How did the editing and translation process of the encyclopedia entries proceed? In what way did you contribute to this process?

İngilizce yazdığı maddeleri biraz da hızlı yazdığı için zaman zaman İngilizcesi  problemli olabiliyordu, anlamak zorlaşıyordu. Tabii ben mevzuyu bildiğim için hem tercümesini hem redaktörlüğünü ilk dönemlerde sıklıkla yaptım. Sonra tercüme için başka arkadaşlar devreye girdiler. Bazı bilgileri eklediğimi de hatırlıyorum çoğu maddeye. Görülemeyen yerler vardı. Veya tahrir defterine bakarak yaptıklarını kontrol ettiğimi hatırlıyorum. Redaksiyon sırasında çok iyi bir süzgeçten geçiriyorduk. Bazı yerler çıkartılarak, bazı yerler eklenerek o şekilde redaksiyon yapıyorduk. Ve sonra da bunları kendisine Türkçe olarak gönderiyorduk. O da bakıyordu bazı hatalar varsa veya başka bir şeyler varsa onları işaretleyip yolluyordu bize. Zaten tertip açısından da biz onu ansiklopedinin tertibine uyduruyorduk. Bunlar hakkında hiçbir şey söylemezdi kendisi. Genellikle bakar ufak tefek hatalar varsa veya bir şekilde yanlış bir durum varsa onları kısaca işaretlerdi. Çok önemli bir problemle karşı karşıya kalmadığımızı söyleyebilirim.

Was Machiel Kiel’s contribution to the Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi limited only to the commissioned entries, or did he also enrich it with entries submitted on his own initiative?

We commissioned him to write on the principal cities and towns of the Balkans. Yet his most important contribution came through the proposals he made to us. Following his fieldwork, he would suggest highly valuable entries that even we had not identified. From the 1970s onward, he had traveled the Balkans extensively, recording everything in detail. In light of these findings, he would propose entries such as Demirhisar, insisting, “This must absolutely be written.” He would often draft and send these entries in advance.

Thus, entries would reach us without having been formally commissioned. That was his style of working, and afterwards we would approve them as encyclopedia entries before moving on to other matters. Thanks to Kiel, many small towns and settlements of the Balkans were documented in the encyclopedia. We had in fact requested this of him. I believe that, of the 127 entries he authored, the vast majority concerned these smaller Balkan towns, and they contained very valuable first-hand information. In this respect, his contribution to the encyclopedia was of great significance.

Kiel also contributed to Ottoman archival sources and methodological issues. In your view, what significance did these methodological writings hold for Balkan historiography?

He did not only focus on urban histories, but also produced methodological studies. A large portion of these have not been translated into Turkish. In some of the collected volumes he compiled, I know he sought from time to time to address such issues. Among the Ottoman tahrir registers are the cizye registers, in which he thoroughly analyzed the Christian population of the seventeenth century. In addition, there are the avârız registers belonging to this same period.

These registers take two forms in the seventeenth century. One type, which we call the mufassal avârız defterleri, resemble the sixteenth-century tahrir system and may be considered its continuation. Yet compared with the earlier tahrirregisters, they are much weaker in nature and content. This was because the tax system itself was undergoing a transformation in that period, which necessitated the compilation of these registers. Naturally, these were among the primary sources he used.

In particular, the article he wrote on the mufassal avârız defterleri became very popular. Many people still remember it. In fact, these things were already known before. They had been written about. But because his study addressed the international scholarly community, it gained a particular prominence and wide currency. In this sense, his methodological contributions may be considered especially significant.

Could you tell us about Machiel Kiel’s field trips, especially those undertaken together with his wife, Hedda?

Together with Mrs. Hedda, he traveled extensively to many places. In this way, he was able to bring together and harmonize his book-based knowledge with the geographical understanding acquired through these journeys. They traveled to Asian countries such as Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. I also know that they visited other Turkic republics as well as Iran. They would often pass through Türkiye and stop by on their way.

Professor, what do you think was the source of his motivation for his interest in Ottoman monuments in the Balkans, as well as in the monuments of earlier civilizations?

On that matter, he himself did not say much. Yet as far as I understand, especially from the 1970s onward, his frequent travels to the Balkans must have fostered such an interest. From his biography, I also gathered this impression. He used to say that he had not undergone full formal academic training. He came from a background in masonry and stonework. Later, after receiving academic training, he entered the field. But because he came from such a practical craft background—rather than being purely academically trained—I think he possessed a sharper ability to make careful and precise diagnoses. His interest in the monuments of the Balkans arose partly in this way.

