#smrgKİTABEVİ Studies in Ottoman History and Law - 1996
Not all barriers which an Ottoman historian faces are intellectual. One of them is physical, and this is the problem of access to records. In some cases access is no longer possible because, as in Bosnia, records, whether in stone or on paper, have been deliberately destroyed. One should remember, too, that it is only by good fortune and the swift action of scholars that the Ottoman archives in Istanbul survived the holocaust of Ottoman culture in the 1930s. Where records do survive, the problem is gaining access. This is particularly true of the Libraries and Archives of Istanbul, which remain by far the richest source for the study of Ottoman, and indeed Islamic history and civilisation. What strikes the foreign researcher very forcibly, is that access to these institutions is in the hands not of scholars and librarians, but of civil servants, consular officials and the security services, and that the granting or witholding of access often seems to be quite random. One can only conclude that the purpose of these apparently arbitrary hindrances is to discourage serious research, and to keep the study of Ottoman history firmly under government control.
There is probably not much that historians can do to make access to Ottoman records any easier. However, the other problems which impede the development of the academic study of Ottoman history are more easily dealt with. Firstly, Ottomanists should be aware of the ideologies and preconceptions which have determined the course of their subject. Nationalism is the most obvious, but there are others. Secondly, they should recognise priorities. We do not even possess an accurate chronology of the Empire's history, or an adequate account of its institutions and personalities. Until these basics are sorted out, sophisticated, high level debate is not possible. Thirdly, they should be selective in what they borrow from European historians. Finally, they should be less respectful of received opinion, no matter how eminent the source. Without open debate, no subject can advance. The lack of serious debate has, in some aspects, left the study of Ottoman history stranded in the 1930s which is where, I suspect, some national governments would like it to stay.
Not all barriers which an Ottoman historian faces are intellectual. One of them is physical, and this is the problem of access to records. In some cases access is no longer possible because, as in Bosnia, records, whether in stone or on paper, have been deliberately destroyed. One should remember, too, that it is only by good fortune and the swift action of scholars that the Ottoman archives in Istanbul survived the holocaust of Ottoman culture in the 1930s. Where records do survive, the problem is gaining access. This is particularly true of the Libraries and Archives of Istanbul, which remain by far the richest source for the study of Ottoman, and indeed Islamic history and civilisation. What strikes the foreign researcher very forcibly, is that access to these institutions is in the hands not of scholars and librarians, but of civil servants, consular officials and the security services, and that the granting or witholding of access often seems to be quite random. One can only conclude that the purpose of these apparently arbitrary hindrances is to discourage serious research, and to keep the study of Ottoman history firmly under government control.
There is probably not much that historians can do to make access to Ottoman records any easier. However, the other problems which impede the development of the academic study of Ottoman history are more easily dealt with. Firstly, Ottomanists should be aware of the ideologies and preconceptions which have determined the course of their subject. Nationalism is the most obvious, but there are others. Secondly, they should recognise priorities. We do not even possess an accurate chronology of the Empire's history, or an adequate account of its institutions and personalities. Until these basics are sorted out, sophisticated, high level debate is not possible. Thirdly, they should be selective in what they borrow from European historians. Finally, they should be less respectful of received opinion, no matter how eminent the source. Without open debate, no subject can advance. The lack of serious debate has, in some aspects, left the study of Ottoman history stranded in the 1930s which is where, I suspect, some national governments would like it to stay.
-
Satıldı
