Talk:Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

Name - Sanjak of Jerusalem

I am moving this article to Sanjak of Jerusalem for the following reasons:

1) Google books gives >8,000 hits for "Sanjak of Jerusalem" and only 6 (six) for "Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem"

2) The work entitled "The Rise of the Sanjak of Jerusalem in the Late Nineteenth Century" (note 4 in the article) writes "Sanjak was the traditional title of a subprovince in the Ottoman Empire. In the last few decades of the nineteenth century, the term mutasarriflik (Arabic Mutasariffiyya) was alternately used to denote the same administrative division"

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Turns out i can't do this as the name was used before. Am starting an RM. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

For what it's worth, the difference between the two words is technical, and relates to the 1864 Vilayet law when the rank of Mutasarrıf was first established (instead of Sanjak-bey). At that point, Vilayets replaced Eyalets and Mutasarrıfates replaced Sanjaks. Around the same time, some new districts were formed, such as this one in Jerusalem. So it was technically a Mutasarrifate, but in English most continued to use the older term Sanjak. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have struck through statements I have since learned to be incorrect. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem → Sanjak of Jerusalem – 1) Google books gives >8,000 hits for "Sanjak of Jerusalem" and only 6 (six) for "Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem"; 2) The work entitled "The Rise of the Sanjak of Jerusalem in the Late Nineteenth Century" (note 4 in the article) writes "Sanjak was the traditional title of a subprovince in the Ottoman Empire. In the last few decades of the nineteenth century, the term mutasarriflik (Arabic Mutasariffiyya) was alternately used to denote the same administrative division"; and 3) The Turkish wiki article for the same topic (tr:Kudüs Sancağı) uses [Kudus=Jerusalem] "Sanjak" - and they should know.... Oncenawhile (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Sanjak and Mutarassifate held two very different statuses and are not interchangeable actually. The Sanjak was simply a district of a larger province (vilayet) which I believe was Damascus. The Mutarrasifate was entirely independent from the vilayet (officially speaking) and had a special status where it directly answered to Istanbul, the Ottoman capital. The Sanjak's territory, (which roughly consisted of south central Palestine and sometimes included Gaza and its territories), was not the same as the Mutarrifate's which covered a much larger space (virtually all of Palestine, plus parts of the Sinai and I think Transjordan as well). --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Al Ameer, you may be right but it would be very helpful if you could provide a source for the facts you've stated.

I've seen this said on wiki before but have never seen a source for the claim that Mutassarifates were special types of Sanjaks. The sources I have read suggest that this view is just an accidental coincidence and actually they were two names for exactly the same thing - the two Independent divisions created in the 1860/70 period (Mt Lebanon and Jerusalem) both happened to have been created after the 1864 Vilayet Law which abolished sanjaks (see my comment just above this rfc). If you can find a good source that shows that a mutassarifate was a slightly different type of Sanjak then great, but otherwise I'd like to dispel this from the discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as the territory of the Mutassarifate is concerned, that's largely covered in the article, although the Sinai only appears in the maps (I haven't seen it in the sources currently used). I'm a bit confused now. If the sanjaks were abolished in place of the mutassarifate why was it that only Jerusalem and Mount Lebanon were named as such unlike other districts? What were the rest of the old sanjaks called? Caza? Jankowski writes on page 174,

... from 1874 onwards, the sanjaq of Jerusalem, including the districts of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Gaza, Beersheba and Jaffa, was administered independently from any other Ottoman province, and as such was under the direct authority of Istanbul. In earlier times Jerusalem had briefly been capital of a larger province named Filastin, which encompassed all of what is now Palestine, including Nablus, Haifa and the Galilee. More frequently, the Jerusalem sanjaq was included with other regions within the province of Damascus.

