{"id":2484,"date":"2026-10-20T12:36:51","date_gmt":"2026-10-20T09:36:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/?p=2484"},"modified":"2026-10-20T12:36:51","modified_gmt":"2026-10-20T09:36:51","slug":"over-a-decade-of-jineoloji-experience-in-europe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/2026\/10\/20\/over-a-decade-of-jineoloji-experience-in-europe\/","title":{"rendered":"Over a Decade of Jineoloj\u00ee Experience in Europe"},"content":{"rendered":"

Berfin G\u00fcne\u015f, Academy of Jineoloj\u00ee<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Traces of a quest stretching from women\u2019s truth to socialisation<\/b><\/h3>\n

For some time now, we have been evaluating and discussing the various aspects of Jineoloj\u00ee work, which has<\/span> been carried out in Europe for over a decade. The recent workshop held in Marseille to evaluate European Jineoloj\u00ee<\/span> work, the discussions taking place within local Jineoloj\u00ee committees and women\u2019s councils, the evaluations carried out at Jineoloj\u00ee summer camps, and the forthcoming European Jineoloj\u00ee Conference provide an important platform for re-examining the body of knowledge accumulated over the years through a shared collective memory. This process offers us the opportunity to reflect collectively on where we began, the methods we have developed, how we have forged relationships with women across different regions, how our work has resonated in women\u2019s lives and organisational efforts, and what new needs have emerged today.<\/p>\n

The period of over a decade has been a significant timeframe in terms of Jineoloj\u00ee establishing its own distinct experience in Europe. The first conferences, which began in Cologne, were followed by meetings in Paris and Stockholm; the work took on different forms through training sessions and camps. From 2019 onwards, the development of committees and research groups in many countries has created a more localised and sustainable framework for our work. Research has been conducted in various fields, including women\u2019s history, witch hunts, colonialism and neo-colonialism, migration, mythology, women\u2019s archaeology, the relationship between women and nature, the family, identity, belonging and democratic history. Relationships forged with women\u2019s movements, feminist movements, women from different communities and academic circles have progressively strengthened the international dimension of Jineoloj\u00ee in Europe.<\/p>\n

As the process progressed, each experience paved the way for new questions, methods and forms of organisation. The intellectual space opened up by the conferences strengthened the search for more participatory educational methods. The collective living experience that developed in the camps made the need for continuity and local organisation more visible. Local research provided the groundwork for the formation of committees and the more systematic unearthing of women\u2019s memory. The development of various local committees, in turn, raised new questions: how can this body of knowledge, which has emerged across different geographical areas, be shared without losing its local distinctiveness, and how can it be further socialised?<\/p>\n

When we look back today at the development of Jineoloj\u00ee studies in Europe over more than a decade, what stands before us is not merely the introduction of a concept or the spread of a field of study across different countries. This process has been a multi-layered experience in which the struggle for women\u2019s freedom \u2013 in its quest to develop its own knowledge and methods \u2013 has intersected with Europe\u2019s diverse historical, cultural and social realities. Jineoloj\u00ee, which emerged from the Kurdish<\/span> Women\u2019s Freedom <\/span>Movement\u2019s practices of resistance, self-organisation and intellectual engagement, has deepened its own questions in tandem with every new instance of women\u2019s memory, struggle and social reality it has encountered in Europe. It is therefore more meaningful to assess the European experience not merely through the lens of Jineoloj\u00ee\u2019s recognition, but as a concrete experience of the quest to make women\u2019s truth and knowledge visible, to re-establish the connection between knowledge and life, and to transform this knowledge into a social force.<\/p>\n

The assessment we are undertaking today stems precisely from this point: What has this experience, spanning more than a decade, evolved into? What has Jineoloj\u00ee learnt in Europe, how has it developed through its relationships with women, and what new responsibilities does this accumulated experience entail today?<\/b><\/p>\n

From Knowledge to Truth, From Truth to Life<\/b><\/h3>\n

When Jineoloj\u00ee first began to be discussed in Europe, one of the key issues that aroused interest was its approach to knowledge. Why had women\u2019s history, experience and social knowledge remained on the margins of the sciences? Why was the role women had played in the production of life over thousands of years not reflected to the same extent in the history of knowledge? And by what methods could women re-examine their own history, their society and themselves?<\/p>\n

