Academic literature on the topic 'Ottoman Empire Coins'

Abstract It is generally accepted that debasement greatly contributed to the economic and consequently also social problems of the Ottoman Empire in the late 16th/early 17th century. The numismatic data derived from the Beçin coin hoard, closing under sultan Ahmed (1603-1617) greatly challenges this view. Metal analysis has shown that only the overall weights of the coins were reduced; the fineness of silver remained unchanged at least until the 1610s.

The problem of the money counterfeiting in Russian Empire has long been out of sight of the scientists, in Ukraine doesn’t exist any single comprehensive work devoted to the study of this problem. In the period of the Russian Empire rule in Ukraine, the counterfeiting of gold coins acquires its own features and tendencies. This article introduces into the scientific circulation the materials of the state historical archives criminal cases, newspapers and museum collections related to the falsification of the gold coins in Ukraine. During the XVIII century the gold coins were little known to the public, that’s why the cases of falsification of them through the historical sources are unknown. Before the middle of the XIX century the counterfeiting of the foreign gold coins was widespread. The traditional crime was clipping of the gold and silver coins, which was also fixed in the studied period. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, due to the small number of Russian gold coins in the circulation, the counterfeiters used foreign Holland ducats and Ottoman mahmudis as a model. Counterfeiting of the Russian gold coins has been known since the middle of the 19th century. False semi-imperials are known from Ukrainian finds, although analysis of the sources indicates their potential importation from the Baltic provinces, where they were probably manufactured. With the introduction of the gold standard in Russian Empire, the new coins are rapidly gaining a high popularity. Extensive use of the new gold coins leads to the falsification of almost the entire line of the denominations. Even the rarest gold coin of 7 rubles and 50 kopecks, minted only in 1897, was identified in Zhytomyr. Counterfeits of the gold coins also came to the Ukrainian provinces from the neighboring regions, as in 1911 the fact of importation of the counterfeit imperials was revealed from Nakhichevan. The First World War has radically changed the principles of the money circulation in Ukraine. The huge was expenses and the financial crisis led to a «coin hunger», the use of money substitutes and speculation with small coins. The gold coins were purposefully withdrawn from the population in exchange for paper banknotes. We suggest that the known today specimens of the counterfeit coins made for the loss of the money circulation could have been made during the financial crisis of the WWI.

From the Ottoman conquest in 1459 to the monetary reform launched in 1868 Serbia was under the full monetary suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire and did not have the right to mint her own coinage. The first half of the nineteenth century, however, saw the first signs of monetary autonomy. When in 1815 the Porte granted Serbian authorities the right to collect taxes, currency exchange rate lists began to be issued in Serbia determining the kind and price of foreign currencies acceptable for tax payment. When, in accordance with the hatti-sherifs of 1830 and 1833, Serbia's vassal taxes to the Ottoman Empire were united into a single monetary tribute to be paid annually in gold currencies, a dual accounting monetary unit was introduced as protection from Ottoman debased silver currency. A true monetary autonomy, however, was only achieved with the monetary reform carried out between 1868 and 1880, when a limping gold standard in accordance with the standards of the Latin Monetary Union was introduced de iure. After more than four centuries of using only foreign currencies in circulation, the minting of silver coins was reestablished in Serbia and a Serbian gold coin was minted for the first time. While adopting the minting standards of the Latin Monetary Union Serbia had never become a member.

As the historical sources inform us, Mircea cel Batran had an extremely important influence in Dobrogea, being the ruler who managed to unite Dobrogea and Wallachia. While the Ottoman Empire was kept at a distance, the Romanian Voivode, as a good administrator and strategist, fortified Dobrogean fortresses and cities such as Isaccea, Enisala, Caliacra and Silistra. The discoveries of monetary treasures, consisting of coins dating from the time of Mircea cel Batran, spread throughout Dobrogea, prove the prosperity of the province during the time of the great Voivode, achieved through the intense trade of goods that took place and the important role the Romanian currency played in trade.