This is also a bit confusing since Jankowski appears to be calling the mutassarifate a "sanjaq" and unlike what I stated previously, he writes that the pre-1874 sanjaq was actually larger, having included northern Palestine as well. So you could be right, I'm still not %100 sure. I'm leaning towards a support vote for the proposed move which could cover a broader description; in the united article we could write about the evolution (or devolution) of the Ottoman district of Jerusalem from the liwa days to the special status years covered in this article. All that's pending for me is an answer to the following question: Isn't a sanjak, or whatever succeeded the sanjak, a district of the vilayet while the mutassarifate is independent of the vilayet? That's really the crux of this article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Al Ameer, that's interesting, thanks. I am particularly surprised to see Jankowski suggesting that there had previously been an Ottoman province called Filastin. I thought the Ottomans named all their provinces after cities, but perhaps not at the beginning of the Ottoman period?

Anyway, to your question, my view is that the post 1872 Jerusalem division (whatever called) was definitely independent of the vilayet, as was the Mount Lebanon division. But if you believe the article Mutasarrıf, it says other Mutasarrıfs were not independent and were part of vilayets.

I'm going to have another look around to see if i can find any other sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's some links:

• [1] is an 1879 British document referring to the sanjak of Cyprus (having been ruled by a mutasarrif) - Cyprus was sometimes known as an independent mutasarriflik too
• [2] another British source showing clearly the equivalence between a sanjak and its ruler (the mutasarrif)
• [3] this map, if you zoom in, refers to mutasarrifliks and vilayets, importantly it refers to the Sanjak of Zor as a mutasarriflik, and it doesn't refer to sanjaks anywhere (at least I can't see them)

To me these sources support the view that sanjaks and mutasarrifliks were the same thing.

If you agree with that, then the above links in my original post support that Sanjak of Jerusalem is much more common.

And importantly, it is much easier to spell.....

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is really dragging and I thought to interfere here too. the Request to move the Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate was previously opposed and I oppose the move of this article too for the same reasons stated on Talk:Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate. Al Ameer Son has made it very clear that these subdivisions are not the same and accorded different prerogatives. Parties with different POV will dig up sources for and to counter the proposition but historical facts, facts that us, the locals know best should not be compromised just because people cant spell a certain word. Eli+ 14:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are some of the examples of the use of the mutasarrifate as a new subdivision of the Ottoman territory.

1. [4] Cahpter 4 - Page 99 "On June 9, 1861, a special administration, generally known as the mutasarrifiyya, was established in Mount Lebanon. It provided mainly for a more regular mode of government, which was to be manned locally."
2. [5] Page 414
3. [6] Local government section on pages 203 and 204 will put an end to this debate. I have looked at the links to documents provided by oncenawhile and ... well... they prove nothing at all. Eli+ 15:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eli+, welcome. Earlier I wrote "I've seen this said on wiki before but have never seen a source for the claim that Mutassarifates were special types of Sanjaks." - I was referring to your comment at Talk:Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate, so I'm glad you've joined this discussion.

I think your statement was wrong, and so I would like to ask if you could find us a source to support it? The statement I would like you to source is "There's a small nuance between the turkish terms Miitesarriflik and Sanjak. Sanjak rulers represented the Vali and corresponded with the Ottoman government through him whereas Mutasarrifs of semi-independent units such as Lebanon or Cyprus corresponded directly to the ministry of interior. "

I read the three sources you provided. The first and second are selective (have a look at how many more books use the term Sanjak [7]). The third substantiates exactly what I have been saying - that a mutasarrif (a governor) headed a division most commonly referred to in English as a Sanjak.

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Have found some more good sources around the question of sanjak vs mutasarrifate if you're interested: three in English [8], [9] and [10] and two in Turkish [11] and [12]. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

After reading through your English sources, I am more convinced that the article title should be kept as it is; these read:

• In the 1860s and 1870s he served as mutasarrif (district governor) in Hama and Nablus." which proves what? yes the term designates a district governor; but it does not equate a sanjak with mutasrriflik
• To provide salaries high enough to allow the appointment of capable Tanzimat administrators to the more important provinces, the status of these governorships was changed to that of mutasarnflik, a term once used on the district level, but now connotating positions of particularly high rank Thank you ... for providing this source, which corroborates this source; so basically what the author said that there were special governors with special ranks and salaries governing a different kind of governorships.

