, Ottoman Documents on Palestine: xv.

Persian language. In most cases, the Turkish translation of an incoming

Persian epistle has also been appended to the original. A clear distinction
between the outgoing and incoming letters has been made by the scribes by
designating the letters written by the Sultan as Name-i Hümayun or Name-i
Şerif (auspicious or noble letter) and the letters received by him as simply
Name (letter). The notes above the text of the incoming letters specify
in most cases the date on which the letter in question was copied in the
register, whereas the notes found at the bottom of the text of the outgoing
letters probably indicated the date of either the composition or the dispatch
of the epistle to its destination. In many cases, the speech delivered by
the incoming ambassadors at the time of their meeting with the Ottoman
officials has been copied verbatim in these registers.28 The letters written
to the Ottoman Grand Vizier by the foreign dignitaries as well as the list
of gifts sent by the foreign rulers to the Ottoman Sultans have also been
copied in these registers.29 The epistles exchanged between the Ottoman
Sultans and their Mughal counterparts in the eighteenth century as well as
the petitions of Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah I and his successor Nasir Jung and
the letters exchanged between Tipu Sultan (r. 1772–99) and the Ottoman
Sultans Abdul Hamid I (r. 1774–89) and Selim III (r. 1789–1807) are
also copied in these registers. A copy of the Mughal ambassador Saiyid
Ataullah’s report outlining the purpose of his mission to Istanbul and an
account of the envoy’s interview with the Teşrifat Effendi is also available
in Volume 8 of the Name-i Hümayun Defterleri.30
The letters, broadly speaking, consist of four parts. The first part
generally commences with praise of God, the Prophet and his companions.
28
See, for instance, the copies of the speech delivered by Saiyid Muhammad Quli Beg, the
envoy of Ghayeb Muhammad Khan, the ruler of Turkistan (Name-i Hümayun Defterleri, vol.
6: 293) and the speech given by the Indian ambassador Saiyid Ataullah (Name–i Hümayun
Defterleri, vol. 8: 604).
29
Ibid., vol. 6: 454 (letter of a Russian dignitary to the Ottoman Grand Vizier); ibid.:
295 (gifts brought by the envoy of Ghayeb Muhammad Khan); ibid., vol. 6: 297 (presents
delivered by the ambassador of Abul Faiz Saiyid Muhammad Bahadur Khan, the Khan of
Bukhara, avail Shaban, 1125 (12–21 August 1713)).
30
Teşrifat Effendi, also known as Teşrifatçi, was the master of ceremonies of the Ottoman
court. He was responsible for organising royal ceremonies for important occasions, including
the reception of ambassadors and receiving presents from foreign princes. See Ilhan, ‘An
Overview’: 28–29. For a detailed account of the Ottoman diplomatic establishment in the
eighteenth century, see Yeşil, Aydinlanma Çağinda Bir Osmanli Katibi. Also see Naff,
‘Reform and the Conduct’: 295–315; Unat, Osmanli Sefirleri ve Sifaretnameleri.

This is followed by a string of titles, for the addressee, usually covering five
or seven lines of the letter along with the offering of salutations and good
wishes. The second part refers to the receipt of the letter under reply, dilates
briefly upon the incoming letter and expresses the writer’s appreciation,
and occasionally displeasure, at the contents of the letter. The third part
carries the main message and reflects the tenor of the relationship between
the monarchs concerned. More often than not, this segment also described
in detail the writer’s power, the extent of territories under his control,
the might of the armies commanded by him and his recent victories and
achievements. The concluding part of the epistle includes the name and
title of the writer’s ambassador along with a prayer for his early dismissal,
dua (benediction), request for continuance of friendly relations between
the two states and ends with a short invocation generally in Arabic.31
The Tapu Tahrir Defterleri, also known as Defter-i Hakani (imperial
registers), are arguably the most important single source for the study of
the demographic, economic and social history of the Ottoman empire.
Regarded as ‘the most precious possession of the Turkish archives’,32
these registers were compiled between sixteenth and nineteenth centuries
and contain a comprehensive survey of the taxpaying subjects and taxable
resources of mainly the provinces under direct Ottoman rule. The surveys
were conducted from time to time, in most cases immediately after the
conquest of a new territory, under the supervision of Nişanci33 (chief
scribe) and were kept under the custody of Tahrir Emini (land surveyor).
Registers containing surveys of an entire Vilayet (province) are few and
far between and instead there are separate set of registers for each Sancak
or Liva (sub-province) of a Vilayet.34
31
Although writers on Insha (epistolography) suggest that a royal letter should consist of
14 parts in case of khitabi letters (letters written in the first instance) and 17 parts in case of
jawabi letters (letters written in reply), they could be conveniently reduced to four parts. For
the structure of a royal letter, see Islam, A Calendar of Documents: 9–17. Also see Muhiuddin,
Chancellery and Persian Epistolography; Zilli, ‘Development of Insha Literature’: 309–49.
32
Barkan, ‘Research on the Ottoman Fiscal Surveys’: 163.
33
Nişanci was the chief secretary to the Grand Vizier and a member of the Ottoman
imperial council. One of his duties was to inscribe the Sultan’s imperial tuğra (cipher) over
all imperial letters–patents.
34
For instance, there are 18 registers for the Liva of Alleppo in the Vilayet of Syria
prepared between 1518 and 1874. On the other hand, there are only three registers each
for the Vilayets of Basra and Baghdad. See Lewis, ‘Ottoman Archives as a Source for the
History of the Arab Lands’: 149–51.

The registers generally begin with a royal decree ordering their

compilation followed by a Desturul amal or Kanunname35 (code of
regulations) outlining the rules for the assessment and collection of
revenue in the territory concerned. A detailed survey of the administrative
headquarters of the Liva follows stating the name of every adult male
living in every mahalle (locality) and even each zukak (street) of the town.
The inhabitants were listed according to their marital status (as hane, a
married man with his family or mücerred, a bachelor) as well as the religion
professed by them; persons exempted from payment of taxes, either
because of physical disability or religious position, were also identified.
A similar list of adult males residing in each nahiye (district) and karye
(village) of the Liva was recorded in the registers. The registers also indicate
the revenue resources earmarked for the Sultan, provincial officials, fiefs
and pious foundations in each administrative unit. The account of each unit
ends with a set of guidelines for the assessment and collection of agricultural
taxes, including the duties to be levied on livestock, orchards, fruits and
vegetable gardens as well as manufacturing establishments.36
Of particular interest to Indian historians are the kanunnames copied,
as mentioned above, at the beginning of these registers. The kanunname
of port towns of Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, for instance, provide
elaborate information regarding the variety of goods brought to these towns
from India. A case in point is the kanunname of the customs house of
Basra, which not only lists the commodities coming to the port from India
and other Middle Eastern countries but also delineates the revenue rates
the port authorities were expected to levy on these goods.37 The Basra
35
The Kanunnames were a set of laws codified by the Ottoman Sultans from time to time.
They were either issued in response to specific circumstances or at the time of the survey
of a newly conquered area. The latter by and large incorporated the regulations prevalent
during the previous regimes with suitable changes necessitated by the establishment of the
Ottoman rule in the region concerned. See Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: 70–75.
36
Lewis, ‘The Ottoman Archives as a Source for the History of the Arab Lands’: 144–55;
idem., ‘Studies in Ottoman Archives’: 469–501; Coşgel, ‘Ottoman Tax Registers’: 87–100.
Also see Inalcik and Quataret, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire:
133–39; Ilhan, ‘The Process of Ottoman Cadastral Surveys’: 17–25; Halasi-Kun, ‘Some
Notes on Ottoman Mufassal Defter’: 163–66; Murphy, ‘Ottoman Census Methods’: 115–26;
Singer, ‘Tapu tahrir defterleri’: 95–125; Pamuk, A Monetary History; and several others.
37
See, for instance, Tapu Tahrir Defterleri, No. 282, Basra (959/1551–52), ff. 2–6, 213,
290; Tapu Tahrir Defterleri, No. 534, Basra (982/4–75), ff. 2–13. Also, see Basra Tahrir
Defter (Maliyeden Müdevver), No. 5461, 1101/1690, ff. 104–07.

Tahrir Defter no. 5461, compiled in 1690, enumerates, besides spices,

sugar, coffee, iron and steel, drugs, dyes so on, as many as 11 varieties
of destar (muslin), 5 kinds of kutni (a mixed fabric of cotton and silk),
4 sorts of atlas (satin), 10 varieties of alaca (stripped fabric), 9 types of
bafte (a mixed fabric of cotton and velvet), 2 varieties of chit (chintz) and
4 brands of bezle (costumes) coming in from India.38 Two other Tahrir
Defters of the same port indicate that its custom house was expected to
collect as much as 1,394,799 akçes39 from the goods coming from India
and Hormuz in 1551–52 and 1,150,583 akçes from Indian merchandise
alone in 1574–75.40 Before reaching Basra, the Indian ships had to anchor
at the port of Al-Qatif. It has been estimated that in 1574–75 an amount of
135,232 akçe was expected to be realised from Indian cotton and cotton
goods that used to disembark here.41 These figures can be safely used to
make a rough estimate of the total volume of trade between India and the
Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth century. There is evidence that India trade
with Basra continued to flourish during the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. This is attested by the fact that in 1690, despite widespread
plague in the region, approximately 16 or 17 ships arrived in Basra from
India. Thirty years later, 11 ships from India traded with Basra.42 These
ships, as usual, brought to Basra a variety of cotton fabrics, cotton yarn,
chintz and Kashmir shawls besides spices, rice, sugar, chinaware, iron,
tin and so on. It has also been estimated that in 1785 Indian goods worth
roughly 5 million ghuruş were exported to Istanbul via Basra.43 Needless
to say, the utility of the Tapu Tahrir Defterleri for studying the economic
history not only of the Ottoman empire but medieval India as well can be
38
Ibid., ff. 104–05.
39
Akçe was a silver coin and carried considerable value during the Ottoman period. One
akçe was equivalent to one day’s pay of a soldier. See Redhouse, A Turkish and English
Lexicon: 164.
40
Tapu Tahrir Defterleri, No. 282 (1551–52), f. 13, 67; Tapu Tahrir Defterleri, No. 534
(1574–75), f. 15. Also see Veinstein, ‘Commercial Relations between India and the Ottoman
Empire’: 95–115.
41
Inalcik and Quataret, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire: 350.
42
Abdullah, Merchants, Mamluks, and Murder: 60–62. I am grateful to my son, Tausif
Farooqi, for making a copy of this book available to me.
43
Ibid.: 58. Ghuruş or kuruş was a silver coin; see Faroqhi and Fleet, The Ottoman
Empire as a World Power: 596. Abdullah writes that according to a very rough estimate the
value of one ghuruş can be taken to be equivalent to one rupee. See Merchants, Mamluks
and Murder: xv.