These questions also formed the basis of the quest for truth that developed within the Kurdish<\/span> Women\u2019s Freedom Movement. When this quest for truth was brought to Europe, it encountered the modern world of knowledge head-on. This was a region where universities, research centres and specialised disciplines held sway; a region where knowledge was largely produced within institutional methods, academic criteria and professional fields. Consequently, Jineoloj\u00ee\u2019s European experience raised a number of interconnected fundamental questions from the very outset: How and where is knowledge produced? By whom and for whom is it produced? How does the knowledge produced relate to life and society?<\/p>\n

It is here that the critique Jineoloj\u00ee directs at the modern understanding of knowledge takes on its meaning. This critique stems from questioning how knowledge is produced and within which social relations. The distinction drawn by positivist thought between the knowing subject and the known object; the disciplinary fragmentation that transforms nature, society and humanity into separate, disconnected fields of research; the assumption that knowledge is neutral and independent of power relations; and the severing of knowledge from experience, emotion and life are fundamental issues that, from the perspective of Jineoloj\u00ee, need to be re-examined.<\/p>\n

For the question of which knowledge is deemed valuable, who possesses the authority to produce knowledge, and which histories are recorded is not independent of social relations. When women\u2019s history, labour, social experiences, relationships with nature and the memory they have carried across generations are rendered invisible, it is not merely that knowledge about women remains incomplete; social truth itself is also understood as incomplete and fragmented, and is distorted.<\/p>\n

Jineoloj\u00ee\u2019s quest to make women\u2019s knowledge visible aims not only to investigate women\u2019s suppressed and rendered-invisible history but also to reintegrate knowledge as an integral part of social life. Here, women are not merely research subjects about whom knowledge is produced; they become the subjects who investigate their own lives, histories and social realities, and produce their own knowledge.<\/p>\n

This was one of the reasons why the initial studies in Europe generated such strong interest. Jineoloj\u00ee opened up ways for women to ask new questions about their own lives, rather than offering ready-made answers. It sought to reconnect the seemingly separate spheres of life: from how we view history to our relationship with the body, from family to love, from labour to nature, and from migration to identity.<\/p>\n

Knowledge thus ceased to be merely an intellectual pursuit and became an integral part of how a person makes sense of themselves, their relationships and their social existence.<\/p>\n

From Conferences to Camps: Integrating Knowledge with Life<\/b><\/h3>\n

The first European Jineoloj\u00ee Conference, held in Cologne in 2014, marked a significant milestone in this quest. Subsequent conferences in Paris and Stockholm enabled Jineoloj\u00ee to reach a wider circle of women across Europe. A wide range of topics were discussed at these gatherings, ranging from the meaning of science to women\u2019s identity, from self-defence to mythology, from Mother Goddess cultures to witch hunts, from colonialism to migration, and from women\u2019s resistance during the fascist era to language and collective memory.<\/p>\n

The impact of the conferences could not be measured solely by the number of participants. The coming together of women from different social and political traditions around the same questions fostered new relationships; following the conferences, there was a growing demand for education<\/span>, seminars and research. The sustained interest in Jineoloj\u00ee also increasingly highlighted the need for these studies to be conducted in a more organised manner across Europe.<\/p>\n

However, this experience also gave rise to an important methodological debate. Whilst the conferences facilitated vigorous discussions, introduced new concepts and forged bonds between women, the question remained: how could the intellectual intensity revealed during a few days\u2019 gathering be carried over into everyday life? Over time, the question \u2018What are we talking about?\u2019 was joined by the questions \u2018How do we learn, how do we share, and how do we ensure continuity?\u2019.<\/p>\n

The development of the camps emerged from this quest. The camp initiatives, which began in Germany, gradually spread to the Basque Country, Catalonia, England, Scotland, France, Italy, Ireland and other regions. The significance of the camps from the perspective of the Jineoloj\u00ee experience lay not merely in the extension of the educational period, but in the effort to bridge the gap between education and daily life and to address knowledge directly within the context of life itself.<\/p>\n

