INTRODUCTION

Istanbul’s trading history certainly did not begin with the Ottoman State. The Ottomans inherited trade that was already established by the Seljuks and the Byzantines. Trade continued to develop during the Ottoman period, along with related institutions that also evolved over time, until the collapse of the empire. Istanbul held a separate and special place throughout this process. This was due to the fact that Istanbul was a consumer capital at the crossroads of international trade routes, with a high population density and more military-administrative personnel than in other cities.

In this article, factors that played important roles in Istanbul’s commercial development will be examined. First, economic principles adopted by the Ottoman central administration, and institutions such as waqfs (pious foundations) and capitulations will be discussed; next, places that rose out of those institutions where commercial activities were carried out, such as the bedesten (bazaar) and kapan (storehouse), and other trade-related organizations such as ministries, merchant unions, and chambers of commerce. Customs, familiar sites in domestic and foreign trade, and customs policies will be examined within the framework of commercial trade organizations. Nineteenth-century institutional and organizational developments in Istanbul, when the Ottoman Empire’s economic and commercial relations with foreign countries grew and became complex, will be explained on a micro level. Lastly, the qualitative and quantitative aspects of Istanbul trade within the Ottoman economy and Ottoman trade will be discussed on a macro level.

INSTITUTIONS AND TRADE IN ISTANBUL

Discussing the institutions¹ that shaped and guided Ottoman trade enables us to review the commercial history of Istanbul in a more open and comprehensive manner. Among the institutions that determined the Ottoman commercial structure and system are informal institutions such as provisionism, fiscalism, traditionalism, trading culture, and religious rules; and formal institutions such as mercantile law, international trade agreements, price controls, gediks (trade monopolies), and waqfs.

Ottoman Economic Principles

The economic principles that served Ottoman trade were, first of all, the meeting of the people’s needs (provisionism), the reliance on maximizing revenue and thus ensuring the functionality and efficiency of the state (fiscalism), and finally, the continuation of the regime and economic policies that had been practiced since ancient time (traditionalism).² Especially in Istanbul during the classical era, all of these principles were exceedingly evident. This is due to the fact that Istanbul was a big city that needed to be fed, and was an administrative center that needed a significant amount of income to cover its expenses, and furthermore was a symbol of the continuity and power of the political-economic system. In accordance with these objectives, under the provisionist trade policy of the Ottoman Empire the export of goods before the people’s needs were met was prohibited. For example, in a decree written in 1573, beeswax brought to Istanbul from İzmir would not be exported but would be given to the state-owned Mumhane (Candle Factory) over the prevailing officially fixed price; and in 1581 the export of leather was prohibited because it was in such high demand by shoemakers.³ When, in 1728, it was discovered that wheat brought to Istanbul was being smuggled to the Mediterranean, those who permitted this activity were warned that their punishment would be severe.⁴ However, these policies that restricted and enforced trade relations didn’t mean that in the Ottoman tradition export was always pushed to the background, or that imports were constantly encouraged, or that, generally speaking, a trade culture was not established. On the contrary, the Ottoman administration gave importance to domestic and foreign commerce, primarily in terms of the welfare of its people and the effectiveness of public finance, and tried to ensure the continuity of these sectors. By virtue of its position, Istanbul’s commerce had a separate standing for both the central administration and the local and foreign merchants.

Also, it is not true that Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire were not engaged in trade or that in all periods foreigners and non-Muslim citizens were active in the trade sector. For instance, according to domestic maritime trade registers for the years 1779-81, merchants who were involved in maritime trade in Istanbul were 71.7 percent Muslim, 24.5 percent Christian, and 3.8 percent Jewish. Of those Muslim merchants who shipped to Istanbul, 84.3 percent were Turks. A significant number of Christian merchants were Ottoman Greeks (Rûm). Additionally, according to a list from 1782, out of fifty-six merchants who brought wheat to Istanbul from the Black Sea region, fifty-five were Turks or other Muslim Ottoman citizens, and one was Ottoman Greek. Again, out of 158 ship captains, 136 were Turks or other Muslims, and twenty-two were Ottoman Greeks. In the eighteenth century, a significant number of merchants who shipped goods to the ports of Alexandria, Heraklion, and Algeria were Turks or other Muslim merchants. To sum up, although foreign merchants were active in eighteenth-century foreign trade, those who directed Ottoman domestic trade were Muslim Turks.⁵

New Regulations, Treaties/Capitulations, and Commercial Law in Post-Conquest Istanbul

After the conquest, new Turkish neighborhoods were established under a planned population policy in the Galata district. The Muslim Turkish population was comprised of tradesmen groups such as furriers, coppersmiths, makers of aba (coarse woolen cloth), and bakers as well as mariners working in the shipyard in Kasımpaşa. Turks were also situated around Aksaray and Beyazıt, around the Fatih Mosque Complex, and the Golden Horn. The Armenians were settled in Samatya and the Ottoman Greeks along the Marmara coast and in Galata. Thus, Galata, whose population and economy grew significantly near the end of the fifteenth century, was elevated to the status of a wealthy commercial district. After the conquest, the Golden Horn and its environs carried on as the city’s natural harbor and trade center.⁶ The old ports, warehouses, and piers along the shore of the Sea of Marmara lost their importance during the reign of Sultan Mehmed II and were moved to the Golden Horn. Another measure taken to revitalize commerce was the repair of shops and ports in the Golden Horn, along with the Odun, Unkapanı, Yemiş, and Mısır piers.⁷

Until the First World War, Ottoman foreign trade was shaped by treaties (ahitname). The Ottoman Empire first granted rights to carry out commercial activities in Anatolia to the Genoese (1352) and then to the Venetians. Because these concessions were attractive to European merchants, they established mercantile establishments and opened consulates, particularly in ports such as Istanbul and Izmir. The Latin colonies, which constituted one of the most important elements of trade in Byzantine Constantinople, after the conquest were driving overseas trade. Sultan Mehmed II granted security of life and property and freedom to carry out commercial activities to the Genoese, who had inhabited Galata since the Byzantine era. The inhabitants had the status of “zimmi” (non-Muslim Ottoman citizens) and privileges were granted to those who came to trade. Later on, the inhabitants of Galata included Florentines and Andalusian Arabs. Between the years 1463-1520, Florentine trading firms established in Galata made up an important part of the organization and operation of commerce. For instance, in 1507 about seventy Florentine merchants living in Galata reached yearly revenues of 600,000. In the sixteenth century, Venetian merchants took the place of the Florentines. Settlement of Andalusian Arabs continued. The Andalusians brought new vitality to Galata’s commercial life.⁸

Until the mid-sixteenth century, Venice was the state with the greatest volume of trade with the Ottoman Empire; however, toward the end of the century, France, having been granted trade privileges, was the state that dominated trade relations with the Ottoman Empire. After France, Great Britain (1580) and the Netherlands (1612) were granted similar privileges. In the eighteenth century, the state with which the Ottomans conducted the most trade was again France. Looking specifically at Istanbul, during the years 1776-78 the French carried out 44.1 percent of trade with Istanbul. During the same years England’s share of trade in Istanbul was 24.4 percent.⁹ With the trade treaty of 1740, the French were recognized as “most favored nation” for the first time. Under this treaty the French were entitled to the lowest customs tariff rate (3 percent) imposed on foreigners. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, the Germans, now trading on both land and sea, took the place of the French in trade in the Levant. In the nineteenth century, Great Britain and Austria-Hungary were among the most important trading partners of the Ottoman Empire. According to the 1838 free trade Treaty of Balta Liman (the Anglo-Ottoman Treaty), the British gained the right to trade wherever they wished. As a result of the Treaty of Balta Liman, the Yed-i Vahid system (state monopoly), which was actually cancelled in 1828 for opium and later for goods like olive oil and soap, was completely abolished.

Later, beginning in 1840 and lasting until 1858, free trade treaties modelled after the Balta Liman Treaty were signed with various states. The first capitulation treaty was signed with France in 1861, and until 1868, capitulations were extended to many states. Capitulations turned the Ottoman economy into the marketplace of the European states. Eventually, at the beginning of the twentieth century, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Austria accounted for 75 percent of Ottoman imports and 60 to 70 percent of Ottoman exports.¹⁰

Maritime transport in international trade was also largely carried out by the countries that had been granted capitulations. Although it was decided in 1823 to use Ottoman ships in trade with Europe, the introduction of steamships made this impossible. Toward the end of the eighteenth century, a large part of Aegean Sea shipping was carried out by Ottoman Greek vessels on account of war between England and France. By the mid-nineteenth century, Austrian, Russian, and French companies were operating passenger and freight transport in places such as the Sea of Marmara, the Bosphorus, and the Gulf of Izmir. During this period, the establishment of the steamship lines Şirket-i Hayriye and İdare-i Mahsusa would fill a significant gap in maritime trade.¹¹

The Ottoman Empire’s intense trade relations with foreign states would naturally bring commercial disputes. Disputes between Ottoman citizens and the citizens of countries holding capitulations were resolved by local qadis (Muslim judges). In the event that a case exceeded 4,000 akçe (silver coins), it would be referred to the administrative center in Istanbul. The application of this rule continued until the reign of Sultan Mahmud II, when this amount was reduced to 500 akçe. During the Mahmud II era, due to the increase of trade relations and the inadequacy of the qadis in commercial law, commercial cases were heard partly in guilds and partly in the İhtisab Nezareti (Ihtisab Ministry). Trade courts were established in 1840 when the above-mentioned free trade treaties intensified trade relations. First, a court was established in Istanbul that was attached to the Ticaret Nezareti (Ministry of Trade). At the head of the court, known as the Ticaret Meclisi (Trade Council), was the Minister of Trade. The members consisted of guild and merchant representatives. In 1848, the Karma Ticaret Mahkemesi (Mixed Commercial Court) was established. In this way, foreign merchants became members. After 1856, disputes between Ottoman and foreign merchants were heard by the consulate courts. In 1850 the Commercial Code was enacted, followed in 1861 by the Commercial Trial Law. Later, the Ticaret Temyiz Mahkemesi (Commercial Court of Appeals) was establıshed in Istanbul. Additionally, in 1867, a committee organized by merchants of Hayriye to improve trade was formed under the Ministry of Trade .¹²

