Dr Chris Flaherty's 'Ottoman Uniforms' site (http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/) is useful. I'll repost my comments from TMP (http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=315204) of Dec 2013, with new links:
Quote
The stuff on the early period could still do with some work.
On 1600 TILL 1800 JANISSARY CORPS (http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/1600-till-1800-janissary-corps/)
This picture:
(http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/s/cc_images/cache_17935687.jpg?t=1371156153)
needs a caption as a Janissary by Hans Weigel, 1577 (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/byEuropeans/Weigel-Janissary.htm)
The long white ostrich feather plumes were not invented by Knotel (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/byEuropeans/Knotel-Janissaries.htm), he based it on a Janissary by Nicolas de Nicolay, 1577 (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/byEuropeans/Nicolay-folio_L3_137.htm)
Quote•The Janissary Corps Musketeers' buttoned kaftan is painted in various colours, yet was actually a uniform yellow or blue (as can be seen from these original pictures).
Knotel may have made up the stripes but Ottoman miniatures show also green, red (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/1578-Ottoman_army_at_Tiflis.htm) & black. I would have used 'solid colours' rather than "uniform" so as not to give the impression a unit all wore the same colour, unless he can prove they did in the 17th century.
Pictures from an Album of Ottoman Soldiers dated 1805 (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/byEuropeans/1805-Ottoman_Soldiers.htm) which I wish he could have identified:
(http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/s/cc_images/cache_25889578.jpg?t=1390253991)
have a long s: ſ in the captions.
Bimbaſcha should be Bimbascha not Bimbalcha.
Janitſcharen should be Janitscharen not Janitjcharen.
On the same page there is a link to a Janissary on my Melchior Lorck, 1570-83 (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/MelchiorLorck/A_Janissar.htm), site but no mention that Melchior Lorck has a Janisary with an enourmous plume (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/MelchiorLorck/A_Janissar_walking.htm)
Figure A, as he notes in a footnote, appears in The Costume of Turkey, Illustrated by a Series of Engravings, 1802 (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/byEuropeans/dAlvimart-Costume_of_Turkey.htm) as "a Spahi, belonging to one of the Asiatic provinces", so he should do away with
Quote•Figure 'A': is identified specifically as a "SIPAHI TIMARIOTE" [1]. Which appears to identify him as a member of the Household cavalry.
I don't know much about 19th century Ottomans but on this page THE FIRST MODERN OTTOMAN ARMY UNIFORMS 1800 TILL 1826 (http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/early-ottoman-army-uniforms-1800-till-1826/) has this claim:
QuoteIt should be noted, that a print illustration of 1808 Ottoman new army soldier clearly identifies a soldier (which can be dated to 1807-08 by the particular headgear he is wearing), as a "Soldier of the Bostandjees, or Corps from the Sultan's Gardeners" (New York Public Library's Digital Gallery, the Vinkhuizjen Collection). This primary evidence presents a very different picture of the origins of the soldiers in the new army, as part of the Sultan's personnel household.
The Vinkhuizjen Collection is not a primary source. Vinkhuizjen cut pictures out of books which were pasted in albums, losing most of the provenance and most of any text in these books. The dates Vinkhuizjen penciled on these are often the date of publication rather than the date the image represents or the date of the art it is based on. This can vary by decades and centuries.
On the NAPOLEONIC OTTOMAN JANISSARY CORPS UNIFORMS (http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/napoleonic-ottoman-janissary-corps-uniforms/) page is this image:
(http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/s/cc_images/cache_17503758.jpg?t=1369929251)
which has been stitched together after Vinkhuizjen cut it into pieces (so he had more pictures).
More effort would be needed to find all Vinkhuizjen's sources.
There is no "print illustration of 1808 Ottoman new army soldier" with that date in the Vinkhuizjen Collection but this plate:
(http://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=416291&t=w)
dated 1817 by Vinkhuizjen is the one referred to. Vinkhuizjen has cut the caption "Soldier of ditto" from the contents page of McLean's The Military Costume of Turkey (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/byEuropeans/dAlvimart.htm). Without the line that appeared above it – the caption is useless.
