Population movements have always played an important role in the transformation of societies. In fact, if one were¹ to consider the history of the world, the influence of immigration and sedentarization is obvious— in the same way that low or high birth and death rates have an effect on demographic developments, or indeed, social, cultural, economic and political events. To a large extent, population movements determined the social, political and economic history in the Middle East during the 19^th century. Population movements increased social dynamism, changed birth and death rates, intensified urbanization and accordingly caused a number of changes. Demographic movements were of great importance in the 19^th century in the Ottoman State when they were extraordinarily influential in terms of social and political changes.

While the literature on the population of the Ottoman State in the 19^th century is insufficient, most of it is composed of ethnographic studies. Nevertheless, these studies are insubstantial and suffer from three faults. Primarily, few of them benefit from reliable statistical information based on real censuses. Secondly, these studies were undertaken, for the most part, in order to support the political claims of some ethnic or religious societies within the borders of the Ottoman State. In addition to displaying complete ignorance about almost every aspect of Muslim life, these studies also project the political prejudices of their authors or sources. Even worse, the data in some of these works are either flagrantly distorted or have been changed to support land claims of a current or potential political state. Thirdly, most of these demographic studies (or rather, ethnographic studies), conducted by the Westerners, do not provide any explanation about Anatolia or Arabic-speaking countries and only approach the European lands of the Ottoman State. After independence had been won in the Balkans (1878), the pace of research regarding the population slowed down considerably.

Ottoman demographic statistics were developed in order to meet key administrative and military demands. Censuses, land surveys and a permanent population registration system took on importance for the administration during the 19^th century. Centralization meant that the government had to take on new administrative responsibilities; for these responsibilities to be fulfilled successfully, it became unavoidable that information regarding the human and financial sources of the State be ascertained. The necessity to conscript troops for a modern army and organize reserve units required exact information about the age and amount of the male population. The Ottoman army was the first institution to take a close interest in population registers, and pressure was put on both the sultan and the government that a system in which the population was registered regularly be introduced.

At this period, in order to meet this pressing need, the Ottomans developed censuses and salname (yearbooks), both for the state and the provinces. These records became basic and reliable sources of information about both the general religious composition and the size of the population, as well as the ethnic divisions among the Christian population.

The censuses that were carried out at various periods in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries are major sources of information about the Ottoman population. The second important source of information for the Ottoman population is the salname.² The figures, which were widely used by many European ethnographers and statisticians, were based on previous figures obtained from information provided by provincial administrators, such as actual censuses or tax records. Likewise, the population estimates of Ottoman geographers and encyclopaedists relied on these official records or on the information provided by population officers. The statistic tables compiled by the Ottoman administration in the 19^th century were also an impeccable source for surveying the level of urbanization.

The statistics about the Ottoman population cannot be regarded as direct data, as some aspects need to be understood and there are some errors that either need to be rectified or at least to be taken into account. In short, the criteria to be adopted when evaluating Ottoman statistics are, in short, 1) to establish internal consistency, 2) to establish conformity with the lists provided by the administration of the new staff, 3) to establish conformity with demographic norms.³ The problems that occur during the adoption of these criteria are technical and can be rectified easily with mathematical calculations. Other problems result from the Ottoman’s own understanding of census and other various social and administrative factors that influenced the composition and distribution of the population; these are more difficult to correct. Census methods were developed according to the Ottoman’s particular understanding of a census and the results reflect the social and cultural environment in which the census took place.

Moreover, internal and external migration led to fundamental changes in the social-cultural and ethnic composition of the Ottoman population. These large population movements are poorly reflected in the census statistics and have not been examined, despite their critical importance for understanding the social and political changes in the Middle East. However, any academic who is conducting research into Ottoman demography should be aware of the effect of immigration; although often not recorded, immigration is critically important as it had a dramatic effect on the quantitative and qualitative composition of the Ottoman population, particularly on the Muslim component.