Tax Regulations in Istanbul Trade

In terms of Istanbul trade, many taxes on domestic and foreign trade were collected. For example, taxes collected from domestic trade for the municipality, or the municipal duty (ihtisabiye or ihtisab rüsumu), provided much greater revenue in Istanbul than in other cities. In addition to the municipal duty on oil, honey, flour, grain, coffee, silk, and other goods that came to the port and were taken to kapans (In Ottoman cities, kapan was the name given to wholesale marketplaces where certain goods were priced, weighed and sold), taxes such as imaliye (production tax), ruhsatiye (licence tax),and resm-i munzam (surtax) were collected at the kapans. Initially, these transactions were performed by kethüda (chamberlains) on behalf of the treasury; in later times, due to deficits in the treasury, they were carried out through iltizam (a form of tax farming). After the second half of the nineteenth century, taxes in Istanbul on the weight of goods and trade duties were left to the jurisdiction of municipalities. The items for trade in Istanbul were not limited to goods and wares. At places where slaves were bought and sold (slave market), a tax on slaves, pençik, meaning one-fifth, was paid to the state. The central administration was particular about selling slaves in slave markets rather than in markets or bazaars.¹³

Until 1867 a large part of Istanbul real estate was in the hands of foundations. In order to collect emlak ve akar vergisi (property and real estate taxes) from them, in 1855 property and population censuses were carried out in Galata and Beyoğlu (the Sixth Administrative District). In addition, it was possible in fiscal year 1874-75 to begin collection of a property and real estate tax called Dersaadet Vergisi (Istanbul Tax). In practice, property owned by foundationswas exempt from property tax. Within the scope of the Dersaadet Tax were land, estates, dwellings, income-producing properties, and businesses.¹⁴ After the Tanzimat, while in other provinces of the country both property-real estate taxes and dividend taxes were collected, in Istanbul a tradesman licensing fee (esnaf tezkiresi) was collected instead. From 1909, the tradesman licensing fee was abolished and from 1910 a dividend tax started to be implemented in Istanbul. Additionally, in accordance with the Müsakkafat Law published in 1910, the müsakkafat (roofed buildings such as houses, inns, shops, etc.) were to be registered once more by committees that would be set up, and their estimated gross revenues would be taxed at 12 percent. Land used for commerce- or art-related activities, even if there were no buildings on it, was also subject to this 12 percent tax. At the same time, stone buildings used as mills, factories, and workshops; and wooden buildings not used as clerical offices, places of business, warehouses, shops, stores, etc., would be taxed at 9 percent.¹⁵

According to Ottoman customs conventions, the following taxes were collected from the following goods: masdariye (import tax) from goods arriving at domestic and foreign customs by land or sea; reftiye (export tax) from goods cleared through customs, and bac-ı ubûr (transit or toll tax)from goods that passed through customs. At the end of the seventeenth century and during the eighteenth century, trade in Istanbul was as chaotic as the political and social situation of the state. With the increase in the number of customs officials, smuggling was escalating, along with bureaucratic harassment of merchants importing goods, and excessive import taxes were collected based on old procedures. Additionally, the customs officials would confiscate from merchants some of their goods, calling it pişkeş (bakshish), and when unloading ships, illegal fees of twenty pennies were collected under the name tezkire akçesi (discharge money).¹⁶ Another tax collected illegally in the eighteenth century from foreign merchants by pashas in all major ports was avania (a harsh tax imposed on foreigners).¹⁷ Furthermore, from the beginning of the sixteenth century, smuggling was one of the biggest problems of the Ottoman administration. Export bans were causing the increase in smuggling.

According to a decree sent to the qadis of Istanbul, Galata, Üsküdar, and Haslar at the end of 1617, the import tax on goods whose customs duties had been paid, and had come from ships bringing goods to Istanbul, was endowed to the Sultan Ahmed Mosque.¹⁸ According to a decree dated 1755, resm-i dümen (ship tax) and resm-i liman (keelage) were being collected from the decked vessels that unloaded at Galata and at its connected ports that belonged to the ihtisab mukataası, which was affiliated with the Galata royal domains. At the Istanbul and Üsküdar piers, on the other hand, only the ship tax was collected by Galata officials who were responsible for weighing goods. Dating from 1713, the aforementioned revenue of the Istanbul, Galata, Eyüp, and Üsküdar piers was again endowed to the foundation of the Sultan Ahmed Mosque¹⁹

During the reign of Sultan Mehmed II, customs duties were generally imposed at a rate of 2 to 5 percent. At the end of the sixteenth century they were set at 3 percent. According to a register dated 1764, a total of 4 percent akçe tax was being levied on fruit brought to Istanbul, 3 percent akçe as customs duty and 1 percent akçe as zarar-ı kasabiye (loss). From non-Muslim merchants, on the other hand, a 5 percent akçe tax was being collected in total, 4 percent akçe from customs tax, and 1 percent akçe from zarar-ı kasabiye.²⁰ In accordance with the Treaty of Balta Liman, the export duty rate was determined at 12 percent in total, the import duties at a total of 5 percent, and transit duties at 3 percent. In 1861, the export duty was reduced to 8 percent. From then on, it would be reduced 1 percent each year until in the eighth year (1869) it would become 1 percent. The significant decrease in export duties shows that provisionism, which was one of the Ottoman economic principles, was to a large extent abandoned. As for the import duty, it was increased to 8 percent. Due to this increase, it can be deduced that revenues from imports increased in Istanbul, the largest import center. As for the transit duty, it was 2 percent in 1861, but by the end of 1868 it would be reduced to 1 percent. In 1914, in line with the protective policies of the Committee of Union and Progress, customs duties were increased to 15 percent.

Price Controls: Narh

Among the first tasks after the conquest were the supervision of tradesmen and the implementation of narh (officially fixed prices). Fixed prices determined by the state in order to avoid the negative effects of price increases, by calculating a certain profit margin on top of cost, were known as narh. Significant price increases might occur in Istanbul due to natural (drought, extreme precipitation, etc.), political, and economic causes. As for the economy, the practice of devaluation also caused substantial increases in prices. In fact, the Ottoman central administration determined fixed prices whenever there was devaluation or the minting of coins.²¹

The practice of narh was similar to price fixing of modern times: it was carried out in the form of price ceiling and base price (tavan fiyat and taban fiyat) policies.

Table 1- Officially fixed prices for certain foodstuffs in Istanbul (1525-1834)

*For references and notes, See Table Appendix 1.

For instance, when the objective was to protect consumers, the highest price (ceiling) for selling to consumers was determined. It was forbidden to sell above this (ceiling) price when selling to a consumer. Because the tradesman who purchased raw materials was in the position of customer (consumer), the ceiling price was determined for the purchase of raw materials. When the fixed price was determined in order to protect the tradesman making sales (manufacturer), the base price was determined. Thus buyers were prevented from making offers to the tradesman below this determined minimum price.

The central administration also focused on parity price in the practice of narh. At the end of 1593, in a decree sent to the qadis of Galata, Haslar, and Üsküdar upon the imperial order of the sultan, it was stated that because of the high fixed prices in these districts, the fruit ships which were supposed to dock at Istanbul, docked at these piers instead, creating a fruit shortage in Istanbul. Consequently, it was ordered that the fruit ships dock at Istanbul’s Muhtesib Pier instead of Üsküdar, Galata, Tophane, and Eyüp piers, and that the fixed prices in those districts be adjusted according to the fixed prices in Istanbul.²²

Determining narh was the duty of the qadi of Istanbul. The qadi’s most valuable assistant in this matter was the muhtesib, who carried out inspections after the fixed prices were set. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, the practice of narh, along with other economic institutions, began to collapse. In Istanbul in 1856, fixed prices were lifted from meat and various other food products. After the 1870s, fixed prices were not applied to anything but bread. However, this situation does not suggest that the central administration did not control price increases. For instance, while one oka²³ of olive oil in 1917 was being sold for 140 kuruş(piaster) in the free market, it was distributed at eighty-eight kuruş through the intervention of the central administration.²⁴

Table 2- Officially fixed prices for shoes in Istanbul (1600-1804)

*References: Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “1624 Sikke Tashihinin Ardından Hazırlanan Narh Defterleri,” TD 34 (1984), 129-130; Kütükoğlu, “1009 (1600) Tarihli Narh Defterine Göre İstanbul’da Çeşitli Eşya ve Hizmet Fiyatları,” pp. 31-32; Salih Aynural, “Selim III Döneminde İstanbul’da İktisadi Hayat,” (Ph.D. diss., Istanbul University, 1989), p. 157.

Table 1 shows a summary of the officially fixed prices of some foodstuffs for Istanbul about every thirty years. The detailed version of Table 1 showing prices between 1524-1836 is presented in the table (Table 1).

Price increases for foodstuffs was natural in Istanbul, whose population was rising toward the end of the period. Of course, population growth was not the only reason for the increases in officially fixed prices. For example, the famine, which occurred in Istanbul in the 1580s (especially 1588), caused prices to rise. Also, meat prices were quite low before the 1600s; therefore, the job of cattle dealer was See as a punishment. After the 1600s, meat prices began to be fixed at higher rates (Table 1).

Naturally, price increases were not limited to foodstuffs. Table 2 shows increases in the officially fixed prices for shoes in Istanbul dating from 1600.

Especially during World War I, prices in Istanbul were higher than in other provinces. The main reasons for this were shipping difficulties and the effects of war. In addition, poor administration of food supply caused prices to rise. For example, because food distribution in Izmir was better than in Istanbul, during this period prices of foodstuffs in Izmir were half the price of those in Istanbul. Table 3 shows the sudden increase in food prices in Istanbul during the war years, when the problem of meeting the public’s food needs reached its peak.