Cooking together, doing the cleaning, organising time, making joint decisions, sharing responsibilities, discussing emerging problems, expressing emotions, and developing criticism and self-criticism all became part of the learning process. In this way, the camps further deepened one of Jineoloj\u00ee\u2019s fundamental questions: if knowledge does not change us and our lives, to what extent can it truly connect with the truth?<\/p>\n

The gap between thinking about collective life and actually living it became apparent here. There was a significant gap between talking about solidarity and sharing the daily labour; between advocating for collective decision-making and adhering to the collective decision when one\u2019s own preference was not accepted; and between valuing criticism and being able to hear criticism directed at oneself. The camp experience brought into focus how these discussions could be put into practice within everyday relationships.<\/p>\n

From Xweb\u00fbn to Sociality: The Continuity of Transformation<\/b><\/h3>\n

Concepts such as Xweb\u00fbn <\/i>(being\/becoming oneself)<\/span>, self-defence, communal life and women\u2019s freedom moved beyond mere theoretical discussions within this experience. The discussions increasingly turned towards people\u2019s own lives, relationships and habits. The \u2018system\u2019 was not merely a set of institutions existing outside us; it also manifested itself in the traces left within us by liberalism, individualism, competition, hierarchy, our understanding of time and forms of relationship.<\/p>\n

This was perhaps one of the reasons why the camps left such a profound impression on many women. Jineoloj\u00ee proposed not only looking at the world differently, but also looking at oneself differently.<\/p>\n

However, the power of the camps also brought new needs to light. How would the collective life forged over a few days or weeks continue once the camp had ended? The women were returning to working life, care responsibilities, economic hardships, the pressures of migration and the fragmented daily rhythms of European cities. The strong bonds forged and the transformations that emerged during the camps risked fading in the absence of sustained social relationships to sustain them.<\/p>\n

Thus, a new question arose for European Jineoloj\u00ee studies: how can we transform these gatherings into permanent organisations?<\/p>\n

The committees and research groups that emerged in various countries after 2019 arose, in part, from this need. The centre of gravity of European Jineoloj\u00ee studies began to shift gradually. Whilst initially the focus was on defining and discussing Jineoloj\u00ee, now researching, producing, organising and forging links with local life were taking on greater importance.<\/p>\n

The question of how knowledge meets life was thus directly linked to the question of organisation. This quest gained a broader social foundation through the exploration of local women\u2019s memories, connections forged with various women\u2019s struggles, international gatherings and new organisational experiences.<\/p>\n

In the next issue, we shall continue to examine how Jineoloj\u00ee studies in Europe have developed within these encounters and what new responsibilities this accumulation of over a decade\u2019s work has brought to light today.<\/b><\/p>\n

Local Truths, Shared Women\u2019s Memory<\/b><\/h3>\n

The localisation of Jineoloj\u00ee studies in Europe did not merely mean conducting research in more countries. The key shift was that each region began to investigate its own history and women\u2019s realities through a Jineolojical<\/span> lens. Research has been carried out concerning<\/span> mythology and historical memory in Italy; witch hunts and women\u2019s resistance during the fascist era in Catalonia; colonialism, neo-colonialism and the experiences of migrant women in England; democratic history in Scotland; women\u2019s archaeology in France; and the local histories of women in various regions. Migration, family, identity, belonging, the relationship between women and nature, and life in the diaspora formed other areas of research.<\/p>\n

As this research progressed, it became increasingly clear that women\u2019s history could not be contained within a single grand narrative. Every region had its own fractures, acts of resistance, forgotten women and memories passed down through the generations. Uncovering women\u2019s memories thus went beyond simply gaining more knowledge about the past; it became a way of understanding the historical layers upon which today\u2019s social relations are shaped.<\/p>\n

Jineoloj\u00ee was enriched and deepened through these encounters in Europe. Whilst maintaining a shared perspective, the historical and social distinctiveness of each region brought to light different dimensions of the quest for women\u2019s truth. This local accumulation, in turn, brought to the fore the question of how diverse experiences might be shared and transformed into a collective women\u2019s memory.<\/p>\n