Found by chance in 1912, the hoard from Țifești (in the former Putna County) immediately came to the attention of numismatists. First published in 1915 by Constantin Moisil, it remained in oblivion for a long time, at most barely mentioned in various articles. The beginning of the First World War and the entry of Romania in the middle of these events had, as a consequence, the evacuation of the country’s treasure to Russia. After arriving in Moscow, it was returned to the Romanian state in 1956. The coins of the treasure came from both the Ottoman Empire and Hungary. The Turkish coins (the akçe) were issued during the reigns of Sultans Mehmed the Conqueror (1451 – 1481) and Bayezid II (1481 – 1512). The coins issued in Hungary are from the time of kings Matthias Corvinus (1459 – 1490) and Vladislaus II (1490 – 1516). So far, they have not yet been published in full. The buttons (seven) are manufactured of filigree silver wire wrapped in the shape of a ball. The other two items, manufactured of foil, are dress accessories rather common in the Middle Ages, widely circulated both chronologically and territorially. There are also parts of buttons which are not mentioned in the article published in 1916. The adornments consist of two pairs of silver earrings manufactured in the filigree and granulation techniques. In the case of the items from Țifești, they are dated to the second half of the 15th century.

The decline of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 19th century caused numerous consequences for the region of South-eastern Europe, most notably the mass migrations of Muslims from the European regions of the Ottoman Empire to Anatolia. In Bosnia, thousands of local Muslims feeling intra-state, but also external pressure by the non-Muslim population, left their homeland to find a safer refuge. Recognizing limited scholarly attention which was given to the sphere of the lived experiences of the migrant trajectories, this paper aims to give a portrayal of the reality regarding the nostalgia and financial everyday life of Muslims from Bosnia at the turn of the century in the Ottoman Empire. To this end, it predominantly through a narrative analysis of two letters sent by Bosnian Muslims who migrated to the Anatolian town of Durgut. The oddity of these letters is in two heavily conflicting views on the lived experience of migration. The first one embarked on a highly nostalgic, sceptical, and pro-return perception reflecting on a specific “othering” of Bosnian Muslims in Turkey.