In this period of war economy, by keeping bread and mutton prices under control through state intervention (prices subject to distribution), price increases for these two items were significantly restricted (Table 3). Retail price indices in free and controlled markets shown in Table 4 indicate that the severity of price increases in Istanbul during World War I are aggregated.

When the July 1914 data is taken as 100, it is See that the free market index for 1919 reached 1,408. This means that retail prices after the war were fourteen times more than in the period before the war (Table 4). According to other calculations, when the consumer price index value in Istanbul in 1469 is taken as 1.0, the index value in 1914 is 307.59. In 1918, the index value reached 5,536.57.²⁵

The Guild System and Trade Monopolies

Although Istanbul’s agricultural sector was not self-sufficient, the guilds (tradesmen organizations), which organized industrial production and the marketplace, provided important support of the city’s textile and other manufacturing concerns. Those who made products and engaged in wholesale or retail sales were tradesmen and artisans who can be called small-scale traders. However, they were not the only ones who engaged in commerce and skilled workmanship. In the eighteenth century, Janissaries were also intensely involved in this sector. For example, in Istanbul 40,000 Janissaries were integrated into artisan organizations. Furthermore, the staff of the firefighters’ (tulumbacılar) organization was comprised of Janissaries.²⁶

Table 3- Prevailing retail prices in Istanbul (1914-1919)

*Reference: Eldem, Harp ve Mütareke Yılları, s. 50-51.

In fact, one of the parties responsible for the Janissaries’ entry into the trade sector was the state itself. This was because, in the seventeenth century, the Janissaries were appointed to administrative positions within guilds (like chamberlain, sheikh, yiğitbaşı, etc.) [T.N. yiğitbaşı is the official responsible for the enforcement of guild decisions] on the condition that they forfeit their salaries to the treasury, and this practice continued into the eighteenth century, when the state’s income needs gradually increased. However, previously it was not required for soldiers to do the work of a tradesman. For example, according to the decision of the Imperial Council (Divan-ı Hümayun) in 1584, those who entered the Janissary and military profession were prohibited from working as tradesmen in bazaars. This was because Janissaries and other military officials were purchasing goods for less than the officially fixed prices, causing unfair competition, and ignoring warnings from the qadi and muhtesib. However, it Sees that the state condoned the soldiers’ involvement in trading activities, despite their rowdy behavior and their disregard for the rules. An indicator of this situation was another decision from 1587 that sipahis (cavalrymen) and Janissaries who engaged in trade in bazaars were required to comply with the Esnaflık Yasası(Trade Law).²⁷ The role of soldiers in commercial life did not change much in the following years.²⁸

Table 4- Retail price indices in free and controlled markets in Istanbul (1914-1919)

*Reference: Eldem, Harp ve Mütareke Yılları, 49.

Until Sultan Mahmud II abolished the Janissary Corps in 1826, the soldiers continued for a long time to play an active role in the guild system and the gedik structure. The gedik institution that emerged from within the guild system was the privilege given to a certain individual to operate a shop and to have the right to practice craftsmanship, art, and trade. Over time the term “gedik” was used to mean a place of business, a shop, equipment, and, in a broader sense, it came to mean the production system based on a monopoly that the state granted to some tradesmen. The number of gediks for each field of commerce and art was predetermined and opening new gediks was subject to strict rules and state approval. During the seventeenth century, gedik rights were usually given, when needed, to the waqfs of sultans, to kalfas (assistant masters in workshops) and to users of different techniques, who guaranteed cheaper manufacturing.²⁹ Although the gedik concept was not used directly, in the classical era tradesmen were not allowed to enter each other’s fields. For example, according to a 1609 ruling, grocers and halva makers were prohibited from producing vinegar because since ancient times the right to produce vinegar belonged to vinegar producers.³⁰ The gedik system was utilized especially to meet the food needs of Istanbul and to protect tradesmen from the influence of independent entrepreneurs.³¹ However, in the eighteenth century, when central control had weakened, opening shops outside the area where a craft was performed, or producing at home, became widespread in Istanbul. Peddlers and the shops and market stands that opened without a license or a gedik decree were called koltuk, meaning illegal or hidden. The central administration’s attitude toward such commercial activities was clear. In a register dated 1594, it was ordered that tradesmen would not be allowed to peddle and that they were allowed to carry out commercial activities only in their shops.³² With the response of the guilds, the state was trying to prevent the establishment of these separate workshops and stores. Another important development that weakened the guilds was that the gediks started to be used as collateral against the merchants’ debts. In the event that the debt could not be paid, the gedik might end up in the hands of those who had no active interest in the business.³³ But artisans were not always the injured party; dating from the second half of the eighteenth century, gedik artisans who used their monopoly rights caused market prices to rise.

Starting from 1790, the central administration began to limit the monopoly rights of the gediks in the retail sector. With the abolition of the Janissary Corps in 1826, the strength of the gediks was significantly diminished. The main blow to gedik owners was delivered by the Treaty of Balta Liman. After the treaty, with the growth of foreign trade and the abolition of the Yed-i Vahid (state monopoly) system, the dominance of the gediks over the city’s economy began to vanish. Since foreign merchants started to engage in retail trade as a result of the free trade treaties of this period, brokers and middlemen who acted as representatives in the city for these merchants began to participate more actively in trade. On the other hand, the gedik tradesmen whose businesses took a downturn and who had lost many of their rights, had already transferred their gedik rights to the new tradesmen in return for great amounts of money and had begun working in public bureaucracy. At the same time, many gedik owners took advantage of growing trade relations with Europe in the nineteenth century; as the demand for places to market European goods increased, they earned huge profits by renting their workplaces as warehouses and shops.³⁴ The unraveling of the guild system and the gedik system in Istanbul picked up speed after the second half of the nineteenth century. No new gedik was granted in 1860 or 1861, and the gediks that were no longer in use were not sold again. In 1910, the trade guilds were abolished and in order to be valid trade associations had to be organized only in Istanbul. Two years later this decision would apply to the entire country.

The Role of Waqfs in Commercial Life

Almost all of Istanbul’s commercial spaces such as arasta (the section in a marketplace or bazaar where shops of the same trade were built in a row) and shops and workshops in the bedesten (the central building in the Grand Bazaar) were the property of the waqfs. The artisans and merchants who worked there were the waqfs’ tenants. In other words, commercial spaces of Istanbul, besides performing commercial functions, at the same time provided sources of revenue for the waqfs. Waqf shops and workshops were rented by artisans on a daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly short-term (icare-i vahide) basis. From the seventeenth century, when there were wars of long duration and the state’s financial resources were inadequate, the military caste and the local gentry began to turn their properties into places of business within the purview of the waqfs, such as shops, hamams, warehouses, workshops, and bakeries. Thus, there was a substantial increase in the number of waqf shops rented by tradesmen and merchants. In the eighteenth century, tradesmen were having trouble paying rents on the waqf shops. While the rents of the shops and workshops in the bedesten were normally determined in accordance with the prevailing market prices, leaving the rent of the waqf trustees or of the shops up to tax farmers (mültezim) caused arbitrary price increases during this period. Additionally, the spread of the iltizam system (iltizam was a form of Ottoman tax farming) in the taxation of tradesmen resulted in the oppression of tradesmen and merchants by tax farmers.³⁵

On the other hand, the above-mentioned gedik rights, which became common in the eighteenth century, limited the waqfs’ scope with regards to property and rents. That is to say, despite the increase in their expenses waqfs could collect rents, but well below the market value of property having gedik rights, and they could not increase rents on their own initiative. Businesses with gedik rights were called “property,” regardless of whether their real owners were waqfs or persons. Because gedik was given for the production of certain goods or services, the shop could not be rented for a different business. From the beginning of the Tanzimat Era until the declaration of the Second Constitutional Era, most of the buildings owned by persons or waqfs made demands on the courts as the tenants were found to be gedik artisans.

Another role waqfs played in commercial life was as part of a loaning body. Unlike real estate waqfs, cash waqfs were based on lending with interest and sometimes working in a mudaraba (joint venture) and were therefore important sources of loans for artisans and merchants.

ACTORS IN ISTANBUL TRADE: ORGANIZATIONS

Commercial Spaces

Commercial spaces and the institutional changes listed above continued to develop in the area enclosed by the Grand Bazaar when new arastas were established around the two bedestens from the period of Sultan Mehmed II. Tahtakale, a secondary trade center consisting of the warehouse district and markets along the shore of the Golden Horn, was where most of the marketplaces from the Byzantine era continued to operate. In short, the Ottomans used and developed the same commercial area that had been in use since the city’s foundation. New trade centers established in the Sirkeci-Eminönü-Beyazit region and in the area between Fatih and Karagümrük during the fifteenth century were integrated in the sixteenth century. Trade routes coming into the city through Edirnekapı and Topkapı districts, which were now part of the city center, accelerated the rate of development. In the seventeenth century, the city’s commercial area developed in the area between Unkapanı and Sirkeci. Üsküdar, the point where Anatolia meets Istanbul, was an important storage and trade area.

