Mehmet Mehdi İlhan

Keywords: Diyarbakır, Medieval History, Source, Literature, Bibliography, History

The sources and literature on the medial history of Diyarbekr region are limited as it is the general case with the medieval history of Anatolia on the whole. Apart from few sources which are, however, directly related to the area there are othere sources from which indirect infirmation can be derived to study the history of the area. Inorder to avoid confusion, however, no such classification will be made, rather they will be treated under original or primary sources, secondary literature and Armenian and Syriac sources. Before examining them, nevetheless, it would perhaps be better to briefly mention few works and bibliographies in which there can be found a good literature on the area.

The literature found in J.D. Pearson’s Index Islamicus, C.A. Storey’s Persian Literature, E. G. Browne’s Literary History of Persia and M.S. Özege’s Eski Harflerle Basılmış Türkçe Eserler Kataloğu are scant. Therefore one should throughly examine the foot notes and bibliographies in the works which are directly related to the area. The most important of these works are Gabriel’s Voyages Archéologiques dans la Turquie Orientale and Bercham’s Amida.

Apart from these last two works the literature should carefully be sought through l.H. Uzunçarşılı’s Anadolu Beylikleri, F. Sümer’s Kara Koyunlular, N. Göyünç’s XVI. Yüzyılda Mardin Sancağı, Artuk’s İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Teşhirde ki İslâmî Sikkeler Kataloğu, A. K. Sanjian’s Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts, 1301-1480, and perhaps D.K. Kouynijian’s A Numismatic History of Southern Caucasia and Adharbaijan based on the Islamic Coinage of the 5th/11th to the 7th/13th Centuries [1]. There are few articles which also contain valuable sources and literature. These are Erzi’s “Akkoyunlu ve Kara koyunlu Tarihi Hakkında Araştırmalar’’[2], Sevim’s “Artukluların Soyu ve Artuk Bey’in Siyasi Faaliyetleri”[3], “Artukoğlu Sökmen’in Siyasi Faaliyetleri”[4], and “Artukoğlu İlgazi”[5], and Köprülü’s “Anadolu Selçukluları Tarihinin yerli Kaynakları”[6], An evaluation and critisism of these works will be made wherever appropriate and the other works, books and articles which contain a good bibliography will be pointed out.



i) Arabic;

With the exclusion of Kitâb-ι Diyârbekriyye, in Persian, which is already edited and published, the Arabic manuscripts are the most important for the study of the area. Ahmed b. Yusuf b. ‘Ali b. al-Azrak b. al-Fariki’s[7] Târih-i Meyyâfârikin ve Amid probably is the most valuable of them. There are two copies of this manuscript in the British Museum; a large one (Or. 5803) is 290 folios and a small one (Or. 6310)[8] is 140 folios. The first part of this work on the Merwanids has already been edited as a Ph. D. thesis at Cambridge University by an Egyptian[9]. The second part of the work on the Artukids was edited in 1975 as a Ph.D. thesis by A. Savran[10] at the University of St. Andrews, England.

Tarih-i al-Fariki mainly being on the history of Meyyâfarikin, according to the author relates whatever there is about the history of the town from its foundation up to his own period[11]. Ofcourse this also would mean that there is abundant information on the history of Diyarbekr region itself. Infact the work has much more information[12]; ff. 8a-85b are on the early Mulim conquest, ff. 85a-122a are on the history of the Abbasids Caliphate and ff. 121a-200 which comprise the second big part of the manuscripts are wholly on the Merwanid and Artukid dynasties. Al-Fariki in writing the history of the Artukids becomes independent of the sources since he was witness to the most of the events. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that this work is more reliable source for the history of the Ar-tukids than that of Merwanids since the latter lost power to the Selçukids in 478/1085 and the author (510-573/1116-1177) most probably did not start writing his work untill towards the very end of the first half of the 12th century. Infact Tutuş captured Meyyâfârikin from the Merwanids in 486/1093 and Mahmud, the Selçukid Sultan gave it as an ikta‘ to the Artukid Ilgazi in 515/1121. It should also be noted that the work contains the events up to 572/1176.

In compiling his work Ibn al-Azrak b. al-Fâriki had relied widely on the works of his predecessors as well as oral tradition. Unfortunately by deriving his information from the latter he must have fallen into grave errors on the events happened before his life time. Various authors have used also his work as a source of information[13].

The chronicle of Hısn-ı Keyfâ is another manuscript of great importance, which upto now has only been used by Cahen and Sümer. Cahen who had discussed the context of the manuscript in detail[14], but probably not made much use of it, was the first to introduce it to the scholastic circles. Sümer has only made use of it when examining the political activities of Bayram Hoca in al-Cezire and Mesopotamia[15]. There is only one copy of this work and that is in the National Library at Vienna (Mxt. 355). This copy, however, includes the events only upto 778/1376, whereas the chronicle was completed in 821/1418 and was presented to al-Melik al-‘Adil Fahr al-Din Süleyman, the ruler of Hısn-ı Keyfa. The original work, therefore, must have included the events upto 820/1417.

Ihe author of this chronicle, which is entitled Nuzhat al-Nazir ve Râhet al-Hâtir al-Muhtasar (fi camî al-tevârih ve al-sugar) min Kitâb Gayet al-Matlûb fi (camî) Târih beyt Eyyûb, is unkown, However, we know that he was the grandson of a certain Haci Abdullah b. Muhammed called Ibn al-Mevârdi, who had been one of the notables of the Ayyubid principality since before 742/1341. The work has information not only on the Ayyubids of Hısn-ı Keyfa, but also on the Mongols, Artukids, Karakoyunlus, Akkoyunlus. In the work there are quotations from the court poets and the mention of the excursions outside the Ayyubid territory[16].

The work of ‘Abdullah b. Fethullah al-Bağdâdi, a 15th century author, entitled Târih al-Giyâsi after his nickname, has very valuable information on the Jelayirids, Karakoyunlus and Akkoyunlus. Unfortunately the only manuscript of this work is in a private library in Iraq. So far only al-Azzawi and Sümer have made use of it, and according to them there are lot of errors in the manuscript; therefore it should be read ciritically[17]. According to al-Azzawi the author of the manuscript was still alive in 891/1486 and probably died few years later. This would mean that the author was witness to the most of the events occured during the 15th century. Infact the author himself claims that his work is original for that century[18].

Al-Ğiyâsi just like many other historians of medieval period wrote a general history of medieval period from Adam upto almost the end of the 15th century.

‘Izz al-Din Ebû ‘Abdullah b. al-Halabi better known as Ibn Şeddâd (613-684/1217-1285)[19] is the author of al-‘Alak al-Hatira fi Zikri Ümera’ al- Şâm ve al-Cezire in two big volumes. The first volume is on Damascus and Aleppo. The chapters on Damascus have already been published in two volumes by S. al-Dahhan[20]. The context of the unpublished chapters on Aleppo has been dicussed by Sevim who read them through in two different manuscripts; one in Ayasofya Library (No. 3084) and the other in Topkapı Sarayı Revan Köşkü Library (No. 1564)[21]. It appears that there were two biographical supplements, which have not come down to us, on the rulers of both Damascus and Aleppo.

The second volume of Ibn Şeddâd’s work which concerns us here most is in three subsequent parts; on Diyârbekr, Diyâr-ı Mudar, and Diyâr-ı Rabi'a. We are not certain whether this volume was really written by Ibn Şeddâd. Amedroz, Sevim, Cl. Cahen and Awad believe it was so[22] and hence attribute the manuscript (Marsh 333) of Bodleian Library to him. The manuscript (Marsh 333) on the whole deals with the historical and geographical description of Mesopotamia including al-Cezire from its Muslim conquest until 679/1280, the date when the manuscript was compiled. The main concentration is on the Merwanids and Artukids. It appears that the author had used Ibn al-Azrak’s work as his main source on these two dynasties. Nevertheless, he carries the local history more than a century further than Ibn al-Azrak i.e. Ibn Şeddâd’s work ends up with the year 1280 whereas that of Ibn al-Azrak’s with 1176. Then this manuscript could well be considered as the continuation of Ibn al-Azrak’s History of Meyyâfârikin. Infact Ibn Şeddâd has given the description of so many towns and fortresses in al-Cezire that could be found in no other work.

Ibn Şeddâd, apart from Ibn al-Azrak’s work, had made use of the works of Ibn al-Kalanisi, Ibn al-Esir, Ibn al-'Adim and also Bahâ al-Din Ebu al-Mehasin Yusuf b. Rakı b. Temim b. Şeddâd’s work Ahbâr Salâh al-Din[23].

The rest of Arabic manuscripts to be discussed are not as important, but include some information which could be found in the manuscripts already discussed.

The universal history of al-Karamâni whose full name is Ahmed b. Yusuf b. Ebu Abbâs al-Dimaşkî includes some information on the region. Al-Karamâni’s work is entitled Kitâb-ı Ahbâr al-Düvel ve Âsâr al-Evvel[24] and there is a manuscript of the first volume of it in John Rylands Library (No. 26). Although some of the missing pages have been added to the manuscript by another scribe it may, as Mingans[25] suggests, be contemporary with the author. The work is divided into fasls and bâbs. The chapters which concern us are the ones on the Artukids (ff. 241b-243a), and the Akkoyunlus and Karakoyunlus (ff. 287a-289b). Also the work includes quite good information on the Selçukids, Atabegs, Timur, Danişmendids and Ottomans. The author, as he himself states, had used as his source various historical work such as Târihi Ibn al-Esir and Târih al-Düvel al-İslâmiyye perhaps the one by Şems al-Din Zahâbi[26]. On folio 440a we are told that the author (d. 1019/1611) had finished the work in 1008/ 1599.

A manuscript of another work in John Rylands Library which may concern our field of study is on the history of Timur by Ibn 'Arabşâh (d. 854/1450)[27] whose full name is Ebu al-'Abbâs Ahmed b. Muhammed b. Abdullah b. Arabşâh Şahâb al-Dîn al-Dimaşki al-Hanafî. The manuscript is the copy of Ibn Arabşâh’s well known work ‘Acâ’ib al-Makdur fi Neva'ib Timur[28] in which he throughly examines the life and conquets of Timur, the Lame. The folios which concern us here are 24b-28b and 586-593 which are on Diyârbekr and Mardin. There are quite a lot of works on Timur, but this could be considered as one of the most important since the author was a contemporary of Timur.