While the first two chapters of Doucas's historical work present a meagre outline of world history - a sketch which becomes a little more detailed from 1261 on, when the narration reaches the history of the Turks and their conquests in Asia Minor - the third chapter deals with the well-known battle of Kosovo, which took place in 1389. From that point on, the Byzantine historian gives much important information on Serbia, as well as on the Ottoman advances in the Balkans, and thus embarks upon his central theme - the rise of the Turks and the decline of Byzantium. Doucas considers the battle of Kosovo a key event in the subjugation of the Balkan peoples by the Turks, and he shows that after the battle of Kosovo the Serbs were the first to suffer that fate. At the beginning, Doucas says that after the death of Orhan, the ruler (o archgos) of the Turks, his son and successor Murad conquered the Thracian towns, Adrianople and the whole Thessaly, so that he mastered almost all the lands of the Byzantines, and finally reached the Triballi (Triballous). He devastated many of their towns and villages sending the enslaved population beyond Chersonesus, until Lazar, son of King Stefan of Serbia (Serbias), who ruled (kraley?n) in Serbia at that time decided to oppose him with all the might he could muster. The Serbs were often called Triballi by Byzantine authors. For the fourteenth century writers Pachymeres, Gregoras, Metochites and Kantakouzenos the Serbs were Triballi. However, Pachymeres and Gregoras refer to the rulers of the Triballi as the rulers of Serbia. Fifteenth century writers, primarily Chalcondyles and Critobulos, use only that name. It seems, nevertheless, that Doucas makes a distinction between the Triballi and the Serbs. As it is known, the conquest of the Serbian lands by the Turks began after the battle on the river Marica in 1371. By 1387. the Turks had mastered Serres(1388) Bitola and Stip (1385), Sofia (1385), Nis (1386) and several other towns. Thus parts of Macedonia, Bulgaria and even of Serbia proper were reduced by the Turks by 1387. For Doucas, however, this is the territory inhabited by the Triballi. After the exposition of the events on Kosovo, Doucas inserts an account of the dispute of John Kantakouzenos and the regency on behalf of John V, which had taken place, as it is known, long before 1389. At the beginning of his description of the civil war, Doucas says that by dividing the empire Kantakouzenos made it possible for the Turks to devastate not only all the lands under Roman rule, but also the territories of the Triballi Moesians and Albanians and other western peoples. The author goes on to narrate that Kantakouzenos established friendly relations with the king Stefan Du{an, and reached an agreement with him concerning the fortresses towns and provinces of the unlucky Empire of the Romaioi, so that, instead of giving them over to the Roman lords, he surrendered them to barbarians, the Triballi and the Serbs (Triballoys te kai Serbous). When he speaks later how the Tatars treated the captives after the battle of Angora in 1402, Doucas points out that the Divine Law, honored from times immemorial not only among the Romaioi, but also among the Persians, the Triballi and the Scythians (as he calls Timur's Tatars), permitted only plunder, not the taking of captives or any executions outside the battlefield when the enemy belonged to the same faith. Finally, when he speaks of the conflict between Murad II and Juneid in Asia Minor, Doucas mentions a certain Kelpaxis, a man belonging to the people of the Triballi, who took over from Juneid the rule over Ephesus and Ionia. It seems, therefore, that Doucas, when he speaks of the land of the Triballi he has in mind a broad ethnical territory in the Balkans, which was obviously not settled by the Serbs only or even by the Slavs only. According to him Kelpaxis (Kelpaz?sis) also belonged to the Triballi, although the name can hardly be of Slavonic, i.e. Serbian origin. On the other hand, he is definitely aware of Serbia, a state which had left substantial traces in the works of Byzantine authors, particularly from the time when it usurped (according to the Byzantine view) the Empire. Writing a whole century after Dusan's coronation as emperor, Doucas is not willing, as we shall see later to recognize this usurpation. Although he ascribes to Serbia, in conformity with the Byzantine conception of tazis, a different rank, he considers Serbia and the Serbs, as they are generally called in his work (particularly when he describes the events after the Battle of Kosovo) an important factor in the struggle against the Turks. Therefore he makes a fairly accurate distinction between the Serbs and the other Triballi. In his case, the term may in fact serve as a geographical designation for the territory settled by many peoples, including the Serbs. When he uses specific titles and when he speaks of the degrees of authority conveyed by them in individual territories Doucas is anxious to prove himself a worthy scion of the Romaioi, who considered that they had the exclusive right to the primacy in the Christian hierarchy with the Roman emperor at its top. He makes distinctions of rank between individual rulers. The Emperor in Constantinople is for