• The administrative organisation of Palestine and Jerusalem was very much the by-product of the Tanzimat reforms; transformations were not carried out overnights as shown below and should be understood in the largest context of reorganisation of the Empire itself. In the summer of 1872 the sancak of Jerusalem was detached from the vilayet of Syria, and made independent under the direct control of Istanbul.25 The sancak or mutasarrıflık of Jerusalem was ruled by a Mutasarrıf (governor). The Mutasarrıf of Jerusalem, after the sancak was detached from the vilayet of Syria, became quite unique amongst the other governors throughout the Ottoman Empire, as he was directly appointed and therefore responsible to the central administration in Istanbul and not to the Vali of Syria. YES the author uses sanjac and mutasarriflik interchangeably but, for the sake of historical accuracy the latter should be used to indicate the special prerogatives and liaisons these governorships had in relation to the Porte and the greater independence they enjoyed. this book also concurs with this source Eli+ 12:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And here's an article demonstrating Jerusalem's special status: During the 19th century, Palestine did not constitute a separate entity of the Ottoman administration. Various districts of Western Palestine and Transjordan were part of the vilayets of Damascus and Sidon. The administrative division of 1864 fixed three sanjaks: Jerusalem, Nablus, and Acre, all under the governor of the Sidon vilayet whose center was in Beirut. The territorial continuity of the vilayet of Beirut (Sidon) was broken by the definition of Mount Lebanon as a special district. The Acre sanjalc remained within the Beirut vilayet until the end of the Ottoman period. The sanjak of Nablus, which previously included all of Samaria and the Balkah region in Transjordan, lost the Balkah to the Damascus vilayet with Samaria remaining subject to Beirut. 95 While the northern part of Palestine remained under the vilayet of Beirut, changes were instituted in the central and southern regions. Jerusalem, increasingly important, became an independent tnutasarriflik at the beginning of the 1870s, directly responsible to Constantinople. Its northern border passed along a line from a point north of Jaffa, east to the Jordan. At first, the Jerusalem mutasarriflik was divided into three subdistricts — Jaffa, Hebron, and Gaza — which were the seats of kaimakams; later the area was extended to the Beer Shebaiauja al-Hafir region in the Negev, and to the Nazareth region in the north (Figure 9)•96

To argue that a mutasarriflik is synonymous with sanjak is a grave error. I should have mentioned this earlier but the Ottoman subdivisions after the Tanzimat reforms were arranged in the following hierarchy of administrative units: the vilayet, liva/sanjak, kaza and village council. Mutasarrifliks were chunks of territories cut out from the Vilayets to which a different kind of governorship was appointed. Eli+ 12:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Both Acre and Nablus are called Mutasarrifates here....

The only grave error is your decision not to scroll forward in your own source by a couple of pages. If you had, you would have seen this picture. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Actually, I think the title should be Mutasarriflik of Jerusalem. Here is an academic source that explains Jerusalem's status as an autonomous mutasarriflik. Jerusalem and its Environs: Quarter, Neighborhoods, Villages, 1800-1948. This is the term used widely in historical geography studies of the region.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Mutasarriflik, sounds good to me (although the current anglicized name is better) Eli+ 16:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I put a few alternatives into Ngrams here. It suggests mutasarrifiyya is the most common.

Btw, whatever we agree here should also go for Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate and Sanjak of Zor.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to all. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem → Mutasarrifiyya of Jerusalem
• Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate → Mutasarrifiyya of Mount Lebanon
• Sanjak of Zor → Mutasarrifiyya of Zor