Yet another manuscript on the history of area is Târih al-Mardin[29] by ‘Abd al-Selâm Efendi who was the müfti of Mardin sometime during the first half of the 19th century. The manuscript contains 171 folios and contrary to its title is on the general history of the world rather than on Mardin only. However, it has quite good information on the Artukids, rulers of Mardin, and Timur despite the fact that it was only written during the 19th century, several centuries after the period we are concerned. The folios which would concern us here are roughly from 67 onwards and not yet to the very last folio. It should be added that the work has to be read very critically. There is also another manuscript in Istanbul, by the same author, entitled Umm al-’Iber[30] whic might be the same work.

Apart from these there are quite a number of manuscripts on the Selçukids, Ayyubids, and Timurids which would be of very use on the area. It would suffice to mention only two of them; one is entitled Şifâ’ al-Kulub fi Menâkibi Beni Eyyûb (Br. Mus. Add. 7311)[31], and the other is Târih al-Akrâd[32]

Lastly it would be tempting not to mention among the Arabic manuscripts Futûh Diyârbekr ve ardı Rabi’a (Br. Mus. Or. 5663)[33] attributed to al-Vakidi.[34] The work is on the early Muslim conquests of the regions mentioned. The conquest of Diyarbekr by Hâlid b. Velîd is described very colourfully.

ii) Persian:

Persian manuscripts on the area are very scant. The ones which exist are on the history of the Selçukids, Safavids or Timur, the Lame, or they include sometimes, a chapter or two on the Akkoyunlus and Karakoyunlus. Some of the manuscripts on Timur and the Selçukids were translated into Arabic or Turkish by the order of various sultans.

One of the oldest works written on the history of Timur is Zafernâme of Nizâm al-Din Şâmi[35], The manuscript of this work in the British Museum (Add. 23980)[36] comprises 215 folios and was copied in 838/1434. What concerns us in this manuscript is the account of Timur’s visit to Mardin (f. 176a), and the Sultân of Mardin asking Timur’s pardon (f. 195b).

Yet there is another work bearing the same title, Zafernâme, but written by a different author, Mevlânâ Şeref al-Din ‘Ali Yezdi[37]. There are sixteen manuscripts of this work in the British Museum[38].

Another important manuscript on the history of Timur is entitled Malfuzât-ı Emir Timur; the work was originally written in Mongolian and was translated into Persian by Ebû Tâlib al-Huseyni in 1202/1787. This manuscript which comprises 413 folios is in the British Museum (Or. 158)[39]. There is also an amendment of this work by Muhammed Afdal Buhâri under the title Melfuzât-i Şâhib Karân (Br. Mus. Add. 16686) of which there are alltogather seven manuscripts in the British Museum[40].

Perhaps one of the most valuable manuscripts on the history of Akkoyunlus and Karakoyunlus is the work of Idris b. Husam al-Din al-Bidlisi[41]. This work which is entitled Heşt Behişt mainly deals with the conquests of the first eight Ottoman sultans. There are two copies of Heşt Behişt[42] in the British Museum (Add. 7646 and Add. 7647)[43] and they comprise 293 and 245 folios respectively. They both are dated 988/1580.

Lubb al-Lubâb (Br. Mus. Or. 3400) which is on the general Muslim history has also some information on the Akkoyunlus (ff. 84b-90b). The work written by Haci Muhammed Kuli Kacar was completed, as understood from folio 96fb, in 1097/1685[44] and the Or. 3400 was copied in the 19th century.

Yet another work on the universal history is Zubdet al-Tavârîh (Br. Mus. Or. 3498) by Muhammed Muhsin, Mustavfi of Nâdir Şah. This work written in 1154/1741 (f. 215b) has valuable information on the Akkoyunlus and Safavids (f. 140a onwards). The present manuscript was copied in the 19th century[45]. There is another work also bearing the title Zubdet al-Tavârih written by a well known author called Hafız Ebru whose full name is Şihâb al-Dîn ‘Abdullah b. Lutfuilâh b. ‘Abd al-Reşid al-Med‘uvv b. Hâfız-ı Ebru (d. 833/1430)[46]. There is a copy of Ebru’s Zubdet al- Tavârîh in Istanbul[47]. Hafiz-i Ebru’s better known work is entitled Mecma al- Tavârîh which he began writing in 820/1417 and presented it to Şah Ruh in 823/1420. Hafız-i Ebru, to this latter work, had also written an addendum entitled Zeyl-i Camî al-Tevârîh-i Râşidi which is almost a repeatition of Zubdet al-Tavârih[48]. Hafiz-i Ebru’s Zubdet al-Tavârîh, therefore, is one of the most valuable works which has given original information on the history of Timur and the Akkoyunlus. Infact, on the history of Akkoyunlus and Karakoyunlus, both of his works should be consulted.

Some information on the history of the Akkoyunlos and Karakoyunlus can also be found in another British Museum manuscript (Or. 3333, ff. 114a-119b)[49].

One of the unique manuscripts in the British Museum is Or. 3248 on the history of Şah Ismâ’il under whose domain Diyarbekr remained from 913/1507 to 921/1515[50]. This manuscript bears no title or author’s name. A copy of the same work in Cambridge (Add. 200), however, appears to be entitled Târih-i Şâh Ismâ‘il[51]. The period which concerns us is covered between the folios 1223-2623. In fact folios 1223-1423 ere entirely on Diyarbekr region. The Or. 3248 was copied in the 16th century and the work originally was written under Şâh Tahmasp I (930-984/1524- 1576).

Another work without title and author’s name is Or. 4508 of the British Museum[52]. The manuscript which was copied in 1272/1855 is a comprehensive work on the universal history in a single volume. The work perhaps was written under Şâh 'Abbâs I (996-1629/1588-1629). The folios which particularly concern us are 213a-236b on the Artukids. The work also has information on the Selçukids of Syria between the folios 216b-224a.

There is also some information on the history of the area in Mir’ât al- Edvâr ve Mirkât al-Ahbâr of Muslih al-Din Lâri which was translated into Turkish by Hoca Sa’deddin.[53] The first volume of Tarih-i Mahmud Şâh Pâdişâh-ı Gucurât (Cambridge Add. 407) whose author is unknown has unique information on the Atabegs of Syria and Diyarbekr (ff. 2666-2473).

Apart from historical works there are also geographical works written, in Persian, which include some geographical and topographical information relevant to the study of the region. One of these works is Nuzhat al- Kulûb (Br. Mus. Add. 16736)[54] of Hamdullah b. Ebi Bekr b. Hamd al-Mustavfi al-Kazvini (680-751/1281-1350). The work was compiled in 740/ 1339[55]. The folios which concern us are on Diyârbekr and Diyâr-ı Rabi'a (ff. 169b-171a).

Riyâd al-Seyahât (Br. Mus. Or. 4617)[56] of Ibn Iskender Ziyâ al‘Abidin Şirvâni Ni’metullahi could not be considered as importan as the procee-ding work since the present volume which consists the second volume of the work, was completed in 1242/1826. Diyarbekr region is described between the folios 111b-114b.

iii) Turkish:

The manuscripts in Turkish relating to the region are not only few, but the ones which exist, with the exception of the official letters, are of secondary importance. Some of these manuscripts are the translations of the works is Arabic and Persian, and some others have derived their information from the works in these two languages. They, however, cannot wholly be ignored for some of these sources used in them are lost.

One of the most important of the works in Turkish is no doubt the translation of Şerefnâme by Muhammed Beg b. Ahmed Beg Mirza. There are two copies of the work in the British Museum[57]. The work which is originally in Persian[58] was written by Emir Şeref b. Şems al-Din Bidlisi in 1005/1596. It is mainly on the history of Diyarbekr province. On the folio 8a of the Or. 1127, the translator states that he has written this version by the order of Emir Şeref Hân, son of the late ’Abd al-Hân in 1078/1667.

There is also another translation of Şerefnâme by Şem’i which is of more importance than the preceeding one. The manuscript of this work which is also in the British Museum (Add. 18547)[59] only comprises 184 folios, half of the Or. 1127, but posseses two suplements carrying the local history for about another century that is right to the end of the 17th century. Şem i wrote this work in 1095/1684 at the instigation of his patrons, Mustafa Beg of Egil and Muhammed Kucur Beg of Palu[60].

On the history of Timur the most important translation is that of Ibn ‘Arabşâh’s Acâ’ib al-Makdûr fi Nevâib Tımûr[61] by Murtaza Nazmi Zâde. The manuscript of this translation in the Biritish Musseum (Add. 7847) comprises 170 folios[62]. Nazmi Zâde started his translation in 1109/1697 and completed in on 22nd Rabi' al-Evvel 1110/1698. In the preface he sketches out the life of Ibn ‘Arabşâh. Between folios 3b-117a the subsequent events down to the date of composition in 840/1436 are presented. There is also a shorter version of the same translation entitled Târih-i Timur Gürkani li-Nazmi Zâde Efendi (Br. Mus. Add. 11524)[63].

On the history of the Selçukids one of the rare manuscripts is Târih-i Ali Selçuk by Yazıcı Zâde ‘Ali Efendi. There are three manuscripts of this work in the Library of Topkapı Sarayı Museum (Nos. R 1390-2)[64]. The work was written by the order of Muhammed II (834-855/1421-1451). What concerns us mainly in this work is the second chapter, which is on the Great Selçukids, covering the period from the reign of Rukn al-Din Ebu Talib Tuğrul Beg to the reign of Mu’iz al-Din Ebu Haris Sultan Sencer including the Selçukids of Irak. The first chapter, which according to Blochet taken from Reşid al-Dîn’s Cami' al-Tavârih, is on the old Turkish clans, and the family lineage, arma and tamğas of Oğuz tribes. Chapters three and four are on the Ottomans. Especially in chapter four there is a good account of the fall of the beyliks and the rise of the Ottoman Empire on their soil. It is argued that the third chapter is the exact translation of Ibn-i Bibi’s Al-Evâmir al-‘Alaiyye fi'l-Umur al- ‘Alaniyye while the fourth chapter is a translation of what Reşid al-Din has narrated[65].

