Faroqhi S.N. The Cambridge History of Turkey: Volume 3, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603-1839
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
edhem eldem
Table 14.4
Geographical distribution of Marseilles trade (end of the seventeenth–end
of the eighteenth centuries) (in livres tournois and percentages)
End of the seventeenth
century
End of the eighteenth
century
l.t. per cent l.t. per cent
Terra Nova 2,000,000 2.66,000,000 2.4
United States 4,000,000 1.6
Caribbean 56,000,000 22.4
North 6,000,000 7.712,000,000 4.8
West Coast 4,000,000 5.112,000,000 4.8
Spain and Portugal 8,000,000 10.320,000,000 8.0
Barbary 8,000,000 10.316,000,000 6.4
African slave trade 6,000,000 2.4
Italy 20,000,000 25.640,000,000 16.0
Levant 30,000,000 38.564,000,000 25.6
Austria 4,000,000 1.6
East Indies 10,000,000 4.0
Total 78,000,000 100.0250,000,000 100.0
Source: Carri
`
ere, Richesse du pass
´
e,pp.40–1.
Table 14.5
Ships entering the port of Marseilles from the
Levant and the Atlantic, 1710–1794
Levant Atlantic
1710–1714 128 79
1720–1724 113 50
1730–1734 135 149
1740–1744 131 195
1750–1754 135 262
1760–1764 83 189
1770–1774 172 502
1780–1784 158 298
1790–1794 114 356
Source: Carri
`
ere, N
´
egociants marseillais,pp.1046–7.
328
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Table 14.6
British trade with the Levant, 1621–1856 (in £000s)
Imports from the Levant Exports to the Levant
manuf.
goods text. mat. foodstuffs dyestuffs other total imp.
manuf.
goods raw mat. total exp.
1621, 1630, 1634 107 65 5 72 249
1663, 1669 245 79 58 39 421
1699–1701 276 8 13 17 314 217 17 234
1722–1724 326 7 7 16 356 190 19 209
1752–1754 114 11 1 26 152 137 15 152
1784–1786 241 8 – 24 273 38 40 78
1794–1796 285 16 47 30 378 49 83 132
1804–1806 37 66 73 65 241 105 65 170
1814–1816 2 96 127 113 78 416 175 141 316
1824–1826 7 842 78 148 79 1,154 590 117 707
1834–1836 3 279 83 161 452 1,274 1,203 181 1,384
1844–1846 33 940 257 361 207 1,798 2,893 373 3,266
1854–1856 321 2,594 2,142 541 711 6,309 5,694 1,384 7,078
Sources: for 1621–69: R. Davis, ‘English Imports’, p. 202;for1699–1754: Davis, Aleppo and Devonshire Square,p.31;for1784–1856: Davis, The
Industrial Revolution and British Overseas Trade,pp.88–93, 110–125.
Notes: Export figures are not available for the period 1621–69. For import figures from 1621 to 1754, a small number of manufactures (mainly
textiles) may have been included in the ‘other’ category. Export figures for 1784–1856 include re-exports. In the 1784–1856 statistics, the
Levant covers the Balkans, Anatolia, Egypt and the Russian Black Sea ports.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Table 14.7 Regional distribution of British trade, 1784–1856 (in percentages)
Europe Asia N. America S. America N. East Africa
imp. exp. imp. exp. imp. exp. imp. exp. imp. exp. imp. exp.
1621 77.86.415.8
1663, 1669 64.323.712.0
1699–1701 58.634.76.7
1784–1786 43.846.224.312.429.836.50.10.11.30.50.74.3
1794–1796 43.838.421.412.632.345.50.80.31.10.50.62.7
1804–1806 45.844.215.86.534.643.22.52.60.50.40.83.0
1814–1816 35.158.418.25.335.330.89.64.30.60.51.10.7
1824–1826 40.646.119.310.031.428.95.512.22.01.61.21.2
1834–1836 37.544.116.49.436.632.34.89.51.82.42.92.2
1844–1846 36.844.317.215.134.224.66.08.82.24.73.52.4
1854–1856 36.340.117.011.432.732.86.47.54.25.73.42.4
Source: computed from Davis, The Industrial Revolution and British Overseas Trade,pp.55, 88–93; Davis, ‘English Imports’, p. 202.