– Two reasons: (1) "Mutasarrifiyya" is the most common anglicisation of the word, per google books / ngrams; (2) all three articles should have the same name format, since they had the same status (see [13] and [14] Oncenawhile (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• By way of information, as best I can figure it out, mutasarrıflık (note no dots on the "i"s) is the Turkish name, and mutasarrifiyya is the Arabic name. "Mutasarrifate" is an Anglicised form. I mostly see mutasarrıflık in academic journals, but I don't object to mutasarrifiyya. Zero^talk 10:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm against moving th Sanjak of Zor, the term "mutasarrifate" indicated a special status and the appelation was not introduced before 1860 whilst the sanjak of zor was created 3 years earlier. -Eli+ 11:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Elie, sorry but the mutasarrif status was not "special" as you are suggesting (again without a source and in contradiction with the map shown above). What was "special" about Mount Lebanon was the Règlement Organique. Ok? Oncenawhile (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Also the Mutasarrıf status was not created for anyone until 1864, so by your logic we should change Mount Lebanon back to Sanjak (which I know you don't want). Oncenawhile (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Given a choice, use the English rather than the transliteration for a general audience. A citation for "mutasarrifate/mutasarrifiyya" usage for the Sanjak of Zor would be nice, too. —  AjaxSmack  23:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I should have been more clear in the RfC - hopefully its not too late. The problem with this is that the term Mutasarrifate does not appear to be the common English term. There are only 79 googlebooks results for the term despite it being used for many geographical regions in the Ottoman Empire. I don't really mind which one we use but want to make it easy for readers to find the article and so it's better not to use an uncommon spelling.

Re citations for Zor, see [15] and [16].

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - The English form might be the better choice for English wikipedia, hence Mutasarrifate. I'm also not sure what is the correct status of Zor, some explanation would help.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

JSTOR article

Does anyone have access to this JSTOR article. It has a list of all the governors of the district, and a description of how the regional government worked. If anyone can email it to me I can update the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've got it. Sending... The book of Büssow has more detail though. Zero^talk 02:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Borders - help needed

Map of "Palestine" in 1851, showing the Kaza subdivisions. At the time, the region shown was split between the Sidon Eyalet and the Damascus Eyalet

Can anyone help clarify how the southern and eastern borders of the division changed over time? In this article we have:

• A map at the top which shows much of transjordan being included
• An 1893 map which shows the same but shows Rafah being carved out
• A 1907 map which shows the eastern border at the river jordan but includes sinai (despite the egyptian border being fixed in 1906)

Also in this talk page we show a british consul map from 1907 which shows the 1906 border with egypt, the river jordan on the east but also a diagonal line from the dead sea, cutting out part of the negev.

And finally the quotes from foreign consuls in the 1870s shown here suggest that transjordan was clearly separated.

It would be great to clear this up if anyone has any bright ideas?

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a tough one. The borders kept changing. This book might help with Transjordan. This is a typical European map showing province boundaries. Zero^talk 15:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Good map - thanks. It seems to show the kazas as they presumably were in 1851, and from what i can tell the decision as to what to include within "Palestine" at the time was wholly arbitrary... I am working my way through the book - thanks for that too.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

In 1882 the Ottomans called it a Sanjak....

OK, so i'm sure everyone's bored of the "what is the correct name for this article" debate, but have a look at the map I just added in from 1883. This is from the Ottoman governemnt yearbook - hard to get much more "official" than that. And if you read the script you'll see it says clearly "Quds-Sharif Sancağı". Oncenawhile (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I just added another contemporary map which is solely focused on the Jerusalem division, and also calls it a Sancağı. So now we have four maps, two names, and four different sets of borders... Oncenawhile (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanjak and Mutasarrifate/Mutasarriflik could be used interchangeable. Mutasarriflik just means a province that is administrated by a Mutasarrif. Mutasarrif was an office that was introduced by Tanzimat reforms. He was the administrator of a sanjak. All sanjaks were administrated by a mutasarrif then, the independent as well as the dependent ones. It isn't the case that 'Mutasarriflik' was only used to denotate the independent sanjaks. Those special sanjaks (like Jerusalem) were officialy called elviye-i mustakille, which means free resp. independent sanjaks. 'Elviye' is the plural of 'liva' which is the arabic word for sanjak. In offical Ottoman papers mostly the word 'liva' was used instead of sanjak. --Arturius001 (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arturius001, that is a very clear answer, thank you. These articles need a bit of work and this nomenclature needs clarifying to avoid confusion. Can you point us to any sources which we can use to cite such clarifications. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently researching for an overview article concerning Ottoman provinces for German wikipedia, so I could point you to some sources I have found. If you need any further evidence for a proposition I made or if you have any further question or comment please contact me. Sadly I was not able to find any English source with such details that are offered by the following sources. The Encyclopaedia of Islam is offering some selective details in some relevant articles. So the sources I can give you are either French or German. I could translate some passages, but be aware, my French is not that advanced. They are all concerning administration according to system of vilayet:

• Heidborn (1908): Manuel de droit public et administratif de l'Empire ottoman (Handbook of public and administrative law of the Ottoman Empire). [17] (fr)
• Loytved (1904): Grundriß der allgemeinen Organisation der Verwaltungsbehörden der eigentlichen Türkei (Outline of the general organisation of the administrative offices of Turkey). [18] (ger)
• Zur Helle von Samo (1877): Die Völker des osmanischen Reiches (The people of the Ottoman Empire). [19] (ger) --Arturius001 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This book contains a fair amount of information about the Jerusalem district in particular. You can verify in particular that "Mutasarriflik" is not a contradiction to "Sanjak" but just a type of Sanjak.Zero^talk 07:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This source is verifying what I said above. See at page 43, footnote 11 what the author says about the official categorization of Jerusalem: "The relevant technical term in Ottoman Turkish are liva / sancak ghayr-i mulhak or müstakil [...]. Arabic authors speak of mutasarrifiyya mustaqilla [...]"[20]. A "Mutasarriflik" is in this way a type of "Sanjak" that it is administrated by a Mutasarrif but this term does not imply any determination if this sanjak is independent or not. Therefore those special sanjaks were officially attributed with müstakil resp. mustaqilla, what means independent. "Mutasarriflik" is synonym to "Sanjak" for the period of 1867 to 1922 because by law a sanjak was administrated by a Mutasarrif. --Arturius001 (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This table was published in 1908

Here is another source which explains it quite clearly. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, so I think we resolved this issue finally. It seems that sanjak was the official designation instead of mutasarrifflik. --Arturius001 (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and here is one more.

Are we also agreed that a müstakil sanjak simply meant that it was not subordinate to a vilayet, like other sanjaks were? Other than that, there was nothing "special" about the status, from what i can see.

Confirmed. --Arturius001 (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if Al Ameer son and Eli could add their views here, as I think we should go for another renaming of this and the Mount Lebanon article. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hold you horses guys. the names on the maps are still divergent, and one can find countless books that assert one or the other name so I'm calling on some users who may have additional insight.. Fjmustak, Drork Tiamut, Malik Shabazz. I will also post a message to the relevant WPs to involve as much people as possible in this deicison. -Elias Z 05:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Eli - the more people the better.

From the widely cited 1908 "Manuel de droit public et administratif de l'Empire ottoman": [original French]: les six départements indépendants (elviyé-i-mustakillé ou gaîr-i-mulhaka): Tchataldja, Izmid, Biga (Dardanelles), Jérusalem, Zor et Bengazi. Ces départements s'appellent indépendants parce que leurs gouverneurs ne relèvent pas, comme ceux des autres départements, du gouverneur général respectif, mais directement de l'autorité centrale, soit à cause de leur proximité de Constantinople (Tchataldja, Izmid), soit pour des raisons stratégiques (Dardanelles), religieuses et politiques (Jérusalem) ou administratives (Zor, Bengazi). D'après l'annuaire officiel, la Porte compte, de plus, parmi ses possessions directes: l'île de Crète et le Liban, ce dernier rangé au nombre des départements indépendants. Mais elle n'a plus sur la Crète qu'une suzeraineté nominale et le Liban est doté d'une si large autonomie, que tous deux doivent être envisagés plutôt comme des possessions indirectes. Il en est de même des départements de Senidjé (Novi Bazar) et de Tachlidjé qui, aux yeux de l'administration turque, constituent une partie du vilayet de Kossovo, mais qui, en raison des droits considérables que l'Autriche-Hongrie y exerce, rentrent plutôt dans la catégorie des possessions médiates. [my attempt at translation]: six independent departments (elviyé-i-mustakillé or gaîr-i-mulhaka): Çatalca, Izmir, Biga (Dardanelles), Jerusalem, Deir ez-Zor and Benghazi. These departments are called independent because their governors do not fall, like those of other departments, under the respective Governor General, but directly under the central authority, either because of their proximity to Constantinople (Çatalca, Izmir) or for religious / political / strategic reasons (Dardanelles), (Jerusalem) or administrative reasons (Zor and Benghazi). According to the official directory, the Porte has, in addition, among its direct possessions: the island of Crete and Lebanon, these ranked last among the independent departments. But she has no more on Crete than nominal suzerainty [see the article Theriso revolt] and Lebanon has such a large degree of autonomy, that both should be considered rather as indirect possessions. Similarly for departments Novi Pazar and Pljevlja, which in the eyes of the Turkish government are part of the Kosovo Vilayet, but, because of the considerable rights Austria-Hungary carries [see the article Sandžak], fall into the category of intermediate possessions.