Perhaps one of the unique Turkish manuscripts in John Rylands Library (No. 74)[66] is a translation of the Tarih-i Muslih al-Din-ι Lâri by Hoca Sa'd al-Din in about 1061/1650[67]. Throughout the manuscript (in John Rylands) there are quite a lot of verses occuring in Persian. The work, being a universal history begins with the fall of Adem, giving an acount of other prophets including Jesus and Muhammed (ff. 1a-59a), and ends up with a short account of learned men and viziers (ff. 458a-464b), thus covering many historical events upto the year 974/1566. It has quite good information on local rulers of South East Anatolia (ff. 287b-289a), Great Selçukids (ff. 289a-306b), Ata6egs of Diyarbekr (ff. 309a-370a), Ayyubids (ff. 328b-335a), Timur and his sons and the account of the cities which he destroyed including his war with Bâyezid (ff. 401b-440a), and the Akkoyunlus (ff. 449b-458b). It appears that the chapter on Timur is an abrid-ged translation from Ibn 'Arabşâh’s work.

Muslih al-Din-i Lari (d. 980/1572) was a muderris in the Husrev Paşa medrese in the city of Diyarbakır. There is also another medrese in Diyarbakır which is called by his name and in which he also tought. His tombstone still stands in the courtyard of this so called Muslih al-Din-i Lâri medrese which is a ruin today[68].

On the Ottoman period one of the best manuscripts is the Maasir Selim Hâni by Mustafa b. Celal, a copy of which is in the British Museum (Add. 7848)[69]. The work which comprises 494 folios is on the history of the reign of Sultan Selim I. The author first was one of the writers of Diwin under Selim I, but later Süleyman II raised him to the post of Re’is al-Kuttâb in 930/1523 and then to the writership of Tuğra (Nişancı) after the conquest of Bagdad in 941/1534. At the age of seventy, when resigned from this post, he started writing the history of Sultan Suleyman H’s reign which he has entitled Tabakât al-Memâlik ve Derecât al-Mesâlik and the manuscript of which is also in the British Museum (Add. 7855)[70]. While writing this work he was at the same time becoming aware of the true account of Selim’s reign and thus started writing the history of ff. Both these works are no doubt very valuable. But we are mostly concerned with the Maasir Selim Hâni, the chapter XVII of which is on the conquest of Diyarbekr and the environs[71].

iv) Collection of Royal Letters:

Unfortunately there are hardly any royal letters of the middle ages that have survived in their original form; some of them have been rewritten and compiled by the orders of Ottoman sultans. Among these compilations the most important one relavent to us is Munşe’ât-ı salâtin compiled by well known Feridun Beg, a manuscript copy of which is in the British Museum (Or. 61). This manuscript comprises the letters of Muhammed II, and Bayezid II to the contemparary princes and the replies from them between the years 848-913/1444-1507[72]. The letters are in Turkish, Arabic and Persian. The present manuscript was copied in the 17th century. The folios which concern us are 26b-81b; 96b-133a and 148b- 161a. Between these folios there are letters by Muhammed II to the Akkoyunlu rulers and replies from them[73].

The second collection of Royal letters which is of most importance to us is Add. 7688 of British Museum. This manuscript in Rieu, Turkish manuscripts in the Br. Mus. and Rieu, Persian manuscripts in the Br. Mus. is wrongly entitled as Majma’ al-Insha which infact is the title of the Or. 3482 of he British Museum[74]. As it would appear on folio I a the correct title of the work should be Kitâb-i Mecmu’ai al-Murâselât. The manuscript comprises the letters of the Şah of Persia to their contemparary princes and answers from them. The work also includes other state papers. The compiler of the work Ebu al-Kasım Ivağli Haydar has collected and arranged the letters in a chronological order, from the reign of the Selçukid Alp Arslan to that of Safawid Safi I. The compilor was in charge of the court Harim at Isfehan at the death of the Safawid ‘Abbas I (1038/ 1629). The letters are in Persian and Turkish, and the ones which are relavent to us are between the folios 57a-82b. Amongst them the most important ones are the following: the letters of Uzun Hasan to Muhammed II announcing Cihân Şâh’s defeat in 872; Muhammed II to Uzun Hasan warning him[75]; Muhammed II to his son Mustafa conveying the news of the defeat of Uzun Hasan at Tercan in 878; Selim I to ‘Ubeyd Han Özbek conveying the news of the conquests in Diyarbekr province in 921[76].

Or. 348 of the British Museum also compiled by Ebu al-Kasım Ivağlı is another collection of the Royal letters relavent to our field of study. It mainly comprises the correspondances of Safawid Şah Isma'il I[77], Timur, and Safawid Şah Isma’il II. Between the folios 198b-203a there is a letter of Nasuh Paşa who was vâli of Diyarbekr (1015-1020/1606-1611 )[78].

No doubt the manuscripts on the dynasties which ruled in Diyarbekr region are much more and each one of them would have valuable information which would throw light on the history of the area especially with regard to the relations with the neighbouring states. Also there are other manuscript copies of some of the manuscripts mentioned in this article. It is impossible, however, to cite all these manuscripts let alone to examine them within the frame work of a short essay. They can easily be traced in the catalogues of manuscripts of the libraries and museums.


There are quite a lot of inscriptions on the city walls, mosques, public and private buildings, and tombstones in Diyarbekr region which have survived to our time. Although most of these inscriptions have been recorded there are still some, especially on the tombstone and walls of the private houses, that have not been noticed. The tombstones in the Diyarbakır Museum and the other museums in the region, and those lying in the cemeteries, if sutudied, could bring to light many unknown facts about the history of the region. Likewise there are quite a lot of coins lying in the museums of Turkey, Europe and Middle East which are not yet catalogued let alone examined or studied. These coins, infact, would require a special study inorder to throw further light on the history of the region.

No work has been done on the seals of the area at all. There are quite a number of seals stamped on the folios of the manuscripts in the Diyarbakır Library. Also the seals cexisting in the museums must be recorded and studied as soon as possible. Unless these works have been accomplished the facts about the history of the area will remain obscure and incomplete.


These are mainly the works of well known historians of the middle ages who wrote the history of the world upto their own era in massive volumes, and the works of not so well known historians who wrote local and individual histories. No doubt that the works of the latter may sometimes be more reliable than the works of former.

One of the best known historians is Ibn al-Esir, the author of the universal history entitled Al-Kâmil fi al-Târih. ‘Izz al-Din Ebu al-Hasan ‘Ali b. Muhammed Ibn al-Esir was bom in al-Cezire in 555/1160 and died in Mosul in 630/1232[79]. He finished his work in 619/1222 and the events he had covered in it are up to the arrival of Celâl al-Din Hava rezmşâh[80]. In this work Ibn al-Esir gives valuable information on the origin of the Selçukids, foundation of their state and its expansion. He also gives quite good account of the events occured in Diyarbekr region during the 11th and 12th centuries. Al-Kâmıl fi al-Târih was first edited in 1851-76 by C.J. Tomberg under the title Ibn al-Athiri Chronicon in 14 volumes (Leyden/Upsala) and was republished in 12 volumes in Beirut[81]. Ibn al- Esir, despite having relied on many sources without having cited them, was one of the most able historians of the Middle Ages. His work is very valuable and original even for the period before his life time.

Camî al-Ταυârih, a universal history by Reşid al-Din[82], was written in Persian. Fadluliâh b. 'Imâd al-Devle Ebû al-Hayr b. 'Ali was a Jew from Hamadan and had served under the İlhanids. He rose to the post of vizier under Muhammed Hudâbend Olcay tu but was killed when Olcaytu died in 1317 A.D. His work is largely based on the other sources and the Selçukid section[83] is entirely based on a lost work of Zahir al-Dîn Nişabu ri on the history of the Selçukids[84], or Revândi’s Râhat al-Sudûr[85].

Hamdullah al-Mustavfi al-Kazvini’s[86] work Târih-i Guzide[87] has a good section on the Great Selçukids.

Another work of importance on the history of the Great Selçukids is Ahbâr al-Devle al-Selçukiyye[88] whose author is unknown. It is based on three different sources on the Selçukids[89]. The first two sources which comprise the first two sections of the work are 'imâd al-Dîn’s Zubdetu al- Tavârih and Nusretu al-Fitre. The title and the author of the third source is unknown. The work on the whole includes the narratives of the Great Selçukids from their origin upto the death of Rukn al-Din Tûğrul in 590/ 1194.

A work on the Selçukids of Rum without the name of the author is Tarih-i Âli Selçuk (der Anatuli). This work has been translated into Turkish by Uzluk[90] and published togather with its fascimiles. This work just like the proceeding one gives the events from the origin of the Selçukids until the year 765/1363. However, the events mentioned between the years 694-765 are very few, extremely short and are nothing more than the dates of the death of some sultans and important personalities. Uzluk had done a straight translation from the only manuscript which is in Paris and has not bothered to edit the text. In the Turkish text there are many mistakes made in the transliteration of the personal names and even many of them are misread.

Ibn al-Cevzi’s Kitab al-Muntazam ve Multekât al-Multezem fi Ahbârı al-Muluk ve al-Umam although does not have much on the area but is im-portant for its originality especially for the early period of the Selçukids. The work is a general history covering the events upto the year 573/1177· Cemâl al-Dîn Ebü al-Ferec 'Abd al-Rahmân b. 'Ali b. Muhammed Ibn al-Cevzi[91] was bom in Bagdad in 562/1116 and died in 597/1200. His work was publihed in Haydarabad in 1358/1939.

Sibt Ibn al-Cevzi’s work is no doubt much more importât than that of Ibn al-Cevzi’s. Sibt Ibn al-Cevzi, whose real name is Şems al-din Ebù al-Muzaffer Yusuf b. Kuzuğlu b. 'Abdullah was bom in Bağdâd in 582/ 1186 and died in Damascus in 655/1257. As it would be understood from his nickname he was grandson[92] of Ibn al-Cevzi whom we mentioned above. It appears that his grandfather was his first teacher. His work Mirât al-Zamân fi Târih al-Ayân is a universal history comprising the events from the creation of Adam until the author’s death. The account of the events which occured during his life time are no doubt original. For the earlier periods he has used various sources which have not survived to our time. He has made use of the works of Ibn al-Kalânisi, Ibn al-Cevzi, Ibn al-Azrak[93] and some others. Although some parts of his work are edited and published by various scholars but the most of it still lies in manuscripts in various libraries. Fortunately, however, the sections on the Selçukids which concern us are edited and published by Sevim[94]. In this work the conquest of Diyarbekr by the Selçukids is told in detail. Furthermore it gives quite good account of the Artukid family serving under the Selçukid sultans.