hardly over-emphasised and despite recent scepticism on the part of

some historians regarding the ‘limitations and pitfalls’ of these registers,
one cannot but agree with Professor Metin Coşgel that ‘it is difficult
to imagine research on Ottoman history of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries that does not in some way rely on this information’.44
In course of my research in the Başbakanlik Devlet Arşivi, I was able
to identify a fairly large number of documents from the aforementioned
three series of registers dealing directly or indirectly with medieval Indian
history. Of these, a set of six documents copied in the Mühimme Defterleri
are of special interest to the students and scholars of Mughal history. They
were issued by Sultan Murad III (r. 1574–95) and cover a time span of
seven years from 1578 to 1585. The first and second documents, which
are practically identical with minor modifications, are addressed to the
authorities of the cities of Makka and Madina.45 The next three documents
are imperial letters written to Sherif of Makka.46 The last document,
dated 17–26 August 1585, is addressed to the Governor of the port city
of Jidda.47 These documents deal with the activities of Indian pilgrims in
Makka and Madina, including the ladies of Emperor Akbar’s household,
who had accompanied the Mughal Hajj caravans to the Hijaz between
1577 and 1580. They repeatedly refer to the overcrowding in the Holy
Cities owing to the protracted stay of a large number of Indian pilgrims,
the shortage of the supply of essential commodities in these cities and
the consequent hardship being faced by their residents. The documents
also allude to the alleged indulgence of the Indian pilgrims in anti-Shari’a
activities. The documents clearly indicate the serious note that the Ottoman
government had taken of the prolonged stay of the Indian pilgrims and
the ensuing problems arising out of their unwillingness to return to their
home land. The Sultan, therefore, gave firm instructions to the Sherif of
Makka and the authorities of Makka and Madina not to permit those who
44
Coşgel, ‘Ottoman Tax Registers’: 88.
45
MD, vol. 35, f. 292, ferman no. 740, 19 Shaban 986 (21 October 1578); ibid., ferman no.
741, no date. Since this document is copied in the Mühimme register along with document
no. 1 on the same folio, it can be surmised that this document was also handed over to the
messenger on the same date, 21 October 1578.
46
MD, vol. 39, f. 160, ferman no. 349, 25 Zil Hajj 987 ( 13 February 1580); ibid., f. 238,
ferman no. 471, 19 Muharram 988 (16 March 1580); MD, vol. 43, f. 54, ferman no. 107,
14 Rajab 988 (26 August 1580).
47
MD, vol. 58, f. 260, ferman no. 659, Avail Ramzan 993 (17–26 August 1585).

have come from India, whether the ladies of Akbar and their servants and
appendages, stay longer than required after they have performed the rites
of the pilgrimage. The authorities were also directed to take appropriate
measures to prevent anybody from acting in a manner which is contrary
the Shri’a. The Sultan also took exception to the distribution of sadaqat
(alms) sent by Akbar in the Haram Sherif and ordered the concerned
officials to stop the dispensing of alms forthwith.
We know that in a bid to project himself as a pious ruler Akbar had
started the practice of sending annual Hajj caravans to the Hijaz. The desire
of some ladies of his harem to go on pilgrimage was another motivating
factor behind this venture.48 An imperial edict was issued promising to
pay from the state exchequer the travelling expenses of anybody who
might intend to perform a pilgrimage to the sacred places.49 A special ship
was arranged to carry the pilgrims to their destination. The first Mughal
caravan, accompanied by the royal ladies, left Surat in October 1576;
they reached their destination in time to participate in the pilgrimage of
the year 1577. Four more Hajj caravans along with lavish subventions
and gifts for the dignitaries of the Holy Cities were dispatched by Akbar
between 1577 and 1580. Akbar’s ladies and their companions stayed in the
Hijaz for four years; they performed the Hajj four times before returning
to India in 1582.50
Akbar’s predilection for the Hajj had a definite political implication
as well. Most early modern Muslim rulers are known to have been eager
to patronise the Holy Cities by sending lavish subventions, constructing
hospices and hostels for poor pilgrims and sponsoring the Hajj of their
48
Abu’l Fazl, Akbar Nama, vol. II: 205–06.
49
Ibid.: 492. Also see Badauni, Muntakahab al-Tawarikh, vol. II: 472.
50
The Mughal party was led by Akbar’s paternal aunt and the author of Humayun
Nama, Gulbadan Begum. It included several senior members of the Mughal harem, namely
Gulnar Agha (Babur’s wife), Salima Sultan Begum (Akbar’s wife), Sultanam Begum (the
emperor’s aunt and Mirza Askari’s wife) and Akbar’s two cousins, Haji Begum and Gulzar
Begum (Mirza Kamran’s daughters). Among the younger members of the Mughal family
were Salima Khanum and Umm-i Kulsum Khanum, Gulbadan Begum’s stepdaughter and
granddaughter, respectively. The party also included many reliable servants of the Mughal
family, such as Bibi Safiya, Bibi Saro-qad and Shaham Agha. According to a modern scholar,
‘the exceptional character of this event—a Hajj of women, initiated by a woman, and to
a large extent organized by women—remains an unusual happening in the annals of high
Mughal history’. Lal, Domesticity and Power: 66–67. Also, see ibid.: 208–10. For details of
Hajj caravans sent by Akbar, see Farooqi, Mughal–Ottoman Relations: 18–20, 113–19.

subjects in order to legitimise their rule in the eyes of Muslims at large.

Suraiya Faroqhi has admirably demonstrated in her book how the
Ottomans legitimised their rule and integrated their empire by protecting
pilgrims, sponsoring Hajj caravans and keeping Makka and Madina
accessible to all Muslims at all costs.51 Faroqhi has also described how
various Ottoman Sultans and members of the Ottoman family vied with
each other in sponsoring the rebuilding of the Ka’ba and the great mosques
of Makka and Madina, and spent huge sums on providing soup kitchens
and establishing pious foundations for the upkeep of the Holy Cities.52
Akbar was no exception to this rule and seems to have made a deliberate
attempt to step into the shoes of the Ottomans. He too built a hospice
in Makka.53 His policy of sponsoring Hajj caravans from India, which
according to Nizam al-Din Ahmad was modelled on the Hajj caravans
of Egypt and Syria,54 constituted a major threat to the Ottoman Sultan’s
monopoly of arranging Hajj caravans and was therefore not likely to be
ignored by the Ottoman government.
Akbar’s policy of sponsoring Hajj caravans was perhaps aimed at
serving a vital political purpose at home also. A year before the departure
of the royal ladies for Hijaz, Akbar had established the famous Ibadat
Khana (the house of worship) in Fatehpur Sikri where representatives of
various religions were invited to participate in free and frank discussions
on issues of religious, social and legal import. The debates in the Ibadat
Khana, according to Abdul Qadir Badauni, more often than not assumed
a distinctly anti-Islamic posture and seem to have generated considerable
popular resentment against the emperor’s eclectic interests. Something
dramatic was therefore needed at this juncture to divert the attention of the
people and ‘reinforce the Islamic face of the empire’. The appointment of a
Mir Hajj and dispatch of annual official Hajj caravans was indeed a clever
ploy to offset anti-government sentiments in the Mughal dominion.55
After 1581, Akbar suddenly stopped sending the Hajj caravans as well
as annual sadaqat to Makka. None of the Mughal chronicles explain the
cause of Akbar’s total estrangement from the Hijaz after 1581. It seems
51
Faroqhi, Pilgrims and Sultans, Chs. 2–7.
52
Ibid.: 92–126.
53
Çelebi, Seyahetnamesi, vol. IX: 772–73, quoted by Faroqhi, Pilgrims and Sultans:
131.
54
Ahmad, Tabaqat-i Akbari, vol. II: 472.
55
Lal, Domesticity and Power: 211–12.