I have pasted above two very useful pieces from the widely cited 1908 reference work "Manuel de droit public et administratif de l'Empire ottoman". The table lists all the vilayets and independent departments, although doesn't list Mount Lebanon and Crete. The two paragraphs above in French and English then explain it all in detail.

Another editor who may have insight on this is User:Underlying lk. I have also posted at WikiProject Ottoman Empire Oncenawhile (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't usually allow Masters theses as reliable sources, but nevertheless this thesis has a history of the administrative divisions based on the primary documents. Zero^talk 08:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. The relevant section seems to have used two main sources for the relevant statements:

• Selda Kaya Kılıç (1995) “Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye’de İl Yönetimi”, PhD Theses, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Tarih Anabilim Dalı.
• İlber Ortaylı (2000) Tanzimat Devrinde Osmanlı Mahalli İdareleri (1840-1880), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Im citing a passage from the work that Zero provided. The passage corroborates the many previously cited academic references proving that mutasarrıflık is a proper naming for the time period discussed in the article.

As for administrative organization of province, it remained, as has been the case in 1842. Namely, the main administrative unit of central government was the eyalet, and eyalet units were further divided into sancaks, and sancaks into kaza units. In addition, with the 1852 edict, the independent sancak units were established called mutasarrıflık (liva) that was headed by mutasarrıf (Kılıç, 1995: 13). The authorities of mutasarrıf and governors were the same. These units directly affiliated to the central government, so they were not hierarchical subordinate units of the eyalet units. The other type of sancaks was headed by sub-governors (kaymakam) and kaza units were headed by the kadı (kaza directors), as before (Kılıç, 1995: 11).

-Elias Z 10:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Kılıç is refering to the early period of Tanzimat from 1840 to 18641867 were mutasarrıf and kaymakam were different offices than after 18641867. E.g. the kaymakam was after 18641867 the head of a kaza (sub-unit of sanjak). This period (1840-18641867) is a mess. Btw, I could translate the German sources abover later. --Arturius001 (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I had the same initial reaction as Eli when reading the paragraph, but it is definitely referring only to the interim (pre-1864 reforms) period. Page 11 (p25 of the pdf) describes the post-1864 period. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

See The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition, "mutasarrif": at least from ca. 1274/1858 onwards, the same title applied to the administrator of a sandjak that was "independent" (mustakill), meaning that it was subordinate, not to any eyalet, but directly to the Ministry of the Interior in Istanbul. The administration of a sandjak remained the task of a kaimmakam [...]. The 1864 law for the Danube province still provided for a kaimmakam at the head of each sandjak [...]. but the 1867 law at last gave the title mutasarrif its definitive Ottoman meaning as the chief administrator of a sandjak, using kaimmakam for the head of the kada. --Arturius001 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ottoman maps dating from 1893 and 1907

What about these equally official comtemporary maps? the Ottomas themselves were confused :D and I'm growing bored of this issue. -Elias Z 09:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

For those who cannot read Ottoman Turkish, what is your argument what you want to back up with these maps? --Arturius001 (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone has access to HathiTrust. There you can find official Ottoman yearbooks for Vilayets of Syria and Beirut. Perhaps there are details given also about the independent Sanjaks ob Jerusalem and Lebanon: [21], [22]. --Arturius001 (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sadly this discussion has fallen asleep. The evidence that 'mutasarrifate' is a different term to 'sanjak' is still missing but it is still claimed that they are here in wikipedia. --Arturius001 (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What was the admin. unit called between 1516 and 1872? The redirect "Sanjak of J." to "Mutasarrifate of J." is plain wrong & misleading.