Mirhond’s Ravdatu al-Safâ which also is a universal history has some information relavent to the area of our study. Mirhond b. Havendşâh b. Mahmud[95] was bom in 837/1433 and died in 904/1498. His work in eight volumes, is entitled Ravdat al-Şafâ fi Siret al-Enbiyâ ve al-Muluk ve al- Hulefâ and was written in Persian. It has quite good information on the Selçukids, Akkoyunlus and Karakoyunlus. On the history of Karakoyunlus he has used, as his source, ‘Abd al-Rezzak Kemâl al-Dîn b. Ishak-ı Semerkandi’s Matla’ al-Sa’deyn Mecma’ al-Bahreyn[96].

The most important work yet to be mentioned is Ebu Bekr-i Tihra ni’s Kitâb-ι Dxyârbekriyye, which is entirely on the history of the Akkoyunlus and Karakoyunlus and has most original information on he region of Diyarbekr that could be found in no other work. The work has been edited with footnotes in Turkish by Sümer and Lugal[97] from an only existing manuscript in the private library of Muhammed Emin, a solicitor in Basra. Introduction to the first volume by Sümer includes a short biography of the author, an account of the sources of the work itself as a source to Gaffari[98], Hasan Beg Rumlu[99] and Müneccim Başı[100].


The first book published in the West on the epigraphy of the area was in 1910 under the title Amida[101]. This book, written in three languages, comprises the works of three different authors in one volume. Apart from Miss Bell the other authors have not been to Amid. The first part written in French by Swiss scholar Berchem, is on the inscriptions. Berchem studied the inscriptions from the photographs by a French general L. de Beylie[102] who had visited Amid in 1907. The inscriptions of the Abbasids, Mervanids, Selçukids, Inalids, Artukids of Hısn-ı keyfa, Ayyubids, Artukids of Mardin, and Ottomans have been transcribed and translated into French together with a very short historical background. Berchem has also examined some reliefs of the Selçukids on the walls of the city and the Grand Mosque and compared them and the inscriptions with those in Bagdad and Aleppo. Unfortunately, only a portion of the inscriptions on the walls of the city and the Grand Mosque are recorded and even these are incomplete; some of the terms are misread and a lot is left out from each inscription. Although there ere quite a number of the inscriptions of the Ottoman period two of them are only recorded. Beside not recording any inscriptions of the Akkoyunlus the author has concluded that there are none belonging to them[103].

The second part of the book is on the art and architecture of Diyarbekr, Syria and Egypte written in German by Austrian Strzygowski. Joseph Strzygowski has examined and studied Muslim and Christian arts and architecture in these areas and has sometimes compared them. He has also transcribed and examined some of the inscriptions in Latin, Greek and Syriac.

The third part of the book, as it is apparent from its title, is on the churches and monasteries of Tur Abidin, to the east of Mardin. This part is written by an English traveller Gertrude Lowthian Bell in which she gives the location and the description of the churches and monasteries.

Throughout the book there are photographs and plans of the mosques, churches and other buildings of the areas in question beside fifty six photographs at the end which are entirely of Amid.

Gabriel’s Voyages Archeologique[104] also includes the inscription of Diyarbekr region. This work is in two volumes, the second volume only includes the photographs. The first volume is in five chapters: the first chapter is on the histiography, topography and the monuments of Mardin, Dunaysir and Hısn-ı Keyfa; the second on Diyarbekr; the third on Mayyafariqin, Bitlis and Ahlat; the forth on Kharput, Malatya and Urfa; the fifth and the last chapter is on the inscriptions of Mardin, Dunaysir, Hısn-ı Keyfa, Diyarbekir, Meyyafariqin, Port du Batman Su, Bitlis, Akhlat, Kharput, Pertek, Malatya and Urfa. In this final chapter the inscriptions have been transcribed and translated into French. However, just like in Amida, only a fragment of the inscriptions have been recorded and some terms have been misread.

Some of the inscriptins in Berchem’s Amida have been studied by two scholars: Flury has only concentrated on Kufic inscriptions and has made their evaluation by comparing them with other Islamic inscriptions in an article published in three parts in the periodical Syria[105]. In this article Flury has also given an alphabet of the Kufic inscriptions.

Wiet[106] has studied the inscriptions of Saladin which were published in Berchem’s Inscriptions Arabes de Syriac and his Amida.

The inscriptions of Diyarbekr region can also be found togather with their French translations in Repertoire Chronologique[107] and Syrie du Nord[108]. In both of these works the inscriptions have been copied from the works already published. In the last work, on page 115, the titles of the rulers have been written in their Arabic forms as they would appear in the ins-criptions.

Some work on the inscriptions of Diyarbekr has also been done by the local scholars such as Konyar[109], Baykal, Savcı[110] and Beysanoğlu[111]. Of these the most important is the combined work of Baykal and Savcı entitled Diyarbakır Anıtları ve Tarihi. This work, unfortunately, was never published and perhaps is lost except that some fragments of it have been typed by someone and kept in the Diyarbakır Museum. These fragments comprise only a part of the original work and many errors have been made by the typist. Furthermore since the inscriptions have been transliterated into Latin letters without any systematic pattern it is difficult to decide how the special terms were written in their original script. According to Baykal, however, the system adopted in the original work was as follows; Origin of the name of the town, the description of the walls and towers and their constructors and builders. Also each monument was written on a single form, alltogather amounting to ninety five forms or for that matter folios (on the monuments).

The inscriptions of the various towns in the region can also be found in the works of the above mentioned authors and some other local scholars. But they are all, with the exception of Ibn Muhammed’s Meyyâfarikin[112] written in Ottoman script, have drawback of an unsystematic transliteration and comprising only a fragment of the inscriptions existing in the area.

Ibn Muhammed’s work and Savci’s Silvan Tarihi[113] include quite a lot of inscriptions of Meyyafarikin with a short historical background to the dynasties ruled in the town.

The inscriptions included in Şerif’s work[114] are also of some use for studying the history of the area.


The coins of the dynasties who ruled in the area can be found in the numismatic catalogues of the museums of many countries in Europe and Asia. It appears from these catalogues that every dynasty that ruled in the area struck coins. The main minting places, as far as known, were Amid, Meyyafarikin, Hısn-ı Keyfa, Mardin, and Maden.

The catalogues of the Oriental coins in the British Museum have been compiled by Poole. The following catalogues of Poole include the coins struck in our region: Catalogue of Oriental Coins in the British Museum, vol viii, class xxxvi, London 1883; Catalogue of Onenlal Coins in the British Museum, vol. iii, class x-xiv, The Coins of the Turkoman Houses of Seljuq, Urluq, Zengee, ed. by Reginal Stuart Poople, London 1887; Catalogue of Oriental Coins in the Bintish Museum, vol. ix, Additions to the Oriental Collections 1876-1888, Part i, Additions to vols, i-iv, ed. by R. Stuart Poole, London 1889; Catalogue of Oriental Coins in the British Museum, vol. x, Additions to the Oriental Collections 1876-1888, part ii, Additions to vols, v-viii, ed. by R. Stuart Poole, London 1890.

Lane-Poole’s Catalogue of Arabic Coins at Cairo[115] has some coins of the Ayyubids (only the ones struck at Harran), Hamdanids, Marwanids, Selçukids, Artukids and Zangids of al-Cezire. It becomes apparent from this catalogue that there were two other minting places; Nasibin for Hamda-nids and al-Cezire for Zangids.

There are also the Catalogues of the Islamic Coins compiled by Edhem. In one of his catalogues the coins of Selim I struck at Amid and Mardin, and of Suleyman II struck at Amid, Hısn-ı Keyfa, Harput and Mardin are mentioned[116].

J. Rodgers Catalogue of the Coins of the Indian Museum (part iv, 1896) includes some coins of the Selçukids and Artukids.

All of these catalogues, however, are out of date and unfortunately very few catalogues have recently been published. One of these is I. and C. Artuk’s İslâmî Sikkeler Kataloğu[117]. The first volume of this work includes quite a number of coins of Umayyads, ‘Abbasids, Ayyubids, Hamdanids, Marwanids, Selçukids, Artukids, Zangids, Inalids, and Nisanids (Beysanids) struck in Diyarbekr region.

İ. Artuk’s Kanuni Sikkeleri[118] also includes quite a lot of coins of Suleyman II struck at Amid, Cezire, Hısn-ı Keyfa, and Mardin.

An article by Artuk on the coins of the Artukids has also been published in a periodical printed in Diyarbakır[119]. Unfortunately this article also has a drawback of an unsystamatic transliteration.

In none of the above mentioned catalogues we come across the coins of the Akkoyunlus who ruled in Diyarbekr for more than a century. Baykal[120], however, points out twenty silver coins bearing the the names of the Akkoyunlu rulers of Diyarbekr.



Apart from Berchem and Gabriel’s works, mentioned above, there are hardly any books published on the history of the area in European languages. There are only few books on the general history of Turkey that give some information on the region of Diyarbekr. Cl. Cahen’s Pre Ottoman Turkey (London 1968) has no more information than those included in his articles. Setton’s[121] and Runciman’s[122] histories of the Crusades are too much specialised to give any information on Diyarbekr. Vryonis in only few pages of his work mentions the region.

S. Lane-Poole has included the geneologies of the dynasties ruled in Diyarbekr in his Muhammadan Dynasties (London 1893) but has almost given no information on them. The Turkish edition of Lane-Poole by Edhem[123] has a fuller account of the dynasties in question and a more detailed geneology. There is also some information on the dynasties togather with their geneological list in C. E. Bosworth’s The Islamic Dynasties[124].