The results mentioned in this article are supported by statistics, which primarily demonstrate that the population of Istanbul doubled in less than a century; secondly we discover that the ethnic and religious aspect of the city changed radically due to a large migration by the Muslim population. According to the numbers Muslims were in the majority until the 19^th century; the increase in population continued, without any decline, until the 20^th century.⁴ In 1885, almost 60% of the residents of the city had been born outside Istanbul. Ten years later, the number of new immigrants to Istanbul increased even more. Statistics demonstrate that there was not only an increase in the urbanization of the capital city, but there were also cultural and social changes occurring in the city.

The economic changes that resulted in religious, ethnic and social conflicts, which overwhelmed the Ottoman State in the 19^th century, can be observed in the statistics for Istanbul. This city acts as a mirror for all the changes that resulted in a complete political transformation.

At the end of the 18^th and early 19^th century, there were no visible signs that Istanbul was to undergo radical changes in its traditional life. In reality, if one looks at a portrait of life in Istanbul, in the 18^th century and in the early 19^th century there was not a great difference from life in the 16^th and 17^th century, except for some subtle changes. The city still consisted of three main regions; the most important part developed to the north, east and southeast, along the coasts of the Marmara Sea and the Golden Horn; that is, between the city walls, along the Golden Horn. The old Genoese district on the other side of the Golden Horn and Üsküdar on the Anatolian side also formed two important parts of the city. Many villages on both sides of the Bosphorus were also included into the city. Religious communities remained in their traditional neighborhoods without interacting much with one another in their daily lives, except at the marketplace, where all differences seemed to disappear. Benefiting from some special privileges, the Greeks resided in villages in Fener, Samatya, Cibali and along the Bosphorus coast. Armenians preferred to live in Kumkapı and Samatya. The Jewish community resided mostly in Balat, Hasköy (here the population was mostly Karaite Jews), Kasımpaşa and some other regions. Galata was a district in which Greeks, Armenians and a few Europeans and Muslims dwelt. Pera, or Beyoğlu, was the residence of European ambassadors; however, at this time it had not yet revealed the importance it would gain in the future. The old city still stood in all its glory, with approximately 400 mosques, over 100 churches, hundreds of libraries, madrasas, squares, aqueducts of great height, palaces and over 300 dervish lodges and other monuments from the past.

The city of Istanbul underwent a transformation in the 19th century. This transformation caused changes in the interior territories of the Ottoman State as well. During this process, the changes in the provinces placed new pressures on the city. Istanbul constituted a micro-level example of the demographic, social and economic changes that were being experienced throughout the country. The city received a new influx during this century just as did the Ottoman State itself; it came under the growing influence of European liberal political ideas and capitalism. During the changes that were experienced thanks to the effect of these external factors, architectural styles as well as urban organization and administrative models started to be adopted from European. This process took place in Istanbul at a more rapid rate and more completely, as the city was particularly sensitive to external influences. On the other hand, rural areas, which were “protected” due to the limited means of communication and their long distance from Istanbul, maintained their traditional nature. The distinction between rural and urban was apparently visible in the city itself in the “old” and “new” neighborhoods. The more modern Pera (Beyoğlu) and Galata districts, positioned immediately opposite the old city and along the northern shore of the Golden Horn, had been settled by Europeans; as these regions grew, they took on the nature of colonized replicas, while the old city lagged behind, even going into a decline.

Istanbul’s physical and economic transformation brought with it a critical cultural change. Both Ottoman sources and foreign observers agree that between 1844 and 1880 more than 50% of the city population consisted of non-Muslims. However, by 1885, the rate of growth for the Muslim population was more than 54%; this rate reached almost 70% in 1900, despite the increase in the non-Muslim population. For this reason, the colonization process was reversed by the end of the century, with Istanbul becoming a Turkish city once again; the Muslim character of the city, as between the 15^th and early 19th century, was the dominant character again.