This picture on the fantasy Janissary costume page:
(http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/s/cc_images/cache_25891423.jpg?t=1390255484)
may have appeared in 1880-1900 illustrated encyclopaedias, as noted, but it is from Elbicei Atika. Musée des Anciens Costumes Turcs de Constantinople, par Jean Brindesi, 1855 (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/byEuropeans/Brindesi.htm). It also appeared on a set of Turkish postcards made in the 1950s. (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/byEuropeans/Brindesi-13-large.htm)
Since Dec 2013: Hans Weigel has been credited; Bimbascha & Janitscharen now appear (alongside the earlier missreadings); the NYPL's note on Vinkhuizjen's collection method is included, Jean Brindesi is noted; McLean's
The Military Costume of Turkey is noted; and this footnote added:
Quote[1] The long white ostrich feather plumes were re-invented by Knotel. However, he based it on Nicolas de Nicolay (1577), as well as the Janissary by Melchior Lorck (1570-83). All these early illustrators show this feature –the Janissary with an enormous plume. However, this is more likely a fantasy element included in the illustrations.
This re-invention implies that Knotel was unaware of the earlier illustrations, but, it is obvious that Knotel's Janissaries (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/byEuropeans/Knotel-Janissaries.htm) are copied, directly or indirectly, from an Ottoman Janissary by Hans Weigel (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/byEuropeans/Weigel-Janissary.htm), Janissaire allant à la guerre by Nicolas de Nicolay (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/byEuropeans/Nicolay-folio_L3_137.htm) & a Janissary by Melchior Lorck (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/MelchiorLorck/A_Janissar.htm).
(http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/s/cc_images/cache_17707058.jpg?t=1370521290)
This
Quote•B: Is either: "Ein Janitsar in voller Rüstung"; or, "Ein Tanitfar in voller Rüftung". Translate into 'Tanitfar'= 'Romanian'; and 'in voller Rüftung' = 'in fuller dress'. The implication is that if this is "Janitsar", then this is an actual Ottoman Janissary soldier from 1805, in which case there has been a considerable Europeanization of the Janissary uniform by this date. If however, it is a 'Romanian' provincial soldier, then the costume is more in keeping with the troops from Eastern Europe.
can be easily discounted as being 'Tanitfar' by comparing the captions of other Janissaries in the same Album of Ottoman Soldiers dated 1805 (http://www.warfare.uhostfull.com/Ottoman/byEuropeans/1805-Ottoman_Soldiers.htm). The boast that these are "put-together for the first time" just means that the captions have been 'photo-shopped' out.
Druzhina
Illustrations of Ottoman Costume & Soldiers (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/Ottoman.htm)
Someone page Nik, his uniform guide just arrived! 😈
Nice one D
Dr Chris Flaherty's site goes through to WWI and also covers some of the Arab revolt so I am also a very happy camper :D
Nice find D.
Cheers - Phil
Really useful stuff - thanks.
Also from the '1600 TILL 1900 FANTASY JANISSARY UNIFORMS' page:
Quote(http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/s/cc_images/cache_19046667.jpg)
From 'The Design Book of Filippo Orsoni' (Victoria and Albert Museum): 14; "a Turkish-style outfit for the pageant", this figure from 1554, illustrates a European fantasy of the Ottoman warrior indented (sic) to awe the spectators in the great armorial pageants popular at the time.
As can be seen from the examples below, the practice of creating fantasy Janissary costumes continued through-out the 16th – 20th centuries. However, all these are treated in various museum and private collections, and by dealers as if they are authentic items.
Is it because he is wearing unusual headgear that this is assumed to be 'made up' by the European artist?
The Ottomans had many official positions that could be identified by their headgear. See examples in Peter Mundy's Album,
A briefe relation of the Turckes, their kings, Emperors, or Grandsigneurs, their conquests, religion, customes, habbits, etc (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/Album/Mundy.htm). Unusual headgear is to be expected.
The figure shown above is not a janissary. The hat is no stranger than that of the weight lifters in
(http://web.archive.org/web/20110911041900im_/http://www.kanyak.com/surname-i-vehbi/157b.jpg)
the Surname-i Vehbi, 1720. (http://web.archive.org/web/20110911041900/http://www.kanyak.com/surname-i-vehbi/157b-158a.html)
It may be an inaccurate depiction of the
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Ralamb-102.jpg)
Herald for Rumelia "Rumeli Chiaus" from the Rålamb Costume Book, 1657-58 (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/Album/Ralamb-military.htm)
Dr Chris Flaherty is making an assumption based on little evidence.
Druzhina
16th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers (http://www.warfare2.netai.net/16C.htm)
Just like modern day festival ravers, where wearing a silly hat in a crowd stands out, and you can be found by your friends.