that some untoward event had taken place or certain new communication
had reached the Mughal court after 1581 that led to the abrupt suspension
of the policy of sending annual Hajj caravans to Makka.
The documents under review unravel this mystery and dispel the reasons
for Akbar’s alienation from the Ottoman authorities of the Hijaz. It is
also certain that the protracted stay of a large number of Indian pilgrims
in Makka and Madina ought to have exercised considerable strain on
the supply of provisions in these cities. In the early sixteenth century
the population of Jidda, the port closest to Makka, has been estimated at
between 1,000 and 1,500. In the early nineteenth century, the population
of the port city stood at roughly 5,000.56 An Indian pilgrim, Mulla Safi
al-Din Qazwini, is reported to have found approximately 30,000 pilgrims
on the Hajj of 1676.57 Needless to say that the Ottoman authorities had a
hard time in maintaining the supplies of essential commodities in Makka
and Madina during the Hajj. The protracted stay of a multitude of Indian
pilgrims must have drastically augmented the population of the Holy Cities.
The consequent shortage of provisions is not hard to conjecture and the staid
reaction of the Ottoman government is hardly difficult to appreciate.
There are reasons to believe that more than the prolonged stay of the
Indian pilgrims and the shortage of provisions in the Holy Cities, the grave
Ottoman response was propelled by the belief among the Ottoman officials
that Akbar was using his Hajj policy as an ideological weapon to challenge
Ottoman leadership of the Islamic world. A modern scholar has suggested
that during the tenure of the Grand Vizier Sokollu Mehmed Paşa (1565–79),
the Ottomans had embarked upon a policy of building a ‘soft empire’
in the Indian Ocean that involved ‘a strategy to expand Ottoman influence
not through direct military intervention, but rather through the development
of ideological, commercial and diplomatic ties with the various Muslim
communities of the region’.58 However, this grand strategy received a setback
following the assassination of Sokollu Mehmed in 1579 coupled with the
death of the Sultan of Sumatra, a close Ottoman ally in the Indian Ocean
region, around the same time and the subsequent Spanish annexation of
Portugal. In the backdrop of these developments Akbar’s policy of sending
Hajj caravans, appointing a royal Mir Hajj, setting aside enormous amount
56
Pearson, Pious Passengers: 160–62.
57
Safi al-Din Qazwini, Anis al-Hujjaj, quoted by Pearson, Pious Passengers: 53.
58
Casale, ‘Global Politics in the 1580s’: 277.

of money for distribution as alms in the Holy Cities and the assumption of the
titles of Badshah-i Islam and Imam-i Adil convinced the Ottoman authorities
that the Mughal sovereign was openly advancing his claim to universal
sovereignty over the Islamic world. In order to nip Akbar’s ambitions in the
bud and reinforce his role as the sole leader of the Islamic world as well as
the Protector of the Holy Cities, the Ottoman Sultan had no other alternative
but to stop the distribution of Akbar’s alms in Makka and virtually expelling
the Mughal ladies and their entourage from the Hijaz.59
Abu’l Fazl has remarked that the royal ladies were reluctant to leave the
Hijaz, but Khwaja Yahya, in accordance with the emperor’s earnest wish,
persuaded them to return.60 It was not, however, so much Akbar’s desire
but the Sultan’s orders, as these documents suggest, which compelled the
ladies to leave Makka in 1581. Later, the ladies were also subjected to
insults by the Ottoman governor of Aden during their sojourn in that city on
their way back to India.61 The harsh treatment meted out to his ladies by the
Ottoman authorities and the report of the proscription of his sadaqat in the
sacred cities seems to have stung Akbar’s pride considerably and provoked
him to stop sending Hajj caravans and annual subventions to Makka.
Modern scholars have suggested that as a result of his interest in the
policy of religious syncretism Akbar gradually moved away from Islamic
59
Ibid.: 276–81. Also see Casale, The Ottoman Age of Exploration: 152–54. I am grateful
to my son Tausif Farooqi for making this book available to me. For a similar view of the
Ottoman ambitions in the Indian Ocean, see Çizakça, ‘The Ottoman Government and
Economic Life’: 243–44. It is noteworthy that in a letter to Abdullah Khan Uzbek, Akbar
had outlined an elaborate plan of conquest that included apart from other territories in India
and abroad the establishment of Mughal suzerainty over Makka and Medina. See Abu’l Fazl,
Maktubat-i Allami: 12–13. For a recent discussion on the significance of the Holy Cities
in the articulation of Ottoman imperial ideology and the self-image of the Ottoman Sultan,
see Veinstein, ‘Religious Institutions, Politics and Lives’: 348–54.
60
Abu’l Fazl, Akbar Nama, vol. III: 568–69.
61
Ibid.: 570. On their return journey to India, the Mughal ladies were shipwrecked in the
port city of Aden and had to stay there for seven months. Abu’l Fazl writes that during their
sojourn in Aden, the royal ladies were subjected to improper behaviour by the local governor
for which he was subsequently punished by the Ottoman Sultan. However, Bayazid Bayat, a
prominent noble in Akbar’s court and the author of Tazkirah-i Humayun wa Akbar, who had
exchanged messages with the royal ladies outside the port of Aden, in early April 1580, on
his way to Makka, has not referred to any untoward incident during the ladies’ stay in that
city. See Digby, ‘Bayazid Beg Turkoman’s Pilgrimage to Makka’: 161–65. Also see Alam
and Subrahmanyam, Indo-Persian Travels: 298–300, 303–12. For Bayazid’s account, see
Bayat, Tazkirah-i Humayun wa Akbar.

orthodoxy and the suspension of Hajj caravans was merely one step
in this direction. But the documents under consideration leave no doubt
that, in addition to the emperor’s interest in the religious syncretism,
the events in Makka during 1577–81 had an equally important role to
play in the suspension of Hajj caravans to India and may have even
strengthened his determination to carry the policy of religious syncretism
to its logical conclusion.
It appears that some Indians have managed to hoodwink the Ottoman
authorities and had continued to stay in Makka even after the departure
of the royal ladies and their attendants from there. This is evident from
the royal ferman, dated 17–26 August 1585, addressed to the Governor of
Jidda (Document no. 6). The Sultan wrote to the official concerned that he
has received reports that the people of India are living in the dilapidated
houses and sheds situated in the eastern vicinity of the city of Makka and
that they keep those places soiled and filthy, bring bad smell to the grand
mosque and indulge in unbecoming behaviour. Taking advantage of the
absence of guards, the Sultan further observed, the Indians and other
contemptible persons sleep in the grand mosque, bring dogs inside the
mosque and make it filthy and soiled. Taking a serious note to the activities
of the Indian pilgrims, the Sultan ordered the Governor to immediately
demolish all the huts situated around the Haram Sherif and settle, the
Indians and others who dwell in these sheds and huts, in empty space in
the vicinity of Makka, not to spare time and money to clean and purify
the grand mosque, appoint additional watchmen on the entrance and exit
of the Haram Sherif and take all measures to keep the mosque perpetually
clean and purified.62 No Mughal chronicler has taken any notice of these
events. Even later Ottoman records do not provide any clue to the
subsequent development of this affair. The fate of the concerned Indian
pilgrims therefore remains a matter of conjecture.
III
The Mühimme registers, however, also contain several documents which
provide very fascinating and so far unknown evidence on the history of
western and southern India during medieval times. In the following pages,
I propose to present a word by word translation of three such documents
62
MD, vol. 58, f. 260, ferman no. 659, Avail Ramzan 993 (17–26 August 1585).

from the Mühimme Defterleri and one document from the Name-i
Hümayun Defterleri, followed by a brief commentary on the documents.
A suitable and succinct commentary on the documents will follow with
a view to placing the documents in their proper historical context and to
demonstrate their value as evidence, particularly as a supplement to the
major chronicles of the medieval period.
Of the three Mühimme documents considered here, the first was issued
by Sultan Selim II (r. 1566–74) and the other two were issued by Sultan
Murad III and cover a time span of approximately six years from 1572 to
1578. The first document, dated 1572, is addressed to the Kadi of Makka
directing him to provide monetary relief to the family members of a
deceased Indian notable residing in the holy city. The second document,
dated 1576, is addressed to the Beylerbeyi63 (Governor General) of Egypt,
and delineates the Ottoman government’s interest in the welfare of the
Khatib (public preachers) of the mosques of the port city of Calicut. The
third document was issued in 1578. It is addressed to the Beylerbeyis of
Basra and Baghdad. Issued in response to its bearer’s petition, whose name
also appears in the document, it provides new information on the religious
proclivities of the rulers of the kingdom of Ahmadnagar. The last document
is the Turkish translation of Emperor Farrukhsiyar’s letter addressed to
Sultan Ahmad III (r. 1703–30). Written on 5 Shawwal 1124 (25 October
1712), it enumerates the circumstances leading to Farrukhsiyar’s accession
to Mughal throne.64
63
Beylerbeyı literally means Bey of Beys. They could be compared to the Subadar or
Nazim of the Mughal Empire. Initially the term beylerbeyı was used to designate Ottoman
Sultan’s principal military commanders or advisors. Subsequently, this designation was used
for the governors of the important provinces of the empire. They were also the members of
the Ottoman imperial council.
64
There seems to be some discrepancy in the date of the letter’s composition. Mughal
chroniclers have mentioned that Farrukhsiyar had ascended the throne on 2 January 1713.
See Kamwar Khan, Tazkiratus-Salatin-iChughta: 168, 171; Wazih, Tarikh-I radat Khan:
153; Tabatabai, Seir-ul mutakhrin, vol. II: 393. The letter in question must have been written
after this date. We, however, know that after his accession to the throne, Farrukhsiyar had
decreed that his reign should be dated from the day he had proclaimed himself the Emperor
in Patna, 28 March 1712. If we consider this day as the official date of the commencement
of the Emperor’s reign, then 25 October 1712 as the date of this letter’s composition would
make sense. But this is not true. It will thus be more appropriate to suggest that the epistle
under review was penned on 5 Shawwal 1125 (14 October 1713) instead of 5 Shawwal 1124
(25 October 1712). The Mughal official who wrote this letter seems to have followed the
official date of the advent of Farrukhsiyar’e reign, hence the discrepancy in the date.