In the second half of the 19th century, the social, ethnic and cultural changes that were experienced in Istanbul were the direct result of a growth in trade and the widespread economic opportunities that appeared after the Crimean War and the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877/1878. The flow of capital and skills that accompanied the immigrants arriving from the Caucasus and the Balkans transformed the city into a center for culture and innovations; new businesses started up by Muslim (and non-Muslim) entrepreneurs attracted poor people and peasants from the countryside. These newcomers formed a kind of working-class in the city.

In the 19^th century, in addition to acting as the political capital of the Ottoman State, Istanbul started to play a new role as a communication center (with the growth of media), a meeting point for exiled aristocrats, and a vital location for the economy of a society undergoing rapid change. The city rapidly and dramatically came under the influence of the powers that were set free by capitalism; conflicts caused by emerging social groups and the influence of immigration provoked the development of ethnic and national awareness among various sectors of society. The replacement of the strict statist Ottoman regime by a semi-colonial, dependent style of capitalism was first experienced here. Indeed, Istanbul became a focal spot for the new order; it was not only the primary distribution point for export goods, but also played a role in making consumer goods attractive to the rural elite. The establishment of a strong centralized power that relied on a vast bureaucracy and the imposition of a central budget became influential in bringing a large proportion of tax income into the city. The salaries of bureaucrats were paid with this income; in turn, the bureaucrats invested their money, for the most part, into a variety of import goods.

Daily life in Istanbul was administered by the reis (Istanbul efendi) or the vali (governor), who performed administrative tasks and had authority over civic life in the capital. As the deputy mayor, the naib would supervise the food supplies and determine food prices. The amount of wheat purchased for the capital city reached 1,000,000 kilograms by the end of the century. The pier, generally known as Unkapanı, which is located between Sarayburnu and Fener, was a vital point for the city economy in the 19^th century, much as it had been in previous centuries.⁵ All the ships that could carry crops from the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea would unload at this pier. The naib would record the amount of wheat delivered, determine the price and ensure that it was distributed to the bakers. In order to prevent monopolies or speculation, the buyers would not be allowed to store wheat for more than a few days, nor could they build private grain silos or warehouses in which to store grain. Only the government had the right to collect crops in vast amounts and store them in case of a need. The same method was employed in the purchasing and distribution of other foodstuffs consumed in the capital city. A great number of Greek and Turkish tradesmen would travel to the Balkan Peninsula and other areas where crops were grown or livestock raised to buy butter, cheese, honey, wax, tallow, and particularly livestock. At the end of the 18^th century, the annual purchase of just sheep numbered between 500,000 and 600,000. Tallow from over 80,000 oxen, sheep and goats was rendered in Walachia and Moldavia and brought to the capital. A large amount of these provisions were purchased for the janissaries or the sultan’s household.

At the end of the 18^th century and during the 19^th century, the Ottoman State gradually lost the freedom to implement its own economic policies. The economic and political improvements that played a role in the changing circumstances were as follows: the increase in demand for livestock and foodstuff in the Ottoman land by the Europeans raised the prices of local goods, particularly in the Balkans, above the prices in the Ottoman State. This effect was even felt in the Ottoman domestic markets. In the early 19^th century a free goods market developed in Istanbul; by increasing its effect over time, it started to impede the food purchase and distribution policies of the state. In 1829, an attempt by the state to fix coffee prices failed; in 1832, an attempt to fix the prices of other goods sold in Istanbul once again failed. In the meantime, food prices peaked and European processed goods were being sold in the markets, accelerating the improvement of the market.