I know that he made academic efforts to promote and study these monuments, but I cannot say with certainty whether he pursued this within the framework of a particular “mission.” To me, it appears more like an academic impulse. In this sense, one could say he was sometimes ironic in his remarks, approaching things in his own distinctive way. He had a different image and background than we do, and one should not expect him to think and act exactly like us. Still, it is clear that he worked within a thoroughly academic framework. His tendency to use sources directly, without distortion, and to present them as they were, was particularly valuable.

In this respect, he made major contributions to Balkan history, especially concerning Ottoman monuments and urbanization in the region. For instance, he highlighted the fact that the Turks founded towns and introduced urban life there. His articulation of such points was often far more effective than what we ourselves might write. But he did not do this by assuming any kind of partisan mission, which I wish to emphasize.

What was Kiel’s approach to historiography? At that time, nationalist historiographies were prevalent, as you know.

It is good that you asked this question, because it allows us to clarify his stance. I know very well that he remained completely outside nationalist frameworks. His outlook was not limited merely to rejecting the harsh accusations of Bulgarian nationalism; it also reflected his academic interest in Turkish history and monuments, which he approached within the framework of scholarly concerns and his identity as an art historian—never by turning it into a kind of “mission.”

This attitude can also be seen clearly in the interviews he gave in Türkiye. For example, when asked about “the Turks in Albania,” he replied, “I am not sure.” When pressed further—“Could any have remained?”—he answered, “I do not think so.” Such responses reveal his determination to distance himself from racial or nationalist biases. These seemingly small details demonstrate that he should be regarded as a scholar—an art historian and historian—who sought to develop a neutral and methodological perspective from a Western vantage point, guided by academic concerns.

How should we assess Kiel’s contributions to academic debates in Bulgaria and Greece, as well as his impact on Balkan studies in Türkiye?

Admittedly, this is still quite recent, but I believe that through his work he served as a guide for those in Bulgaria who were able to think more academically—those who, breaking away from the classical perspective, read the registers with greater honesty. I would say the same for Greece, where, as is well known, the situation had been quite extreme. Today, in academia and in the field of history, one encounters a variety of perspectives regarding the Turks, but at that time it was much more difficult. In this sense, he was a point of reference.

In Türkiye, too, his work helped open the way for Balkan studies to some extent. There are scholars who first turned to his writings as a starting point for their own research. Especially after the 1990s, and increasingly from the 2000s onward, Turkish historiography developed a strong interest in the Balkans. Studies on cities, cultural life, and monuments multiplied, producing many books and theses. In each of these, Kiel’s influence can clearly be seen. It should also be recalled that from his earliest years, Kiel visited Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi and was influenced by him.

If you had to define Machiel Kiel in a single sentence, how would you express it?

It is difficult to capture him in a single sentence. But if I must, I would say: He was a historian who brought a fresh perspective to Balkan historiography, showing that clichés such as the “oppression of the Balkans” or the “catastrophe theory” and “dark age” narratives concerning the Turks were not entirely accurate. In this sense, he offered scholars a more inclusive and scholarly methodology, thereby enriching the field.

Prof. Dr. Feridun Emecen

He completed his doctoral degree in Ottoman history at Istanbul University in 1985. He was appointed associate professor in 1989 and full professor in 1995. Prof. Emecen has held various administrative positions at Istanbul University and is currently serving as the Dean of the Faculty of Letters at Istanbul 29 Mayıs University. With numerous works and studies in various fields of Ottoman history, Prof. Emecen is recognized as one of the leading experts particularly on the classical period of the Ottoman Empire and its preceding era. His honorary membership in the Turkish Historical Society and membership in the Turkish Academy of Sciences attest to his distinguished position in historical scholarship. In 2014, he was awarded the Turkish Culture Research Prize by the Elginkan Foundation. Among his published books are Fetih ve Kıyamet 1453 (The Conquest and the Apocalypse 1453), Yavuz Sultan Selim, Osmanlı’nın İzinde (In the Footsteps of the Ottomans), İlk Osmanlılar ve Batı Anadolu Beylikler Dünyası (The First Ottomans and the World of the Western Anatolian Beyliks), Osmanlı Klasik Çağında Hanedan, Devlet ve Toplum (Dynasty, State, and Society in the Classical Age of the Ottoman Empire), Osmanlı Klasik Çağında Savaş (War in the Classical Age of the Ottoman Empire), and Osmanlı Klasik Çağında Siyaset (Politics in the Classical Age of the Ottoman Empire).