Bedestens

Bedestens were the most important group of buildings used for trade in Constantinople. Bedesten comes from the words bezistan or bezzazistan and means the place of fabric sellers or the place where fabric is sold. Bedestens had four important functions: setting the prices of goods, taxation, storing or selling valuable items and documents, and lastly, being the place where local merchants carried out commercial activities and where caravans were prepared for cross-border trade.³⁶ Bedestens were secure structures built of stone, covered with domes, and surrounded by iron gates. The first structure built in Istanbul by Sultan Mehmed II, which constituted the core of the bazaar, was the Eski Bedesten (Old Bedestan), also known as İç Bedesten (Inner Bedesten), Büyük Bedesten (Great Bedesten) or Cevahir Bedesteni (Jewelry Bedesten). The Grand Bazaar, the main one of Istanbul’s bazaars (the second group among commercial structures) developed around the Eski Bedesten and the Sandal Bedesteni. In other words, these two bedestens, which were built for the purpose of providing income for the Hagia Sofia Waqf, were the core of the Grand Bazaar. Since construction of the bedestens began, shops and inns, some of which were endowed by Sultan Mehmed II, began to be built in their vicinity, and this development continued to spread to surrounding streets and avenues. The structure known as Yeni Bedesten (New Bedesten) when it was first built took the name Eski Bedesten (Old Bedesten) after the Sandal Bedesteni was built, and the Sandal Bedesteni was then called the Yeni Bedesten. The first bedesten was reserved for the trade of jewelry, crystal, guns, and to some extent textiles, while the second bedesten was the center of the yarn and fabric trade. Hundreds of professions and branches of the arts were situated in other sections. The Sandal Bedesteni took its name from the sandal [boat] fabric woven from cotton and silk. This bedesten closed down with the disappearance of the artisan system starting in 1912, and in 1914 it was purchased by the municipality and turned into an auction hall.³⁷

Inns

Inns (hans), which occupied an important place among commercial spaces, can be designated as city inns and as caravanserais (stage inns) built outside the city. While caravanserais belonging to social complexes were generally lodging stations, the town inns at the end of a journey were used for storage. At the same time, they were places where goods were sold or bartered, where merchants stayed for a short time, and even where tradesmen and craftsmen regularly did business and manufacturing. The ground-floor storage areas of inns were separated from the upper-floor accommodations for travelers and businesses. Although most of the city inns were two stories, dating from the eighteenth century, three-story inns also were built due to space constraints, especially in Istanbul. The Büyük Yeni Han (the Great New Inn) and Küçük Yeni Han (the Small New Inn), built in the time of Sultan Mustafa III, were the first examples of these structures. The city inns were inspired by caravanserais, with the difference being that the inns did not look like castles. Particularly those in Istanbul looked like houses from the outside, but from the courtyard they closely resembled caravanserais. Also, most of the city inns had more than one gate, whereas caravanserais had just one. In Ottoman times, city inns, unlike caravanserais, did not provide free services; they were built with the purpose of earning income for the waqfs to which they belonged. However, not all the city inns received income by providing accommodation; those that did not were called commercial inns. We can examine the city inns under two groups: production inns andcommercial inns. Because the inns of Istanbul that provided accommodation also functioned as commodities and commercial inns until the mid-nineteenth century, some of them before this period ceased offering accommodations and became commercial inns. These inns usually took the names of the artisan community they were hosting. In the commercial inns, which generally did not have stables, there were warehouses and/or shops on the ground floor, and manufacturing shops and workplaces/offices on the upper floors.³⁸

The inns of Istanbul completed their evolution during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and not many were built in the nineteenth century; those that were built retained the characteristics of eighteenth-century inns. The Sabuncu Inn and Yıldız Inn were important structures of this period. In the early twentieth century, traditional inn architecture was abandoned and large, multi-story waqf inns were built. Seven waqf inns were built during this period to bring in income. One of the most important of these was the IV Waqf Inn built in Sirkeci by Mimar (Architect) Kemaleddin and which today serves as a hotel. There were shops and offices in the building, which had seven stories and a basement.³⁹

Arastas

Constituting the third group of commercial structures in Istanbul, arastas were buildings constructed in order to provide income to the social complexes they were a part of and were comprised of interrelated shops in a row on a street leading to a square. While the shops were at first covered with vines and wooden roofs, later on they had vaulted roofs; the street between the rows of shops was called Arasta Street. The most important arastas in Istanbul were located in the complexes of Fatih, Yeni Cami, Sultanahmet, and Damat Ibrahim Pasha. Saraçhane Bazaar, built in Şehdazebaşı in order to provide income to the Fatih complex, was the oldest of the arastas. There is no trace of it today. The roofless arasta known as Sipahi Bazaar, built in order to provide income to the Sultanahmet complex, was abandoned in 1912 after a fire destroyed the surrounding areas of Sultanahmet and Hagia Sofia. In the 1980s, however, it was renovated by the Vakıflar İdaresi ( the Directorate General of Foundations) and reopened.

Kapans

Kapans, where the appraisal, measurement, pricing, and distribution of food and necessities brought to Istanbul were carried out, were separate business and trade centers. The term kapanwas used for flour, olive oil, and honey; the term ambar (barn) was used for wheat, wood, fabric, barley, chaff, and salt; and the term hane (house) was used for leather, vegetables, and fruit. These arrangements were devised for essential goods, primarily for food items. Most of the kapans were located along the shore of the Golden Horn between Unkapanı and Bahçekapı. Yağ Kapanı was in Galata. The biggest kapans were Yağ Kapanı (Oil Kapan), Bal Kapanı (Honey Kapan), Dakik Kapanı/Un Kapanı (Flour Kapan), and İpek Kapanı (Silk Kapan). Food items brought to the city by land or sea were first unloaded at the kapans, where wholesale sales were carried out after the necessary checks, appraisals, and determination of fixed prices.

In the years immediately following the conquest, the Ehl-i Hiref Divanhanesi (Trade Hall) was established by Sultan Mehmed II at the Un Kapanı as the administrative center for tradesmen in order to organize kapan procedures and to effectively provide for the food needs of the city. At Yemiş Pier (yemiş means dried fruit and nuts) there was another commercial space, specifically for fruit-related work, with the name çardak (arbor). In these two places, kethüdas (trade guild wardens) and yiğitbaşıs (trade guild stewards), who were the representatives of tradesmen, would be present, along with the muhtesib (superintendent in charge of weights and measures) and the kapan naibi (public weighing deputy). Their job was to inspect the quality of commodities and all kinds of food products coming to the kapan and the çardaks; to ensure that weighing and measuring were done properly in accordance with each measuring unit under Islamic law; to price; and also to monitor the balanced distribution of food to districts of the city with varying population densities. No matter the type of commodity, the goods were brought to the kapan for distribution and to be sold to retail merchants. The goods that were subject to retail sales would be distributed to the grocers by the pazarbaşı (market warden), and to other tradesmen by trade guild wardens, trade guild stewards, and foremen. Goods having strategic importance could not be purchased alone. Under the supervision of an official, each tradesman could buy as much as he needed.

Exhibitions

It was not just the above-mentioned permanent commercial spaces that sustained trade in Istanbul. Temporary places like exhibitions (trade fairs) also made important contributions to trade development. The Sergi-i Umumi-i Osmani (Ottoman General Exposition) that was held in the Sultanahmet district in 1863 occupies an important place in the history of Istanbul trade. At the Istanbul exhibition, many agricultural and industrial products, both domestic and foreign, were displayed. The purpose of this exhibition, unlike other exhibitions, was to identify problems of the Ottoman economy and to See their solutions. Items to be sent to the exhibition, selected by committees presided over by governors and district governors, were exempt from all taxes. Ottoman envoys and consuls were charged with the selection of tools and machines to be sent from abroad. The shipping costs of these items were covered by the state and they were also exempt from customs duties. The Istanbul exhibition was the beginning of major trade and tourism activity. Many journalists from European countries, businessmen coming to take orders, industrialists, and merchants flocked to Istanbul for the exhibition. The arrival of this procession of foreigners is See as the first modern tourism activity in the empire.

It is estimated that the exhibition, which was open for five months, was visited by 150,000 people who paid about 45,000 kuruş in entrance fees. This income covered only one-fifth of the exhibition’s expenses; the rest was covered by Sultan Abdülaziz. Most of the goods displayed were sold. One of the results of the exhibition was that it gave birth to the idea of establishing large companies and the Islah-i Sanayi Komisyonu (Commission for the Reformation of Industry), an idea that was soon realized. Additionally, it was understood that some of the goods that had been imported up until then could actually have been provided from within the country had it not been for the lack of communication between provinces. Furthermore, industrial products from foreign countries provided a realistic view of the industrial technology gap between the Ottoman Empire and Europe. Also, in 1897 the Charity Exhibition for the Children of Disabled War Veterans and Martyrs opened in Yıldız district under the auspices of Sultan Abdulhamid II. The proceeds of this exhibition exceeded 360,000 gold lira.⁴⁰

Customs

Being the gateway for domestic and international trade, the customs were the most active points of trade in Istanbul. Customs can be categorized as domestic or foreign with regards to domestic and foreign trade, and as land and maritime customs with regards to geography. Maritime customs were in Eminönü. In the area around Yeni Cami called gümrük meydanı (customs square), the Customs for Commodities (Emtia Gümrüğü) was the main customs building where customs operations were carried out on goods brought from Ottoman ports. Üsküdar, another port in Istanbul, was also the point of arrival for land routes from Anatolia and Iran.⁴¹ The dock at Galata, another customs center, was until the Republican era the free port for states that had capitulation rights. Construction and repair of harbors or docks where domestic and foreign customs were collected were crucial for trade. The concession for construction of the Galata landing for incoming and outgoing ferries was given to the French in 1892, but construction was slowed due to protests by boatmen. Partial use of the Galata dock began in 1894 before it was completed, but construction came to a standstill as a result of a building collapse in 1896. The dock was operational in 1900. Haliç harbor was completed in 1895, and the Haydarpaşa dock began operations in 1904.⁴²Haliç harbor was the busiest and the most convenient harbor in Istanbul with its features of being deep and wide and having wind protection.⁴³ Land customs was located in the Karagümrük (T.N. kara means land, and gümrük means customs) district. Edirnekapı and Topkapı were the points of entry for goods coming by land from Thrace (Trakya). The Istanbul-Edirne and Istanbul-Bursa roads were completed in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Domestic customs duties were lifted for all trade conducted by road in 1874. Thanks to the efforts of the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce, in 1894 taxes were finally lifted from essential cereal products that were transported by sea. For the general public, removal of domestic customs duties on maritime trade was also possible in 1909-10.