Some information can also be found in the narratives of the European travellers. One of these is Badger’s The Nestorians and their Rituals[125] in two volumes. The first volume of this work is almost entirely on Diyarbekr reion. The author narrates his journey from Harput to Mosul and back to Diyarbekr again. The author has also recorded some Latin inscriptions. Especially it is very interesting to note that he has transcribed and translated the inscriptions on the tombstone of Gregory bar Hebraeus in Beit Kaddeshe a distance of four hours on foot from Mosul. According to this inscription bar Hebraeus died on 30th August 1597 Grecian era ( 1225 A.D.) and probably was bom in 1536[126].

The work on the whole, is mostly concerned with the Christian churches, villages and population. Now and then some discussion is put forward about the local inhabitants and few chapters entirely assigned to the Yazeedees. In the work there is quite good account of the description of the churches, towns, villages, ruins, local habits and traditions and of the distribution of population.

However the best travelling account of the region is done by Evliya Çelebi in his Seyâhatnâme. In this work Evliya" Çelebi gives information on Harran, Çermik, Çiingüş and Harput. He has also copied in this work the Kânunnâme of Süleyman -as applied- in Diyarbekr region and its sancaks under the Ottoman rule, Hısn-ı Keyfa, Cizre and Nusaybin. Also throughout the work he describes the dialects of the towns and compares with his own[127].

The books in Turkish on the region are mainly by the local historians. The most valuable of these are in the Ottoman script and the ones in Latin script with the exception of Savci’s works revolve around them with little contribution.

The 8th volume of Said Paşa’s Universal history[128] is almost entirely on Diyarbekr region. This volume, confined to Mesopotimia, has two hundred pages of information on the history of Diyarbekr region. Said Paşa first deals with the geography of the area and then proceeds on to giving a historical account of the dynasties ruled in Diyarbekr. The dynasties in question are: Ali al-Şeyh, Mervanids, Ali Yinal (بال), Artukids of Amid and Mardin, and Ayyubids. He also writes about the history of Diyarbekr at the time of Hulagu. Finally he examines history of Mardin under the Ilgaziyye branch of the Artukids.

Ali Emiri’s[129] work is not as much thorough as that of Said Paşa’s. After an introduction to the book Ali Emiri examines the population, buildings, ruins and the mosques of the city. He then sketches out a short history of the province of Diyarbekr from very early times upto its conquest by the Ottomans during the reign of Selim I, after which he lays down a fairly detailed history of Diyarbekr under the Ottoman rule. Ali Emiri, himself from Diyarbakır, has made a lot of contribution to the culture of the area. One of the books edited and published by him has a great deal of information on the history of the Artukids of Mardin[130].

Artuk’s work[131] also is on the Artukids of Mardin. In this work it is interesting to note that there is much stress put on the relations between the Artukids and the Fatimids and their fight against the Crusades. The work also includes a geneological table of the Artukids, and reproduction of some coins and inscriptions.

The sâlnâmes of Diyarbekr[132], written in Ottoman script, have no doubt a lot of information on the province. One of these yearbooks, published in 1302, includes Said Paşa’s Diyarbekir Tarihi. In the “zeyl” of the 1319 yearbook there is a short geographical and historical background to the region including an account of its buildings such as mosques, and its educational institutions.

The works in Latin script by the local historians do not much differ from one another. Günkut’s[133] work in a single volume is mainly on the geography and history of the city of Diyarbakır. It also gives some historical background to the other towns in the region. Konyar’s[134] work in three volumes is on the history (vol. 1) and the inscriptions (vol. 2) of the city; the third volume is a yearbook. In the second volume the author has criticised Berchem’s Amida. Beysanoğlu’s[135] works are well presented. Tekin’s[136] colourful work is nothing more than a touristic handbook. Sözen’s[137] work is on the architecture of Diyarbakır city and therefore include a lot of information in this respect. It gives very short historical background to the monuments; their founders, architects and builders. The author has also drawn plan of each monument. He has briefly dis-cussed and even drawn the original plans of the mosques, madreses and some houses.

There is also a historical background to the Mardin province, in Diyarbekr region, in the introduction of Göyünç’s[138] work. In the first chapter Göyünç gives the history of the conquest of Diyarbekr province including Mardin by the Ottomans. The rest of the work is the study of the sancak of Mardin during the sixteenth century based on the archival sources in the Başbakanlık Archive and Topkapi Palace Archive. The work also includes a good bibliography and a map of Mardin region.

The chapters on the Akkoyunlus and Karakoyunlus in Uzunçarşılı’s Anadolu Beylikleri[139] are excelent piece of scholarly work but lack a good presentation and sufficient sources.

Eröz’s[140] work is too short (20 pages altogather) to present anything valuable on the area.

The works of Yınanç[141], Turan[142], and Sümer[143] have some informa-tion on the events that occured in the region during the middle ages. There is also a very good bibliography in the works of the latter two.

We also find some information on Diyarbekr in two scholarly works published by Prof. Yaşar Yücel[143b].


Since the dynasties that ruled in Diyarbekr region have never been treated in a single article, the classification will be made by dynasties with an account of articles on ethnography and etymology before and the rest after.

A - Ethnic Origin of the Turkish and Etymology;

The existing literature of this type is ample; the articles are only part of ff. Spread of Turkish language, the etymology of the words “Turks” and “Turan” -as presented in Şahnâme-, the meaning of Turan and whether Hephthalites or Halac are Turks or not is well put forward by Frye and Sayılı[144]. The word Turkoman is freely used; sometimes the Selçukids are called Turkomans, yet there are differences between them. Hasan[145] makes a suggestion that the word Turkoman is a compound of Turk+Iman. He also draws a parallel between Turkoman and Oğuz basing his arguement on the assumption that the empire of Oğuz Yabğu appears under two names, Turkoman and Oğuz.

Sümers article have thrown a good light on ambiguous words such as Yıva[146], Bozulus[147], Peçenek[148], and Ağaç Erileri[149] and the Turkish tri-bes called by these names. He also gives the different spellings of the word Yiva in Arabic letters, and the accounts of the different branches of Bozuls, and the areas to which Bayindirs spread.

Köprülü finds similatirities between the words İltutmuş, İlalmış, İlaldı, and Kutalmış and discusses their origin togather with an account of the forefathers of the Selçukids.[150] He also discusses the different readings of the word Uran; the ethnic origin and political role of the tribe called by this name; the Chineese sources on the Oran tribe and its history after the 12th century[151].

Ludiwich Leyketi[152] discusses not only the origin of the word Kırgız but also also some other words by which the various Turkish tribes are known.

B - Selçukids;

Although the literature on the Selçukids is quite a lot, there are only few articles which are relavent to us. Köprülü in his articles excellently presents the sources and literature on the Selçukids; the catalogues of their coins, the works on their inscriptions, the manuscripts on their history, and the periodicals which have articles on them[153].

Turan’s “Selçuklu Kervansarayları”[154] is a good article on the location and purpose of the caravansarays and the growth of the trade and towns around them.

Şerefeddin’s[155] article has nothing more than an interesting account of the religious controversy in the Selçukid state during the eleventh century.

C - Artukids;

The main contribution, in Europe, to the history of the Artukids is done by Cahen. Infact he is the first one to have introduced the main sources on them. In one of his articles he has produced a very good geneological table of the Artukid dynasty and listed the name of the rulers of Meyyâfarikin[156]. The article in question had been examined and evaluadet by Küprülü[157] with some additional notes. Köprülü criticises Cahen and for that matter the other European scholars for misreading the words of Turkish origin written in Arabic script.

Artuk in one of his articles just gives a historical bacground to the one of the mosques built by the Artukids and transcribes the inscriptions on its walls[158], but in another article[159] he presents a short account of their activities in Syria against the Crusades- i.e. a short history of their period from 487/1094 to the death of Emir Balak in Rabi' al-Ewel 581/ 1123.

Sevim’s three articles on the Artukids cover, in more detail, a period of their history upto 516/1122. In the first article[160] he discusses the lineage of the Artukids and the political activities of Artuk Beg; -his participation in the conquest of Diyarbekr and his service to the Selçukid Sultan Tutuş. In the second article[161] he discusses the political activities of Mu in al-Din Sökmen who was the founder of the first Artukid principality at Hısn-ı Keyfa and Mardin. In the third article[162] Sevim discusses Ilgazi’s political activities before and after he founded the Artukid principality at Mardin, and his battles against the Crusades and Georgians until his death on 17 Ramazan 516/19th November 1122.

D - Ayyubids;

The literature on the period of Ayyubid rule in Diyarberk region is very scant. One of Cahen’s articles only have some information on them in connection with the discussion of a unique manuscript Nuzhet al-Nezir[163]. In this article Cahen discusses the house of Ayyubids of Hısn-ı Keyfa and their activities at Mardin and Meyyafarikin in only few pages[164].

E - Akkoyunlus;

The Literature on the Akkoyunlus is much more ample than the other dynasties. Erzi draws a parallel between Uzun Hasan’s 39th grandfather Bisut mentioned in Kitâb-ı Diyârbekriyye and Uruc Kocaoğlu Basat of Kitâb-ı Dede Korkut. He also argues that there İs a relationship between the strories in Saltuknâme[165] and those in Dede Korkut and arrives at a conclusion that the great grandfather (ata) of the Akkoyunlus was Gündüz Alp who, according to Saltuknâme, came and setteled in Erzincan when a branch of Oğuz tribes ran from Horasan before Cengiz Han[166]. The realtionship between the Akkoyunlus and Oğuz tribes becomes clear from a document studied by V. Minorsky who also gives a short account of Akkoyunlu rule in Diyarbekr region[167].

The relations between the Akkoyunlus and the Ottomans only partially discussed by Baykal who bases his arguement on Kitâb-ι Diyârbekriyye[168] and the archives in Topkapi Museum[169].

Göyünç sketches out the history of Amid, in a very short summary, upto the year when it passed into the hands of Ottomans[170].

No doubt the most renouned ruler of the Akkoyunlus was Uzun Hasan on whom we can find quite enough information in Arznâme[171] which is transcribed in Milli Tetebular Mecmuası. One of the best articles written on his political relations with the Ottomans before the conquest of Trebizond is that of Prof. Yaşar Yücel’s who bases his argument on very original sources[171b].