What was the status of Jerusalem during the missing >350 years between the Ottoman conquest (1516) and the starting point of this article (1872)? All other Ottoman sanjaks seem to have been established right after 1516 or at least before 1600. The redirect "Sanjak of Jerusalem" to "Mutasarrifate of J." is misleading. Again, I'm not repeating the endless discussion covered here above; I am asking for the name, extent, and capital of the Ottoman district containing Jerusalem between 1515-1872, and for the wrong "Sanjak of Jerusalem" redirect to be fixed. Interested? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Arminden: See gallery below:

• 
  1843 kazas but not sanjaks
• 
  1857 shows sanjaks in subtle colors, seems to show Palestine split between Gaza, Acre and Damascus sanjaks
• 
  1730 shows the whole within Damascus sanjak
• 
  Drawn as if at the 17th century, shows the whole within Damascus sanjak
• 
  1849 unclear split
• 
  1799 unclear split
• 
  1803 doesn't use the word sanjak, but the yellow area is described as Sham.

Best I have so far. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden:@Oncenawhile: Jerusalem was the center of its own sanjak or liwa (both mean the same thing: a second-level administrive division) from the beginning of Ottoman rule. It was part of the Damascus Eyalet (first-level division) until the late 19th century. If there is to be a separate article for the period preceding the Mutasarrifate, then it should be called the Jerusalem Sanjak (consistent with how we name other Ottoman districts) or Sanjak of Jerusalem. Originally, Jerusalem Sanjak was administratively subdivided into three nahiyes (third-level divisions): Jerusalem, Hebron and Bani Amr (probably named for the Amr tribe resident in Dura). Later in the same century, Banu Amr was dissolved as a nahiye. (Ze'evi, p.2) The Jerusalem Sanjak was landlocked, for lack of a better word, but included the western shore of the Dead Sea. The other sanjaks which neighbored Jerusalem were the coastal Gaza (including Ramla) to the west and Nablus to the north. Dror Ze'evi has an excellent book on the subject, An Ottoman Century: The District of Jerusalem in the 1600s). Let me know if anyone wants me to send them the link. There is also Amnon Cohen's Economic Life in Ottoman Jerusalem; again let me know if anyone needs it. I have been meaning to expand on this subject but struggling to find the time. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The book of Hütteroth and Abdulfattah on the late 16th century has a detailed map based on the 1596 tax registers. Unfortunately the copyright rules prevent me from uploading it but I'll send it on email request. At that point the Liwa of Quds was divided into the nahiyas of Quds Sarif and Halil (the Sanjak of Jerusalem was divided into the nahiyas of Jerusalem and Hebron). This matches what Al Ameer says. Zero^talk 01:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

​​​Once, Ameer, Zero, thanks to all of you. I had a programme crash yesterday, so I'm rewriting this in short. I suggest replacing the wrong redirect with a stub:

"The Sanjak of Jerusalem was an Ottoman administrive district, part of the Damascus Eyalet for much of its existence. It was created in the 16th century after the 1516 Turkish conquest of Palestine, detached from the Syrian eyalet and placed directly under the Ottoman central government in 1841, and created as an independent province in 1872 as the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem. It ceased to exist in 1917 during the Great War as a result of British progress on the Middle Eastern front, when it became a British-administered occupied territory."

Until an article is created, this should do, I guess. I've used so many wikilinks to well-sourced articles that I hope nobody will protest about it being left unsourced for now. I'm not sure if replacing the redirect with an article will imply any technical problems I'm not good at, if anyone wants do it and/or offer any suggestions re. the text, please go ahead. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)