him the only emperor of the Romans (basileys t?n R?mai?n). King Sigismund of Hungary is also styled emperor, but as basileys t?n R?man?n, meaning Latin Christians. The last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI Dragas Palaleologus is not recognized as an emperor, and the author calls his rule a despotic rule (despoteia). He has a similar view of the Serbs. Thus he says, erroneously that Lazar was the son of King Stefan of Serbia (yios Stefanoy toy kral? Serbias) and that he ruled Serbia at that time (o tote t?n Serbian kraley?n). Elsewhere, Doucas explains his attitude and says that o t?n Serb?n archgos etolm?sen anadusasthai kratos kai kral?s onomazesthai. Toyto gar to barbaron onoma exell?nizomenon basileys erm?neyetai. Lazar exercises royal power (kraley?n) in Serbia, which is appropriate, for the author thinks erroneously that Lazar was the son and successor of King Stefan Du{an. It is significant that he derives the werb kraley? from the Serbian title 'kralj', i.e. from the title which never existed in the Byzantine Empire. Moreover, there is no mention of this werb in any other Byzantine text. When he narrates how Serbia fell under the Turkish rule in 1439, Doucas says that Despot Djuradj Brankovic seeing his ravaged despotate (despoteian), went to the King of Hungary hoping to get aid from him. There can be no doubt that the term despoteia here refers to the territory ruled by Despot Djuradj Brankovic. Doucas correctly styles the Serbian rulers after 1402 as despots. The space he devotes to Serbia in his work, as well as the manner in which he speaks of it, seems to indicate, however, that he regarded it, together with Hungary as a obstacle of the further Turkish conquests in the Balkans. Doucas's text indicates that Serbia, though incomparably weaker than in the time of Dusan's mighty empire, was in fact the only remaining more or less integral state in the Peninsula. The riches of Serbia and, consequently, of its despots, is stressed in a number of passages. Almost at the very beginning Doucas says that Bayezid seized 'a sufficient quantity of silver talents from the mines of Serbia' after the Battle of Kosovo. When Murad II conducted negotiations with Despot Djuradj for his marriage with the Despot's daughter Mara, Doucas writes, no one could guess how many 'gold and silver talents' he took. Doucas also says that the Despot began to build the Smederevo fortress with Murad's permission. The building of a fortress has never been an easy undertaking and if we bear in mind that Despot Djuradj built the part of the Smederevo fortress called 'Mali Grad' (Small fortress) in two years only, we realize that his economic power was really considerable. When Fadulah, the counselor of Murad II, sought to persuade his lord to occupy Serbia, he stressed the good position of the country, particularly of Smederevo, and the country's abundant sources of silver and gold, which would enable Murad not only to conquer Hungary, but also to advance as far as Italy. After Mehmed II captured Constantinople, the Serbs undertook to pay an annual tribute of 12.000 gold coins, more than the despots of Mistra, the lords of Chios Mitylene or the Emperor of Trebizond. Already in 1454 the Despot's men brought the tribute to Mehmed II and also ransomed their captives. Critobulos's superb description of Serbia is the best testimony that this was not only Doucas's impression: 'Its greatest advantage, in which it surpasses the other countries, is that it produces gold and silver? They are mined everywhere in that region, which has rich veins of both gold and silver, more abundant than those of India. The country of the Triballi was indeed fortunate in this respect from the very beginning and it was proud of its riches and its might. It was a kingdom with numerous flourishing towns and strong and impregnable fortresses. It was also rich in soldiers and armies as well as in good equipment. It had citizens of the noblest rank and it brought up many youths who had the strength of adult men. It was admired and famous, but it was also envied, so that is was not only loved of many, but also disliked by many people who sought to harm It'. It is no wonder that George Sphrantzes once complains that Christians failed to send aid to Constantinople and that he singles out for particular blame that 'miserable despot, who did not realize that once the head is removed, the limbs, too disappear'. It may be said, therefore, that Doucas regarded Serbia as one of the few remaining allies of at least some ability to stem the Turkish advances, and that this opinion was primarily based on its economic resources. Serbia was clearly distinguished as a state structure, as opposed to most of the remaining parts of the Peninsula, inhabited by peoples which Doucas does not seem to differentiate precisely. According to him, the authority over a particular territory issued from the ruler's title, the title of despot, which was first in importance after the imperial title, also determined the rank of Serbia in the Byzantine theory of hierarchy of states. Doucas's testimony also shows that this theory not only endured until the collapse of the Empire, but that it also persisted even in the consciousness of the people who survived its fall.

