A Description of the Crimean Khanate in 1669 by J. Matuz
Journal name: Acta Orientalia
Original article title: Eine Beschreibung des Khanats der Krim aus dem Jahre 1669
ACTA ORIENTALIA is a journal focused on the study of Oriental languages, history, archaeology, and religions from ancient times to the present. The journal includes articles reviewed by a senior scholar in the relevant field.
This page presents a generated summary with additional references; See source (below) for actual content.
Original source:
This page is merely a summary which is automatically generated hence you should visit the source to read the original article which includes the author, publication date, notes and references.
J. Matuz
Acta Orientalia:
(Founded in 1922 and published annually)
Full text available for: Eine Beschreibung des Khanats der Krim aus dem Jahre 1669
Year: 1963 | Doi: 10.5617/ao.5245
Copyright (license): CC BY 4.0
Download the PDF file of the original publication
Summary of article contents:
Introduction
The document presents a detailed description of the Khanate of Crimea in 1669, authored by J. Matuz. It is sourced from a copybook at the Copenhagen Reichsarchiv, which contains important diplomatic records pertaining to the relationships between Denmark and the Crimean Khanate during the latter half of the 17th century. The description captures not only the political dynamics of the time but also the cultural intricacies of the Crimean court under Khan Coban Adil Giray.
The Complex Hierarchy of Power
One of the significant concepts explored in the document is the intricate hierarchical structure within the Crimean Khanate. The Khan, at the top of this hierarchy, had several key figures around him, including the Vizier and other high-ranking nobles known as Mirzas and Beys. Adil Giray's rule marked a turbulent period characterized by inner court rivalries, threats to governance, and external pressures. The power struggles among different factions, especially those stemming from tribal affiliations, significantly influenced the Khan’s authority and decision-making processes.
The Role of the Khan's Wives
Another important concept is the role of the Khan's wives in the socio-political landscape of the Crimean court. The first wife, titled as the Great Khan Wife, held considerable status and influence. The text details the hierarchy among the Khan’s wives, mentioning the duties and responsibilities they bore, particularly in entertaining guests and participating in court rituals. The Khan’s marriages, often tied to political alliances, showcased the blending of personal and political strategies in strengthening the Khanate's position and relationships with neighboring powers.
The Significance of Diplomatic Relations
Additionally, the description emphasizes the role of diplomatic relations in the Khanate's governance. The Crimean Khanate maintained active diplomatic connections, particularly with significant powers like Poland and the Ottoman Empire. The document highlights the Khanate's foreign policy strategies, including its alliances and conflicts in the region. These diplomatic negotiations were essential for the Khan's reign, as they not only influenced military support but also helped in managing trade and cultural exchanges with neighboring territories.
The Cultural Context of the Khanate
Lastly, the document delves into the cultural aspects of the Crimean Khanate, including customs and court ceremonies. Various rituals were performed at the Khan's court, emphasizing the significance of lavish displays in affirming the Khan’s authority and prestige. From the selection of beautiful young women for the Khan's harem to grand feasts showcasing the wealth of the Khanate, these cultural practices offered insights into the societal values and norms of the time. Arts, literature, and traditions played a crucial role in defining the identity of the Khanate within the larger context of the Ottoman Empire.
Conclusion
In conclusion, J. Matuz's detailed account offers a comprehensive overview of the Crimea Khanate in 1669, touching upon essential aspects of its political structure, social hierarchy, diplomatic relations, and cultural practices. This document serves as a pivotal historical source, shedding light on a complex period that highlights the interplay of power, culture, and international relations within the context of the Crimean Khanate's existence in the 17th century.
FAQ section (important questions/answers):
What is the main focus of J. Matuz's description from 1669?
J. Matuz's description focuses on the court society of the Crimean Khanate, detailing diplomatic relations between Denmark and the Crimean Khanate during the mid-17th century.
Who was the Khan of Crimea in 1669?