Something I frequently do at Wargamers tournaments...
Quote from: mad lemmey on 17 October 2014, 04:01:54 PM
Someone page Nik, his uniform guide just arrived! 😈
Nice one D
Yep - and nicely timed too, have just finished assembling my Ottoman army (a *lot* of cavalry!)
Most useful 8)
Quote from: mad lemmey on 19 October 2014, 07:42:10 AM
Just like modern day festival ravers, where wearing a silly hat in a crowd stands out, and you can be found by your friends.
Something I frequently do at Wargamers tournaments...
:D ;D :D
Fezzes are cool... ;)
The 1600 TILL 1900 FANTASY JANISSARY UNIFORMS (http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/1600-till-1900-fantasy-janissary-costumes-janissary-ceremonial-costumes/) page now has
Quote
As can be seen the "Turkish-style outfit for the pageant" (From 'The Design Book of Filippo Orsoni' (Victoria and Albert Museum): 14 - above), has a strong resemblance, to this illustration from the Herald for Rumelia (http://www.warfare.netau.net/Ottoman/Album/Ralamb.htm#102), from the The Ralamb Costume Book, acquired in Constantinople in 1657-58 by Claes Ralamb who led a Swedish embassy to the Sublime Porte.
The name Rumelia was largely applied to the Ottoman possessions in Europe, for the most part in Ottoman possession since the 14th respectively 15th century.
In the Filippo Orsoni design, the foot Herald (a diplomatic role to the Ottoman Court), has been substantially altered into a largely fantasy figure, namely:
• A fully armoured cavalryman.
• The four-pointed hat has been enlarged and heavy decorated.
• The 'mace-of-state', has become a war-mace.
The Filippo Orsoni design has been created for a European pageant, and theatrical display.
with this picture of the herald:
(http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/s/cc_images/cache_38315404.jpg?t=1415580280)
Again, the caption has been cut off.
Dr Flaherty has assumed a
foot Herald, but, all the figures in the Ralamb Costume Book are on foot including the spahi cavalry. An Ottoman Herald ("Rumeli Chiaus" in the Ralamb caption) is likely to have ridden when needed. He would have accompanied armies in the field and would take charge of prisoners. He is wearing spurs.
The Rumeli Chiaus is not a diplomatic role to the Ottoman Court; that would be the Chiaus Passi [Baş Çavuş] also pictured in the Ralamb Album (http://www.warfare2.likamva.in/Ottoman/Album/Ralamb.htm#47).
Rycault, 1667, wrote "Of the Chiauses. These having both offensive and defensive arms assigned them, may be reckoned in the number of the militia, though their office being chiefly in relation to civil processes and laws, they may rather deserve the name of pursuivants of Serjeants ... " (http://www.warfare.netau.net/Ottoman/byEuropeans/Rycaut-Chaousbashee.htm)
A pursuivant is a junior herald.
Of course the Ralamb Album is a century later so this herald is not the model for Filippo Orsoni's horseman.
1) There is no visible armour on Orsoni's horseman, except the possibility of mail sleeves (which may just be spots like the horseman on the left in 'The Ottoman Army at Tiflis', 1578 (http://www.warfare.netau.net/Ottoman/1578-Ottoman_army_at_Tiflis.htm)). If he was "fully armoured" there might be vambraces and helmet visible even if other armour was hidden under the coat. It would not be unusual for 16th century Ottomans to have more armour than those of the 17th century.
2) It would be 'the four-pointed hat has been reduced and been less decorated' for the correct chronology. The hats are not that similar.
There is a Serbian saint with a red and blue hat similar to Orsoni's horseman:
(http://www.traveltoserbia.net/foto/aranzman/130/big/manasija15.jpg)
Manasija Monastery, Serbia, XV century
The hat would have to be an "inaccurate depiction" for Orsoni's horseman to be an Ottoman Herald for Rumelia like Ralamb's (assuming the hat type is standard for the office, as it seems other hats were, and that this also applied in the 16th century).