In this article, a group of coins were catalogd at the Bursa Archeology Museum of Byzantine emperor Herakleios. The article mentioned the history of the Byzantine Empire before the cataloging part. In the Byzantine period, the issues of coin, Herakleios’s life and the Byzantine economy were discussed during the Herakleios period. The article is handled from a meticulous and objective point of view and is used from local and foreign sources. The Byzantine empire was the first in 330 AD Founded by Konstantinos in the city of Constantinople. The Byzantine empire, which continues in the Middle Ages, is governed by various sules and names. The Empire has spread to a large geography. It was destroyed by the Ottoman Empire in 1453. The use of coins in the Byzantine Empire I.. From the time of Anastasius (491), the final emperor XI. It continued until Constantinos (1453). These coins are printed in copper, silver and gold. Herakleios, son of the Carthage governor Herakleios, was born in 575. He is one of the most important rulers of the Byzantine empire. Herakleios has taken over a financially exhausted administration. The spreading policies of the Sasanis have caused the Byzantine empire to be difficult both economically and politically. With the support of Patrik Sergios, the leader of the Orthodox churches, he has won his battles with the Sasanis, bringing the empire to political and economic prosperity.

The purpose of this study is to examine the tuğra form, an important element of Ottoman calligraphy, in terms of its place in Turkish calligraphy, historical development, usage areas, and design features. In this context, it is emphasized that the significance of the tuğra goes beyond its function in official documents, serving as an art piece reflecting the artistic sensibilities of its era. Tughras are typically designed in a curved form consisting of the sere, beyze, tuğ, and hançer parts, including the name of the sultan, his father's name, and the phrase "el muzaffer daima." The composition and ornamentation of this text depend on the skills of the artisans of the era and the opulence of the reign. The earliest curved tughra examples that can be found are seen in documents of the Great Seljuk Empire. Later, the use of tughras continued in the Anatolian Seljuks and the Ottoman Empire. Officially, the use of tughras ended on November 1, 1922, with the abolition of the monarchy. The tughra served as a title in official correspondence in the Ottoman state and represented the sultan's signature and the seal of the state. As such, tughras appeared on official documents such as orders, decrees, land deeds, diplomas, as well as on coins, stamps, registration books, dynastic emblems, flags, and official architectural monuments. Additionally, calligraphy works in the form of tughras were created with verses from the Quran, prayers, the Basmala, hadiths, aphorisms, and personal names. The tughra of Ottoman Sultan Orhan Bey, which included the names of "Orhan and his father Osman," laid the foundation for all Ottoman tughra designs. In this study, the tughra of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, produced in the Istanbul Palace Workshop during the 16th century, which is considered the brightest period of the Ottoman Empire, was examined. This tughra, currently on display at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, was analyzed in terms of its text, calligraphy design, composition features, and illumination patterns. The tughra's design features prominently include the use of gold and navy blue. Illumination patterns feature saz-style dagger leaves, double tahrir-style hatayi designs, stylized carnations, and cloud motifs. Due to these design characteristics, it is believed that the tughra was created in the style of Kara Memi, the chief illuminator of the era.As a result of the research, it was concluded that tughras were not limited to being merely official documents but also represented significant art pieces that reflected the artistic sensibilities of their time.

Starting from the final decades of the sixteenth century, Ottoman intellectuals were deeply concerned with what they perceived to be the decline of their traditional order. This decline consciousness, which later crystallized into a reform literature, is reflected in the works of this period's major historians.
Chapter I surveys the development of Ottoman historiography prior to the late sixteenth century, with the aim of highlighting the novelty of the critical perspectives developed by historians of the era like Ali, Lokman and Selaniki. The attitudes and analyses of these historians concerning disturbing economic processes such as monetary turbulence and price movements constitute the focus of Chapters II and III respectively. These chapters argue that Ottoman decline consciousness grew partly in response to a keen awareness of newly emerging social and economic forces that Ottoman reform literature chose not to understand and accomodate but to resist and suppress. The failure of Ottoman intellectuals to come to terms with the new market forces of the early modern world was not due to an anti-mercantile bias, but to the primacy of politics in the Ottoman order. Chapter IV traces the international commercial activities of Ottoman Muslims in the context of a comparison between Ottoman decline consciousness and European mercantilism.

This book illuminates the founding of the Ottoman Empire by drawing on Turkish, Greek, Arabic, and Latin sources, including coins, buildings, and topographic evidence. It describes the rugged homeland of the founder of the Ottomans, particularly his achievement in the context of the once mighty Byzantine Empire and its terminal stages. It also charts the progress of Osman's son Orhan, until the fateful moment in 1354 when his forces crossed into Europe and began their spectacular conquests. The chapter reviews the obscure origins of the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the Near East, dominated the Mediterranean, and terrorized Europe for centuries. It references scholarly monographs and editions on the history, literature, thought, and material culture of the Byzantine world.

Sources other than the Tradition can be exploited for information about Osman and Orhan—notably coins, inscriptions, and documents. Osman struck no coins but Orhan did—in a great variety. The ephemeral Sasa who conquered lands in the Maeander and Cayster valleys—well attested in the sources—struck coins in the name of the Ilkhans, Mongol rulers of Iran, and most of Asia Minor. Inscriptions confirm the extravagant titles that Orhan assumed and indicate growing wealth in the Turkish emirates in the fourteenth century while documents illustrate the relative poverty of Osman’s domains compared with those of Orhan. One of them, of 1324, gives some insight into the Ottoman family and its power in the Sangarius region.