Translation of the Documents

Document No. 1: Mühimme Defterleri, Vol. 19, folio 217, ferman no.
450, 10 Rabiul avval 980 (21 July 1572)
Yazildi (it has been written)65
Order to the Kadi of Makka-i Mukarrama that the Sherif of Makka-i

Mukarrama Sherif Saiyid Hasan, may his high qualities and dignities
endure, has sent a letter. Asaf Khan, the Vizier of Sultan Bahadur Shah
of India, who used to spend two hundred akçe per day, has passed away.
He has left his wife Fatima, son Muin khan and two daughters Fazila and
Ummul Husain, who get an allowance of ten, fifteen and five Para66 each
from the revenue of Jidda. They do not receive anything else from other
sources of alms. On account of famine and scarcity in that region [Jidda],
their allowance is insufficient for their subsistence. They have therefore
made a special petition for enhancement in their allowance and also for
apportionment of sufficient amount of grain to them. I have ordered that
whatever is being given to other destitute be given to them also.
I have commanded that when [this ferman] arrives, you shall, in
accordance with my noble command, grant to the aforementioned the same
amount of ration and money that is being apportioned to other destitute.
You shall also record this in the government register.
Document No. 2: Mühimme Defterleri, vol. 28, folio 139, ferman no. 331,
6 Rajab 984 (29 September 1576)
Given to Sinan, the Kethüdasi [of the Beylerbeyi].
Order to the Governor General of Egypt: Since the days of yore one
hundred gold coins have been transmitted for the preachers of twenty-
seven mosques situated in the port city of Calicut, a dependency of India.
65
The term Yazıldi is found above the text of many fermans copied in the Mühimme
Defterleri. It signified that a fair copy of the ferman with the royal tuğra (cipher), after
getting the rough draft approved by the Sultan, has been prepared and is ready for dispatch
to the addressee. See Heyd, Ottoman Documents on Palestine: 17–18.
66
Para was an Ottoman silver coin of varying value. In the second half of the sixteenth
century, it was equivalent to two akçe. During the reign of Selim II, one Ottoman gold coin
was equivalent to 80 akçe or 40 paras. See Lewis, The Ottoman Archives as a Source for
Jewish History: 22.

Subsequently fifty gold coins were sent from Jidda. In certain years even
this [modest sum] was not sent. Furthermore no communication to this
effect was sent [to the Sublime Porte]. Now, this year I have ordered that
one hundred gold coins be sent [to Calicut] from the port of Jidda.
I have commanded that when [this ferman] arrives you shall be careful
and diligent in respect of this matter. In accordance with my command
send one hundred gold coins every year perpetually and without any
break, from the port of Jidda, to the aforementioned preachers. Let the
grant that has remained suspended until the present be sent solicitously
from the revenues of Jidda.
Document No. 3: Mühimme Defterleri, vol. 35, folio 251, ferman no. 632,
19 Rajab 986 (21 September 1578)
Order to the Governor General of Baghdad and Basra: Khwaja Hasan, the
Vakil (agent) of Murtuza, son of Nizamul Mulk, the ruler of the province of
Deccan, in India, has set out from those parts. The bearer Dervish Mahmud,
the caretaker of the deceased Nizamul Mulk’s mausoleum situated in the
steppe of Karbala has communicated information to this effect.
I have commanded that when the aforementioned Khwaja Hasan
reaches Basra from India and that in Basra or Baghdad or in whatever
place in my divinely protected dominions he may wish to go, along with
the aforesaid Dervish Mahmud, no one should prevent them from doing
so. If he desires to visit my exalted Porte, let him come. In this matter, in
accordance with the law, let no one interfere in any way at all with him
or his possessions or his baggage.
Document No. 4: Name-i Hümayun Defterleri, Vol. 9, ff 391–394, Turkish

translation of the letter of Emperor Farrukhsiyar to Sultan Ahmad III, 5
Shawwal, 1124 (25 October 1712), delivered by the Mughal envoy Hajji
Niyaz Beg Khan
Since the cloud of justice and equity of the great monarchs and the sun
of mercy and compassion of the illustrious sovereigns is the cause of the
blossoming of the flowers of the garden of empire and felicity as well
as the basis of the opening of the blossoms of prosperity and majesty
and further because the affection and friendship that the kings of the
world show to one another is the reason for the orderly arrangement of

the business of the universe and the love which emanate from this bond
of amity is the source of the safety of mankind, let that tree of prosperity
and majesty be refreshed. Let luck and happiness shower on that grand
and magnificent court and let the darkness of tyranny and oppression be
removed by the glorious ray of your knowledge.
The exordium of the book of felicity, title of the tome of prosperity,
centre of the circle of glory and greatness, exalted as Solomon, mighty
as Keywan (Saturn), asylum of mankind, refuge of the worlds, lord of
land and seas, custodian of the Holy Sanctuaries, Sultan Ahmad. Hearty
greetings and salutations that make the nose of even the angels and
geniis fragrant and scented with ambergris and precious invocations, the
effect of which glitters even the sparkling stars to [Your Majesty]. Let it
be known to the exalted and illustrious Emperor that from the days of yore
my illustrious ancestors, who are resting in the paradise, and who were
steadfast in performing the obligations of the faith, had kept the gates of
fidelity and friendship between the two sides open and by exchange of
letters and messages had strengthened the track of fraternity and affection.
They had paid proper attention to the rules and precepts of the state and
on account of their efforts, the seal of friendship which exists between
the two sides is gleaming like the illuminated sun. It is expected that the
exalted Sultan will also pay attention to, as was done before, and take
notice of the praiseworthy customs and usages and well thought over
rules and rites of the bygone rulers and monarchs. Since, it is necessary
that important events which occur [in their respective realms] should
be communicated to each other [by monarchs], let it be known to Your
Majesty that recently my august imperial father, may God illuminate his
grave with light, came to know about the revolt and assault of the enemies
in the regions of Deccan, Bengal and Chand Chandawal (?), which is in
the proximity of Sirandip (Sri Lanka), whom the travellers call mother
of the countries of the world and where, according to authentic Prophetic
Traditions, several thousand prophets and saints are buried. My deceased
father from among his several children chose this son of his (writer of the
letter) and dispatched me for the defence and protection of those regions.
At the time when my father departed from this mortal world to the eternal
metropolis, we and our troops were not too far from Hindustan. Nobles and
notables of the state were scared that the people of Jaghataba (Maratha?)
might not come out victorious. Jahandar Shah alias Muizuddin gave battle
to the aforementioned people of the Jaghataba (?) but since he had, from

his young days, collected an army that had no experience of warfare, had
not seen the ups and downs of the time and had not confronted brave men,
the enemy triumphed and killed several thousand soldiers along with my
brothers. In the meanwhile, we also collected an army of several thousand
valiant men and appointed our Vizier, Abdullah Khan, the pole star of the
state, as commander of that army. When they reached Darul khilafat (seat
of the khilafat) Akbarabad after crossing the river, we also reached there
from the rear and traversed the great river. Akbarabad [fort] has a rampart
like the sedd-i Siknadar67 around which there is a great moat. By the grace
of God and with the help of our braves, we conquered Akbarabad at the
first assault. A remnant that our sword has spared fled. After appointing
Jahandar Shah as the Governor of the fort, we moved on and proceeded
to Shahjahanabad, our old capital. At the first assault, this fort also, by
the grace of God, was conquered and all my enemies and tell-tales were
killed. After taking revenge, I ascended the august throne, which is in
Shahjahanabad, on 7 Rabiul akhir 1124 (3 May 1712). In the territories
of Hindustan, Deccan, Bengal, Chand Chandawal, which is near Sirandip,
and Kashghar, which is at a distance of ten days journey from China, the
khutba was read and coins were issued in my name.
Meanwhile, my old confidant, the edifice of sincerity and the pillar of
trust, Hajji Niyaz Beg Khan is being sent as ambassador to your august
presence. Kindly have complete trust in the oral messages conveyed by him
and permit him to return, after performing the ambassadorial duties, along
with a friendly letter. Written on 5 Shawwal, 1124 (25 October 1712).
Commentary
Document No. 1
This document furnishes entirely new evidence on a much talked about

episode in the history of medieval Gujarat namely the dispatch of his
harem and treasures by Sultan Bahadur Shah (r. 1526–37), in the wake
of Mughal Emperor Humayun’s invasion of Gujarat, to Makka in 1535.
Humayun’s campaign against Gujarat (1535–36) and the consequent
struggle between him and Bahadur Shah for the mastery of that region
67
Sedd-i Siknadar was a wall built in pre-historic times along the crest of the
Caucasus.

are well known.68 We know that the Mughals defeated Bahadur Shah in
practically all the encounters and that ultimately he had to flee for his life
and take shelter with the Portuguese in the port of Diu. But before making
good his escape, the Sultan had endeavoured to either destroy or put away
all his valuables lest they fell into the hands of the Mughals. In Mandasor,
we are told, he burnt his jewels, destroyed two of his largest mortars, Laila
and Majnun, and got the trunks of his favourite elephants, Sharzah and Pat
Sangar, amputated. Subsequently, he also set on fire one hundred gharab
(war vessel) that he had stationed in Cambay harbour.69 But the Sultan’s
most daring act of desperation was his decision to send all his accumulated
treasures and his harem, in the care of his confidant and Vizier Abdul Aziz
Asaf Khan, to Makka while fleeing from Champaner (June 1535).70 The
value of this treasure has been a subject of speculation among medieval
and modern historians alike. However, a letter of the Governor General of
Egypt Hadim Süleyman Paşa, dated 1537, addressed to Sultan Süleyman
the Magnificent (r. 1520–66) and preserved in the Topkapı Sarayı Museum
Archives, reveals that the treasure consisted, besides an assortment of
jewels, 350 boxes, each containing 7,000 gold pieces, which was worth
3.6 million gold coins.71 This document also discloses that the Ottoman
authorities had made up their mind to grab this treasure, which they did
immediately after receiving the news of the death of Bahadur Shah in a
hand to hand fight with the Portuguese (13 February 1537). This treasure,
68
For Humayun’s Gujarat campaign, see Shaikh Sikandar, Mirat-i Sikandari: 303–19;
Hajji Ad-Dabir, Zafar Ul Walih, vol. I: 195–214; Firishta, Tarikh-i Firishta, vol. II: 222–24;
Abul Fazl, Akbar Nama, vol. I: 300–25; Ahmad, Tabaqat-i Akbari, vol. II: 48–61. Also see
Awasthy, The Mughal Emperor Humayun 126–223; Commissariat, A History of Gujarat,
vol. I: 346–83; Habib and Nizami, A Comprehensive History of India, vol. 5: 891–93.
69
Shaikh Sikandar, Mirat-i Sikandari: 309 –13; Hajji Ad-Dabir, Zafar Ul Walih, vol. I:
198; Abu’l Fazl, Akbar Nama, vol. I: 307.
70
Hajji Ad-Dabir, Zafar Ul Walih, vol. I: 207, 219, 279, 307; Firishta, Tarikh-i Firishta,
vol. II: 223.
71
Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi, Istanbul (henceforth TSMA), No. E 10895. Also,
see Kurtoğlu, ‘Hadim Süleyman Paşanin Mektuplari’: 61–69; Mughul, Kanuni Devri
Osmanlilarin: 122–31. Gujarati Chroniclers have given diverse estimates of Bahadur
Shah’s treasures carried by Asaf Khan. Hajji Ad-Dabir, for instance, says that the treasure
consisted of 700 boxes (p. 307), but the author of Tarikh-i Salatin-i Gujarat asserts that
it comprised of 400 iron chests of gold, ashrafis, gold bars and gold bricks. See Bukhari,
Tarikh-i Salatin-i Gujarat: 32, quoted by Tirmizi, The Comprehensive History of India:
892. Also see note 74.