In 1861 the Istanbul Commodities Customs took the name Rüsumat Emaneti (Customs Administration) under a new regulation. In the difficult years of World War I, the Ottomans, like other states, put exports under state control. During this period, the Committee of Union and Progress, having been influenced by the German school, adopted national economic policies and began to conduct a protective international trade policy. In 1916, the İhracat Heyeti (Export Committee) was set up in Istanbul, with an official from the Ticaret ve Ziraat Nezareti (Ministry of Trade and Agriculture) in charge. Accordingly, an export certificate had to be obtained from the Export Committee for goods to be sold abroad. Bypassing the Export Committee, powerful European states established purchasing organizations in Istanbul and began to receive goods through those companies.

Financial worries dominated Ottoman customs policy until the Second Constitutional Era, and customs duties were regarded as important sources of income for state finances. In addition, customs were important sources of income that were used as collateral for foreign debt. In European financial circles, the most reliable security was the Egypt tax and the second was customs duties. Among customs duties, Izmir and Syria were first and Istanbul was second.⁴⁴ Customs were also important sources of income that the state relied on for the domestic loan system. The practice of debt securities began in 1775, used for the first time at the Istanbul Tobacco Customs, later expanded to include other districts. Subsequently, all transactions related to debt securities were carried out while taking into account these customs stipulations.⁴⁵

Public and Civil Organizations

An important part of Istanbul trade consisted of public provision businesses and trade organizations related to public provision. Although different data have been provided regarding Istanbul’s population, what is more important here than the number is the density. Istanbul was contained within a smaller region compared to other provinces, and as a result of migrations and population policies in effect since the era of Sultan Mehmed II, the population density increased while arable land grew scarce. As a consequence, Istanbul would become a consumer city, rather than a producer. The basic consumer goods the city needed were meat and grain. Grain came to Istanbul mainly from the Balkans, Wallachia–Moldavia, and Western Anatolia. The Danube River and the Anatolian and European coasts of the Black Sea were the principal sites used in the shipping of grain. When cereal grains were delivered to Istanbul, they were distributed to mills according to each mill’s allowance. Meat was usually brought to Thrace by cattle drovers from Anatolia. The regions of Izmir, Bursa, Yalova, Tekirdağ, and İzmit were the main areas that supplied fresh fruit and vegetables.⁴⁶ Coffee was brought from remote provinces, chiefly Yemen, and after the eighteenth century from overseas via foreign trade vessels. Rice was supplied from Rumelian provinces such as Drama, Yenice, Thessaloniki, Vardar, Skopje, and Bitola. Rice and coffee also came from Egypt. The demand for fuel was met by supplies from Thrace, the Gulf of İzmit, and the Western Black Sea. Olives, olive oil, and soap were brought from the southern ports of the Sea of Marmara and from the Aegean island of Lesbos.⁴⁷

Food products; fuel, namely wood and coal; and various raw materials needed in Istanbul were unloaded at the Port of Istanbul and at ports along the Golden Horn from Unkapanı to Sarayburnu. The port where each product would be unloaded was determined beforehand according to its destination or its source. For example, in the sixteenth century, ships coming from Izmir would dock at the Izmir Pier, wheat ships at the Unkapanı Pier, rice and barley ships at the İhtisapPier.⁴⁸ Names such as Balkapanı (Bal means honey), Odun Pier (Odun means wood), Yemiş Pier (Yemiş means dried fruit and nuts) illustrate the functions of those piers.

Ministries of Provision and Trade

Before the nineteenth century Istanbul’s provisioning needs were handled by kapan merchants. From the second half of the eighteenth century, the kapan merchants began to fall short in providing adequate sustenance, especially during the winter months, and during the Nizam-ı Cedid (New Order) period, the central administration intervened on account of the state’s efforts to gain shares of commercial income. Initially, purchases were made in limited quantities for the sake of caution, and the cereal grains were stored and distributed to bakeries. This intervention came to a head with the establishment of a ministry with a separate staff and treasury. This public provision organization which was known as the Zahire Nezareti (Ministry of Provision) and which continued its activities off and on until the Tanzimat Era, was a public enterprise that managed and monitored the grain needs of Istanbul entirely, keeping sustenance prices under its control, determining the price of bread according to the sustenance price, and supporting kapan merchants. In addition to these functions, the Ministry of Provision stored grain in state-owned warehouses, making purchases generally at official prices determined to be below prevailing prices, and distributed it to all bakeries when needed. In 1839 the practice of state-run purchasing was abolished and provisioning of Istanbul was left entirely to free market conditions.⁴⁹ The Ministry of Provision was also abolished in that year and the Ticaret Nezareti (Ministry of Trade) was established, with the administration of provisions transferred to this ministry. Between 1841 and1846, provisioning operations were transferred to the Maliye Nezareti (Ministry of Finance) at the directorate level, and in 1848 this directorate became Provision Accounting. In 1849 the provisioning treasury was again incorporated into the Ministry of Trade. With the abolition of the Ministry of Provision and leaving public sustenance to the free market, foodstuffs began to flow in great quantities into Istanbul. The tax levied on cereal grains coming into Istanbul from the provinces was lifted and a market held two days a week was established in Unkapanı. At the market samples were displayed and sold. For the safekeeping of grain, bakers were required to build storage facilities. For those unable to build, state-owned warehouses were available for rent at affordable prices. At the same time, the monopoly on opening bakeries and running mills was abolished; anyone who obtained a permit would be able to produce in this area. Granting permits and controlling the amount of grain used in bakeries and the quantity and price of bread was now under the Ministry of Trade.⁵⁰ Furthermore, when the Anatolian Railway (1872-96) went into service, the grain requirements of Istanbul began to be provided mostly from Anatolia instead of from imports. Of all the grain carried on the Anatolian Railway, 25 percent was transported to Istanbul.⁵¹

During World War I, provisioning, which came under the responsibility of the Municipality of Istanbul, was taken over by the Committee of Union and Progress due to the municipality’s incompetence. From then on, provisioning of Istanbul and other big cities would be carried out by the Heyet-i Mahsusa-i Ticariye (Special Trade Committee). The Committee organized the provision and distribution of goods such as bread, sugar, and gas. Basic consumer goods were rationed; however, as a result of this practice, a black market emerged. When prices increased, especially due to the black market, the central administration had to determine narh (officially fixed prices) for consumer goods. The Committee of Union and Progress, which later on increased its power of control over the market, established the İktisadiyat Meclisi (Council of Economics) and the İaşe Meclisi (Provision Council) and in 1918 the İaşe Nezareti (Ministry of Provision). Twelve consumer cooperatives were founded to provide cheap food to the people of Istanbul, whose living conditions had grown difficult during the war years. The most important ones were the People’s Bosphorus Anatolia Cooperative Company, People’s Sultanahmet Cooperative Company), People’s Makriköy (Bakırköy) Cooperative Company, People’s Fatih Cooperative Company,and People’s Şehzadebaşı Cooperative Company. In addition, as many as twenty-five soup kitchens were opened in Istanbul to distribute food to the poor.⁵²

İhtisab and Muhtesib

Another organization that stood out in Istanbul’s commercial life was the public order (ihtisab) organization, which was responsible for collecting taxes and supervising tradesmen. The ihtisab organization, which was presided over by the muhtesib, worked in conjunction with the qadi of Istanbul; it carried out duties such as the even distribution of incoming commodities and goods to every quarter of the city, controlling weights and measures, collecting certain taxes, notifying tradesmen of narh prices and ensuring the safety of the city. The chief of the ihtisab had the authority to close down workplaces operated in violation of gedik rights. In short, the ihtisab organization carried out the inspection, monitoring, and enforcement duties of the central administration over Istanbul tradesmen. Ships loaded with rice and barley docked atÇardakPier, where the office of the muhtesib was located, as well as the İhtisabPier . In the same way, the pier and marketplace where fresh vegetable and fruit vessels docked was called the Muhtesib’s Çardak (Muhtesib Çardağı). Apart from Istanbul, in Galata and Üsküdar there also were çardaks with the same name. Towards the end of 1826, the İhtisab Ministry, which would become the core of the Istanbul Municipality, was established. When, in 1846, the Zaptiye Müşiriyeti (Police Department) was founded to deal with safety issues, the İhtisab Ministry focused solely on municipal services. During this period, tradesmen and narh controls gained importance. Finally, in 1854, the Şehremaneti (Municipality of Istanbul) was founded.

Merchants

Merchant groups were important structures that organized among themselves and directed the commerce of Istanbul. Especially towards the end of the eighteenth century, a large part of foreign trade was under the control of foreign merchants. Non-Muslim citizens were among the important actors in domestic and foreign trade under the protection of foreign states through charter and other means. Due to these circumstances, Sultan Selim III in 1802 made non-Muslim merchants a privileged class. They took the name Avrupa tüccarı (European merchants) because of their trade with Europe. All the rights of foreign merchants were recognized for European merchants as well. The dominance in Ottoman trade of non-Muslim merchants, who strengthened their structural ties with foreigners, increased in a pronounced way in the nineteenth century, when free trade relations with foreigners intensified and the Ottoman Empire conferred major concessions on its principles of traditionalism and provisionism as institutional change. In the first half of the century, non-Muslims took the place of foreigners in almost every region of the empire. On the other hand, Muslim merchants, who were faced with unfair competition, were by Sultan Mahmud II given the name Hayriye (auspicious) merchants and in 1829 granted the same rights and privileges as European merchants. When free trade regulations began going into effect in the empire as a result of the Treaty of Balta Liman, the Hayriye merchants reached the point of being unable to compete against the European merchants.⁵³ In 1876 the privileges given to Hayriye merchants, whose capital had diminished over time and who had difficulty adopting modern shipping methods, were rescinded. By 1885, the percentage of Muslim tradesmen, artisans, and merchants in the population of Istanbul had fallen to 38.3 percent. The total proportion of non-Muslims in that year had reached nearly 58 percent. Within this figure, 27 percent were Armenians, 25.4 percent were Ottoman Greeks, and 5.3 percent were Jews.⁵⁴ Only 3 percent of the 1,000 merchants registered in Istanbul in 1911 were foreign merchants of European origin. Most of the list was made up of Ottoman Greek and Armenian merchants. The proportion of Muslim merchants on this list was only 10 percent.⁵⁵