Conducting a piece of research was not the same as its transformation into social memory. It was necessary for research to be shared, translated, incorporated into educational programmes, for women in different countries to become aware of one another\u2019s work, and for the knowledge produced to be returned to women. Today, it is partly <\/span>the need for this that <\/span>lies behind the pan-European networks for collaborative research, publications, archives, thematic working groups and the ongoing debates on making a Jineoloj\u00ee academy <\/span>.<\/p>\n

The significance of research was thus expanding. Uncovering women\u2019s history was not merely a matter of filling in the missing pages of the past; it was about enabling today\u2019s women\u2019s struggles to connect with their own memory, facilitating the transmission of experiences across generations, and ensuring that the <\/span>knowledge produced in different regions could be mutually enriching<\/span>. In this sense, the research was evolving into a field that forged links between memory, socialisation and organisation.<\/p>\n

Women\u2019s Internationalism: Finding Common Ground Amidst Differences<\/b><\/h3>\n

One of the key aspects that made the European experience unique was the relationships forged with different women\u2019s movements. When Jineoloj\u00ee arrived in Europe, it encountered a long history of women\u2019s movements and feminist struggles. There was a vast body of work ranging from socialist feminism to radical feminism, from Black and decolonial feminist thought to ecofeminism, and from migrant women\u2019s movements to various local women\u2019s struggles.<\/p>\n

In the early years, the differences between Jineoloj\u00ee and feminism were the subject of much debate. In particular, criticisms directed at liberal feminism\u2019s approach \u2013 which frames freedom within the confines of individual rights and representation \u2013 were at times perceived as implying that Jineoloj\u00ee rejected feminism in its entirety. As the years went by, it became increasingly clear that this relationship was far too rich, multi-dimensional, relational and intersectional to be reduced to such a dichotomy.<\/p>\n

Feminist struggles have brought to light the relationships rendered invisible by patriarchy and have established a powerful intellectual legacy in the production of women\u2019s knowledge. As Jineoloj\u00ee engaged with this body of work, it developed new questions based on its own unique conceptual, ideological and political approach; at the same time, it engaged with the experiences accumulated by different women\u2019s movements regarding racism, colonialism, ecology, migration, the body and identity. Thus, new spaces for debate and learning emerged amongst diverse experiences of knowledge and struggle.<\/p>\n

One of the significant outcomes of over a decade of experience emerged here: the power of an idea lies not only in how well it articulates itself, but also in the extent to which it can learn from these encounters and deepen its own questions within them.<\/p>\n

The Rojava Women\u2019s Revolution extended these encounters to a much broader sphere. The increased visibility of an experience in which women take their place as founding agents in social, political and organisational life significantly boosted interest in the Kurdish W<\/span>omen\u2019s M<\/span>ovement and Jineoloj\u00ee across Europe. Many women established their first strong connection with Jineoloj\u00ee and the Kurdish <\/span>Women\u2019s Freedom <\/span>Movement through Rojava.<\/p>\n

Over time, it became clear that this relationship could not remain merely at the level of solidarity aimed at understanding Rojava. Women\u2019s internationalism was not about replicating a model developed in one region in another. A quest for women\u2019s knowledge originating in Kurdistan encountered the memory of witch hunts in Catalonia, the women\u2019s struggles in the Basque Country, the histories of colonialism in Ireland and Scotland, Italy\u2019s mythological memory, and the experiences of migrant women living in Europe. These encounters also deepened the discussions on women\u2019s internationalism and World Women\u2019s Confederalism<\/span>.<\/p>\n

As much as these histories shared common threads, they also possessed their own distinct social conditions, memories and experiences of struggle. The power of internationalism did not lie in making them identical. It made more sense to develop a relationship in which each movement could speak from its own history and social reality, yet deepen its own quest for freedom through the experiences of other women.<\/p>\n

Viewed in this light, from the perspective of Jineoloj\u00ee, internationalism is not merely solidarity; it is a form of learning from one another, producing knowledge together, and connecting different women\u2019s truths within a shared quest for freedom.<\/p>\n