according to the Ottoman chronicler Ibrahim Peçevi, was later utilised

to finance the unsuccessful Ottoman expedition against the Portuguese
possessions in Western India (1538).72
There is no doubt that the Gujarati Vizier Asaf Khan mentioned in the
document is none other than Abdul Aziz Asaf Khan whom Bahadur Shah
had sent to Makka along with his harem and treasures. We know that he
was the son of Allama Shamsuddin Muhammad Hamid-ul Mulk and that
he had joined the service of the kingdom of Gujarat at an early age. Sultan
Bahadur Shah held him in high esteem and promoted him to the post of
Vizier with the title of Masnad-i Ali.73 It was, therefore, no coincidence
that the Sultan chose Asaf Khan to carry his family and riches to the
holy land. He sailed from Diu with a large retinue of attendants, soldiers
and nobles in 10 galleys and reached Shihir in October 1535 and, from
there, travelled to Makka. Eight months later (7 June 1536), Asaf Khan
wrote a letter to the Ottoman Sultan explaining the reasons for his arrival,
along with his master’s family and treasures, in Makka. He also sought
the Sultan’s permission to return to India as the situation at home had
turned in their favour and Bahadur Shah had recovered all his territories
from the enemy.74 But the sudden death of Bahadur Shah constrained
him not only to postpone his return journey but also obliged him to stay
in the Hijaz for the next 12 years. In 1548, he returned to India leaving
his family in Makka in the care of his secretary Sirajuddin Umar, father
72
Peçevi, Peçevi Tarihi, vol. I: 221. Also see, Maghrebi, ‘The Ottoman–Gujarat Relations
(1517–1556)’: 188. I am grateful to Professor S. Z. H. Jafri for allowing me to use his copy
of this book.
73
Hajji Ad-Dabir, Zafar Ul Walih, vol. I: 279.
74
Mughal, Kanuni Devri Osmanlilarin: 125–31. Also see Peçevi, Tarih-i Peçevi, vol. I:
220. This letter was brought by Asaf Khan’s representative Umdatul Mulk. According to
this letter, the treasure consisted of ‘two hundred and fifty chests containing one million
two hundred and seventy thousand and six hundred measures of gold’. This letter is also
preserved in Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi, Istanbul (E 1351). The envoy is also reported to
have sought Ottoman military assistance to help Gujarat deal with the Mughal and Portuguese
menace. He also proposed to present Bahadur Shah’s treasure in lieu of the Ottoman help.
See Casale, The Ottoman Age of Exploration: 56. Also see Paşa, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman:
357–58 (quoted by Casale, The Ottoman Age of Exploration: 56). For the activities of Asaf
Khan in Makka as well as Bahadur Shah’s attempt to buy peace with the Portuguese by
surrendering the town of Bassein and permitting them to build a fortress in the port of Diu,
including an analysis of four letters written by the Gujarat Sultan to the Portuguese, see
Alam and Subrahmanyam, ‘Letters from a Sinking Sultan’: 33–87.

of Hajji Ad-Dabir, the author of Zafar ul- Walih bi Muzaffar wa Alihi.

For the next six years, he served his new master Sultan Mahmud III (r.
1537–54) with great distinction and helped the Sultan in rejuvenating the
sagging fortunes of the state of Gujarat. On 17 March 1554, he became a
victim of the perfidy of a rival noble Burhan who assassinated him along
with the Sultan.75
The ferman under review thus confirms that Asaf Khan had indeed
left his family in Makka as reported by the Gujarati chronicles. But these
chronicles have failed to take notice of the fate of the Khan’s family
members after his departure from Makka. The gap in our knowledge
regarding this matter is bridged by the evidence supplied by the ferman
in question. We now know that the wife and children of Asaf Khan had to
probably fend for themselves after his demise. It can also be suggested with
a fair degree of certainty that perhaps owing to the lack of any source of
income of their own they were ultimately reduced to the status of destitute
and had to live on the largesse of the Ottoman government. During his
sojourn in Makka, Asaf Khan had cultivated intimate relations with Sherif
Abu Numay bin Barkat and had left a lasting impression of his learning,
righteousness and munificence on the denizens of the holy city. Hajji Ad-
Dabir has in fact compared the Khan with the famous Bermekide Vizier
of the Abbasid Khalifa in erudition, patronage of scholars and distribution
of charity.76 This explains the predilection of Sherif Saiyid Hasan for Asaf
Kahn’s family and his efforts to get a handsome subvention for them from
Sultan Selim II.
Document No. 2
This document supplies intriguing and hitherto unknown evidence on the

history of Calicut in the sixteenth century. The nature and contents of
the document indicates that it was in all probability issued in response to
the petition of the preachers of Calicut mosques themselves. The preachers
concerned may have sent their representative to Istanbul, as was the vogue,
to submit the petition on their behalf. But since the petitioner’s name is
not mentioned in the ferman, we get absolutely no clue about him or the
persons whom he represented.
75
Hajji Ad-Dabir, Zafar Ul Walih, vol. I: 253; Shaikh Sikandar, Mirat-i Sikandari: 378;
Tabaqat-i Akbari, vol. III: 390.
76
Hajji Ad-Dabir, Zafar Ul Walih, vol. I: 296.

The advent of Muslims in Malabar shortly after the birth of Islam is

well known. Arab travellers of the ninth and tenth centuries have recorded
the presence of Muslims in Malabar and other parts of India. They have
also referred to the extraordinary degree of religious freedom and political
patronage enjoyed by Muslim settlers there. Ibn Battuta in the fourteenth
century and then Zainuddin Ma‘bari, the author of Tuhfat al-Mujahideen
in the sixteenth century, also affirm the impression of the early Arab
travellers. ‘The Muslims of Malabar, writes Zainuddin, lived a happy and
prosperous life on account of the benevolence of the rulers, their regard to
time honoured customs and their kindness.’77 He also praises the Hindu
rulers of Malabar for fixing the allowance for the Kadis and muezzins
(those who call the Muslims to prayer) within their territories.78
Zainuddin also gives an account of the first appearance of Muslims,
approximately 200 years after the hijra (migration) of the Prophet to
Medina, in Malabar, the conversion of the king of Kodungallur (modern
Cranganur) to Islam at their hands, his journey to Arabia and the subsequent
construction of mosques by the Muslims in Cranganur, Kulam (Quilon),
Hayli-marawi (Mount Delly), Fakkaanur (Barkur), Manjalur (Mangalore),
Kanjarakut (Kasaragod), Juraftan (Srikanadpuram), Darmaftan
(Darmadam), Fandarina (Panatalayini), Shaliyat (Chaliyam) and Kalikut
(Calicut).79 Writing approximately 30 years after Zainuddin, Firishta, the
author of the celebrated Tarikh-i Firishta, gives almost a similar account
of the first arrival of Muslims in Malabar and the construction of mosques
by them in several cities of coastal Malabar.80 The Kasargod mosque
inscription, discovered and deciphered in 1998 by G. S. Khwaja of the
Archaeological Survey of India, also refers to the construction of mosques
by Muslim missionaries from Arabia in many cities of coastal Malabar.
The epigraph also alludes to special laws instituted by the state to take care
of the legal disputes involving the Muslim settlers in Malabar.81
There is, therefore, no dearth of literary and epigraphic evidence
supporting the advent and settlement of Muslims in Malabar in early
ninth century and the construction of mosques by them in their adopted
country. But surprisingly, none of these sources refer to Ottoman interest
77
Ma‘bari, Tuhfat al-mujahidin: 60.
78
Ibid.: 51.
79
Ibid.: 35–41.
80
Firishta, Tarikh-i Firishta, vol. II: 370–71.
81
Reported in the Times of India, 25 June 1998.