Notes: up to 1701, figures for Asia, N. America and S. America are grouped under N. America. The West Indies and Australia have been
included in ‘North America’. The Near East covers the Balkans, Anatolia, Egypt and the Russian Black Sea ports.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Table 14.8 French trade with the Levant, 1671–1789 (in livres tournois 000s)
Imports from the Levant Exports to the Levant
manuf. goods text. mat. dyestuffs other total imp. manuf. goods foodstuffs dyestuffs total exp.
1671–1675 6,676
1681–1685 5,804
1691–1695 6,644
1702–1704 385 5,457 206 2,272 8,320
1711–1715 13,920
1721–1725 9,480 4,597
1731–1735 12,000 4,499
1741–1745 13,372 18,452
1750–1754 1,716 11,439 757 9,119 23,030 8,553 1,820 2,330 12,683
1761–1765 16,841 16,439
1771–1775 27,800 17,977
1781–1785 25,160 16,700
1786–1789 2,530 19,145 1,909 5,405 28,989 6,712 5,145 3,608 15,465
Sources: ACCM, I 19, Etats des marchandises envoy
´
ees en Levant et Barbarie (1748–1769); I 20, Etats des marchandises envoy
´
ees en Levant
et Barbarie (1776–1779, 1786–1789); I 26, Etats estimatifs des marchandises venant du Levant et de Barbarie (1700–1747); I 27, Etats des
marchandises venant du Levant et de Barbarie (1725–1759); I 28, Etats des marchandises venues du Levant (1776–1789); J 1560, Etat estimatif
du commerce d’entr
´
ee et de sortie du Levant depuis l’ann
´
ee 1726 jusques et compris 1777, extrait des etats particuliers d
´
epos
´
es dans les
archives de la Chambre du Commerce de Marseille, 1779; Masson, Histoire du commerce franc¸ais au XVIIe si
`
ecle, appendix IV, p. xiii; Paris,
Histoire du commerce,pp.600–1; Eldem, French Trade,pp.13–15.
Note: export data from Marseilles to the Levant are missing for the years 1671–1725, 1756, 1759–60, 1762 and 1770–5. The export figure for
1721–5 is in fact the figure for 1726–30; that for 1771–5 is the average of 1766–80 and 1776–80.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Table 14.9 English silk imports, 1590–1856
Levant Asia Italy Other
£000s lbs. (000s) £000s lbs. (000s) £000s lbs. (000s) £000s lbs. (000s)
1621, 1630, 1634 73
1663, 1669 172 264 1 19 –
1699–1701 219
1701–1705 216
1706–1710 194
1711–1715 280
1716–1720 258
1721–1725 240 84 21 –
1722–1724 274
1726–1730 259 126 20 9
1731–1735 181 156 32 28
1736–1740 135 138 19 42
1741–1745 145 116 60 17
1746–1750 135 59 76 33
1751–1755 111 159 101 32
1752–1754 81
1756–1760 132 109 136 25
1761–1765 113 73 202 46
1784–1786 33 568 617
1794–1796 9 448 704
1804–1806 10 504 1,288
1814–1816 78 833 1,646
1824–1826 235 1,145 2,103
1834–1836 544 2,094 1,745
1844–1846 367 1,983 1,652
1854–1856 1,404 4,
229 1,331
Sources: For 1621, 1630, 1634, 1663, 1669 and 1701–65, Davis, ‘English Imports, pp. 199, 202; Davis, Aleppo and Devonshire Square,
pp. 42, 139;for1784–1856, Davis, The Industrial Revolution and British Overseas Trade,pp.110–25.
Note: figures in lbs. are given in ‘great pounds’ of 24 oz. ‘Asia’ describes mainly India, with the addition of China after 1834. ‘Other’
generally includes Italy until 1784; from that date on, north-western Europe takes the lead. For the 1784–1856 statistics, the Levant
covers the Balkans, Anatolia, Egypt and the Russian Black Sea ports.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Capitulations and Western trade
Table 14.10
Major Ottoman exports to Marseilles, 1700–1789 (in livres tournois)
1700–1702 1750–1754 1786–1789
silk 2,416,000 2,095,000 1,638,000
cotton wool 225,000 3,760,000 9,853,000
cotton thread 1,303,000 1,924,000 2,939,000
sheep’s wool 737,000 911,000 2,257,000
camel-hair 173,000 879,000 1,021,000
mohair 639,000 1,835,000 1,437,000
hides 537,000 318,000 966,000
dyestuffs 208,000 746,000 1,919,000
olive oil 743,000 1,451,000 3,261,000
beeswax 250,000 387,000 753,000
wheat and barley 725,000 3,489,000 409,000
textile products 385,100 1,715,820 2,529,752
other 1,628,900 2,289,180 3,042,248
total 9,970,000 21,800,000 33,025,000
Source: Paris, Histoire du commerce,pp.504–41, 600–1.