F- Travelling Accounts and Ethnics;

The description of the region by the 19th century travellers such as Brant[172], Taylor[173], and Garden[174] are superllous and contain nothing new.

The articles of Driver[175] who tends to tackle the ethnical and religious dispositions are based on weak sources. Sevgen’s[176] article is far from scholarly work and the documents transcribed and transliterated are full of mistakes. Eröz’s[177] article is a good piece of scholarly work containing quite good sources and literature, but conveys very little information.


The Armenian sources including the ones on our region have been discussed in a quite good detail by Andreasyon[178]. Among these the ones which include information on Diyarbekr region are the works of Matthew of Edessa[179], Kiracos of Gantzac (d. 1272) and Michael, the Syrian.

The only work in Syriac on the area is Bar Hebraeus’s[180] universal history a part of which is translated into English by Budge[181] and published in two volumes; the second volume is the fascimile of the Syriac text in the Bodleian manuscript (Hunt 52). In the second volume there is an appendix which gives a short account of Timur Han laying waste to Mardin.

In summary, then, the sources are wanting. There is no single work which gives a full account of any of the dynasties. The periods of the history of Inalids and Beysanids (Nisanids) rule still remain obscure. Apart from the articles of Prof. Yaşar Yücel[182] there is hardly any literature throwing light on the activities of Timur or Şah Isma’il in the area. Most of the facts on the history of Artukids and Ayyubids still lay in manuscripts in libraries. And there is certainly need for the compilation of the all existing inscription in the area.