in Calicut and its mosques. Zainuddin mentions the conquest of Syria and
Egypt by the Ottoman Sultan Selim I (r. 1512–20) in 1517.82 He also gives
a succinct account of the Ottoman governor of Egypt Hadim Süleyman
Paşa’s expedition against Diu in 1538,83 but does not mention anything
at all about the annual grant given by the Ottoman Sultan to the Muslim
preachers of Calicut. Firishta also writes about the Ottoman conquest of
Egypt and Syria and the destruction of the main mosque of Calicut by
the Portuguese around the same time but offers no clue regarding the
Ottoman interest in Calicut.84 Modern historians of Kerala, likewise, are
unaware of this intriguing aspect of the history of Calicut.85 The ferman
in question, therefore, provides fresh evidence on a relatively unknown
facet of the fascinating history of Malabar. Another Ottoman document
however shed more light on the mystery of the Ottoman subvention for
the mosques and preachers of Calicut. This is, in fact, the report which
Lutfi, a little known Ottoman notable who had been sent by the Grand
Vizier Sokollu Mehmed Paşa on a reconnaissance mission to Sumatra,
had submitted to the imperial divan in January 1566.86
Lutfi’s mission was a part of the ambitious and innovative strategy that
the Grand Vizier had designed to expel the Portuguese from the Indian
Ocean and build a ‘soft empire’ in that region (mentioned above in the
article). Lutfi was directed to ‘establish contacts with local Muslims
throughout the Indian Ocean and to do everything possible to incite them
to rise up in a general armed rebellion against the Portuguese’.87 The report
presents a rosy picture of Ottoman influence and the popularity of the
Ottoman Sultan in the Indian Ocean region. It asserts that not only Sultan
82
Ma‘bari, Tuhfat al-mujahidin: 58.
83
Ibid.: 75. For Hadim Süleyman Paşa’s Indian campaign, see Casale, The Ottoman Age
of Exploration: 53–63. Also, see Özbaran, ‘Ottoman Expansion in the Red Sea’: 178–80.
84
Firishta, Tarikh-i Firishta, vol. II: 372.
85
For example, Eapen, A Study of Kerala History, and Menon, A survey of Kerala History,
have not mentioned anything at all about this episode.
86
TSMA, No. E 8009. This is a petition addressed to Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent,
dated Awasit Jamidul akhir 973 (3–12 January 1566). This document is incorrectly recorded
in the Archives catalogue as ‘Petition of Indian Muslims’. Ostensibly, it is a letter from the
Sultan of Sumatra but internal evidence from the document reveals that its real author was
Lutfi. See Casale, ‘His Majesty’s Servant Lutfi’: 43–81. I am grateful to Dr B. K. Singh,
Librarian, Central Library, University of Allahabad for arranging this as well as many other
articles and books that helped me a great deal in writing the present article.
87
Casale, The Ottoman Age of Exploration: 123.

Alauddin Riayat Syah of Sumatra is willing to submit to the Ottoman

suzerainty but even the non-Muslim rulers of Ceylon and Calicut have
expressed their desire to acknowledge the Sultan as their overlord. The
report also refers to 24 mosques in the territory of the ruler of Calicut and
asserts that in these mosques khutba (address of the preacher during Friday
prayer) is read in the name of the Ottoman Sultan.88 There is also evidence
that for the sake of the success of his grand strategy the Grand Vizier had
initiated the policy of providing financial assistance to the preachers of
the mosques, situated in the non-Muslim states of the region, for eliciting
their allegiance to the Ottoman Sultan and convince the Indian Ocean
Muslims at large that the Sultan not only deserves to be recognised as the
universal leader of the Islamic world but also the defender of Muslims
all over the world.89 The document under consideration goes to prove
that the grand strategy was at work in the 1560s and 1570s and that the
aforementioned Ottoman subvention for the preachers of these mosques
probably served its purpose during the period under review.
Document No. 3
This ferman can be placed in the category of Ottoman state documents

called ‘safe-conduct’. Known in Turkish Diplomatic parlance as aman-
name or yol-fermani / yol-emri, it was generally issued in the form of
a ferman directing the Ottoman authorities to provide protection and
escort to the holder during his journey through the Ottoman territories.
According to V. L. Ménage, a safe-conduct was some kind of a ‘return
ticket’ to and from the Porte.90 The document under review assures a
safe journey, through Basra, Baghdad and other parts of the Ottoman
Empire, to the agent of the ruler of Deccan. It specifies protection both
to the agent and his property and instructs the Governor General of
Basra and Baghdad to permit the owner of the document to travel to
Istanbul if he so desires.
88
This document also asserts that the Muslims of Maldives Islands and Ceylon have built
a number of mosques in their territories and that khutba is read in the name of the Ottoman
Sultan in these mosques. See Casale, ‘His Majesty’s Servant Lutfi’: 60–64. Also, see Casale,
The Ottoman Age of Exploration: 124–29; Inalcik and Quataert, An Economic and Social
History of the Ottoman Empire: 328.
89
Casale, ‘Global Politics in the 1580s’: 277–78.
90
Ménage, ‘Seven Ottoman Documents’: 109, note 39.

The Deccan Monarch mentioned in the document is, without any doubt,
Murtuza Nizam Shah who ruled the kingdom of Ahmadnagar during
1565–88. A successor state of the Bahmani kingdom in the Deccan (1347–
1527), the Ahmadnagar state was founded by Malik Ahmad Nizamul
Mulk Bahri (d. 1510) in 1490.91 The city of Ahmadnagar itself was built
by him (1494).92 His father Malik Hasan Bahri, a Hindu convert to Islam,
had joined the Bahmani service during the reign of Sultan Ahmad.93 But it
was during the reign of Sultan Muhammad II (r. 1463–82) that he rose to
higher positions by sheer dint of merit and received the title of Nizamul
Mulk. Subsequently, all the monarchs of his dynasty used this honorific
title with their names.
Most members of the Nizam Shahi family embraced Shi‘ism during
the reign of Ahmad’s successor Burhan Nizam Shah I (r. 1510–53).
Firishta, who had served several Sultans of Ahmadnagar and therefore
had first-hand knowledge of the events recorded by him, has given a
graphic account of the circumstances leading to the Sultan’s conversion
to Shi‘ism (1537) under the influence of Shah Tahir, an Iranian immigrant
to Ahmadnagar.94 Firishta also writes that after his death Burhan Nizam
Shah I was laid to rest in his father’s tomb in Bagh-i Rauza (Rauza
garden) in Ahmadnagar. Subsequently, the mortal remains of both
the Sultans were transferred to Karbala and interred in the space outside
the fifth mausoleum of the ‘Abbasid family’.95 We are told by the same
chronicler that Burhan’s grandson Murtuza Nizam Shah was also
temporarily buried in the Rauza garden and that during the reign of his
son Burhan Nizam Shah II (r. 1591–95) his mortal remains were sent to
Karbala and consigned to earth by the side of his father Husain Nizam
Shah I (r. 1553–65) and grandfather.96
91
Firishta, Tarikh-i Firishta, vol. II: 96. Also see Radhey, ‘The Nizam Shahis and the
Imad Shahis’, vol. i: 230.
92
Firishta, Tarikh-i Firishta, vol. II: 97.
93
Ibid., vol. II: 93.
94
Ibid., vol. II: 112–14.
95
Ibid., vol. II: 120. The English translator of Firishta’s history has incorrectly mentioned
that Burhan Nizam Shah’s body was embalmed and sent to Karbala where he was entombed
near the burial place of Hasan, the son of ‘Ali and the grandson of the Prophet (Briggs, The
History of the Rise of the Mahomedan: 144). The passage in question in fact refers to Shah
Tahir, the spiritual mentor of the Sultan. See Firishta, Tarikh-i Firishta, vol. II: 118.
96
Ibid., vol. II: 147.

Firishta’s testimony leaves no doubt that the family mausoleum of

the Nizam Shahi dynasty was situated in Karbala and that the first four
monarchs of the dynasty were buried there. There is also no doubt that the
‘the deceased Nizamul Mulk’ mentioned in the document under review
is Murtuza Nizam Shah’s father Husain Nizam Shah I. The identity of
Murtuza’s agent Khwaja Hasan, however, remains obscure. Nizamuddin
Ahmad does refers to one Hasan ‘Ali as Murtuza Nizam Shah’s Vakil,97
but owing to want of any other corroborative evidence it is difficult to
assume that Khwaja Hasan, mentioned in the document in question, and
Hasan ‘Ali are one and the same person.
The document nevertheless substantiates the information available
in medieval Indian chronicles regarding a rather unknown aspect of the
history of the ruling family of the kingdom of Ahmadnagar. The evidential
value of the document can, therefore, be hardly exaggerated.
Document No. 4
This is a strange letter, to say the least. Full of false information and
incorrect facts, it is unprecedented in the history of Mughal epistolography.
Every student of Mughal history knows that the events leading to
Farrukhsiyar’s accession to the throne, as narrated in this letter never
took place. In fact, it was Farrukhsiyar who had rebelled against his
royal uncle Jahandar Shah (r. 1712–13) and had usurped the throne and
the rebellious troops that had defeated the latter was led by none other
than Farrukhsiyar himself. Moreover, Jahandar Shah was killed by him
in cold blood rather than left in charge of the fort of Agra. It is also well-
known that Farrukhsiyar had ascended the throne on 14 Zilhaj 1124 (2
January 1713) instead of 3 May 1712, as mentioned by him in the letter.98
Even the Ottoman authorities were aware of the true course of events in
India and were annoyed by the misrepresentation of facts in the Mughal
letter.99 Mehmed Raşid, the official Ottoman chronicler and the author of
97
Ahmad, Tabaqat-i Akbari, vol. III: 150.
98
See note 55.
99
This can be easily made out from the reply that the Ottoman Sultan sent to Farrukhsiyar.
Whereas the latter had, in his epistle, referred to his father, Prince Azimusshan, as the
deceased Emperor without naming him, the Sultan’s letter pointedly condoles the death of
Farrukhsiyar’s grandfather, the late Emperor Shah Alam, and does not allude to his father
at all. See Name-i Hümayun Defterleri, vol. 6: 394–98.