Table 14.11
Major Ottoman imports from Marseilles, 1700–1789 (in
livres tournois)
1750–1754 1786–1789
cloth 8,243,000 5,767,000
other textile products 290,000 945,000
sugar 980,000 1,620,000
coffee 840,000 3,525,000
dyestuffs 2,330,000 3,608,000
other 1,917,000 2,015,000
total 14,600,000 17,480,000
Source: Paris, Histoire du commerce,pp.542–66, 600–1.
333
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
edhem eldem
Table 14.12
Major Ottoman exports to, and imports from, Marseilles,
1700–1789, and French balance of trade deficit (in livres tournois)
1700–1702 1750–1754 1785–1789
exports
silk 2,416,000 2,095,000 1,638,000
cotton wool 225,000 3,760,000 9,853,000
cotton thread 1,303,000 1,924,000 2,939,000
sheep-wool 737,000 911,000 2,257,000
camel-hair 173,000 879,000 1,021,000
mohair 639,000 1,835,000 1,437,000
hides 537,000 318,000 966,000
dyestuffs 208,000 746,000 1,919,000
olive oil 743,000 1,451,000 3,261,000
beeswax 250,000 387,000 753,000
wheat and barley 725,000 3,489,000 409,000
textiles 385,100 1,715,820 2,529,752
Other 1,628,900 2,289,180 2,457,248
Total 9,970,000 21,800,000 32,440,000
imports
cloth 8,243,000 5,767,000
other textile
products
290,000 945,000
sugar 980,000 1,620,000
coffee 840,000 3,525,000
dyestuffs 2,330,000 3,608,000
other 1,917,000 2,015,000
total 14,600,000 17,480,000
French balance of
trade deficit
7,200,000 15,765,000
Source: Paris, Histoire du commerce,pp.504–66, 600–1.
334
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Table 14.13 Distribution of French trade among the major
´
echelles, 1700–1789 (in livres tournois)
1700–1702 1750–1754 1786–1789
Egypt (Cairo, Alexandria, Rosetta, Damietta)
exports to Marseilles 2,183,500 2,532,000 2,822,000
imports from Marseilles 1,929,000 1,364,000
Syria and Palestine (Sayda, Acre, Beirut, Tyre, Tripoli)
exports to Marseilles 1,446,000 3,705,000 1,399,000
imports from Marseilles 841,000 824,000
Aleppo
exports to Marseilles 818,000 2,074,000 3,515,000
imports from Marseilles 2,366,000 2,130,000
Izmir (Smyrna)
exports to Marseilles 2,342,000 5,089,000 14,221,000
imports from Marseilles 4,059,000 6,166,000
Istanbul (Constantinople)
exports to Marseilles 906,000 842,000 2,554,000
imports from Marseilles 3,101,000 4,769,000
Salonika
exports to Marseilles 282,000 1,399,000 2,873,000
imports from Marseilles 1,243,000 1,696,000
Other (Cyprus, Crete, Aegean Islands, Morea)
exports to Marseilles 1,993,000 6,159,000 5,056,000
imports from Marseilles 1,061,000 531,000
Total
exports to Marseilles 9,970,000 21,800,000 32,440,000
imports from Marseilles 14,600,000 17,480,000
Sources: Paris, Histoire du commerce,pp.377–495, 600–1.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
15
Guildsmen and handicraft producers
suraiya n. faroqhi
The place of craftsmen in Ottoman society
Handicraft producers were linked to each other – and also to their suppliers,
wholesalers and ultimate consumers – by a variety of social, political and
‘economic’ ties. The latter term is here used in the sense of ‘mediated by the
market’. Throughout the period which concerns us here, ‘economic’ activities
were more or less tightly controlled by the political authorities. Few if any
economic historians would assume that in the Ottoman world the market
can be treated as an autonomous sphere, in which buyers and sellers alone
agreed on prices, and the state or religious authorities did not intervene.
1
Quite to the contrary, established wisdom has always treated the Ottoman
Empire as a social formation in whichthe state dominated both production and
distribution, determining even the range of profits permitted to a craftsman.
