Humanities and Social Sciences

Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies

Content

Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies | 2025 | vol. LXXVIII | No 2

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The history of the Yemeni island of Soqoṭrā from Late Antiquity to the European Age of Exploration is the history of an alternation between interconnectedness and insularity. On the one hand, Soqoṭrā was linked through commerce with other regions in the Indian Ocean, as well as with regions as far afield as the Mediterranean. Additionally, the Church of the East had, by the sixth century, put down roots on Soqoṭrā, a development that afforded the island a connection, however tenuous, to a wider world of eastern Christianity. A further link with the outside world was established in the mid-eighth century, when the Ibāḍī imamate of Oman briefly established rule over Soqoṭrā. On the other hand, Soqoṭrī history is also characterized by the equally strong pull of insularity. As a case in point, the indigenous islanders speak their own, unique Soqoṭrī language, which belongs to the Modern South Arabian branch of Semitic. As for Omani rule, this was ultimately overthrown through a revolt by Christian Soqoṭrīs, and while foreign merchants continued to visit the island, Soqoṭrā gained something of a reputation as a haven for pirates and an abode of magicians. It was also widely known as an outpost of Christianity. Over time, however, Soqoṭrā lost contact with the normative Christianity represented by the Church of the East, such that, by the time that the Portuguese first made contact with the island in the early sixteenth century, they found the indigenous inhabitants practicing a vestigial form of Christianity that centered on a veneration of the cross, but retained little else that could be deemed Christian.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

George Hatke
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. University of Vienna, Austria
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Historical sources and archaeological evidence indicate that many mosques, madrasas, mausoleums, baths, bridges and mansions were built in and around Mardin during the Artuqid period (496–812H/1102–1409). However, evidence is still lacking with regard to zāwiyas. The main purpose of this study is therefore to investigate the building process of zāwiyas during the Artuqid period. Two zāwiyas were identified in the surroundings of Mardin, in current southeastern Türkiye, thanks to research carried out in the field: the Sittī Legliye mausoleum, located in the central cemetery of the city of Savur, and the mausoleum of Šayḫ Dāwud (Sancar mosque), in the village of Sancar, in the district of Yeşilli. According to the inscriptions, the former was built in 645H/1247, during the reign of Saʿīd Naǧm ad-Dīn Ġāzī I (r. 637–658H/1239–1260), whereas Šayḫ Dāwud’s mausoleum was renovated between 693–712H/1294–1312 in the name of Al-Mansūr Naǧm ad-Dīn Ġāzī II. Therefore, the inscriptions found in situ provide dates and mentions of rulers that enable the dating of these buildings to the Artuqid period. On the basis of the existing inscriptions, it has been concluded that both mausoleums were originally zāwiyas dating from the Artuqid period.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Neslihan Kaya
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes (IFEA), Istanbul
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This paper concerns the philosophical reflections of Prabhācandra (11th c. CE), contained in the Prameya-kamala-mārtaṇḍa, a commentary on Māṇikyanandin’s Parīkṣâmukha, and to a lesser extent in the Nyāya-kumuda-candra, a commentary on Akalaṅka’s Laghīyastraya, on that which is expressed by the term “kalpanā” or “vikalpa”. This problem appears as part of a discussion with Buddhists and representatives of the Advaita Vedānta on construction-filled (savikalpaka) versus construction-free (nirvikalpaka) cognition. Prabhācandra’s criticism is mainly directed at the issue of construction-free cognition. The paper also contains insights into Western attitudes towards this problem in the field of philosophy and other disciplines, such as cognitive linguistics and psychology, and in the field of artificial intelligence, as well as the general philosophical overview of the problem. The paper asks if – and posits answers to – the question of whether the problem of concepts or conceptual constructions is connected – and to what degree – with the problem of meaning? References are made to other Jaina thinkers who have considered this issue, such as: Akalaṅka, Haribhadrasūri, Sidharṣigaṇin, Samantabhadra and Amṛtacandrasūri.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Małgorzata B. Glinicka
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Polish Academy of SciencesSciences, Poland
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article explores the evolution of the discourse around healthy eating in Japan from the post-World War II era to the present day. Drawing on the food discourses approach, which emphasizes the capacity of institutions to construct and control narratives about food, the study examines how the prevailing notions of what constitutes a healthy diet in Japan have been shaped by a range of economic and political factors. While traditional Japanese cuisine has become associated with healthiness, this was not always the case, as in the years following the Pacific war a Western-style diet was considered more beneficial to one’s body while the excessive consumption of white rice was strongly discouraged. The situation changed in the 1970s when the benefits of eating a “traditional” Japanese diet began to be extolled, while the “westernization” of eating habits was criticized as an unhealthy lifestyle. Through the analysis of historical and contemporary sources, this article seeks to shed light on how the concept of healthy eating in Japan has been influenced by more than just scientific studies on nutrition but has been also strongly shaped by economic and political interests.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Felice Farina
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. University of Naples L’Orientale, Naples, Italy

Instructions for authors


INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS OF Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies


- Submitted papers will be subject to peer review by appropriate referees. The names of the reviewers and the results of their work are confidential data.