Tarih-i Raşid, has hinted in his account of the Mughal embassy that the
letter of the Indian monarch was deficient in diplomatic courtesy and
decorum.100 It was, therefore, no coincidence that the Ottoman Sultan sent
a graceful reply to Farrukhsiyar but did not care to send a return Ottoman
embassy, contrary to the current tradition, to India.
The letter cannot be dismissed as spurious. It is copied in the official
Ottoman letter book along with the reply sent by the Sultan to Farrukhsiyar.
Its authenticity is further buttressed by the fact that the contemporary
Ottoman chronicler has also taken notice of a letter brought by the Indian
envoy in 1717. Farrukhsiyar had seized the throne by taking recourse
to rebellion against the reigning emperor and was, therefore, looking to
legitimise his position in the eyes of the world at large. One way of doing
so was to exchange embassies with the premier Muslim state of the time.
Hence, the embassy to the Ottomans. The question, however, remains as
to what prompted the Mughal monarch to resort to such subterfuge? The
answer can perhaps be found in his character. All contemporary accounts
have dubbed Farrukhsiyar as low-spirited, cowardly, intriguing and
unscrupulous.101 Such a person would not hesitate to go to any extent to
achieve his objectives. The contents of the letter were, therefore, in tune
with the Emperor’s temperament and need not surprise its reader.
Notwithstanding its apparent falsity, the letter nevertheless draws our
attention to an episode which has not been mentioned by the Mughal
chroniclers at all. No modern historian has so far taken notice of this letter
and it would not be an exaggeration to suggest that had this letter not been
preserved by the Ottoman authorities, our knowledge of Farrukhsiyar’s
reign and character would have remained incomplete.
IV
The foregoing narrative of the holdings of the Bashbakanlik Archives in
Istanbul presents only a preview of the unexplored and unnoticed treasure
of archival material for the study of medieval Indian history. Further
investigation of the aforementioned three series of documents and other
100
Raşid, Tarih-i Raşid, vol. IV: 321–22.
101
See, for instance, Lakhnawi, Shahnama Munawwar Qalam: 12, 28–30; Tabatabai,
Seir-ul Mutakhrin, vol. II: 396; Kamwar Khan, Tazkiratus-Salatin-iChughta: 213, 234. Also,
see Malik, A Mughal Statesman: 8–9; Irvine, The Later Mughals, vol. I: 396.

collections preserved in the archives will certainly bring to light much more
fresh and unidentified evidence that can facilitate a better understanding of
known or even unknown facets of our history. It is hoped that this modest
endeavour would prove to be another step in the direction of the fulfilment
of the dreams of our great predecessors who always promoted the use of
every possible source for the study of Indian history and will encourage
fellow historians to look for material other than Indian and European for
the reconstruction of our past.
References
Abdullah, Thabit A. J. 2001. Merchants, Mamluks, and Murder: The Political Economy of
Trade in Eighteenth-century Basra. New York: State University of New York Press.
Abu’l Fazl Ibn Mubarak. 1863. Maktubat-i Allami. Lucknow.
———. 1989. Akbar Nama, 3 vols, translated by H. Beveridge, 1902–39, repr. Delhi. Delhi:
Low Price Publications.
Ahmad, Nizam al-Din. 1992. Tabaqat-i Akbari, 3 vols, translated by B. De, 1936–39, repr.
Delhi. Delhi: Low Price Publications.
Ahmet, Akgündüz. 1988. Şeriye Sicilleri: Mahiyeti, Toplu Kataloğu ve secme Hükümler, 3
vols. Istanbul: Turk Dünyasi Araştirmalari Vakfi Yayinlari.
Aktaş, Necati and Ismet Binark. 1986. Ottoman archives—Başbakanlik Arşivi. Amman:
Research Centre for Islamic History, Art and Culture and the Centre for Archives and
Manuscripts, University of Jordan.
Aktaş, Necati. 2000. Osmanli Arşivi Daire Başkanliği. Istanbul: Devlet Arşivi Genel
Müdürlüğü.
Alam, Muzaffar and Sanjay Subrahmanyam. 2008. Indo-Persian Travels in the Age of
Discoveries, 1400–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2011. ‘Letters from a Sinking Sultan’, in their Writing the Mughal World: Studies
in Political Culture. New Delhi: Permanent Black: 33–87.
Awasthy, R. S. 1967. The Mughal Emperor Humayun. Allahabad: History Department,
Allahabad University.
Badauni, Abdul Qadir. 1973. Muntakahab al-Tawarikh, 3 vols, translated by George Ranking,
A. H. Lowe and W. Haig, 1899–1925, repr. Delhi. New Delhi: Rare books.
Barkan, Omar Lutfi. 1970. ‘Research on the Ottoman fiscal surveys’. In Studies in the
Economic History of the Middle East: From the Rise of Islam to the Present Day, edited
by M. A. Cook. London: Oxford University Press: 163–71.
Bayat, Bayazid. 1941. Tazkirah-i Humayun wa Akbar, edited by Maulvi Hidayat Hosain.
Calcutta: Asiatic Society.
Binark, Ismet. 1981. ‘Bizde Devlet Arşivi Konusu, tarihçesi ve günümüzdeki gelişmeler’,
Turk Kütüphaneciler Derneği Bületini, vol. 30(2): 57–66.
———. 1994. A Short History of the Turkish Archives and the Activities of the General
Directorate of the State Archives. The Turkish Republic Prime Ministry General
Directorate of the State Archives, Publication no. 4, Ankara.

Binark, Ismet. 1995. ‘The Importance and Value of Archives’, Turk Kütüphaneciliği, vol. 9(3):
258–64.
Briggs, John. 1990. The History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India, vol. III.
Delhi: Low Price Publications.
Bukhari, Mahmud. 1961. Tarikh-i Salatin-i Gujarat, edited by S. A. I. Tirmizi. Aligarh:
Asia Publishing House.
Casale, Ginacarlo. 2005. ‘His Majesty’s Servant Lutfi: The Career of a Previously Unknown
Sixteenth Century Ottoman Envoy Based on an Account of His Travels from the Topkapı
Palace Archives’, Turcica, vol. 37(1): 43–81.
———. 2007. ‘Global Politics in the 1590s: One Canal, Twenty Thousand Cannibals, and
an Ottoman Plot to Rule the World’, Journal of World History, vol. 18(3): 267–96.
———. 2012. The Ottoman Age of Exploration. New York: Oxford University Press.
Çelebi, Evliya. 1896–1939. Seyahetnamesi, vol. ix. Istanbul.
Çetin, Attila. 1979. Başbakanlik Arşivi Kılavuzu. Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi.
Çizakça, Murat. 2013. ‘The Ottoman Government and Economic Life: Taxation, Public Finance
and Trade Controls’. In The Ottoman Empire as a World Power, 1453–1603, edited by
Suraiya N. Faroqhi and Kate Fleet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 241–76.
Commissariat, M. S. 1938. A History of Gujarat, 3 vols. Bombay: Longmans, Green &
Co. Ltd.
Coşgel, Metin M. 2004. ‘Ottoman Tax Registers (Tahrir Defterleri)’, Historical Methods,
vol. 37(2): 87–100.
De Gaury, Gerald. 1952. Rulers of Mecca. London: Roy Publishers.
Digby, Simon. 2004. ‘Bayazid Beg Turkoman’s Pilgrimage to Makka and Return to Gujarat:
A Sixteenth Century Narrative’, Iran, vol. 42(2): 159–77.
Eapen, K. B. 1996. A Study of Kerala History. Kottayam: Pai and Co.
Elker, Salahuddin. 1953. Divan Rakamlari. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu.
Farooqi, Naimur Rahman. 1989. Mughal–Ottoman Relations: A Study of Political and
Diplomatic Relations between Mughal India and the Ottoman Empire 1556–1748.
Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli.
Faroqhi, Suraiya N. 1993. ‘Mühimme Deterleri’, Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. VII, 2nd
edition. Leiden: E. J. Brill: 470–72.
———. 1994. Pilgrims and Sultans: The Hajj under the Ottomans. London: I. B. Tauris
and Co. Limited.
Faroqhi, Suraiya N. and Kate Fleet. (eds). 2013. The Ottoman Empire as a World Power,
1453–1603: The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Firishta, Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah. 1864. Tarikh-i Firishta. Lucknow: Munshi Nawal
Kishore Press.
Genç, Yusuf Ihsan, Binark, Ismet, Necati, Gultepe & Aktaş, Nejati, et al. 1992. Başbakanlik
Osmanli Arşivi Rahberi, 2nd edition. Ankara: Başbakanlik Basimevi.
Güçlü, Yücel. 2009. ‘Will Untapped Ottoman Archives Reshape the Armenian Debate?’
The Middle East Quarterly, vol. xvi(2): 35–42.
Habib, Muhammad and Khaliq Ahmad Nizami. (eds). 1970. A Comprehensive History of
India, vol. 5. Delhi: People’s Publishing House.
Hajji Ad-Dabir, Abdullah Muhammad Al-Makki Al-Asafi Al-Ulughkahani. 1970. Zafar Ul Walih
Bi Muzaffar Wa Alihi, 2 vols, translated by M. F. Lokhandwala. Baroda: Oriental Institue.