2
Political, social and economic aspects of craft organisation are thus inextricably
linked – both in ‘reality’ and in the image drawn by historians.
Quite a few authors, especially those who at some point in their lives were
inclined toward the concept of an ‘Asiatic mode of production’, have visualised
Ottoman society as consisting ‘in principle’ of tax-paying peasants and a tax-
collecting elite.
3
Not much place, in this picture, was allowed to merchants
and craftsmen. This is an obvious distortion. But the dearth of information
on craftsmen, particularly in seventeenth-century documents, does at times
encourage this kind of misconception. Unless army, navy, court or capital
demanded the products of craftsmen, Ottoman officials do not seem to have
1 M
¨
ubahat K
¨
ut
¨
uko
˘
glu, Osmanlılarda narh m
¨
uessesesi ve 1640 tarihli narh defteri (Istanbul,
1983).
2 Halil Inalcik, ‘Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire’, Journal of Economic History 29,
1 (1969), 97–140; Nelly Hanna, Making Big Money in 1600: The Life and Times of Isma‘il Abu
Taqiyya, Egyptian Merchant (Syracuse, 1998).
3 Niyazi Berkes, 100 soruda T
¨
urkiye iktisat tarihi, 2 vols. (Istanbul, 1969), vol. I, pp. 11–13.
336
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Guildsmen and handicraft producers
monitored the day-to-day problems of artisans.
4
In consequence, Ottoman
bureaucrats have left us only a limited amount of documentation on craft
affairs. On the other hand, as the near totality of all primary sources has been
produced by members of the Ottoman elite, it is not surprising that the latter’s
viewpointshould havelong dominated, and to a degreecontinues to dominate,
Ottomanist history writing. Occasional sources telling the story ‘from below’
are few and far between, and even local chronicles or saints’ legends, in which
members of the lower urban strata do find a place, were not usually composed
by craftsmen.
5
Merchants were often enough considered by officials as a potentially disrup-
tive element, even though at the same time their services were visualised as
necessary for providing court, army and capital with foodstuffs and raw mate-
rials. Artisans did not normally possess the economic power of merchants, and
therefore were accorded even less attention. When they do show up in norma-
tive texts, they formed part of the ‘poor subjects’ (reaya fukarası), who should
adhere closely to established precedent and not attempt to enrich themselves.
After all, in this perspective, enrichment could only be achieved at the expense
of the consumer. Perhaps because the elite were not producers themselves,
officials tended to look at the world from the consumer’s point of view.
6
Artisans and villagers
A central question, but one which we have great trouble answering, concerns
the links of Ottoman craftsmen to the countryside. Wool, hides, cotton, grain
and other indispensable raw materials were produced not in the towns them-
selves, but in the surrounding villages. Some craftsmen may have provisioned
themselves directly ‘at source’. This arrangement is documented for the Jews
4 Ottoman documents on artisans can be found in the Registers of Important Affairs
(Bas¸bakanlık Ars¸ivi, M
¨
uhimme Defterleri) and the Complaint Registers (BA S¸ik
ˆ
ayet
Defterleri). In addition, for those cities for which they survive, we have the kadi reg-
isters. For the eighteenth century, we possess the Provincial Registers of [Sultanic] Com-
mands (BA Vilayet Ahk
ˆ
am Defterleri). For a broad selection of mid-eighteenth-century
material on Istanbul, see Ahmet Kal’a et al. (eds.),
˙
Istanbul K
¨
ulliyatı:
˙
Istanbul Ahk
ˆ
am Defter-
leri (Istanbul, 1997). The BA Maliyeden M
¨
udevver section contains numerous individual
commands, preserved as register copies.
5 Bruce Masters, ‘The View from the Province: Syrian Chronicles of the Eighteenth Cen-
tury’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 114, 3 (1994), 353–62; Paolo Odorico et al.,
Conseils et m
´
emoires de Synadinos pr
ˆ
etre de Serr
`
es en Mac
´
edoine (XVIIe si
`
ecle) (Paris, 1996);
Suraiya Faroqhi, ‘The Life Story of an Urban Saint in the Ottoman Empire’, Tarih Dergisi
(special issue in memory of
˙
Ismail H. Uzunc¸ars¸ılı) 32 (1979), 655–78, 1009–18. The saint in
question trained as a shoemaker.
6 Inalcik, ‘Capital Formation’, pp. 97–8.
337
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008