  1. A Ph. D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Philosophy, Colombia University in 1969. The transcription alphabet of Islam Ansiklopedisi is followed in this article.
  2. Belleten, 70, 1954.
  3. Ibid., 26, 1962.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Ibid., 7(1), 1943.
  7. For the life and works of Ibn al-Azrak see A. Savran, “Inb al-Azrak, Hayatı. Eserleri ve Kaynakları’ in Atatürk Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi Araştırma Dergisi, sayı 8, Ankara 1978; H. F. Amedroz, JRAS, 1902. pp. 785-812; CI. Cahen, La Syne du Nord, Paris 1940, pp. 46-47. According to Hacı Halife he died in 590/1194.
  8. A Descriptive List, of the Arabic Manuscripts by the trustees of the British Museum since 1894 A. G. Ellis and Edward Edwards, London 1912. There is also one copy in M. H. Yınanç’s private library. See art. “Diyarbekir’ in IA.
  9. R. A. L. Awad, Tarikh al-Fanqt, Cairo 1959; Also see H. F. Amedroz, “The Merwanid Dynasty at Mayyafariqin in the 10th and tith centuries A.D." in JRAS 1903, pp. 123-154.
  10. Ibn al-Azraq, A Critical Edition of the Artuqid Section in Tarikh Mayyâfânqin wa Amid.
  11. Ibid. p. vi; Whether Ibn al-Azraq was the author see the same page.
  12. i.e. on the History of Georgia see D. K. Kouynijian, op. cit., pp. 28-29; On al’Eariqi’s visit to Georgia see Awad, op. cit., pp. 2-7
  13. Awad, op. cit., pp. 24-56; F. Sumer and A. Sevim, Islam Kaynaklarına göre Malazgirt Savaşı, Ankara 1971, pp. 3-4.
  14. Cl. Cahen, “Contribution a L’histoire du Diyar Bakr au quatorzième siede", in Journal Asiatique, 243, 1955, pp. 65-100.
  15. F. Sumer, Kara Koyunlular, Ankara 1967, pp. 37-45 and ix.
  16. Cl. Cahen, op. cit., p. 66.
  17. Abbas al-Azzawi, Tarikh al-Iraq, 1338-1411, vol. 2, Bagdad 1936, p. II; F. Sümer, op. cit., p. 9.
  18. F. Sümer, op. cit., p. 9.
  19. On the life of ibn Şeddâd see both EI2 and I A.
  20. S. al-Dahhan, Al-‘Alaq al-Khatirah h Ibn Shaddad, Tarikhi Madinat al-Dimashq, 1956; and Tarik-i Lübnan wa al-Urdun wa Filistin, 1962.
  21. A. Sevim, Ibn Şaddad: “Al-A’lak al Hatıra...," Ankara Üniversitesi, Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2, 1964, pp. 291-301; Also see F. E. Karatay, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi, Arapça Yazmalar Kataloğu, İstanbul 1966.
  22. Cl. Cahen, “La Djazira au miliu du Frei ziem e siecie d'apres Izz-ad Din Ibn Chaddad“. Revue des etudes Islamiques, viii, 1934, pp. 109-128; The other copies which may be confused with Marsh 333 are Br. Mus., Add, 23334 (has no similarity to Marsh 333 whatsoever). Tubingen University Library No. 9800.
  23. For the other sources used by Ibn Şeddâd see A. Sevim, op. cit., pp. 300-301.
  24. This work had been translated into Turkish by Tahir ai-Ruhavi, a 12 th/18th century historian. There are two copies of this translation, one in Fatih Library (No, 669) and the other in Suleymaniye Library. -See Istanbul Kitaplıkları, Tarih-Cografya Yazmaları Katalogları 1-Türkçe Yazmaları ı. Fasikül, İstanbul 1943, pp. 97-99. In this catalogue it is stated that al-Karamâni’s work is a shorter version of the history of Cenabı.
  25. Mingana (Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts m the John Rylands Library at Manchester) only includes the manuscripts acquired before 1934· The manuscripts acquired since 1934 are very few and there are hardly any on history. The compilation of these manuscripts have been done by C. E. Bosworth which was published in the Autumn 1974 edition of Ryland Bulletin under the title “A Catalogue of Accession to the Arabic Manuscripts in the John Rylands University Library of Manchester.”
  26. A manuscript of Şems al-Din Zahàbi is in Topkapı Sarayı III. Ahmet Ktp., No. 2917; For further information on al-Karamani and his work see Mingana, Arabic Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library., pp. 401-403, also see Browne, E. C., A hand list of the Muhammadan Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge, 1900, p. 3.
  27. For the life and works of Ibn Arabsah see both EI2 and I A.
  28. This work was published in 1285 A. H. in Cairo. It has been translated into Turkish, Latin. French and English. For the manuscripts of the Turkish translation see Charles Rieu, Catalogue of the Turkish Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1888, pp. 43-44; Also see Browne, op. cit., pp. 120-121.
  29. I am grateful to Prof. C. E. Bosworth for the microfilm of this manuscript.
  30. Universite Ktp. No. 44; See N. Göyünç. XVI. Yüzyılda Mardin Sancağı, Istanbul, 1969- p. 5.
  31. See Cl. Cahen, “L’Histoire du Diyarbekr...,", JA, 243, 1955· p. 162. The author of the manuscript is Cemâl al-Din b. Vâsıl since there is a statement in Browne that an anonymous author has quated from such work (Browne, Muhammadan Manuscripts in Cambridge., p. 358-359.)
  32. This manuscript according to G. R. Driver (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, II, 1921-1923, pp. 491-511) was acquired by Rich and is supposedly in the British Museum. However, there appears to be no such manuscript listed in “Catalogus Codicum Orientaium Qui in Collection Richiana" and despite all my efforts no such work could be traced in the British Museum.
  33. There is another copy of this work in Topkapi Museum Library (A. 2896, See Karatay, TKS Ktp. Arapça Yazmalar Kataloğu,) under the title, Futuh al-Cezire ve al-Habur ve Dıyârbekr min al-Irak.
  34. Ellis, Arabic Manuscripts in the Br Mus., p. 31; On the life and work of al- Vâkidi see EI1 and I A.
  35. Published by F. Tauer, Praha, 1937; Turkish translation by N. Lugal, Ankara 1949.
  36. C. Rieu, Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1897, pp. 170- 172.
  37. On the life of Şeref al-Din see I A.
  38. Rieu, Persian Manuscripts in the Br. Mus., pp. 173-177; Add. 25024 comprises 758 folios. For the copies in Cambridge see Browne, A Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge, 1896. p 117; Also see C. A. Storey, Persian Literature, 1/1, pp. 284-289.
  39. Rieu, Persian Manuscripts in the Br. Mus., pp. 177-180; Al-Azzawi, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 12-14. Note that the work was translated from Persian into French and from French into Turkish.
  40. Rieu, Persian Manuscripts in the Br. Mus., p. 180; Another copy see Browne, Muhammadan Manuscripts in Cambridge, p. 219.
  41. On the life and works of Bidlisi see EI2.
  42. There is another work bearing this title, written by Ibn Mübarek al-Kazvini, is on the lives of the poets in the court of Akkoyunlus; The manuscript of this work is in Fatih Library (no. 4534) at Istanbul. See I. H. Uzunçarşılı, Anadolu Beylikten, p. 196.
  43. Rieu, Persian Manuscripts in the Br. Mus., pp. 216-217; Another copy is in John Rylands Library (No. 395-6) in two volumes: see Bibliotheca Lindesiana, Hand List of Oriental manuscripts, Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Privately printed, 1898, p, 155.
  44. Rieu, Persian Manuscripts in the Br. Mus. (supplement), pp. 26-27.
  45. Ibid pp. 24-25.
  46. On the life and work Hafizi Ebru see both EI1 and İA.
  47. Fatih Library, Istanbul (No. 4371); see Sümer, Kara Koyunlular, p. 145.
  48. Sümer, Kara Koyunlular, p. 3-4.
  49. Rieu, Persian Manuscripts in the Br. Mus. (supplement) pp. 27-28.
  50. Ibid pp. 34-35.
  51. Browne, Persian Manuscripts in Cambridge, p. 32. There is another copy in John Rylands (No. 424), see Lindesiana, Oriental Manuscripts in (John Ryland), p. 219.
  52. Browne, Persian Manuscripts in Cambridge, pp. 102-0105.
  53. A manuscript of this translation in John Rylands will be discussed under Turkish manuscripts.
  54. Nine copies in the British Museum (Rieu, Persian Manuscripts in the Br. Mus., pp. 418-420) and four in Cambridge (Browne, Muhammadan Manuscripts, in Cambridge, supplement. p. 215)
  55. G. Le Strange has edited it in 1915 (published in E. J. W. Gibb Memorial series, vol. xxiii) and transladet into English in 1919.
  56. Rieu, Persian Manuscripts in the Br. Mus., supplement, pp. 99-100.
  57. Or. 1127 and Add. 7860; See Rieu, Turkish Manuscripts in the Br. Mus., pp. 70-71.
  58. Rieu. Persian Manuscripts in the Br. Mus., p. 208.
  59. Rieu, Turkish Manuscripts tn the Br. Mus., pp. 71-72; Another copy is in Topkapi Palace Museum Library (r. 1469), see F. E. Karatay, Topkapi Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi, Türkçe Yazmalar Kataloğu, vol. 1, İstanbul 1961, p. 244.
  60. V. Minorsky, “A Soyurghal of Qasim b. Jahangir Aqqoyunlu" in BSOAS, vol. IX/ 4, p. 940.
  61. Supra, p. 4.
  62. Rieu. Turkish Manuscripts in the Br. Mus., p. 43.
  63. Ibid, p. 44.
  64. Karatay, TKS Ktp. Türkçe Yazmalar, pp. 201-202.
  65. Ibid, pp. 201-202.
  66. Lindesiana, Oriental Manuscripts in John Ryland, p. 259.
  67. For the other copies of the translation and on the life of the translator see Istanbul Ktp., Tarih Coğrafya Yazmaları, pp. 91-95.
  68. A detailed biography of Muslih al-Din-i Lari is in Atâi’s Hada’ik al-Hakâ’ik, Istanbul 1268, pp. 169-170.
  69. Rieu, Turkish Manuscripts tn the Br. mus., pp. 72-73.
  70. Ibid pp. 49-50.
  71. For the Selimnâmes see M. C. Şahabeddin Tekindağ, “Selim-nameler·, Istanbul Universitesi Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. I, Istanbul 1970, s. 199-231 ; Ahmet Uğur, “Selim-nameler”, İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, c. xxiii, Ankara 1978, s. 367-379.
  72. Feridun, Munşe'ât-i Salâtin, vol. 1, Istanbul 1374. Feridun Beg who was the private secretary of Sokullu Mehmed Paşa was appointed as Re'isul-küttâb in 1570 and then as nişancı in 1573. When he presented his Münşe'ât to Murad III in 1575 he hardly received any thanks and was dismissed from his post Nişancı in 1576 for being a protege of Sokullu. However, he was recalled back to the office of Nişancı in 1581 and died two years later on the 16th of March. See V. L. Menage, “Feridun Beg" in EI2; cf. Haci Halife, vol. V, p. 488 -see under the title
  73. For the full context of the work see Rieu, Turkish Manuscripts in the Br. Mus., pp. 80-83.
  74. See the next manuscript; The title “Maizan al-Akhlaq" on the back of binding is also wrong.
  75. Same as the one in Or. 61, fol. 68b
  76. For the full context of the work see Rieu, Turkish Manuscripts in the Br. Mus., pp. 83-86
  77. On the letters of Şah Ismâ'il I also see Add. 7654 of Br. Mus. -Rieu, Turkish Manuscripts in the Br. Mus., p. 87.
  78. Ibid pp. 86-87.
  79. On the life and works of Ibn al-Esir see EI2 and I A.
  80. Kouynijian, A Numismatic History..., p. 25. However, according to F. Sümer and A. Sevim (İslam Kaynaklarına gört Malazgirt Savaşı, p. 23) it covers the period upto 1231.
  81. Vols. X-XII of Beirut edition covers our period.
  82. On the life and work o Reşid al-Din see IA.
  83. This section is edited by A. Ateş Zikr-i Tarih-i Âlı Selçuk, Ankara 1960.
  84. Sümer and Sevim, op. cit„ p. 60.
  85. Kouynijian, op. cit., p. 26-27.
  86. On the life of Hamdullah al-Mustavfi see EI2 and 1A.
  87. Edited by Abd al-Husayn Nawai, Tehran.
  88. Edited by M. Ikbal (Lahore 1933); translated into Turkish by N. Lugal, Ankara 1943.
  89. See CI. Cahen, “Historiography of the Seljukid period” in B. Lewis and P. Μ. Holt (eds.), Historians of the Middle East, Oxford 1962, pp. 69-72.
  90. F. N. Uzluk, Anadolu Selçukluları Devleti Tarihi III, Ankara 1952.
  91. On thelife and work of Ibn al-Cevzi see EI2 and IA.
  92. Kouynijian (op. cit., p. 27) has fallen into a mistake by saying “son in law...”
  93. Awad, Tarikh al-Fariqi.
  94. A. Sevim, Mir’âtu-Zamân fi Tarihi al-Alyân, Ankara 1968: See the introduction for the life of Sibt Ibn al-Cevzi, his work and its manuscripts.