The entire Ottoman economy was in difficulty; it was being compelled to compete with the free market economy of Europe. Nevertheless, the Ottoman administration did not try to adapt to the requirements of free market – as can be seen from the budget - as its own financial situation appeared strong enough. Indeed, the 1776 Ottoman budget, as compiled by William Eton, demonstrates that the administration was financially healthier than other countries.⁶ For 1776, the poll-tax revenue (jizya) collected from all non-Muslim men was 2,916 purses (1 purse [kese] was equal to 500 qurush) and it showed an increase of 360 purses, in other words, 180,000 qurush. (If the tax per person is calculated as being 6 qurush, then we can conclude that 243,000 of Istanbul’s total population of 870,000 were non-Muslims.)

The transformation of Istanbul went hand in hand with changes in the ethnic, cultural and religious composition of the population and the expansion of the city. These changes were closely related. The demographic change in Istanbul can easily be examined with six or more censuses that were conducted in the 19^th century; in H. 1246 (1830), H. 1254 (1838), H. 1260 (1844), H. 1273 (1856), H. 1298 (1882) and H. 1301 (1885); however only five of these have been identified with a detailed summary. Before discussing the population figures given for the city, there is first a need to describe the geographical area of the city. Most of the first censuses mention the capital city as Dersaadet and the Bilad-ı Selase. This term involves the main city (walled city) and three towns—Eyüp, Galata on the European side, and Üsküdar on the Asian side; moreover, some small villages located along the Bosphorus and Marmara coast could be included.⁷ After 1882, new regions that became popular, such as Osmanbey, Şişli, Bomonti, Maçka and other places to the north and northwest of Pera were included in the censuses. New zones that were established beyond the old city walls, stretching along the Marmara and Bosphorus coasts and to the west, were also included in later censuses.

The increase in the population of Istanbul was largely caused by the expansion in trade. The everyday opportunities that the capital city had offered over the centuries had attracted ambitious people from the rural areas to the city and there were those among the leading people of the palace and state who had worked hard and made a fortune. At the same time, the growth of modern bureaucracy had an indelible economic and social impact on the life in Istanbul. High-ranking bureaucrats received regular salaries from the state budget rather than scraping a living farming as they had in the past, thus constituting the most important consumer group. By paying cash for their purchases, they would spend most of their salary in the capital city. The purchasing power of the bureaucrats profoundly influenced three main sectors of the city economy: food, clothing and housing (rent and property values). The flow of a considerable amount of tax revenues from the provinces to Istanbul and the spending of this in cash led to an increase in the population of the city, the growth of new businesses in food production and clothing, and the formation of a group that could be called the service sector. From this time on, the economic development of Istanbul would rely on activities related to trade and service rather than handicraft. However, although most of the service jobs provided some employment opportunities, their contribution to the economic development of the country was insubstantial.

In general, the Ottoman residents of Istanbul felt the effect of these social and economic changes. Trade opportunities in the city appealed to a great number of Turkish, Greek, Armenian, Bulgarian and people who came to Istanbul with the hope of becoming rich. Most of these took jobs such as selling food or food distribution. Most of these small traders from the provinces could get rich and start successful businesses. At the same time, the markets of Istanbul started to change. In the past, the markets were controlled and supervised by the subaşı - the head of the loncas (guilds)- and the ulema (scholarly class). However, as the markets grew too rapidly to be controlled by traditional methods, the government undertook the control of the markets, which until that time had been the responsibility of the ulema (including the supervision of weights and measurements). In 1831, the şehremini department (municipality), which had existed since the conquest of the city in 1453, was abolished.

Source: Compiled from the figures from European studies and Ottoman resources.

In the first half of the 19^th century, economic life in Istanbul was experienced mostly around the market and bezistan. In the following years of the century, economic life flowed from the market into the bystreets and the centers of trade in Pera and Galata. In the middle of the century, there were more than 1,000 shops in Istanbul’s main market. Turkish traders specialized in leather, fur and clothing; Armenians sold jewelry, watches and processed fabric. Jewish traders were involved in various businesses. Most artisans had become organized by this time.