- The Publisher accepts complete scripts of the Work in *.doc. *.docx in addition to *.pdf format. All the special fonts used by the Author should be sent as an attachment to the text.

- We accept articles written in English, German and French.

- Every text should consist of a title in English (in case of articles written in German or French, there should be also the title in German or French), main body text, keywords (4-10), and an abstract in English (150 to 200 words).

- The Authors should provide their affiliation, ORCID number as well as footnotes and end of article bibliography, which should include only Latin letters.

- By submitting the text, the Author warrants to the Publisher:

1. That the Author is the sole author of the Work. Both ghostwriting and guest authorship are manifestations of scientific misconduct. All detected cases will be exposed and appropriate authorities will be informed;

2. That the Author holds the full power and authority to grant these rights;

3. That the Work has not been published in any form nor in any language with any company or person that may still own proprietary rights to the Work.

- By submitting the text, the Author grants, assigns, and transfers to the Publisher, during the full term of copyright and all renewals thereof, the sole and exclusive right to print, publish, distribute, market and sell the Work in any and all editions and formats throughout the World. The assignment is granted free of charge to Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies and shall be effective as long as it complies with the EU directives.

- The Author shall receive two free copies of the Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies issue in which the Work appears (the Author of a review shall receive one free copy).

- The Editor reserves the right to copyedit and proof texts accepted for the publication.

- After copyediting and final proofing, the text, in an electronic format, shall be sent to the Author for his approval. After revisions and clarifications (if necessary) the text must be submitted to the Editor as soon as possible.


Style of Reference

Style Sheet

Publication Ethics Policy

Publishing ethics

The Editorial Board of Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies urge the authors to present the results of their original work in a transparent and reliable way, thereby preventing any cases of ghostwriting and guest authorship (honorary authorship). The term ghostwriting describes a situation in which a person has significantly contributed to a publication without being listed as co-author or without his/her name being mentioned in the acknowledgement. Guest authorship, in turn, means that a person’s contribution to a publication is negligible or none at all, yet such a person is listed as co-author or author. In order to prevent these, relevant provisions have been included into the agreements signed with authors.


All the articles intended for publication in the journal are screened for plagiarism using the iThenticate software.


All cases of misconduct will be publicised by the Editorial Board, which includes notifying the relevant institutions (the authors’ employers, academic societies, etc.).


The editorial staff of Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies act in line with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. All parties involved in the publication process (the editor, the author, the reviewer, the publisher) should be familiar with ethical standards observed in the journal.

________________________________________

Duties of Editors:


1) The editors have the authority to decide which of the submitted papers should be accepted for publication (taking into account: the text conformity with the profile of the journal, the academic importance of the contribution, the originality as well as clarity of the input). When making decisions, the editor should be guided by the journal’s policy, as well as by legal regulations on matters such as infringement of copyright and plagiarism.

2) The editors assess the submitted manuscripts on basis of their scholarly merit, without regard to race, gender, sexual preferences, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views of the authors (fair play).

3) Unpublished articles, article excerpts, or materials contained therein may not be used by the editorial board or the editors for the purpose of their own research without the written consent of the authors. The editors do not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric, i.e. the editor shall not require that references to that (or any other) journal’s articles be included except for genuine scholarly reasons. Authors should not be required to include references to the editors’ articles.

4) The editors do not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers, and – in special circumstances – other editorial staff. In exceptional circumstances, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where deemed necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct.

5) The editors will safeguard the integrity of the published record, and publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions when needed. They will ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. The editorial board will require all collaborators to disclose any competitive interests and will make every effort to prevent it. If necessary, steps to be taken include retracting a manuscript or publishing a corrective statement.

6) The editor can retract an article when research results have already been published elsewhere; the manuscript contains plagiarism or otherwise breaches ethical principles; there is clear evidence that the results of research are unreliable or that data has been fabricated. A notification of manuscript retraction should be understood as a de facto removal of the text. Such a notification should inform for what reasons is the text being retracted.