  95. On the life and work of Mirhond see IA.
  96. F. Sumer, Kara Koyunlular, p. 4
  97. N. Lugal and F. Sumer, Kitab-ı Diyârbeknyye, Ak-Koyunlular Tarihi, Ankara 1962- 1964, 2 vols.; however, there is another copy of this work in M. H. Yınanç’s private library, see art. “Diyarbekir” in IA.
  98. Nusahi Cihan Ara; Gaffari (d. 975/1567) has also made use of Yahya b. 'Abd al- Latif Kazvini’s Lubb al-Tavarih.
  99. Ahsen al-Tavarih.
  100. Saha’if al-Ahbâr; On the life and work of Müneccim Başı see IA and also N. Atsız, Müneccimbaşı Şeyh Ahmed Efendi, hayatı ve eserleri, Istanbul 1939.
  101. Max van Berchem and Joseph Strzgowski, Amida, Heidelberg 1910.
  102. See the introduction p. 4; L. de Beylie published his travels after his return from al-Cezaire: Frame et Samarra, voyage archéologique en Birmanie el en Mésopotamie, par le General L. de Beylie, Paris, E. Leroux editeur, 1907.
  103. Halil Edhem has made the same error: H. Edhem, “Bibliyografya, Amida’in Tarih-i Osmâni Encümeni Mecmu’asi, 6, 1329, p. 375.
  104. Institut Français d’Archeologie de Stamboul, Voyages Archéologiques dans la Turquie Onentale-par Albert Gabriel-Pari s, E. de Bocard, 1940.
  105. S. Flury, “Bardeux Ornamentes A Inscriptions Arabes, Amida-Diarbekr, IXe siècle”, in the Syria, I, 1920, pp. 235-249 and 318-328; II, 1921, pp. 54-62.
  106. G. Wiet, “Les Inscriptions de Saladin", in the Syria, III, 1922, pp. 307-328.
  107. E. Combe, J. Sauvaget, G. Wiet (eds.), Repertoire Chronologique d'epıgraphıe Arabe Cairo, 1931-1964, 16 vois.
  108. Ernst Herzfield, Syrie Du Nord -Inscriphons el Monuments D’Alep- Tome I, Institut Français Archéologie du Caire, Mémoire 76.
  109. Basri Konyar, Diyarbakır Tarihi, Ulus Basımevi 1936, 3 vols. Second volume is on the inscriptions.
  110. Kazım Baykal and Suleyman Savcı have written various articles on the inscriptions published in the local periodical Karacadağ. A summarised extracts of these article can be found in a handbook written by the same authors, Diyarbakır Şehri, ‘Broşör’, Diyarbakır Matbaası, 1942.
  111. S. Beysanoğlu, Anıtları M Kitabeleri ile Diyarbakır Tarihi, Başlangıçtan Akkoyunlulara Kadar, vol. 1, Ankara 1987.
  112. Meyyafarikin, yahut Silvan, by Rizenin Taş-pinaar karyesinden Molla Ahmed oğullarından Mustafa Celal al-Din Ibn Muhammed, Istanbul Matbaası, 1962.
  113. S. Savcı, Silvan Tankı (Mafarkin Abide ve Kitabeleri), Diyarbakır 1956.
  114. Abdurrahim Şerif. Ahlat Kitabeleri, İstanbul 1932.
  115. S. Lane-Poole, Catalogue of the Collection of Arabic Coins preserved in the Khedivial Library at Cairo, London 1897.
  116. H. Edhem, Meskukat-ı Kadime-i Islâmiye Kataloğu, Kısm Sadis, Meskukât-ι Osmaniye, vol. 1, Konstantiniye 1334.
  117. Ibrahim and Çevriye Artuk. Istanbul Arkeoloji Muzeleri Teşhirde ki İslamı Sikkeler Katalogu, Istanbul 1971, 2 vols.
  118. I. Artuk, Kanuni Sultan Suleyman adına Basılan Sikkeler, Ankara 1972.
  119. I. Artuk, “Hasankeyf-Amid Artuklularının Paraları”, in Kara-Amid, 2-4, 1956-1958.
  120. K. Bayal, “Türk Hükümdarlarının Diyarbakır ve Civarında Bastırdığı Paralar”, in Karacadağ, vol. III, 1941 pp. 152-154.
  121. K. Μ. Setton and R. L. Walff (eds.). A History of the Crusades, vol. II, Pensylvania 1962.
  122. S. Runciman, A Hisrory of the Crusades, 3 vols., Cambridge 1971; first and second volumes were first published in 1951 and 1952 respectively, and the third volume in 1954.
  123. H. Edhem, Düvel-ı Islâmıye, Istanbul 1927; also see the Russian edition of Lane- Poole by V. V. Barthold, Musulmanskie Dinaslii, St. Petersburg, 1899; and French edition by E. de Zambaur, Manuel de Genealogie et de Chronologie pour l'Histoire de l'Islam, Hanover 1927.
  124. C. E. Bosworth, The Islamic Dynasties (a chronological and geneological handbook), Edinburgh 1967; this work is translated into Turkish by E. Merçil and M. İpşirli, Islam Devletleri Tarihi (Kronoloji ve Soykütuğu elkitabı), İstanbul 1980.
  125. G. P Badge, The Nestonans and their Rituals (with a narrative of a mission to Mesopotamia and Coordistan tn 1842-1844 and of a late visit to those countries in 1850) vol. I, London 1852; republished in 1969.
  126. Ibid p. 97.
  127. The information given here is derived from the manuscript which is in John Rylands Library (No. 142).
  128. Diyarbekirli Said Paşa, Miratu al-Iber, Mufassal Tàrih-i ‘ Umûmi, Istanbul 1306, 9 vols.
  129. Ali emiri, Osmanlı Vılâyât-ı Şarkıyesi, Dıyarbekır Vilâyeti, Istanbul 1337/1918, Evkaf-ı Islamiye Matbaası. On the author’s life see the introduction of the work.
  130. Kâtib Ferdi, Mardin Mulük-i Artukıye Tarihi, Istanbul 1974.
  131. I. Artuk, Mardin Artukoğulları Tarihi, Istanbul 1974.
  132. Diyarbakır Vilâyeti Sâlnâmesi(leri) from 1286 to 1323, all published in Diyarbakır Vilayet Matbaası. See M. S. Özeğe, Eski Harflerle Basılmış Türkçe Eserler Katalogu, İstanbul 1971.
  133. B. Günkut, Diyarbakır Tarihi, Diyarbakır Matbaası.
  134. B. Konyar, Diyarbakır Tarihi, Ulus Basımevi, 1936.
  135. S. Beysanoglu, Diyarbakırlı Fikir ve Sanat Adamları, Istanbul, vol. I 1957, vol. II 1959. Bütün Cepheleriyle Diyarbakır, İstanbul 1962. Diyarbakır Coğrafyası, İstanbul 1962. Diyarbakır Coğrafyası, İstanbul 1962. Kısaltılmış Diyarbakır Tarihi ve Abıdelen, İstanbul 1963. S. beysanoğlu, Diyarbakır İl Yıllığı, Ankara 1967. Anıtları ve Kıtâbeleri ile Diyarbakır, vol. 1, Ankara 1987.
  136. A. Tekin, Diyarbakır, Istanbul 1971.
  137. M. Sözen, Diyarbakır'da Türk mimarisi, Istanbul 1971, on the architecture of madrasahs see A. Kuran, Anadolu Medreseleri, vol. 1, Ankara 1969.
  138. N. Göyünç, XVI. Yüzyılda Mardin Sancağı, Istanbul 1969.
  139. I. H. Uzunçarşılı, Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu-Karakoyunlu Devletleri, Ankara 1969.
  140. Μ. Eröz. Kürtlerin Menşei ve Türkmenlerin Kurtleşmesı, Istanbul 1966.
  141. M. H. Yınanç, Türkiye Tarihi, Selçuklular Devri, I. Anadolu’nun Fethi, Istanbul 1944.
  142. O. Turan, Selçuklular Tarihi ve Turk Islam Medeniyeti, Istanbul 1969.
  143. F. Sümer, Kara Koyunlular, Ankara 1967. / 143b: Y. Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar Eretna Devleti. Kadı Burhaneddın Ahmed ve Devleti, Mutahharten ve Erzincan Emirliği, Ankara 1989; Y. Yücel, Timur'un Ortadoğu Anadolu Seferleri ve Sonuçları (1393-1402), Ankara 1989
  144. R. N. Frye and A. M. Sayılı. “Turks in the Middle East before the Seljuqs", in Journal of American and Oriental Society, 63, 1943, pp. 194-207.
  145. S. A. Hasan, “Noles on the Etymology of the word Turkoman", in Islamic Culture, vol. 37. 1963. pp. 162-166.
  146. F. Sümer, “Yıva Oğuz Boyuna Dair", in Türkiyat Mecmuası, vol. 9, 1946-1951.
  147. F. Sümer, “Bozoklu Oğuz Boylarına Dair', in Ankara Üniversitesi Dil-Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. xi, Ankara 1953, pp. 65-103.
  148. F. Sümer. “Bayındır. Peçenek ve Yüregirler". in DTCFD, vol. xi, Ankara 1953. pp. 317-344.
  149. F. Sümer, “Ağaç Erileri", in Belleten, vol. 26, Ankara 1962, pp. 521-528.
  150. M. F. Köprülü. “Türk Onomastique'i Hakkında”, in DTCFD, vol. 1. Ankara. 1949-1950, pp. 221-236.
  151. M. F. Köprülü, “Uran Kabilesi”, in Belleten, vol. VII(i), Ankara 1943, pp. 227-243.
  152. L. Leiketie, “Kırgız Kavm Isminin Menşei", in Türkiyat Mecmuası, vol. 1, 1925.
  153. M. F. Köprülü. “Anadolu Selçukluları Tarihi’nin Yerli Kaynakları”, in Belleten, vol, VII(ı), Ankara 1943, pp. 379-522.
  154. O. Turan, “Selçuklu Kervansarayları", in Belleten, vol. 10, Ankara 1946, pp. 471- 496. For the province of Diyarbekr passing into the hands of Great Selçukids see Ali Sevim, Dıyarbekır Bölgesinin Büyük Selçuklu İmparatorluğuna Katılması, Ankara 1975.
  155. M. Şerefeddin, "Selçuklular Devrinde Mezahib", in Türkiyat Mecmuası, vol. 1, 1925, pp. 101-118.
  156. Cl. Cahen, “Le Diyar Bakr Au Temps des Premiers Urtukides", in Journal Asiatique, 1903, pp. 219-276.
  157. M. F. Köprülü: Cl. Cahen, “le Diyar Bakr..., extrait du Journal Asiatique”, (Belleten, vol 1, Ankara 1937· ΡΡ· 283-288).
  158. I. Artuk, “Dunaysir’de Artukoğullarının Ulu Camii”, Belleten, vol. 10, Ankara 1946, pp. 167-168.
  159. I. Artuk, “Artukoğlu Emir Balak ve mezarı”, Belleten, vol. 11, Ankara 1947, pp. 129-135.
  160. A. Sevim, “Artukluların Soyu ve Artuk Beyin Siyasi Faaliyetleri”, in Belleten, vol. 26. Ankara 1962, pp. 121-145.
  161. A. Sevim, "Artukoğlu Sökmenin Siyasi Faaliyetleri”, in Belleten, vol. 26, Ankara 1962, pp. 501-520.
  162. A. Sevim, “Artukoğlu İlgazi”, in Belleten, vol. 26, Ankara 1962, pp. 649-691.
  163. Supra p. 3.
  164. Cl. Cahen, “Contribution A L’Histoire du Diyar Bakr au quatrzieme siede", in Journal Asiatique, 243, 1955, pp. 65-70
  165. On Saltukname (the only copy in Topkapi Sarayı Hazine Ktp. No. 1612) see A. Gölpınarh, Tunus Emre Hayatı, Istanbul 1936, pp. 253-270.
  166. A. S. Erzi, “Akkoyunlu ve Karakoyunlu Tarihi Hakkında Araştırmalar", in Belleten, vol. 70, Ankara 1954, pp. 183-221.
  167. V. Minorsky, “A Soyurghal of Qasim b. Jahangir Aqqoyunlu”, in BSOAS, vol. IX/ 4, pp. 927-943.
  168. B. S. Baykal, “Fatih Sultan Mehmet-Uzun Hasan Rekabetinde Trabzon Meselesi", in Ankara Üniversitesi Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol. 2, Ankara 1964, pp. 67-81.
  169. B. S. Baykal, “Uzun Hasan’ın Osmanlılara Karşı Katı Mücadeleye Hazırlıkları ve Osmanlı Akkoyunlu Harbinin Başlaması”, in Belleten, vol. 21, Ankara 1957, pp. 261-269.
  170. N. Göyünç, “Onaltıncı Yüzyılın ilk yansında Diyarbakır", in Belgelerle Türk Tarih Dergisi, vol. 2/7, 1968, pp. 76-80.
  171. Celal al-Din Devanı, “Arznâme", in Milli Tetebbular Mecmuası, vol 5, pp. 273-305; The manuscript containing information on the administrative organisation has fully been transcribed from a copy in Hamidiye Library No. 1438. / 171b: Y. Yücel, “Fatih’in Trabzon'u Fethi öncesinde Osmanh-Trabzon-Akkoyunlu İlişkileri’' in Belleten XLIX, No. 194, Ankara 1985, pp. 287-312.
  172. J. Brant, “Notes of a journey through a part of Kordistan, in the summer of 1838”, in Journal of Royal Geographical Society, vol. X, 1841, pp. 341-432.
  173. J. G. Taylor, “Travels in Kurdistan..." in JRGS, vol XXXV, 1867, pp. 182-193.
  174. R. J. Garden, "Description of Diarbekr”, in JRGS, vol. XXXVH, 1867, pp. 182- 193.
  175. G. R. Driver, "Studies in Kurdish History”, in BSOAS, vol. 11, 1921-1923, pp. 197- 213; G. R. Driver, “The Religion of the Kurds", in BSOAS, vol. II, 1921-1923, pp. 197-213.
  176. N. Sevgen, “Kültler”, in Belgelerle Turk Tarih Dergisi, vols. I) II, 1968.
  177. M. Eroz, “Kürt Halkları Uydurması", in BTTD, vols. IX-X, pp. 49-54.
  178. H. D. Andreasyon, “Türk Tarihine Aid Ermeni Kaynakları", in Istanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi, vol. 1, 1949, pp. 25-118; 401-438.
  179. On Mathhews work also see: A. Sevim, “Urfalı Mateos Vekayinamesi (952-1136) ve Papaz Grigor'un Zeyli (1136-1162)", in Ankara Universitesi Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol. I, Ankara 1963, pp. 319-321.
  180. For the works of Gregory bar Hebräern see W. Wright, Catalogue of Syrian Manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. II, 1870, pp. 890-901; also see Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts in the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. II, 1951, p. 39.
  181. E. A. W. Budge (trs. and ed ). The Chronography of Gregory Abu’l-Faraj, Bar Hebraeus, 2 vols., London 1932.
  182. Yaşar Yücel, “XIV-XV. Yüzyıllar Türkiye Tarihi Hakkında Araştırmalar", in Belleten, vol. 35, 1971, pp. 665-719. “XIV-XV. Yüzyıllar Türkiye Tarihi Hakkında Araştırmalar", in Atatürk Konferansları V, 1971-1972, pp. 39-60. “Timur Tarihi Hakkında Araştırmalar”, in Belleten, vol. 40, 1976, pp. 249-285. “Timur Tarihine Dair Araştırmalar”, in Belleten, vol. 52, 1978, pp. 239-299.