Halasi-Kun, T. 1986. ‘Some Notes on Ottoman Mufassal Defter Studies’, Journal of Turkish
Studies, vol. 10: 163–66.
Heyd, Uriel. 1960. Ottoman Documents on Palestine 1552–1615: A Study of the Firmans
according to the Mühimme Defterleri. London: Oxford University Press.
Ilhan, M. Mehdi. 1987. ‘The Process of Ottoman Cadastral Surveys During the Second Half
of the Seventeenth Century: A Study based on the Documents from Mühimme Defters’,
Anuarul Instittutului de Istorie si Archeologie, vol. xxiv(1): 17–25.
———. 2008. ‘An Overview of the Ottoman Archival Documents and Chronicles’, Ankara
Universitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Tarih Bölümu, Tarih Araştirmalari Dergisi,
vol. 27(44): 21–40.
Inalcik, Halil and Donald Quataret. (eds). 1994. An Economic and Social History of the
Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inalcik, Halil. 1994. The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300–1600. repr. London:
Phoenix Publications.
Irvine, William. 1995. The Later Mughals, 2 vols. repr. Delhi: LP Publications.
Islam, Riazul. 1979. A Calendar of Documents on Indo-Persian Relations, vol. I. Tehran:
Iranian Culture Foundation.
Kamwar Khan, Muhammad Hadi. 1980. Tazkiratus-Salatin-iChughta, edited by Muzaffar
Alam. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Kuçuk, Mustufa et al. 1995. Başbakanlik Osmanli Arşivi Kataloğlari Rahberi. Ankara:
Başbakanlik Basimevi.
Kurtoğlu, Fevzi. 1940. ‘Hadim Süleyman Paşanin Mektuplari ve Belgradin Muhasara Pilani’,
Belleten, vol. 4(13): 61–69.
Kütükoğlu, Mübahat. 1994. Osmanli Belgelerinin Dili. Istanbul: Kubbealti.
Lakhnawi, Shiv Das. 1980. Shahnama Munawwar Qalam, translated by S. H. Askari. Patna:
Iqbal Book Depot.
Lal, Ruby. 2004. Domesticity and Power in the Early Mughal World. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lewis, Bernard. 1951. ‘The Ottoman Archives as a Source for the History of the Arab Lands’,
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 83(3–4):139–55.
———. 1952. The Ottoman Archives as a Source for Jewish History. Jerusalem: Israel
Oriental Society.
———. 1954. ‘Studies in the Ottoman Archives—1, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies, vol. XVI(3): 469–501.
———. 1956. ‘The Ottoman Archives: A Source for European History’, in Report on Current
Research. Washington: Middle East Institute: 17–25.
Ma‘bari, Ziauddin. 1942. Tuhfat al-mujahidin, translated by S. M. H. Nainar. Madras:
University of Madras.
Malik, Zahiruddin. 1973. A Mughal Statesman of the Eighteenth Century. Bombay: Asia
Publishing House.
Ménage, V. L. 1965. ‘Seven Ottoman Documents from the Reign of Mehmed II’. In
Documents from Islamic Chanceries, First series, edited by S. M. Stern. London:
Oxford University Press.
Menon, Sridharan. 1996. A survey of Kerala History. Madras: D.C. Books.
Mughul, Muhammad Yaqub. 1974. Kanuni Devri Osmanlilarin Hint Okyanusu Politikasi ve
Osmanli–Hint Müslimanlari Münasebetleri, 1517–1538. Istanbul: Fetih Yayınevi.

Mühimme Defterleri (MD), vols. 6, 7, 19, 28, 35, 39, 58 and 64. Istanbul: Başbakanlik
Devlet Arşivi.
Muhiuddin, Momin. 1971. Chancellery and Persian Epistolography under the Mughals:
From Babur to Shahjahan 1526–1658. Calcutta: Iran Society.
Murphy, R. 1990. ‘Ottoman Census Methods in the Mid-sixteenth Century: Three Case
Studies’, Archivum Ottomanicum, vol. 14(1): 115–26.
Naff, Thomas. 1963. ‘Reform and the Conduct of Ottoman Diplomacy in the Reign of Selim
III, 1789–1807’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 83(3): 295–315.
Name-i Hümayun Defterleri, vols. 6, 9, Başbakanlik Devlet Arşivi, Istanbul.
Oz, Tahsin. 1938 & 1940. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi Kılavuzu, vol. 1 & 2. Istanbul:
Devlet Basimve.
———. 1950. ‘Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivinde Fatih II Sultan Mehmete ait belgeler’,
Belleten, vol. 14(1): 49–56.
Özbaran, Salih. ‘Ottoman Expansion in the Red Sea’. In The Ottoman Empire as a World
Power, 1453–1603, edited by Suraiya N. Faroqhi and Kate Fleet. New York: Cambridge
University Press: 173–204.
Pamuk, Şevket. 2000. A monetary history of the Ottoman empire. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Paşa, Lutfi. 1922–23. Tevarih-i Al-i Osman. Istanbul: Matba’a Amire.
Pearson, M. N. 1994. Pious Passengers: The Hajj in Earlier Times. London: Hurst &
Company.
Peçevi, Ibrahim. 1968. Peçevi Tarihi, 2 vols, edited by Murat Uraz. repr. Istanbul: Neşriyat
Yurdu.
Prime Ministry General Directorate of State Archives, Republic of Turkey. 2001. ‘Publication
No. 15’, Ankara: 1–12.
Radhey Shyam. 1975. ‘The Nizam Shahis and the Imad Shahis’. In History of Medieval
Deccan 1295–1724, vol. I, edited by H. K. Sherwani and P. M. Joshi. Hyderabad State
Archives.
Raşid, Mehmed. 1867. Tarih-i Raşid, vol. IV. Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire.
Redhouse, James W. 1978. A Turkish and English Lexicon: Shewing in English the
significations of the Turkish terms. Istanbul: Çağrı Yayınları.
Reychman, Jan and Ananiasz Zajaczkowski. 1968. Handbook of Ottoman–Turkish
Diplomatics. Revised and expanded translation by Andrew S. Ehrenkreutz and edited
by Tibor Halasi-Kun Mouton.
Sahillioğlu, Halil. (ed.). 2002. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivinde 12321 Numarali Mühimme
Defteri. Istanbul: General Directorate of Ottoman Archives.
Sertoğlu, Midhat. 1955. Muhteva Bakimindan Başvekalet Arşivi. Ankara: Ankara Universitesi
Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Yayinlari.
Shaikh Sikandar Ibn Muhammad Urf Manjhu Ibn Akbar. 1961. Mirat-i Sikandari, edited by
S. C. Misra and M. L. Rahman. Baroda: Department of History, University of Baroda.
Shaw, Stanford J. 1956. ‘Cairo’s Archives and the History of Ottoman Egypt’, Report on
current Research on Middle East, Washington, DC: Middle East Institute: 59–72.
———. 1960. ‘Archival Sources for Ottoman History: The Archives of Turkey’, Journal
of American Oriental Society, vol. 80(1): 1–12.
Singer, Amy. 1990. ‘Tapu Tahrir Defterleri ve Kadi Sicillleri: A Happy Marriage of Sources’,
Tarih, vol. 1(1): 95–125.

Tabatabai, Saiyid Ghulam Husain. 1897. Seir-ul mutakhrin, 3 vols. Lucknow: Munshi
Nawal Kishore Press.
Tapu Tahrir Defterleri. (n.d.). Vols. 282, 534, 5461. Istanbul: Başbakanlik Devlet Arşivi.
Unat, Faik Reşat. 1968. Osmanli Sefirleri ve Sifaretnameleri, edited by Bekir Sitki Bayel.
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Uzunçarşili, Ismail Hakki. 1948. Osmanli Devletinde Merkez ve Bahriye Teşkilati.
Ankara.
Wazih, Mubarakullah. 1971. Tarikh-i Iradat Khan, edited by Ghulam Rasul Mehr.
Lahore.
Veinstein, Giles. 1999. ‘Commercial Relations Between India and the Ottoman Empire
(Late Fifteenth to Late Eighteenth Centuries): A Few Notes and Hypotheses’ in Sushil
Chaudhury and Michel Morineau (eds), Merchants, Companies and Trade: Europe and
Asia in the Early Modern Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 95–115.
———. 2013. ‘Religious Institutions, Politics and Lives’ in Suraiya N. Faroqhi and Kate
Fleet (eds), The Ottoman Empire as a World Power, 1453–1603. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press: 320–55.
Yeşil, Fatih. 2011. Aydinlanma Çağinda Bir Osmanli Katibi, Ebubekir Ratib Efendi
1750–1799. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi-Yurt Yayinlari.
Zilli, Ishtiaq Ahmad. 2000. ‘Development of Insha Literature to the End of Akbar’s Reign’,
in Muzaffar Alam, Francoise Nalini Delvoye and Marc Gaborieau (eds.), The Making
of Indo-Persian Culture: Indian and French Studies. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers:
309–49.

An Overview of Ottoman Archival

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Overview of Ottoman Archival

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Overview of Ottoman Archival

Documents and Their Relevance for

The significance of Ottoman archives for the reconstruction of Europe’s past

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

a large empire naturally produced an enormous amount of state documents

The documents were originally stored in two buildings known as Hazine-i

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

Directorate of Treasury of papers was given the status of the General

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

preparation. The last named contains a large number of court records

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

are estimated to contain copies of approximately 200,000 fermans.19

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

the official concerned to take action immediately. Sometimes the addressee

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

Persian language. In most cases, the Turkish translation of an incoming

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

The registers generally begin with a royal decree ordering their

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

Tahrir Defter no. 5461, compiled in 1690, enumerates, besides spices,

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

hardly over-emphasised and despite recent scepticism on the part of

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

subjects in order to legitimise their rule in the eyes of Muslims at large.

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

Translation of the Documents

Order to the Kadi of Makka-i Mukarrama that the Sherif of Makka-i

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

Document No. 4: Name-i Hümayun Defterleri, Vol. 9, ff 391–394, Turkish

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

This document furnishes entirely new evidence on a much talked about

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

according to the Ottoman chronicler Ibrahim Peçevi, was later utilised

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

of Hajji Ad-Dabir, the author of Zafar ul- Walih bi Muzaffar wa Alihi.

This document supplies intriguing and hitherto unknown evidence on the

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

The advent of Muslims in Malabar shortly after the birth of Islam is

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

Alauddin Riayat Syah of Sumatra is willing to submit to the Ottoman

This ferman can be placed in the category of Ottoman state documents

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

Firishta’s testimony leaves no doubt that the family mausoleum of

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

 The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229

The Medieval History Journal, 20, 1 (2017): 192–229 

You might also like