فصلنامه گنجینه اسناد
پیاپی 129 (بهار 1402)

The purpose is to depict the place of Mukri province and its importance in Iran and the Ottoman Empire relations and investigate Ottoman consulate and the Foreign Ministry of Savojbolagh performance regarding citizenship and Ottoman citizens living in Mukryan. 

Method and Research Design: 

Archival records were studied and analyzed using historical method in a descriptive and analytical way.

The political, military and economic importance of Mukri province (south of West Azerbaijan province) and the dispute between Iran and the Ottoman Empire over the ownership of some areas caused political conflict in the region during the Qajar period. The findings reveals that the problems related to the Ottoman citizens living in this province and also the efforts of the Ottoman government to change the citizenship of the people in that area were mostly due to border disputes and the Ottomans' attempt to annex part of the province to the Ottomans.

The purpose is to investigate the history of Persepolis Man-made Jungle, that was built to serve the 2,500-year celebration of the Persian Empire (Imperial Celebrations).

Method and Research Design: 

Archival records of the National Archives of Iran and Harvard University Oral History Project were studied and analyzed using historical method.

Persepolis Jungle is a rare man-made jungle developed in Iran and one of the most extensive interventions in the Persepolis Historical Site. Mehdi Pirasteh, the governor of Fars was the mastermind and primary organizer. The Society of National Heritage disagreed with the plan and was against it since the intervention would have damaged the remnants of palaces and eliminated the potential for further archaeological excavations. However, the governor convinced the Shah, obtained royal confirmation, and implemented his plan. Despite the disputes about ownership, sapling and water supply, and budget, utilizing local technologies such as qanat, and local individuals’ participation in transferring their land free of charge decreased the costs.

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the viewpoint that considers the term "Towachi" as a common and influential position in the Timurid Military Organization and was replaced by another position called "Jarchi(town crier)" in the Safavid Empire. Towachi used to have duties such as organizing the army and monitoring its quantity and quality. Based on mentioned viewpoint, it can be inferred that the position of "Jarchi" used to have the same duties after the omission of "Towachi". However, this claim is very vague and controversial considering historical texts.

Method and Research Design: 

Historical texts were critically studied and analyzed in a descriptive and analytical way.

Findings show that apart from Jarchiʼs duty such as delivering message and orders, especially in the battle, there is no historical relationship between Jarchi and Towachi. Threrfore, the mentioned claim about the exact concept of the two positions and their duties cannot be confirmed.

This study aims to investigate and explain the policies adopted by Britain towards Zil-al-Sultan «after» he was forced to leave the country, based on the Archival Records of Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs of the United Kingdom.

Method and Design: 

Archival records were studied and analyzed in a descriptive and analytical way.

There are diverse factors that Britain intended to support returning of Zil-al-Sultan to Iran while he was living in Europe. Among which are Britain's hope for enjoying the benefits of Zil-al-Sultan's government as a powerful governor in Fars or Isfahan, preventing the ever-increasing influence of Germany in southern parts of Iran during the World War I, and confronting the Russia’s domineering behaviors in these areas. Furthermore, the opposition of Bakhtiari Khans to Zil-al-Sultan's presence in Isfahan was the main reason that Britain prevented his return.

The purpose is to clarify the current status of archival records arrangement and description process and archival services in the National Archives of Iran, and identify the challenges of the sections.

Method and Research Design: 

Both qualitative and analytical survey were used as the research method. The research was accomplished in two stages. In the first stage, five expert archivists of the National Archives of Iran were interviewed and in the second stage, 21 employees of the National Archives of Iran filled out a questionnaire.

Based on the respondents’ viewpoints, the designed optimal processes in both arrangement and description section and archival services section covered all current processes and no significant differences were found.

This study intended to verify the conformity of the archival records description elements with the National Archival Description Standard.

Method and Research Design:

 Library research and descriptive survey were used to analyze and compare records descriptive elements in the following archives of Iran: Contemporary History Research Institute; The Organization of Libraries, Museums and Documents Center of Astan Quds Razavi; Manuscripts Section of the Central Library and Documentation Center of the University of Tehran; Library, Museum and Documentation Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly; Department of Documents and Diplomacy History of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; National Archives of Iran; and Malek National Library and Museum Institute.

Amongst the twenty-six elements of the National Archival Description Standard, “conditions governing reproduction” and “publication note” were not used in any of the archives. “Level of description”, “archival history”, “appraisal, destruction and scheduling information”, “system of arrangement”, “accruals”, “finding aids”, “related units of description’, “rules or conventions” were only used in the National Archives of Iran, whereas “reference code(s)”, “title”, “date(s)”, “language/scripts of material”, and “archivist’ note and date(s) of description”, were used in all the archives. The rest of the elements were used in some archives. The findings specified thirty-one elements that were amongst description elements of the records according to the archives need and not considered in the National Archival Description Standard. Due to the lack of archival experts in most archives, the standard was not implemented properly and records description were inconsistent.