An unusual abundance of contemporary sources illuminates the 1330s: the traveler Ibn Batuta, the statesman Al-Umari, al-Urtyan of Sivrihisar, and Balban the Genoese—all writing in Arabic—the Turkish epic about Umur of Aydın and treaties between the Venetians and Menteşe. Ibn Battuta in particular gives an eye-witness account of the emirates and their rulers. The sources illustrate the wealth of maritime Aydın and Menteşe as well as Germiyan and narrate the spectacular career of Umur and the rising power of Orhan who, however, was paying tribute to the Mongols The chapter describes the emirates along with the Byzantine outpost of Philadelphia. It integrates the coins into the narrative.

Karacahisar is a medieval castle located 7 km away from the center of Eskişehir. There is no definite information regarding the castle’s name before the Ottoman period. The name “Karacahisar” is first encountered in Ottoman chronicles. According to the narratives within these chronicles, Karacahisar was the Ottoman Beylik’s first conquest. Additionally, the castle is known as the site of the first sermon and the implementation of the initial tax. It is evident that Dorylaion (Eskişehir) was a multifaceted / multi-focused city during the Byzantine era, and Karacahisar served as one of the fortified areas safeguarding the city and the region. Evidence obtained particularly from coins indicates the presence of a settlement within the castle since the 7th century (Phase I). Also based on the distribution of archaeological findings, it is understood that the castle was used intermittently until the 11th century (probably depending on the defense needs of the city and the region), and a comprehensive repair and construction process took place in the last quarter of the 12th century (1175, during the Myrocephalon War) (Phase II). In the 13th century, Seljuk coins from that era were discovered in the castle, which was located on the border between the Seljuks and Byzantium. It was noted as a significant result that the castle was permanently conquered by Osman Gazi (1288), after the date represented by the Seljuk coin of Keyhüsrev III (1266- 1284). The architectural characteristics observed in the third phase of the castle belong to the Early Ottoman period. Archaeological findings indicate the existence of substantial habitation within the castle during this period. The earliest finding that can be dated to the Ottoman period is a silver coin attributed to Orhan Gazi. The presence of numerous coins associated with Murad I, Yıldırım Bayezid, Emir Süleyman, Çelebi Mehmed and Murad II within the castle further indicates that Karacahisar retained its strategic importance during these periods. These data are compatible with the information found in written sources. Apart from the Ottoman coins, the other coins found in the castle are mainly dated to the 14th and 15th centuries (Germiyanoğlu, Karaman, Menteşe, Aydınoğlu, Candaroğlu, Mamluk and Latin). Datable ceramics, the most intense group of finds of the excavations, also pointed to the same conclusion as the coins. The significant decrease in archaeological data starting from the second half of the 15th century also supported the information in the archive document stating that the castle was abandoned during the reign of Mehmed the Conqueror. The disappearance of the strategic importance of Karacahisar after the Ottoman Empire took complete control of the region during the reign of Mehmet the Conqueror was interpreted as the main reason for these results. For more detailed information, please refer to the Extended Abstract at the end of the text

Historically, the city of Trabzon consisted of three separate sections, namely the Lower Fortress, the Middle Fortress and the Upper Fortress (Inner Fortress) sections. Considering its strategic location and its status fit for an administrative center, it is highly probable that the first walled city construction was made in the Inner Fortress (Upper Fortress) section. The structural features of the walls both at the north-western and north-eastern parts of the Inner Fortress (Upper Fortress) section and the first archaeological findings confirmed this view. The first observer to mention the existence of Trabzon as Trapezus in ancient written sources was Xenophon, who returned to Greece with “tens of thousands” of soldiers in 400 BC from Persia. Based on this source Trabzon was a city intact around 400 BC, and therefore its known history dates back to 2500 years. However, the German historian Jakob Fallmerayer Pausanias, known for his work “History of the Empire of Trabzon”, argued that the core inhabited area of Trapezus was Trabzon, which still exists today, and that its foundation dated back 4500 years ago. Considering that the transition to a sedentary agricultural life was during the Neolithic period around 2000 BC, this view is likely to be accurate. Until February and August 2021, no scientific archaeological excavation or drilling work had been carried out either inside or outside the city walls of old Trabzon, which has been inhabited since ancient times. With the permission of the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, in 2021 archaeological drilling was carried out for a month in the northeastern part of the Lower Hisar in Trabzon for the first time in history, and important architectural remains from the Roman Period were found in addition to minor Hellenistic finds. Following this significant discovery, at the end of August of the same year, long-term, planned and systematic archaeological excavations were initiated at the Inner Fortress section under the presidency of Trabzon Museum and under the coordination and academic supervision of Prof. Mehmet Yavuz from Karadeniz Technical University. The third phase of these archaeological studies was carried out at the bottom of the city wall behind the Women’s Groceries Market in the Lower Hisar section, and the works that began in December 2021 continued until the end of July 2022. During the rescue excavations, the ancient harbor structure uncovered during the excavation of the construction foundation was fully unearthed. The first archaeological excavations in these three different places yielded a large number of ceramic artifacts, coins, glass, metal and bone artifacts belonging to the Roman, Byzantine, Komnenos and Ottoman Periods, starting from the Hellenistic Period. For more detailed information, please refer to the Extended Abstract at the end of the text