7) The editors reserve the right to edit the texts for length, stylistic details, conformance with style guides etc.


________________________________________

Duties of Authors:



1) An author of the article is considered to be an individual who had a decisive influence on the final shape of the text in the version in which it is to be published. If more than one person has been involved in writing the text and/or in the research underlying it, the contributions of all persons should be specified in the statement submitted together with the manuscript.

2) The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted and permission has been obtained where necessary.

3) An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable. Publication of some kinds of articles in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

4) When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to correct or retract the paper.

5) If any unethical conduct on the part of the author of the publication is revealed – such as plagiarism, data falsification or re-publication of a previously published work or part of it (the so-called self-plagiarism) – the editors ask such an author for explanations and then may take appropriate steps in line with the COPE guidelines. At a later stage of the proceedings, this may mean notifying the authorities of the author’s academic unit, rejecting a given article, and refusal to publish any future texts by that person in the journal.

6) In line with COPE guidelines, any change to authorship information requires written consent from all co-authors. This should be expressed by each author in a separate (electronic) letter of consent addressed to the editor-in-chief. The consent of all co-authors to changing authorship information of a submitted or already printed paper must take written form. If authors cannot reach agreement on this, they should consult the authorities of their home institution(s).

________________________________________

Duties of Reviewers:



1) Reviewers influence the decisions made by the editor-in-chief. Their comments on the subject matter can also help the authors improve their manuscripts.

2) In the reviews the quality of the reported research should be judged objectively. Reviewers should explain their judgment clearly and support it. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Authors have the right to respond to the critical remarks of reviewers.

3) A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should inform the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

4) If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates). Information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for the reviewer’s personal advantage.

5) Reviewers are obliged to submit their opinion statements timely. If for any reason (from scholarly ones to time pressure) they cannot meet the deadline or cannot undertake the reviewing at all, they should notify the editorial board immediately.

6) All materials sent for review should be treated as confidential. Disclosing their contents to third parties (with the exception of persons authorised) is inadmissible.

7) The principle of preventing conflicts of interest:


A conflict of interest exists when an author (or the research unit which he or she represents), a reviewer or an editor is engaged in personal or economic relations which may inappropriately influence his/her actions. Each author or reviewer noticing an existing conflict of interest is obliged to report it to the editors.

Peer-review Procedure


Review process

The manuscripts should be original and inventive, and significantly add to existing research.

Submitted articles will undergo a double, anonymous and independent peer-review process (the identity of the reviewed author will not be disclosed to reviewers, nor vice versa).

The articles under review are treated as confidential.

At least two reviewers will be appointed by the editors among specialists in fields related to the topic of the article.

The reviewers will not be members of the journal’s editorial staff and will not be affiliated with the same institution as the author. At least one reviewer will be affiliated to a foreign institution, other than the nationality of the author.

The editorial board will make an additional effort to select reviewers with no professional or private relationship with the author of the text being reviewed. The reviewers will be appointed in such a way as to avoid any conflict of interest (understood as relations between the author and the reviewer: personal relations like kinship, legal relations, conflict, subordination in a workplace; direct scholarly co-operation in the period of two years preceding the reviewing process).

The reviewers will provide an objective review of the submitted article. The review must contain an explicit conclusion stating whether the article should or should not be accepted for publication. The reviewers must disclose any irregularities that they discover, in particular any forms of plagiarism.

The evaluation is based on the following criteria: whether it is a new and original contribution, whether the paper’s title corresponds well to its content, whether the paper’s structure is clear and correct, whether the literature is quoted correctly and sufficiently.

The reviewers choose one of the following options: to accept the paper in its current form, to accept the paper with minor adjustments, to accept the paper with major changes and/or updates, or to reject the paper.

As a result of the review process, authors may be expected to modify their articles according to the recommendations of the reviewers. Amended articles could be accompanied by a cover letter explaining how the comments were addressed and the changes made.

Editorial board retains a right to publish, to reject or to return an article for modifications. In the event of an ambivalent publishing review, the text is submitted for another evaluation.

Articles on which two negative opinions have been passed will not be accepted for publication. The authors of negatively assessed texts will be notified as soon as the reviews reach the editorial board.

The list of reviewers will be published at the end of each year in one of Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies volumes.

A different review process conducted by the editorial board applies to book reviews.

There are no processing charges nor submission charges.


The review of an article submitted to Rocznik Orientalistyczny / Yearbook of Oriental Studies - form

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more