3) If the mace is not a symbol of office then this is not a herald. It would not be unusual for the much later Ralamb figure to have a more symbolic mace. The maces look very similar to me – this is the reason I suggested this figure – there is not a "strong resemblance" to the rest of the costume, but more than for the Herald of Egypt (http://www.warfare.uhostfull.com/Ottoman/Album/Ralamb.htm#43) who wears a red zamt hat in the Ralamb Album.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Ralamb-43.jpg)
Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers (http://www.warfare.netau.net/index.htm)
Some pages have been reorganised so some links are redirected and some pictures above do not display. Here are the pictures:
(http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/s/cc_images/cache_38011555.jpg?t=1414869997)
a Janissary by Hans Weigel, 1577 (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/byEuropeans/Weigel-Janissary.htm)
(http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/s/cc_images/cache_40148422.jpg?t=1420333936)
Bimbaſcha should be Bimbascha not Bimbalcha.
Janitſcharen should be Janitscharen not Janitjcharen (http://www.warfare.netau.net/Ottoman/byEuropeans/1805-Ottoman_Soldiers.htm)
(http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/s/cc_images/teaserbox_39731600.jpg?t=1419142509)
B: Is either: "Ein Janitsar in voller Rüstung"; or, "Ein Tanitfar in voller Rüftung"
Druzhina
Ottoman Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers (http://www.warfare.netau.net/Ottoman/Ottoman.htm)
It seems Dr Flaherty has been complaining to forum administrators, although I have heard from only one:
Quote
Hi Druzhina,
Dr. Flaherty has noted your online posts about his book and is not happy. I have already defended your right to make such posts provided they are not libelous or slander. However I have to ask... why go on so many sites and post the same post? Can you give me a reason why you seem so hell bent on getting this info out to the masses?
Post in question: [dead link]
Thanks,
Jim
and my reply:
Quote
me
To
Jim Starkweather
Today at 2:19 PM
Hi Jim,
The link does not work. My account is suspended.
I always post on a lot of forums. Dr Flaherty may think he is receiving special treatment, but he is not. Most of my posts don't mention him. I know he has read my post somewhere as he has made changes to his web-site in response, which I have noted, and he has included links to my site. What is he unhappy about? If he doesn't want people to comment, criticize and make suggestions about his work he shouldn't put it on the net. He can always reply to my post and make his point. Why is his complaint based on how many forums this is on rather than the content? Why has he waited to complain about this when my opening post was so long ago? My latest reply was a small piece directly related to a change he had made to his site in response to my previous post - which is something I think is quite reasonable.
regards
Druzhina
Perhaps Dr Flaherty is embarrassed that the "foot Herald" is wearing spurs?
I haven't even got around to commenting about Peyks and Solaks yet.
Druzhina
15th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers (http://www.warfare2.netai.net/15C.htm)
I suspect the frequent use of the title "Dr" on the website and aparantly in correspondence may be a clue as to the 'reason' for the "Dr's" reaction ;)
Quote from: paulr on 16 January 2015, 08:53:05 PM
I suspect the frequent use of the title "Dr" on the website and aparantly in correspondence may be a clue as to the 'reason' for the "Dr's" reaction ;)
What do you mean? I had interpreted his use of "Dr" as him assuming the role of 'expert'.
Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers (http://www.warfare.uhostfull.com/index.htm)
I had, perhaps wrongly, interpreted it as him using this title of Dr to assert his expertise. Rather than letting his work demonstrate his expertise.
I suspect this may be a 'cultural difference', for a lot of New Zealanders someone using a title is considered presumptuous. I know that in other places it is more common.
A classic example is a is The Honourable and the Right Reverend Sir Paul Alfred Reeves, GCMG, GCVO, QSO a former Governor General of New Zealand. He is referred to by almost all as Paul, occasionally Sir Paul ;)
I agree, but, I am Australian. I will call him Dr. as he prefers, but, where his lack of research and use of tertiary sources show a lack of expertise, I will point it out.
He isn't beyond criticising other historians. For one about Knotel - see above, which has now been removed from his site.
One of his criticisims of David Nicole is: "There is currently no explanation as to why is this particular costume is so elaborate for the senior officer in the 32nd Janissary Orta (Left: there were two - the 32nd Orta, and the Boluk 32nd Orta [3]). The only notes provided by Nicolle is that the "32nd (or 33rd): commanded by the Kahya Yeri or deputy Kahya" [4]. However, this is a complete fantasy attribution, when it is understood that the phrase 'Kahya Yeri', simply means itself "Commander" [5]. Whereas, Nicolle in his sentence - "commanded by the Kahya Yeri ... " (attempts to suggest this is some special title, which is a fantasy)."
Dr Flaherty uses so few sources that I would not be surprised if there is something he is unaware of, but, he is adamant. Fantasy seems to be one of his favourite words.