Chambers and Stock Markets

The chambers of commerce in Istanbul were important indicators of institutionalization in the economic and commercial arena. In the nineteenth century, thanks to increased foreign capital and newly established companies within the Ottoman Empire’s borders, Istanbul became an important trade center. France, Germany, Austria, the United States, Italy, Great Britain, and Russia opened chambers of commerce in Istanbul as well as embassies and consulates. The first foreign chamber of commerce in Istanbul was opened by Austria-Hungary in 1870. It was initially part of the consulate; in 1874, however, it became an independent, autonomous institution. The French Chamber of Commerce was opened in 1881. Subsequently, in 1883 the Italian and in 1888 the British chambers of commerce were opened. British trade and maritime clubs, in fact, constituted the core of Great Britain’s Chamber of Commerce. The Dersaadet (Istanbul) Greek Chamber of Commerce was established in 1891. The United States opened its Memalik-i Şarkiye Ticaret Odası (Oriental Dominions Chamber of Commerce) in 1911. The last chamber of commerce to be established in Istanbul was the Dersaadet Russian Chamber of Commerce (1913). However, it was closed the following year as a result of World War I.⁵⁶

The professional associations that were prevalent within the Ottoman Empire’s own trade organization until the establishment of the chamber of commerce were guilds. In 1876 the Ottoman central administration founded the Ticaret and Ziraat Meclisi (Council for Trade and Agriculture) primarily to develop agriculture, industry, and commerce. This council in the course of time continued its activities under the name Ticaret Meclisi (Trade Council). After a while, this council was dissolved and its duties were transferred to the newly formed directorates of industry, trade, and agriculture.⁵⁷ The Cemiyet-i Ticariye (Trade Committee), sometimes called “the Chamber,” was founded in 1880 as the first chamber of commerce. Finally, in 1882 the Dersaadet Chamber of Commerce began to operate. Half of the Chamber members would be from the Ministry of Trade and Agriculture and the other half would be merchants. The Chamber would develop policies and operate in areas such as taking measures for craft and industry progress, making changes in the system of trade, customs tariffs, port construction, river ferry operations, post-telegram services, extending the railways, road-bridge maintenance, opening stock markets, and publishing trade journals. In 1889 the Chamber became the Chamber of Trade, Agriculture, and Industry. It was yet again reorganized in 1910 under the name Istanbul Chamber of Trade and Industry. The Umum Borsalar Nizamnamesi (Common Stock Exchange Regulations), which went into effect in 1885, gave the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce the task of establishing a commodities exchange. However, the commodities exchange could not be established on account of internal and external pressures and other reasons. However, in the same period, commodity and produce exchanges were established in İzmir, Adana, and Konya. The İstanbul Ticaret Borsası (Istanbul Commodity Exchange) was able to begin operations in 1925.⁵⁸

Trade Schools

Other institutions that we can count among the commercial organizations aretrade schools. The first trade school in Istanbul was opened by the Ministry of Trade in 1883 under the name Hamidiye Ticaret Mektebi (Hamidiye Trade School), and was the foundation of present-day Marmara University. This four-year school was divided into two sections: high school and professional school. In the high school, general courses like history, geography, physics, and chemistry were offered and in the professional school, vocational courses in business mathematics, trade history, accounting, commodity information, law, and economics were taught.

Initially, the level of instruction was no higher than elementary, providing only basic and general information, with no accommodation for professional practice. However, foreign languages were quite important; it was required to be successful in both speaking and writing in two of the following languages: French, English, Italian, Greek, and Arabic. Later there were plans to teach some of the classes in French and to offer three years of instruction. Following the Second Constitutional Era, in 1909 the school’s name was changed to Ticaret Mekteb-i Alisi (Higher School of Trade). During this period of improvement, instruction continued under a three-year college program by adding more classes to the curriculum and completing educational goals. Furthermore, in 1914, in order to increase the professional knowledge of people engaged in trade activities, middle-level practical trade education was begun by opening a two-session section where one-hour-long free trade classes were taught in the mornings and which accepted primary school graduates. In 1915 the status of the school was again changed and it was divided into two parts: three-year middle-level (secondary) classes, where applied general trade education was given under the title “kısm-ı evvel” (first part); and higher classes, called “kısm-ı sani” (second part). Additionally, an applied trade department was opened for minors under the “kısm-ı evvel” and in 1917 the Uygulamalı Kız Ticaret Bölümü (Applied Trade Department for Girls) was founded under the name Ameli Ticaret İnas Şubesi (Applied Trade Branch) for female students, as a one-year period of instruction.⁵⁹

MICRO-LEVEL TRADE DEVELOPMENTS IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY ISTANBUL

From the mid-nineteenth century, Istanbul, no longer an imperial capital dominated by administrative functions and consumerism, entered a new period of import and export development. As a result of financial support given to the emerging merchant class, first from the Galata financiers and then from the banks, Istanbul became a regional center during this period.⁶⁰ The nineteenth century was also a time when socio-economic relations between the Ottoman Empire and Europe intensified, institutional change took place, and new economic and commercial organizations emerged. For example, as a result of foreign trade that developed in this century, new docks were beginning to be built to accommodate shipments of goods that were arriving in much greater numbers than before. Furthermore, traditional Ottoman inns and kapans changed form and new structures emerged. These new commercial spaces/structures were the ports/stations where goods were unloaded, warehouses where goods were stored, office hans which constituted the new business centers, and hotelswhere merchants spent the night. Secondly, financial institutions and banks caused a new division in the city’s central business area and the emergence of a second trade center in Karaköy and Galata. Thus, a new business district emerged in opposition to Eminönü, Beyazıt, and Unkapanı, where traditionally Istanbul’s trade, craft, and storage activities were concentrated. And because of the increase in imports the prestige of the Grand Bazaar and its surrounding areas, where the Ottoman capital’s commercial life had been shaped for centuries, was diminished. Along with the expanding economic activities, new commercial spaces and cultural centers such as shops selling luxury goods, department stores, pubs, restaurants, and theaters began to thrive, particularly around Beyoğlu.

Office Hans

From the second half of the nineteenth century, there were important developments in the commercial life of Istanbul, due to both internal and external influences, which will be discussed below. Transformations in company structures, professions, and consumer patterns brought about the need for a workplace that could be used as a modern office. Banks, financial firms, and insurance companies that were opened in Karaköy, Galata, and on Bankalar Street, which had emerged as the new center, settled into the new commercial/business hans (office hans) that were built according to their needs. Unlike traditional Ottoman inns around Eminönü, Beyazıt, and the Grand Bazaar, there were only offices inside these hans. Office hans spread quickly in commercial centers on both sides of the Golden Horn. In terms of function, office hans differed from classical Ottoman commercial inns, which were mentioned in the “commercial spaces” section. Whereas commercial inns had production, storage, and trade functions, after the second half of the nineteenth century production was occurring in factories, while warehouses were being used for storage, and hotels, not inns, were offering lodging. Inns thus came to serve only as business and commercial spaces. Production and sales administration offices were on the upper floors of office hans, and on the ground floor were retail or wholesale shops, or places such as cafes, restaurants, hairdressers, and bank branches. Another difference of office hans from commercial inns was that they were generally rented by the floor to one company rather than by the room, or were constructed for the exclusive use of a single company. In addition, commercial inns were built by waqfs in order to bring in income to the waqfs; office hans were usually built by individuals and companies in order to obtain rent. Furthermore, classical commercial inns did not disappear completely and continued their traditional functions such as production and storage. “Transition inns” which had the functions of both commercial inns and modern office hans during the period characterized as “transition from classical Ottoman commercial inns to office hans” were largely incidental to the mid-nineteenth century. Office hans, on the other hand, began to dominate both trade districts of Istanbul in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Additionally, in the nineteenth century new commercial spaces called pasaj (passage) entered Istanbul’s retail trade life. Passages were based on European models, especially those in Paris. These passages, some of which in Istanbul were covered with a glass roof, were located between blocks of buildings that served as inns or apartment buildings and whose ground floors were divided into various shops.⁶¹

Companies

Most commercial activities in Istanbul were carried out as partnerships during the classical period and afterwards. The inan companies (A partnership where two or more individuals pooled their resources to share profits evenly, however their capital contributions differed), which were unincorporated businesses and were generally founded as capital partnerships, were chiefly located in and around Galata and Istanbul. The inan companies were active in the fields of manufacture-trade of food, garments, and building materials as well as in iltizam(tax farming) and tailoring. Inan partnerships could last years, particularly among the Yağ and Balkapanı merchants. Mudaraba (T.N. labor-capital partnership: a partnership where one party provides capital and the other furnishes labor) companies, which resembled the structure of European commendas, were another type of labor-capital partnership like the inan companies that were active in long-distance trade. Mudaraba companies were active in Istanbul trade, especially in Galata and Tophane maritime trade. In other words, mudaraba partnerships were mostly used to finance the ship trade.⁶² Because commercial legislation of the West was adopted after the Tanzimat, the mudaraba companies that were based on Islamic law were abolished. Beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century, the first modern unincorporated companies began to be established.⁶³

As for joint-stock companies, advanced examples of which could be See in Europe at the beginning of the early modern era (1500-1800), they emerged later in Ottoman commercial life. In 1850 the first joint-stock company was founded in Istanbul, under the name Şirket-i Hayriye, as the first urban public transport (ferry) enterprise. At its founding, Şirket-i Hayriye was put under the administration of the Ministry of Trade. A council was formed within the ministry for the company’s administration, but when the council failed, the administration was taken over by tax collectors.⁶⁴ Incorporation continued to develop with institutional (legal) regulations, especially during the Tanzimat Era. Kanunname-i Ticaret (Commercial Law Code), published in 1850, constituted the very first step in legislation regarding incorporation in a modern sense in the Ottoman Empire. However, this law was narrow in scope and limited in regulations, and thus was quite insufficient for commercial law and trading companies. In 1866 tradesmen companies were established. These companies, which brought together goldsmiths and silversmiths, tanners, saddlers, cloth merchants, metalworkers, and blacksmiths, could not succeed, some because of insufficient capital and some due to lack of knowledge and experience. In 1882 and 1887 laws regarding joint-stock companies were again enacted.