Whilst this reciprocal relationship expanded Jineoloj\u00ee\u2019s intellectual sphere in Europe, the Kurdish W<\/span>omen\u2019s M<\/span>ovement\u2019s long history of struggle also offered a distinct perspective to the discussions being held by women in other regions regarding organisation, self-defence, women\u2019s autonomy and social transformation.<\/p>\n

However, as this international character has strengthened, another need has come to the fore: the work carried out with Kurdish women living in Europe has not deepened to the same extent everywhere. In recent years, research developed on the family, the diaspora, intergenerational relations, identity and belonging has represented significant steps towards strengthening this field.<\/p>\n

Here, it is necessary to consider internationalism and taking root within one\u2019s own social context as mutually reinforcing processes. A Jineoloj\u00ee that thoroughly investigates and socialises the reality of women within its own society can connect with other women\u2019s movements through a richer shared experience; international encounters, in turn, can create opportunities to rethink the lives of Kurdish women in Europe in the light of other experiences.<\/p>\n

Socialisation and Organisation: The Quest of a New Era<\/b><\/h3>\n

One of the key debates arising from over a decade of experience is the question of who Jineoloj\u00ee reaches. The work carried out to date is the result of the collective labour of hundreds of women.<\/b> In the early years, the work found a strong response primarily within women\u2019s circles closely associated with political, activist, feminist, academic or intellectual debates. However, the reality of women\u2019s lives in Europe is far broader than this. There are vast sections of women\u2014including migrant women, working-class women, those engaged in care work, speakers of different languages, and those struggling to find time for organised activities amidst the harsh conditions of daily life.<\/p>\n

The issue here is not merely \u2018reaching more women\u2019. If women\u2019s life experiences are a source of knowledge, then the exclusion of certain women from research and discussion processes also means that the knowledge produced remains incomplete. For this reason, the socialisation of Jineoloj\u00ee entails not only the dissemination of concepts and ideas but also the proliferation of spaces where women can investigate their own lives, transform their own voices into knowledge, and develop shared spaces for struggle and organisation centred on this knowledge.<\/p>\n

This approach directly influences working methods. Language, translation, working hours, childcare, transport, educational methods and meeting venues cease to be mere technical details; they become the social conditions for women\u2019s participation in knowledge production and organised life.<\/p>\n

Engaging with young women is also becoming an increasingly important part of this discussion. The experiences of young Kurdish women, particularly those born or raised in Europe, differ from those of previous generations in many respects. Issues of identity and belonging are compounded by digital life, social media, isolation, uncertainty about the future, new pressures on the body and rapidly changing forms of relationship.<\/p>\n

Faced with this reality, it is not enough simply to ask, \u2018How will we explain Jineoloj\u00ee to young women?\u2019<\/p>\n

We must also frame the question from another angle: what new questions is the world young women live in posing to Jineoloj\u00ee?<\/p>\n

What does Xweb\u00fbn<\/i> signify in the digital age? How can self-defence be conceived in the face of digital capitalism, which constantly shapes human attention, emotions, body image and relationships? How can sociality be re-established in the lives of a generation that is becoming increasingly individualised and fragmented within virtual relationships?<\/p>\n

A deeper engagement with Jineoloj\u00ee by new generations is significant not only for the continuity of the work but also for its intellectual vitality and long-term struggle. When each generation brings its own questions, Jineoloj\u00ee\u2019s quest for truth also takes on new dimensions.<\/p>\n

The discussions currently taking place regarding a new organisational model, thematic working groups, academic engagement, the strengthening of local initiatives and the creation of a more vibrant Europe-wide network are the result of all these experiences. Over the years, the committees have built up significant local expertise; the discussion now centres on how this expertise can be shared without losing its local character, and how it can be developed through new working methods.<\/p>\n

What is needed here is neither a structure that manages every area from a single centre nor local groups working in isolation from one another. A stronger European network can be developed that preserves the distinctiveness of different regions, yet nourishes one another through joint research, training, publications and thematic areas of work.<\/p>\n

The discussions regarding <\/span>building an academy of Jineoloj\u00ee are <\/span>also part of this. In a Jineolojical<\/span> sense, building an academy<\/span> should be understood as the development of spaces where women can conduct research, cultivate intellectual depth, learn from one another across generations, establish continuity between research and education, and where knowledge generated from within society can be returned to society.<\/p>\n