A quick Google translate gives:
Kâhya = butler
Yeri = place of
So it does not simply mean "Commander", it is more complicated. It is not unknown for the position of servant to an important Ottoman to become a much more important position. For example see the Rijkmuseum's text to a painting of Mehmet Kâhya of Kul Kâhyasî, adjudant van de Aga by Vanmour (http://www.warfare.netau.net/Ottoman/Vanmour/Kul_Kahyasi-painting.htm) and my attempt at translation.
Druzhina
Paintings of Ottomans by Jean-Baptiste Vanmour, 1699-1737 (http://www.warfare.meximas.com/Ottoman/Vanmour/Vanmour-painting.htm)
I think Flaherty is actually Doctor. This is his biography from Amazon - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christopher-James-Flaherty/e/B001K880TO/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0
I am afraid there are a number of writers in the gaming world who use their title when it is not relevant to whatever they are writing about. To my mind it is OK to use a title if you have some qualification that is helpful for the subject but not if the title is from something else. If say you are a medical doctor or an academic doctor in some other discipline then why mention it. The same even if you are a doctor in history but of another era.
In these circumstances being a doctor makes no difference and the use of the title is at best suspect.
Seems he has a Ph.D. in Economic Relations from the University of Melbourne
As well as no history qualification, the bio doesn't have anything about reading modern or Ottoman Turkish, which would also be useful for an expert on Ottoman uniforms.
Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers (http://www.warfare.uhostfull.com/index.htm)
It would rather dent Pendraken's sales if they only sold figures to people with formal history qualifications. It is just possible to be knowledgeable in a subject without a formal qualification in it.
Indeed, based on my qualifications I'd be stuck doing only the French Revolution, the Russian Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, inter-war German kickoffs and the Hungarian uprising 1956; pretty limited I think. As it happens I only game one of those.
Quote from: holdfast on 19 January 2015, 11:17:31 AM
It would rather dent Pendraken's sales if they only sold figures to people with formal history qualifications. It is just possible to be knowledgeable in a subject without a formal qualification in it.
But do you set yourself up as an expert and use a title gained for something else?
----------
Back to the
Kâhya YeriHere are two extracts where the Kâhya Yeri is a common position:
Quotep218, A Historical and Economic Geography of Ottoman Greece, The Southwestern Morea in the 18th Century, by Fariba Zarinebaf, John Bennet, Jack L. Davis - 2005 (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ju9sKUox3OcC&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=%22Kahya+Yeri%22&source=bl&ots=xCmYr08trQ&sig=c9rI0S8iEun8d6IxTYQE32M4Ex8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CUG6VIC9McHsmAXDhoDQCw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Kahya%20Yeri%22&f=false)
A written account of the low-lying castle of Anavarin-I cedid
This is a fine castle built by the hand of Kiliç Ali Pasha in the year 977, during the reign of Sultan Murad Khan the third. It is administered by a voyvode as part of the Governate of Morea, and is a district of the jurisdiction of Modon. There is a chief Mufti, a Marshal (of the descendants of the Prophet), a Local Commander ([Sipâh] Kâhya Yeri), a Captain of Janissaries, and a Castle Commandant with ... personnel. There is an Inspector of Commerce, a Collector of Transit Dues, a Commissioner of Tribute Taxes, a chief Architect, a City Intendant, and twelve garrison officers with a rank of Ağa as [276a/30] well.
and
Quotep229, History of Macedonia 1354-1833 by A. Vacalopoulos (http://www.promacedonia.org/en/av/av_7_2_b.htm)
Kavála belonged to the eyelet of the Aegean Islands and came under the control of the 'kapudan pasha' (Chief Admiral). In times of war the bey of the city was obliged to go on campaign with two galleys. Other eminent figures in the city were the seyh-ül-islam, the nakib-ül-eşraf, the chief of the district police and the military governor, the kâhya yeri of the sipahis, the commander of the Janissaries, and the commander of the artillery and of Kapı Kulları ('Slaves of the Porte', i.e. a corps of non-feudal auxiliaries). The military forces based on Kavála exceeded 2.000 men. Their presence was imperative, since Venetian ships made frequent appearances off that part of the coast [3]. Çelebi's French contemporary, Robert de Dreux, no doubt with Belon in mind, believed that Kavála (or 'Cavallos', as he writes it) stood on the site of the ancient city of 'Bucephala', which had been built by Alexander the Great in honour of his horse Bucephalus [4].