The exchange of goods outside the market was mostly in the hands of the bachelors who were not from Istanbul. According to Ubicini, in 1853, the number of bachelors in Istanbul was nearly 75,000. Two-thirds of these were Turkish, the rest were Greek, Armenian or from other nations. Most of them would come to Istanbul from various provinces in the hope that they would be able to save capital and then return to their hometown to start their own business. Most did not have any skills and were laborers. They would work as porters, saka (water sellers), or sellers of halva, candy or cooked liver, or in other similar jobs.

In the 19^th century, the entire population of Istanbul underwent great changes with regard to the size and ethnicity of the population, as well as the social and religious composition. All the reasons for the growth in economic opportunities, the new transportation facilities that were introduced and the increase in population had an effect on the growth in the number of residents living in the outskirts along the Marmara and Bosphorus coasts. By the mid-century, the residents of Istanbul were living in 455 districts. While 318 of these were in the city, 137 were outside the walls. While Kasımpaşa, Hasköy, Galata, Pera and Tophane were governed by voyvodas or büyük kadı (grand qadi) of Galata, Eyüp and the vicinity was governed by another qadi. Until 1854 the main city was officially under the control of the grand vizier, the kaptan paşa and the Istanbul effendi; after this time, the new administrative organization was established.

In the 19^th century, the attraction of the city center increased even more as the economic domain spread and opportunities for upward social mobility were created outside the traditional models. Tens of thousands of young men—particularly Greeks and other non-Muslims—poured into the city from the provinces to form a service community; similar examples can be seen in the port cities of every third world country. Nearly all newcomers to the city were bachelors and could find work easily. Beyond the fact that Europeans could find employment directly they could enter employment in bakeries, mills, in gardening or other similar independent jobs, as well as filling in for seasonal workers and sellers; all this is an indication of the economic development and the increasing need for workforce. It is interesting to note that the Christians who were new to the city started to wear the kepele, a hat with a European style border, instead of the local fur hats. European hats were both a sign of social status and religious identity. With the increasing influence of Europe, being Christian gained a special prestige and a person who was wearing a kepele was distinguished from the others as a Christian who was working in Istanbul.

The effect of the social changes in the Ottoman State (in which demographic changes played an important role) was felt deeply in Istanbul. The janissary and ulema revolt of 1807, which brought the end to the reign of Selim III and Alemdar Mustafa Pasha’s intervention to put Mahmud II on the throne in 1808, with the resulting revolt which culminated in Alemdar’s death, were the precursor of a serious social struggle. It seemed that the lower classes in Istanbul played a role in this. Thus, in 1808, soon after Alemdar’s death, the government closed down the bachelor rooms. Located in all the main centers, these rooms were home to unskilled laborers who had newly immigrated to the city, as well as small businessmen, and various marginal and low-income individuals. These bachelor rooms were also places where social disturbance and revolts against the established order were instigated.

Both social disturbances and fires wreaked full-scale destruction on Istanbul between 1807 and 1808. The construction activities, which began with great vigor after the devastation, made the city an attractive place for workers. The reconstruction of the Sublime Porte, that is, the office of the grand vizier, the main building of which had been destroyed in 1808, started in February 1810. The repairs and reconstruction of many other private and public buildings started during this period; in particular, construction work started immediately following a series of fires (73 fires in total) which caused devastation to a large part of the city. (From 1845 on, the government encouraged the usage of bricks to make buildings more fire-proof.)

The changes, which began to be felt at the turn of the century in Istanbul, gained speed after the Greek Revolt of 1821. Greek priests had always played a significant role in maintaining the allegiance of Orthodox Christians to the sultan. In return, their service was acknowledged and rewarded. It would not be correct to assume that this attitude by the Greeks resulted from pure opportunism or from subordination to the Sublime Porte. This situation was rather caused by the fact that the Greek public held a fundamental constitutional status in the Ottoman system thanks to its representative -the Patriarch. The Greek Revolt of 1821, in particular the action led by Ypsilanti, the Peloponnese Revolt and the massacre of the Muslims there, as well as the treason attributed to the Patriarch in Istanbul were all considered a major blow on the entire national order and the traditional balance between religious-ethnic societies. As a result, the Orthodox Patriarch in Istanbul started losing power.

