Türkiye

Ali Tanoglu presents the Atlas of Turkey, which the Institute of Geography at Istanbul University began publishing the previous year. Prepared by Tanoglu with Sirri Erinç and Erol Tümertekin, the atlas contains 60 pages of maps in a 32 × 42 format and aims to depict Turkey’s natural features, population, and economy.

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climate maps are particularly abundant (41 maps), though some data originate from the early 1950s and are somewhat outdated.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.

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 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.

W. Hütteroth reviews Türkiye Atlası (Atlas of Turkey), prepared by Ali Tanoğlu, Sırrı Erinç and Erol Tümertekin and published in 1961 through Istanbul University's Geographical Institute. He regards it, with qualifications, as Turkey's first national atlas. Its 87 colored maps with Turkish and English legends bring together dispersed regional-geographical material, largely reusing previously published maps by the editors; this produces uneven organization, while the original studies provide fuller explanations. Climate occupies 43 maps, but sparse station coverage, especially in mountains, requires interpolation. Hütteroth calls for a complementary morphological map, fuller vegetation coverage and district-level reporting instead of broad provincial units. He praises Tanoğlu's point-and-ball population map while noting its reliance on the 1935 census, and welcomes the land-use map while questioning its limited cropland coverage in Central Anatolia. Printing delays from a planned 1954 publication left statistics ending in 1952–53 and town-size symbols outdated. For a future edition he proposes newer thematic maps and larger-scale regional examples, extending the atlas's special maps of surrounding seas and straits. Despite these limitations, he judges the atlas a substantial achievement under Turkey's data and research constraints and a useful resource for regional studies.

The review describes the 1961 Türkiye Atlası, prepared by Ali Tanoğlu, Sırrı Erinç and Erol Tümertekin at Istanbul University's Institute of Geography, as comprising 94 maps and diagrams drawn from materials difficult for Western scholars to access. The reviewer finds its coverage uneven: 44 climate maps provide a complete, clear account, while vegetation receives only three maps and marine coverage omits the Aegean and Levantine seas. He praises the detailed geological map and clearly rendered relief, but considers the population distribution and density maps outdated because they use the 1935 census. He also suspects that the land-use map underrepresents arable land in dry central Anatolia by overlooking fallow fields. The electrification map is singled out for showing the country's development efforts clearly. Although he judges the atlas's drawing and reproduction below those of countries with long cartographic traditions, he finds its maps consistently clear and visually pleasing.

The article evaluates the 1961 Türkiye Atlası (Atlas of Turkey), compiled by Istanbul University geographers Ali Tanoğlu, Sırrı Erinç and Erol Tümertekin. Its original was completed in 1954, but technical and financial difficulties delayed publication until 1961. Its 77 maps and 18 diagrams cover Turkey's physical geography, population, economy, transport and administration, excluding historical maps. The compilation combines original work with material adapted or reproduced from Turkish and foreign sources; relief is shown through contours and graded colours. The reviewer finds the diagrams, generally legible lettering and bilingual Turkish-English explanations useful, while criticizing the lack of indexes, defective bibliographic entries, missing dates and scales, old data, and local administrative and place-name errors. With 41 maps devoted to climate, the reviewer questions whether other subjects receive adequate coverage and calls for more suitable scales and additions such as road traffic in future editions. Despite these deficiencies, the author regards the atlas as a major contribution to Turkish-language geographical reference literature.

M. Bazin describes the 1961 Atlas of Turkey, published by Istanbul geographers, as comparable in conception to the Atlas de France. Apart from a one-page preface, it presents maps and diagrams without commentary, arranged in nine sections covering physical geography, population, economic activities, communications and administrative divisions. Climate receives the most extensive treatment, with 43 maps and inset maps; topographic coverage includes eight sheets at 1:800,000. Bazin argues that the delay between completion of the maps in 1954 and publication in 1961 left its human and economic geography outdated on arrival: population distribution relied on the 1935 census, other demographic maps on the 1950 census, and agricultural and livestock data on averages for 1950–1952 and 1945–1950 respectively. He adds that demographic and economic changes accelerated this obsolescence, while advances in geological surveying and plate tectonics soon dated some physical maps as well.

M. Bazin criticizes the 1977 Yeni Türkiye Atlası, published by the military cartographic service, for its limited thematic coverage of Turkey and numerous cartographic and factual shortcomings. Turkish thematic maps occupy only 49 of its 172 pages, between world maps and a section containing the complete 1:500,000 topographic map series and its index. Bazin finds the thematic balance unsatisfactory: climate receives 19 pages, while population distribution has only one map. He nevertheless considers the topographic section very useful for foreign readers, despite some errors, and points to a critical booklet by two Ankara academics as a practical guide to using the atlas.