In 1669, the Khan of Crimea was Čoban Adil Giray, who was appointed by the Ottoman Empire and faced various political challenges during his reign.
What is the significance of the year 1669 for Crimea?
The year 1669 is significant because it represents a time when diplomatic relations between Denmark and the Crimean Khanate were established, enhancing understanding of Crimea's political landscape.
What role did the Stämme of Širin play during this period?
The Širin tribe was influential in the political dynamics of the Crimean Khanate, opposing Adil Giray due to his questionable lineage, which led to power struggles.
How was the Khan's court structured in terms of hierarchy?
The Khan's court was highly hierarchical, featuring a large assembly of high-ranking officials including the Khan himself, his principal advisors, and various noble tribes of Crimea.
What were the living conditions and rituals for the Khan?
The Khan maintained a lavish lifestyle with rich ceremonies, including exclusive meals and a private harem, reflecting the customs of both the Ottoman Empire and traditional Tatar culture.
What sources did Matuz use for his analysis?
Matuz's analysis incorporated a variety of historical works and documents, shedding light on the available information about the Crimean Khanate and its interactions with other states.
Glossary definitions and references:
Oriental and Historical glossary list for “A Description of the Crimean Khanate in 1669 by J. Matuz”. This list explains important keywords that occur in this article and links it to the glossary for a better understanding of that concept in the context of History, Linguistics, Religion, Philosophy, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc.
1) Krim:
Krim refers to the Crimean Peninsula, which was historically significant as the home of the Crimean Khanate. The text discusses the relationships, political dynamics, and socio-economic conditions in the Khanate during the 17th century, particularly under Khan Adil Giray, reflecting its strategic importance amid regional powers such as the Ottoman Empire, Poland, and Russia.
2) Khan:
Khan indicates a ruler of the Crimean Khanate, specifically Adil Giray in the 17th century. The text elaborates on the political structure, lineage, and ceremonial aspects of the Khan's role, illustrating his authority, relationships with noble families, and the implications of dynastic politics within the region.
3) Cham:
Cham is a term used interchangeably with Khan, signifying a powerful leader or sovereign in the Crimean context. The description underscores the ceremonial grandeur of the Cham's court, including the elaborate rituals associated with his authority, familial connections, and the governance of the diverse populations within his reign.
4) Pari:
Pari is a reference to a noble title or rank often associated with leadership or governance in the Crimean Khanate. Its appearance in the text highlights the feudal structures in place, where nobility played significant roles in supporting the Khan and influencing regional politics while managing local affairs.
5) Agas:
Agas denotes officials or military leaders serving under the Khan, particularly the position of Baş-Ağa, which was crucial in the administration of the Khanate. The text details their influence, duties, and relationships with the Khan, illustrating the hierarchical nature of governance in the Crimean political landscape.
6) Grim (Grm):
Grim is a reference to the geographical and cultural identity of the Crimean Khanate, often used in historical texts to describe the region. It signifies the ethnic Tatar heritage and the socio-political dynamics within, helping contextualize the Khan's authority and the territory's significance in European geopolitical affairs.
7) Kaya:
Kaya generally refers to a high-ranking official or an important noble family within the Khanate. In the context of the text, it emphasizes the social stratification and the various power holders who influenced the political decision-making processes alongside the Khan, contributing to the governance of the region.
8) Winter:
Winter in the text may symbolize a period of instability or change within the governance of the Khanate. The discussions around political maneuvers and the shifting loyalties may reflect broader themes of power dynamics that become particularly significant during times of resource scarcity and social tension.
9) Bala:
Bala refers to the children or heirs of the Khan, specifically in the context of succession and the implications for dynastic politics. The text explores the familial ties that influence power transitions, highlighting the importance of lineage in the stability and continuity of leadership in the Khanate.
10) Religion:
Religion plays a critical role in shaping the cultural and political identity of the Crimean Khanate. The text hints at the influence of Islamic practices and the intersection with local traditions, illustrating how religion was intertwined with governance and societal norms in the Khan's court.