The social and political effects of the Greek Revolt were deeply felt in Istanbul. The Patriarch, as the community leader was held responsible for the insurgency, even though he was not related to the rebellious acts. The Greek sailors in the Ottoman navy were no longer seen to be reliable; after the government failed in its attempt to recruit civilian boatmen for the navy, it turned to the Genoese and the male vagrants in Galata. Moreover, the Muslims who were afraid of a Greek revolt in the city were allowed to bear arms, particularly the young men known as yerli kulu; some attacked the Christians and played a role in the increasing chaos and looting. (Arms sale became a profitable business in Istanbul during this period and even after the re-institution of the ban on arms-bearing in 1839, this situation continued) The Greeks who came to Istanbul from the provinces to earn money by selling groceries, olive oil and butter were forced to return. Moreover, as a precaution against spies, checkpoints were placed in various places, such as Küçükçekmece and Bostancı in order to inspect the passage documents of travelers to the city. Another measure that was taken was the emphasis of the Muslim characteristics of the city; mosques and other structures that were considered sacred were renovated. In 1824, cannons started to be fired from Anadoluhisarı during the month of Ramadan in order to announce the time of breaking the fast; in the past, cannons had only been fired from Rumelihisarı. In practical terms the peace that had long lasted between various religious and ethnic groups had been shattered. In contrast, for quite a long time deep-rooted traditions had prevented violent separatist conflicts from breaking out. It is interensting to record that the loss of reputation for the Greeks after 1821 led to an increase in influence for other ethnic communities. The Bulgarian merchant community in Istanbul grew in strength and accumulated wealth with an increase in number caused by new arrivals from the rural areas; Armenians on the other hand, had more influence in the administration.

Source: Kemal H. Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu 1830-1914, tr. Bahar Tırnakçı, Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2010, p. 215.

Source: Annuaire Oriental du Commerce, de l’Industrie et de l’Administration et de la Magistrature (1896), pp. 71-72.

As the transformation in Istanbul gained speed, the Ottoman administration conducted a population census for the men living in Üsküdar and Galata (1830) (Catholics were not included in this census). According to this census, which was no doubt flawed and likely to be consisting only of the heads of the houses, the number of the Muslims was 45,000, Armenians 30,000 and Greeks 20,000. Another administrative innovation was developed: Muslim districts were to be administered by a headman and his assistant, Christian parishes were to be administered by a steward and a headman. Every district had its own imam or priest. These officials had a seal for official documents and were held responsible for preserving order in their district.

Official Ottoman correspondence refers to a massive non-Muslim influx into the city after the 1844 census; officers complained about the presence of a great number of non-Muslims in the city who had not been registered in the reaya book and accordingly did not pay their jizya tax. (Greek and Armenian church officers also mentioned the presence of new arrivals to the city who had not yet registered.)

Source: Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu 1830-1914, p. 219.

* The 1897 census does not provide a distribution of the population based on ethnic origin. I have compiled this list from various official sources. Vedat Eldem, using the same sources, claims that Istanbul’s population in 1896 was 1,181,000. However, he estimated the number of Turks as being nearly 20,000 higher and Serbians, specifically Bulgarians, as nearly 13,000 under the actual number. (See: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İktisadi Şartları Hakkında Bir Tetkik, Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası, 1970, p. 52).

The Sublime Porte was, of course, uneasy about the registration of new arrivals and imposed a head tax on them. These people were registered finally: The bachelors and the people from the provinces were shown in a separate column in the following census. Out of 238,234 men in Istanbul, 94,119 were recorded as being single. In 1894, security officers in Istanbul received strict orders to send these street vendors and seasonal workers who had come from distant regions, such as Trabzon, back to where they had come from.

