H. Paschinger · 1962
This review discusses the Atlas of Turkey, the country's first national comprehensive atlas, published in 1961 by the Faculty of Letters, University of Istanbul. The atlas contains 82 maps and 13 diagrams at scales ranging from 1:800,000 to 1:6,000,000, covering topics such as topography, geology, climate, vegetation, oceanography, population, land use, agriculture, mineral resources and industry, trade, transportation, and administrative divisions. Notably, climate maps are particularly abundant (41 maps), though some data originate from the early 1950s and are somewhat outdated. The reviewer notes an uneven distribution of maps across thematic areas, with the absence of a geomorphological map, a detailed vegetation map, and more refined maps of hydrology, industry, and transportation. Nevertheless, the atlas is regarded as a commendable pioneering achievement that will likely require a second edition soon.
Ena L. Yonge · 1962
The reviewer calls the first national Atlas of Turkey a noteworthy achievement despite a lack of adequately trained personnel and poor technical facilities. The atlas has no explanatory text; its preface says most material is based on original research, while some sections—such as topography and structure—are compilations or taken from other sources. The 44 small climate maps draw on General Directory of Meteorology bulletins, and cultural and economic distribution maps on Central Statistical Office material.
Wolf Hütteroth · 1962
Wolf Hütteroth reviews Türkiye Atlası / Atlas of Turkey, published by Istanbul University in 1961, and regards it as Turkey’s first national atlas, subject to the editors’ qualifications. Its 87 colour maps with Turkish and English legends assemble geographical material otherwise difficult to access. Almost all reuse previously published designs, mostly by the editors, producing some unevenness in organization and coverage while allowing readers to consult fuller explanations in earlier publications. Hütteroth criticizes the dominance of climate mapping—43 maps, compared with two on vegetation—and the use of large provincial units for population and agricultural statistics. He praises Tanoglu’s dot-and-circle population map but notes its reliance on the 1935 census. He welcomes the land-use map’s attempt to depict cultivated land accurately, while questioning its low estimate for Inner Anatolia. Publication had been planned for about 1954; the delay left statistical data ending in 1952–1953 and city-size symbols outdated. For the proposed second edition, he recommends updated data, newer thematic maps, and large-scale examples of characteristic landscapes. Given Turkey’s short history of systematic surveys, Hütteroth judges the atlas a valuable aid to scholarly work.