How research, education, camps, media and publishing, and organising can more effectively reinforce one another is also one of the fundamental questions before us. Knowledge truly becomes a social good to <\/span>the extent that a cycle can be established in which the women\u2019s memory under investigation feeds into education, the questions arising from education lead to new research, research leads to publication, and all of this in turn feeds back into local organising.<\/p>\n

Looking back on over a decade of European experience from this perspective, it is not enough to interpret the picture that emerges solely in terms of successes or shortcomings. Conferences opened up an intellectual space; this space gave rise to a need for deeper learning. Camps brought knowledge together with collective life; the need for continuity led to the development of committees and research groups. As local initiatives multiplied, the need for a shared memory and coordination became increasingly apparent. Whilst international relations deepened Jineoloj\u00ee studies through new encounters, they also demonstrated the necessity of strengthening our connection to our own social ground. The limitations of socialisation, however, led us back to the question of knowledge: Who is speaking, who is researching, and whose experiences are being transformed into knowledge?<\/p>\n

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of this experience, spanning over a decade, lies precisely here. Whilst each stage produced an answer, it also brought a new question to light. The development of Jineoloj\u00ee in Europe has become less about the application of a finished model and more a constantly renewing quest, shaped by its relationship with women and with life itself.<\/p>\n

Today, we are no longer at the starting point of those early years. A significant intellectual, social and organisational body of work has been built up, ranging from conferences to camps, from research groups to local committees, and from studies on women\u2019s memory to relationships forged with different sections of women and women\u2019s movements, as well as with feminist and academic circles.<\/p>\n

We are now in a new era.<\/b><\/h3>\n

Reaching more women with Jineoloj\u00ee certainly remains one of the tasks before us. However, today, more fundamentally, we are discussing how the knowledge, memory, methods and relationships that have developed over more than a decade can be transformed into a more enduring social force. We are exploring the possibilities of a Jineoloj\u00ee practice that is rooted locally yet mutually reinforcing across Europe; that deepens its ties with Kurdish women whilst continuing to think collectively with women from different peoples; that, whilst engaging with academia, poses new questions to established understandings of knowledge and calls for its re-examination; that renews itself through the questions of young women; and that does not separate research from organisation, nor organisation from life.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the most fundamental lesson that over a decade of experience has taught us is this: Jineoloj\u00ee was not merely narrated in Europe. It encountered, learnt, researched, forged connections, developed its own methods and opened up new paths. The legacy of women\u2019s freedom it carried from Kurdistan multiplied as it encountered the diverse memories of women across Europe; every encounter presented it with new questions.<\/p>\n

Today, we return to the simplest yet most powerful quest from the very beginning: to transform women\u2019s knowledge into the knowledge of life.<\/p>\n

After more than a decade of experience, we understand the meaning of this more concretely. Just as much as uncovering women\u2019s knowledge, we must create the social spaces to share it; just as much as researching memory, we must pass it on to future generations; just as much as thinking about freedom, we must build its relationships; and just as much as producing knowledge, we must organise around it.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the new phase of Jineoloj\u00ee studies in Europe will begin precisely here: where we can transform the knowledge, memory and experience we have accumulated into a stronger women\u2019s social fabric and a shared quest for a free life.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Source: newayajin.net\/avrupada-on-yili-askin-jineoloji-deneyimi<\/a> \/ newayajin.net\/avrupada-on-yili-askin-jineoloji-deneyimi-2<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Berfin G\u00fcne\u015f, Academy of Jineoloj\u00ee   Traces of a quest stretching from women\u2019s truth to socialisation For some time now, we have been evaluating and discussing the various aspects of Jineoloj\u00ee work, which has been carried out in Europe for over a decade. The recent workshop held in Marseille to evaluate European Jineoloj\u00ee work, the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":2485,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[93,1,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2484","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-academy-of-jineoloji","category-article","category-herstory"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2484","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2484"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2484\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2486,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2484\/revisions\/2486"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2485"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2484"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2484"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2484"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}