1. Moschopoulos, Ἡ Ἑλλὰς κατὰ τὸν Ἐβλιὰ Τσελεμπῆ, ΕΕΒΣ 14 (1938) 512.
2. Hadschi Chalfa, Rumeli und Bosna, p. 71. See also Moschopoulos, ibid., p. 512.
3. Moschopoulos, ibid., ΕΕΒΣ 14 (1938) 510, 512.
4. R. de Dreux, Voyage, p. 90.
I have received some information from Turkish sources from Tulun:
Quotefirst of all, forgive me, military history is not my strength and i can be wrong, i hope an Ottomanist or a Turkish forumer will correct my errors.
kahya is a "corrupted" Turkish form of the word kethüda, originally a Persian word, literally meaning something like "housekeeper", "chamberlain" or butler is also a good translation. You can also find it as kiaya in some European publications. i've seen this used quite frequently in 16th century Ottoman paylists, not only in janissary units but also other military units.
Now maybe the kethüda yeri could mean deputy kethüda in general, but the "kethüda yeri" as an office i found 2 different ones under this name:
1. my understanding from Turkish sites, the sipahi kethüda yeri was an official supervising the kapikulu cavalry (the Six Divisions of Cavalry) units stationed in provinces outside the city of Istanbul. the kethüda yeri (or cay-i kethüda KETHÜDAYERI ne demek? - kethüdayeri anlami nedir? - TDK Türk Dil Kurumu Gayr? Resmi Sözlü?ü ) (http://ne-demek.net/anlam%C4%B1/keth%C3%BCdayeri-ne-demek.html) means "local kethüda" here, and it refers to that it was a provincial office, found in eyalet and sancak seats. A Turkish blog entry about various kethüda "offices" Mecmûa-yi Tevârih-i Osmânî: KETHÜDÂ (KÂHYÂ) (http://ercaninal.blogspot.hu/2012/12/kethuda-kahya.html)
You can also find these kethüda yeris mentioned in Evliya Çelebi's Seyahatname when he lists the officials in the major towns.
2. But maybe in your case, you are looking for another "kethüda yeri", a high ranking janissary official. for example mentioned in the Islam Ansiklopidesi article written by prof Abdulkadir Özcan ( .:: TDV Islâm Ansiklopedisi - OSMANLILAR ::. (http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/dia/ayrmetin.php?idno=d330510) ), from there: the highest ranking officer of the Janissary corps was the janissary aga (yeniçeri ağası) under them the high ranking officers were the sekbanbaşı, kul kethüdâsı*, zağarcıbaşı, saksoncubaşı, turnacıbaşı, haseki ağas and the başçavuş. Under these were the devecis, yayabaşıs, muhzırbaşı, kethüdâ yeri and the bölükbaşıs.
*The kul kethüdasi was the same as the kul kahyasi in your post (also called kethüda bey, kahya bey, ocak kethüdasi etc in other places).
another Turkish language blog YENIÇERI OCAGININ ÜYELERI (KUMANDANLARI, AGALARI) - aarsay - Blogcu.com (http://aarsay.blogcu.com/yeniceri-ocaginin-uyeleri-kumandanlari-agalari/1167504) includes a little more details.
the kethüda yeri was the deputy of the kul kethüdasi and held the defters and registers of the Janissary corps in the name of the kul kethüdasi.
The kul kethüdasi was originally the 3rd highest ranking officer ("general") in the janissary corps, and from 17th century became the 2nd (when the importance of the sekbanbaşi declined). This blog entry says his deputy, the kethüda yeri was the "3rd colonel" in rank in the janissary corps (there were 9 "general" level offices according to it, so basicly our guy was the 12th most important official in the janissary corps .)
But to confuse things further, Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli in his L'Etat militaire de l'empire Ottoman also mentions this kethüda yeri, but in his description it is one of the 8 generals (!) of the janissary corps (the 6th). Maybe its importance increased by this time?
See L'Etat militaire de l'empire ottoman, ses progres et sa décadence - Luigi Ferdinando Marsili - Google Könyvek (http://books.google.hu/books?id=Ovsf5kYz6poC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) p 69. as "Chiaja-jery" also check on the same page, something he writes about "kiaja-jery" and "musur aga" but i don't speak neither French nor Italian to understand exactly.
The Mebde-i Kanun-ı Yeniçeri Ocağı Tarihi (laws of the Janissaries) from 1606 also mentions the kethüda yeri some times but unfortunetly i don't have it at hand, next time i'm near a library i will try to look up what does it say about this office.
Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers (http://www.warfare.uphero.com/index.htm)
While I can see your point on the use of Dr. I worked my ass off for that title :P No one is taking it away
L'etat militaire de l'empire ottoman : ses progrès et sa décadence by Luigi Ferdinando Marsili, Amsterdam, 1732, has a list of Janissary officers on page 69:
JENIZER-AGASY.
SEYMEN-BASSY.
JENIZER-EFFENDI.
MUSUR-AGA
CHIAJA-JERY.
BAS-CHIAUS,
& ORTA-CHIAUS.
There follows on p70 a paragraph for each, but, in the place of the CHIAJA-JERY is instead "CHIAJA-BEGH".
The most interested bit is earlier on p69. The French text (there is also the same in Italian) [long 's' has been replaced with a standard 's']:
QuoteLes BOLUKIS sont encore privilègiés, mais non pas tant; leurs Capitaines sont indispensablement obliges de porter des bottines rouge, ce qui marque qu'ils n'ont pas droit de paroitre à cheval dans les fonctions. Le KIAJA-JERY, & le MUSUR-AGA sont privilègiés a cet égard, & peuvent aller à cheval, non pas à cause qu'ils sont Capitaines de deux Compagnies des BOLUKIS; mais à cause de leur emploi, qui a raport à tout le Corps des Janissaires, & ils ont encore la permission de porter des bottines jaunes.
A basic translation:
The BOLUKIS are still privileged, but not so much; their Captains are indispensably obliged to wear red boots, which marks they have no right to appear on horseback in functions. The KIAJA-JERY, and the MUSUR-AGA are preferred over others, and can go on horseback, not because they are captains of two companies of BOLUKIS; but because of their jobs, who report to the whole body of the Janissaries, and they still are allowed to wear yellow boots.
So it seems that as well as being a general title "Kâhya Yeri" (Kethüda Yeri, Kiaja-Jeri, Chiaja-Jeri or Chiaja-Begh) is also a specific, high ranking officer in the Janissary corps. He is also described as a colonel and as commanding a Janissary unit in the Bölük Division. What is missing is the name of the orta.
All these sources may be inaccurate, but, David Nicolle did not dream this up, it is not "complete fantasy".
If the unit commanded by the Kâhya Yeri is the 32nd in the Bölük Division, could this be
an explanation for the more than usually elaborate costume in the image displayed by Dr Flaherty, as the commander may be a much more important figure than the average orta commander?
(http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/s/cc_images/cache_21213781.jpg)
Druzhina
Illustrations of Ottoman Costume & Soldiers (http://www.warfare2.likamva.in/Ottoman/Ottoman.htm)
The section has now been removed from Dr Flaherty's site.
The image was from:
(http://www.turquie-culture.fr/pages/images/stories/uniformes_ottomans/unif_ottomans_0092.jpg)
turquie-culture.fr (http://turquie-culture.fr/pages/histoire/anecdotes-recits.../uniformes-ottomans-gravures-1907.html)
Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers (http://www.warfare.uhostfull.com/index.htm)
The image above may be based on a French illustration:
(http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/Costume/Otto/costume3.jpg)
Which kismata (http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/Ottoman_Infantry.htm) gives a date of 1680s and the Vinkhuijzen collection (http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47da-df5f-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99) has in 1820-25.
Does anyone know what publication(s) these are from?
If it is then the colours used may not be reliable.
Druzhina
Illustrations of Ottoman Costume & Soldiers (http://www.warfare.netau.net/Ottoman/Ottoman.htm)
The section is now back and says:
QuoteWhereas, Nicolle in his sentence - "commanded by the Kahya Yeri ... " (attempts to suggest this is some special title, which is a fantasy attribution i.e. 'creating a unit called the 'KEHYA YERI', who is commanded by this particular officer).
Dr Flaherty is now in fantasy land.
Among others, a bullet point has been added:
Quote• Red boots: Indicating he is foot Colonel in the Janissary (See discussion on Mounted Janissary Colonels/Yellow boots - 1600 till 1800 Part 1: Ottoman Military Rank System).
Are the boots of the central figure red, like the shoes of the attendants, or are they yellow-brown?
Druzhina
Illustrations of Ottoman Costume & Soldiers (http://www.warfare.uphero.com/Ottoman/Ottoman.htm)