11) Critique:
Critique signifies the examination of historical narratives and perspectives surrounding the Crimean Khanate. The text invites readers to consider varying interpretations of documented events, demonstrating the complex legacy of the Khanate within broader historical frameworks through scholarly discourse and analysis.
12) Plaster:
Plaster represents an aspect of the physical environment and material culture in the Khanate. The text’s mention may reflect the construction, decoration, or architectural styles of buildings in the region, symbolizing the intersection of artistry and functionality in the everyday life of the inhabitants.
13) Lexicon:
Lexicon refers to the specific set of terms and vocabulary used within documentation and description regarding the Khanate. The text demonstrates the linguistic nuances that provide insight into cultural identifiers and the specialized language reflecting the political and social hierarchies of the time.
14) Ankara (Amkara):
Ankara is the capital of modern Turkey and may imply historical connections or administrative relevance to the Crimean Khanate within the Ottoman realm. The mention serves to contextualize the geopolitical landscape, indicating interactions between the Khanate and the central authority of the Ottomans.
15) Karta:
Karta refers to maps or geographical references, playing a role in understanding the territorial boundaries and influences of the Khanate. The text illustrates the significance of accurate geographical knowledge in navigation, trade, and territorial claims during the period in which the Khan governed.
16) China:
China indicates a broader, historical context of trade and cultural exchange along the Silk Road. The text may highlight how relationships with distant powers like China influenced the international dynamics in which the Crimean Khanate operated, reflecting the global interactions of the time.
17) Diwan:
Diwan typically denotes a council or a group of advisors within an Islamic governance framework. In the context of the text, it underscores the advisory bodies surrounding the Khan, showcasing the collaborative decision-making processes that shaped the policies and directions of the Crimean Khanate.
18) Dahin (Dahi):
Dahin appears to represent geographical or cultural contexts related to the east, potentially indicating areas of influence or interaction. The text’s use of this term illustrates the Crimean Khanate's positioning in relation to neighboring regions, emphasizing cultural and political exchanges.
19) Cerai (Cherai, Serai):
Serai refers to a palace or a grand residence associated with the Khan’s court. The text illustrates the significance of such spaces in the administration and ceremonial life, highlighting the wealth, power, and intricate social customs observed within the royal palace during gatherings.
20) Jena:
Jena may refer to a geographical location or a scholarly reference relevant to the academic exploration of the Khanate. Its mention indicates the international interest in Crimean studies and the broader implications of scholarship in understanding the historical complexities of the region.
21) Bora:
Bora references a significant historical figure, Bora Gazi Giray Khan, known for his contributions to Crimean culture and politics. The text may address the importance of iconic characters in shaping the identity and history of the Khanate, providing a narrative continuity for its legacy.
22) Bett:
Bett represents a symbolic or literal aspect related to comfort and status within royal protocols. The mention in the text may connect to the practices associated with the Khan during court life, encapsulating the hierarchical distinctions prevalent in the living arrangements of nobility.
23) Baku:
Baku, as mentioned, signifies a geographical location of strategic importance near the Caspian Sea. In the context of the Crimean Khanate, it matters for trade, culture, and political relations, providing insight into how territorial sovereignty and economic development were intertwined in historical analyses.
24) Trit (Trt):
Trit likely refers to a contextual nuance related to local governance or regional interactions. The text could emphasize logistical movements or administrative systems in place, underscoring the functional aspect of governance in managing resources and local populations.
25) Tun:
Thun could connect to the concept of deliberation or weighing options within the Khanate’s administrative decisions. It reflects the careful considerations taken by the Khan and his advisors in strategizing responses to challenges, highlighting critical thinking in political governance.
26) Chan:
Chan typically denotes the title for leaders or respective rulers in various Central Asian contexts. Its contextual use in the text signifies the continuity of leadership structures and their relevance across different cultures, illustrating the broader tapestry of governance that encompassed the Crimean Khanate.