Despite all these regulations, the number of joint-stock companies founded before the Second Constitutional Era was just nine. The total number of companies founded between the years 1908-18, on the other hand, reached 130. Of those companies ninety-five were established in Istanbul.⁶⁵ However, joint-stock companies established in wartime and in the framework of considering the national economy, encountered many problems such as failure to make new investments, inability to procure raw materials and energy supply, and the state’s seizure of means of production because of the war.⁶⁶

Most of the joint-stock companies established between 1850 and 1910 were controlled by foreign nationals and they were actually branches of companies whose headquarters were located abroad. In addition, merchants from various European countries were conducting foreign trade transactions through the family companies they established in major port cities. In nineteenth-century Istanbul, the Whittall Company was the most prominent among them.⁶⁷ Within the total of companies paid-in capital, banks and insurance companies were in the forefront with 77 percent. These sectors were followed by transportation (10 percent), public services (4 percent), mining (3.6 percent), trading companies (1.8 percent), the tobacco monopoly (1.6 percent), industrial corporations (1.5 percent), and others. Of established banks, only the Ziraat Bank, the Turkish National Bank, and the Trade and Industry Bankwere based on domestic capital. The ratio of the paid-in capital of these banks to the paid-in capital of all established companies was 13 percent.⁶⁸ On the other hand, the real sector and the financial sector were also intertwined. For example, Deutsche Orient Bank, a German bank, founded an electricity company in 1908 in order to provide electricity for Istanbul.⁶⁹

The insurance industry, which was a very profitable concern, showed rapid progress during this period as well. The British, who had a large share in the Ottoman insurance market, opened a number of branches in the 1890s. In 1892, competition in the field heated up when the Ottoman General Insurance Company was established using domestic capital. In 1894 in Istanbul a total of seventy-six companies offered insurance under three categories: life, transportation, and fire. By 1911 the number of insurance companies offering just fire insurance reached sixty-two.⁷⁰

The transformation in the commercial life of Istanbul was not limited to trade centers, commercial spaces, and incorporation, but was also apparent in Istanbul’s population structure, professions, and consumer behavior. Between the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of the twentieth century, foreign brands and international trade in the Istanbul market began to develop and diversify. New marketing strategies were devised. For example, advertising became a sector.⁷¹ Table 5 shows the development and changes in the professions, commercial activities, and organizations in Istanbul during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century.

Table 5- Economic activities, professions and organizations in Istanbul according to Muslim trade annuals (1868-1909)

*Reference: Aktar, “Şark Ticaret Yıllıkları’nda “Sarı Sayfalar”: İstanbul’da Meslekler”, 124.

According to Table 5, the numbers of importers and brokers of all kinds of consumer goods, including in large department stores; services related to the new lifestyle; new professionals and specialists and new entrepreneurs held a significant proportion of the total occupational and economic activities for each year. On the other hand, it is See that the proportions for traditional tradesmen and artisans who had been organizing within the guild system for centuries, despite the guild system’s loss of power, did not shrink, contrary to popular opinion. At the end of the nineteenth century and early in the twentieth century, they continued to exist in the midst of new activities and professions as shop-owning small producers and merchants.

In the nineteenth century, other micro-level developments in Istanbul trade were See in the area of consumption. Significant changes in consumer behavior ran parallel to the increase in the number of importers of consumer goods and services providing new lifestyles, and in the percentages within the total. Luxurious life styles and consumption habits of Levantines (Latin Christians) and Egyptian families led to a widespread consumption culture, revived trade, and transformed consumption patterns. However, Egyptian families, the palace circle, and the upper classes were not the only ones with a proclivity for high consumption. The middle class, which grew during expanding economic activity, adopted a modern lifestyle and began to settle in the apartments rising in Beyoğlu, and that enhanced its consumption patterns and behavior. Furthermore, installment (credit) sales that started in 1890 and discounts made for cash payments, both diversified and increased retail trade; this situation encouraged consumption, and hence, trade in Istanbul.⁷²

MACRO ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF ISTANBUL TRADE

Throughout the Ottoman period, trade was the most important economic sector of Istanbul. That included foreign trade, with its overseas emphasis on Europe and its emphasis on the east for caravan trade; domestic trade that focused on public provisioning of the city, and finally, urban retail trade.

During the late sixteenth century, French merchant vessels in Ottoman waters numbered around 1,000. Most of them were loading and unloading at the Port of Istanbul. From the seventeenth century, world trade shifted from the Mediterranean basin to the oceans as a result of new discoveries, and the Port of Istanbul began slowly to lose its previous importance. At the same time, while imports of finished goods increased exponentially, Ottoman exports of raw materials decreased. During the first half of the eighteenth century Istanbul trade was positively affected by the period of peace, and Istanbul’s interaction with world markets increased. However, the wars that began again towards the end of the eighteenth century reduced Istanbul’s importance in foreign trade, and meanwhile, Istanbul experienced serious problems in the public provisioning of the city.⁷³

Until the nineteenth century, the foremost products exported from Istanbul were valuable goods and textiles, furs, leather, and carpets. However, especially during the second half of the century -as was mentioned in the public provisioning topic- the city’s provisioning was left to the free market and the trade restrictions were lifted, which then led to an increase in exports in the percentage of grain and other agricultural products. When we look at the import section, we Seethat as well as traditional goods and products like woven goods, glassware and paper, other industrial products and various consumer goods grew in importance. From the late nineteenth century, a partial decline can be See in the Port of Istanbul’s trade volume and commercial activity. This was caused by the opening of the Suez Canal as a new trade route, the newly developed railways connecting Europe to India through Russia, the decline in the Ottoman Empire’s purchasing power, etc.⁷⁴ At the same time, the importance of Istanbul’s marine transport grew again in the following years. For example, in 1898, the Port of Istanbul’s share on a ton basis of marine transport at all Ottoman ports was 31.4 percent, while in 1913 this rate would rise to 48 percent.⁷⁵

To express the importance of domestic and foreign trade sectors for Istanbul’s economy and the place of Istanbul’s trade in the country’s economy in quantitative data, in 1894 the number of people working in trade and craft fields was 437,000 and their percentage within total employment was 43.5 percent. In light of this data, Istanbul ranked fourth in the Ottoman Empire after Trabzon, Bitola, and Thessaloniki.⁷⁶ In 1907, 33 percent of total foreign trade was carried out from the Port of Istanbul .⁷⁷ The place and importance of Istanbul in Ottoman foreign trade can be See in more detail in Table 6.

The first thing to notice in Table 6, which shows the foreign trade volume of the Ottoman Empire’s two major ports, is the fact that imports at the Port of Istanbul-Galata are significantly higher than export values in all years. This situation, which was all along a fact of Istanbul’s foreign trade, was due to the fact that Istanbul was not a production center but a rich consumption center with a high population density, as well as the fact that because it was the main port of the empire, the needs of Anatolia and other regions were provided via the Istanbul channel, and furthermore, goods destined for eastern countries would be unloaded at the Port of Istanbul. Just looking at agricultural production in the Ottoman Empire on a regional basis, is enough to understand why Istanbul was a consumption center. As of 1910 and 1913, Istanbul had at fifty-four kuruş the lowest agricultural production per capita. In 1910, the second lowest agricultural production per capita was in Hejaz and it was 160 kuruş. When we look at the total value of agricultural production by region, we Seethat Istanbul had the lowest value with 60,000,000 and 66,000,000 kuruş in 1910 and 1913, respectively.⁷⁸

Istanbul did not export as much as Izmir, which was an export port; however, its place in total exports cannot be underestimated. For example, in 1894, the share of exports from Istanbul was 19 percent of the total exports from the Ottoman Empire. The Port of Izmir’s share in the same year was 36 percent (Table 6). However, around 1784, the Port of Istanbul’s share among ports where exported goods were processed was only 4 percent. Izmir had the highest share, with 32 percent.⁷⁹ These data are important in that they show Istanbul’s development over time in the export sector. Approaching World War I, in the Ottoman Empire’s foreign trade, Istanbul’s share of both imports and exports increased (Table 6). Therefore, the share of Istanbul trade of revenue of the total domestic and foreign trade sectors of the Ottoman Empire would be at a significant level; in 1907 Istanbul’s share in total trade revenue was 24 percent. This rate increased to 29 percent in 1913 and 1914. Istanbul’s contribution to the national income can be observed both in terms of total values and per capita values. In 1907, 10 percent of the national income was from Istanbul and Çatalca. In 1913 and 1914 this rate was 13 percent and 11 percent, respectively. In 1907, 1913, and 1914, Istanbul and Çatalca were the regions with the highest per capita income level.⁸⁰

The trade sector’s macroeconomic significance in Istanbul can be read through its economic relations with other cities. For example, one of the reasons why the Anatolian port cities -except for Izmir- failed to show sufficient development in the seventeenth century was the pressure put on provincial merchants by Istanbul merchants. On the other hand, the regions with continuous economic-commercial relations with the Istanbul market usually benefited from this situation. For example, regular distribution of woolen fabric to the Janissaries was a step forward in the development, alongside Istanbul, of the wool weaving industry in Thessaloniki.⁸¹ The constant increase in grain and meat demand in Istanbul transformed the region between the Dnieper and the Varna rivers into a commercial agricultural region. The demand for Istanbul’s dairy products caused many dairies to open around the city. Additionally, many cities of the Marmara and Aegean regions, where products like fruit, vegetables and olive oil were produced, showed economic development similar to other areas working for the Istanbul market. For example, the coastal villages on the southern Sea of Marmara were producing wine, olives, and fruit for Istanbul, and were indebted to the capital’s market for their high standard of living, as compared to that of the inland regions.⁸²

Table 6- Import and export totals from the Ports of Istanbul-Galata and Izmir, the place of import and export (1894-1913)

Reference: Filiz Çolak, “II. Meşrutiyet’ten Cumhuriyete Batı Anadolu’da Üretim ve Dış Ticaret (1908-1923)”, (Ph. D. diss., Dokuz Eylül University, 2005), 126.