At the same time, the main reason for the population explosion, as mentioned before, was the fact that a great number of Muslims had started to migrate from the Caucasus and the Balkans after 1862. A significant number of Caucasian Muslims came to the Ottoman State between 1862 and 1908; many community leaders and members of the ulema settled in Istanbul with their families. Also, many refugees settled in Istanbul after the exile of Muslim populations from the northeast Balkans, Macedonia and Dobruca in the aftermath of the 1877-1878 Ottoman-Russian War.

* Only male city residents. Source: Stanfard J. Shaw, “The Population of Istanbul in the Nineteenth Century”, p. 412.

The figures provided for the population of Istanbul in the 19^th century in official and private sources can be seen in Table 3.⁸ The figures regarding the city’s population between 1865 and 1878 are as low as 304,000 and as high as 2,000,000. Ubicini gives a population of 891,000.⁹ Without a doubt, this is a very high number and probably includes the hinterlands on both sides of the Bosphorus. Soldiers and foreigners were included in this census as well.

The large difference between the figures for 1882 and 1885 can be explained by several technical failings which caused the 1882 figures to be only a partial result; the primary reason for this was the esnaf tezkereleri kalemi, who was charged with collecting fees from merchants, either ignored his census duties or did not properly carry them out. Secondly, we understand from correspondence between the palace and the grand vizier that only non-Muslims should be counted; Muslims were included only in the last moment and as a result the necessary preparations were not made.

Finally, the sum of 400,000 kuruş, which was allocated by the government as payment for the census takers, proved insufficient to meet their needs. Thus, the census of 1882, although useful for indicating the type of dwellings in which the city residents lived, as well as the administrative divisions of the city, should be considered to be incomplete.

The figures given for 1885, on the other hand, are based on a complete census. After 1882, the city population continued to increase. A variety of government sources indicate that the number of immigrants went from 30,000 in 1880 to 200,000 in 1906. Thus, according to a reliable source, by 1896-97 the population of Istanbul had reached 1,115,946; the city proper had 875,565 residents (or 162,950 houses), Üsküdar had 105,690, and Kadıköy, 32,211¹⁰. Table 3 gives the general population in 1896/97. Table 4 shows the ethnic and religious distribution of Istanbul’s population and its environs in 1897.

The population of Istanbul post-1885 consisted mostly of newcomers; that is, immigrants and bachelors.¹¹ The statistics regarding the professions of the residents, which shows the distribution of various religious and ethnic communities in public services and private services, is demonstrated in Table 5.¹²

Occupational data show a diversification of professions and an ethno-religious realignment: there was a large number of Muslims in the bureaucracy; the number of non-Muslims who were employed in trade and industry—namely Western style profitable businesses—exceeded the number of Muslims by 50%, although their population was lower. This is evidence of the supremacy that was achieved by European economic interests in comparison to non-Muslims.

In the early 19^th century, the capital city was full of many people who dealt in a number of different jobs. Throughout the first three-quarters of the 18^th century, there had been a constant influx of rural residents into Istanbul, in part due to prevailing insecurity in rural areas and in part due to the development of a “service” sector in the Ottoman economy — the result of the slow move towards a capitalist system. The influx slowed down towards the end of the century, as the need for manpower began to decrease under the pressure of Western competition and as the government instituted rigorous population controls. The search for unwanted newcomers in Istanbul, which was undertaken every three years after 1750, became even more thorough; towards the end of the century, inspections were carried out every six months. (Provincial governors were also ordered to prohibit emigration from their provinces; they were to set up roadblocks on the main highways to the capital and turn back those individuals who did not have valid reasons for going to the city).¹³ Nevertheless, the city was well on the road to drastic change, and such government control measures could not halt this process.

APPENDICE

Source: Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu 1830-1914, pp. 415-416.

Source: Kemal H. Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu 1830-1914, İstanbul 2010, pp. 334-335.