The authors present the coins discovered during the archaeological excavations carried out in 1993, 2001-2003, 2005-2008 and 2016. During the archaeological excavations at the Căpriana Monastery, 132 coins were discovered in the necropolis of the founders inside the Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God, within the filling soil under the floor of the church, in the necropolis around the church, in the wall of a building located to the west of the church, as well as in the cultural layer around the church. A total of 36 coins discovered inside the church come from 10 graves and its cultural layer, while the coins discovered in the necropolis around the church come from 7 graves. From the total number of 88 investigated graves, coins were discovered in 17 burial complexes (19%). Most of the graves contain a single coin, in grave 39 2 coins were found, in grave 56 24 pieces were deposited, representing a small treasure, and in another case (grave 18) a monetary deposit consisting of 83 coins was found. The coins deposited in graves represent several monetary areas. The European ones are issues of the Kingdom of Poland and the Holy German Empire issued starting from the third decade of the 16th century and up to 1627. Most of the coins from Căpriana come from the Ottoman Empire, representing coins issued in the 18th century, but also two copies with a large denomination - ikilik, issued by Selim III, being the most recent coins from the tombs.

With the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in October 1923, modernization studies have been started throughout the country. The Republican authorities which adopted a new form of government independent of the Ottoman Empire had expectations for the city planning of Turkey according to the modernization rules of urbanism. After the proclamation of the Republic, the capital of the country was relocated from Istanbul to Ankara and the funds of the Republic were canalized to the construction of the new capital city. Following the creation of Ankara, in 1935, French architect and urban planner Henri Prost was invited directly to conduct the planning of Istanbul. He worked between 1936 and 1951 with a conservative and modernist attitude. Prost’s plans for Istanbul was based on three principal issues: the transportation (la circulation), hygiene (l’hygiène) and aesthetics (l’aesthetics). He gave importance on urban and public spaces (espaces libres) and proposed two public parks. One of these parks was considered as an archaeological park at the hearth of the Historical Peninsula (parc n1), the other one was considered as a park with cultural, arts and sports functions into the hearth of the Pera district which was the area extending from today’s Taksim Square to Maçka Valley (parc n2) and wherein these days the modern and new city was built. Only Park No2 (parc n2) was partially constructed in the 1940s following these park plans. However, the park has been transformed by the planning decisions taken over time depending on the political, cultural and ideological changes and this transformation process has been intensively discussed by the academic and professional field on the Istanbul’s and Turkey’s urban agenda. The focus of this study is to understand and define the process of transformation, and investigate the changing of significances of the Taksim-Maçka Valley from foundation of the Republic of Turkey to the present time. Accordingly, the first part of the paper presents the formation process of the area through the 1:2000 plan of Park No2 (parc n2) and the 1:500 plan of The Republic Square and the İnönü Esplanade in Taksim (la place de la République et l'esplanade İnönü à Taksim) which were prepared by Henri Prost. In the second part, the transformation process that occurs after Prost was discharged from his position is analyzed. The paper concludes with a discussion on the pros and cons of the transformation. In the study, the “digital urban history method” (telling the history of the city in the age of the ICT revolution) was used through the power of various direct and indirect sources with ArcGIS and 3D modeling techniques.