CONCLUSION

As the natural result of its long life, geographic position, and the fact that it was almost a city-state, Istanbul has been both the subject and object of trade. Throughout its history, its commercial life has been enriched parallel to the development of the city. All the varied contributions of different religions, nations, and states have had a part in shaping this richness. Undoubtedly, one of the most important factors that made it possible for these things to be realized was the position it possessed as a city. This exceptionally harmonious and meaningful partnership of land and sea shaped Istanbul’s relationship to trade.

Istanbul, as a kind of city-state, was an important consumption center. This situation enabled the development and institutionalization of trade in Istanbul. Thus, Istanbul became the stage for activity that served not only itself but also its surrounding areas. On one hand, certain distinctive principles were presented and implemented, and on the other, the organizations, which were the actors of trade, and those principles were deeply intertwined. On one hand, trade routes, ports, caravanserais, inns, marketplaces, bedestens, etc., maintained commercial activities as places of business, and on the other hand, through instruments like ministries, councils, chambers, stock markets, offices, schools, and companies, etc., they adjusted in time to the ever-changing nature of trade.

As Istanbul’s most important economic sector, trade took place as a trio of foreign, domestic, and retail. European-dominated maritime trade and eastern-dominated land trade, which was in force during the Ottoman Empire, constituted Istanbul’s foreign trade. The city’s public provisioning was at the center of Istanbul’s domestic trade. Additionally, urban retail trade was one of the most important things that determined and sustained daily life.

FOOTNOTES

1 The concept of institutions can be described as formal and informal behavior patterns, norms and/or rules that societies have long practiced. Institutions can reduce uncertainty and lead to the development of societies, while imposing many constraints. Institutions are influential in the emergence and development of organizations. Organizations can also over time become a basic element of institutional change. In short, as North put it, institutions can be described as the rules of a game, and organizations as the players/actors. For detailed information, See Douglass C. North, Kurumlar, Kurumsal Değişim ve Ekonomik Performans, tr. Gül Çağalı Güven (Istanbul: Sabancı Universitesi Yayınevi, 2010), pp. 9-13.

2 Mehmet Genç, “On Dokuzuncu Yüzyılda Osmanlı İktisadi Dünya Görüşünün Klasik Prensiplerindeki Değişmeler,” Divan: Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, 1999, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1-8.

3 Ahmed Refik [Altınay], On Altıncı Asırda İstanbul Hayatı (1553-1591) (Istanbul: Devlet Basımevi, 1935), pp. 112-13, 119-21.

4 Ahmed Refik [Altınay], Hicri On İkinci Asırda İstanbul Hayatı (1100-1200) (Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası, 1930), pp. 102-3.

5 Daniel Panzac, “International and Domestic Maritime Trade in the Ottoman Empire during the 18^th Century,” IJMES, vol. 24:2, (1992): pp. 195, 199-200.

6 Gülberk Bilecik, “Fetihten Sonra İstanbul’da Ticaret Yapılarının Gelişimi,” Türkler, ed. Hasan Celal Güzel et al., (Istanbul: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 2002), vol. 10, pp. 1, 412.

7 Süleyman Faruk Göncüoğlu, Yolu İstanbul’dan Geçen Kervan’ın Sarayları, (Istanbul: İstanbul Ticaret Odası Yayınları, 2012), p. 104.

8 Halil İnalcık, “Galata,” DBİst.A, vol. 3, pp. 349-50.

9 Panzac, “International and Domestic Maritime Trade in the Ottoman Empire”, pp. 192-93.

10 Halil İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Ekonomik ve Sosyal Tarihi (1600-1914) 2, tr. Ayşe Berktay et al., (Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 2004), p. 952.

11 Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “Osmanlı İktisadi Yapısı,” Osmanlı Devleti ve Medeniyeti Tarihi 1, ed. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, (Istanbul: İslam Tarih, Sanat ve Kültür Araştırma Merkezi, 1994), pp. 596-97.

12 Coşkun Çakır, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Ticareti ve Nizamnameleri,” (MA thesis, Istanbul University, 1990), pp. 66-75.

13 Ahmed Refik [Altınay], Hicri On Birinci Asırda İstanbul Hayatı (1000-1100) (Istanbul: Türk Tarih Encümeni, 1931), pp. 54-55.

14 Şevket Kâmil Akar, “İstanbul’da Emlak ve Akar Vergisi Uygulaması: “Dersaadet Vergisi,” Türkler, ed., Hasan Celal Güzel et al., (Istanbul: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 2002), vol. 14, pp. 623-34.

15 See BOA, Y.EE.d 350, H. 1328 (1910-11).

16 Ahmed Refik, “On İkinci Asırda İstanbul’da Gümrük ve Ticaret,” Dârülfünûn Edebiyat Fakültesi Mecmuasıvol. 3:6, 1340 (1924), pp. 247-52.

17 İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Ekonomik ve Sosyal Tarihi 2, 819.

18 Ahmed Refik, Hicri On Birinci Asırda İstanbul Hayatı, 51.

19 Ahmet Tabakoğlu et al., ed., İstanbul Ahkâm Defterleri: İstanbul Ticaret Tarihi 1 (Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları, 1997), pp. 85-86.

20 Tabakoğlu et al. (ed.), İstanbul Ticaret Tarihi, p. 222.

21 For more detailed information on officially fixed prices, See Halil Sahillioğlu, “Osmanlılar’da Narh Müessesesi ve 1525 Yılı Sonunda İstanbul’da Fiyatlar,” BTTD, vol.1 (1967), pp. 36-38; Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “1009 (1600) Tarihli Narh Defterine Göre İstanbul’da Çeşitli Eşya ve Hizmet Fiyatları,” TED, vol.9 (1978), pp. 1-6.

22 Ahmed Refik, Hicri On Birinci Asırda İstanbul Hayatı, 10-11.

23 1 oka = 1283 grams

24 Vedat Eldem, Harp ve Mütareke Yıllarında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Ekonomisi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1994), pp. 40, 44, 50-51.

25 Şevket Pamuk, İstanbul ve Diğer Kentlerde 500 Yıllık Fiyatlar ve Ücretler (1469-1998), (Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, 2000), p. 18.

26 İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Ekonomik ve Sosyal Tarihi, vol. 2, p. 828.

27 Ahmed Refik, On Altıncı Asırda İstanbul Hayatı, pp. 130-31, 134-35.

28 According to a register dated 1702, the soldiers who took care of the sheep and cow herds, brought to Istanbul from rural areas, were selling meat to the public for higher prices than the prevailing fixed prices in the slaughterhouses which they had opened illegally around the Imperial Arsenal. See Ahmed Refik, Hicri On İkinci Asırda İstanbul Hayatı, p. 34.

29 Aynural, “Selim III Döneminde İstanbul’da İktisadi Hayat,” p. 115-17.

30 Ahmed Refik, Hicri On Birinci Asırda İstanbul Hayatı, pp. 44-45.

31 Fahri Yasin Şener, “18. yy’da İstanbul’da Ticaret (İstanbul Ahkâm Defterlerine Göre),” (doctoral dissertation, Marmara University, 2010), pp. 81-83.

32 Ahmed Refik, Hicri On Birinci Asırda İstanbul Hayatı, pp. 16-17.

33 Onur Yıldırım, “Osmanlı Esnafında Uyum ve Dönüşüm: 1650-1826,” Toplum ve Bilim, 83 (2000), pp. 146-77.

34 Haydar Kazgan, Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Şirketleşme: Osmanlı Sanayii Monografi ve Yorumlar (Istanbul: TÖBANK Yayınları, 1991), p. 32.

35 Yıldırım, “Osmanlı Esnafında Uyum ve Dönüşüm,” pp. 146-77.

36 Şener, “18. yy’da İstanbul’da Ticaret,” 57.

37 Bilecik, “Fetihten Sonra İstanbul’da Ticaret,” 1, 413-15.

38 Göncüoglu, Yolu İstanbul’dan Geçen Kervan’ın Sarayları, p. 127; Nursel Gülenaz, Batılılaşma Dönemi İstanbul’unda Hanlar ve Pasajlar (Istanbul: İstanbul Ticaret Odası Yayınları, 2010), pp. 48-50.

39 Bilecik, “Fetihten Sonra İstanbul’da Ticaret”, pp. 1, 417-19.

40 Aytaç Işıklı and Mümin Balkan, ed., Türk Fuarcılık Tarihi (Istanbul: İstanbul Fuar Merkezi Yayınları, 2007), 54-56, 60-61; Aytaç Işıklı and Mümin Balkan, ed., Fotoğraflarla Türk Fuarcılık Tarihi, (Istanbul: İstanbul Fuar Merkezi Yayınları, 2008), p. 46.

41 Necmettin Aygün, “XIX. Yüzyıl Başlarında İstanbul Merkezli Osmanlı Deniz Taşımacılığı,” OTAM 23 (2010), 58.

42 Kütükoğlu, “Osmanlı İktisadi Yapısı,” 599-600.

43 Aygün, “XIX. Yüzyıl Başlarında İstanbul,” p. 57.

44 Zafer Toprak, “Tanzimat’tan Sonra İktisadi Politika,” TCTA, vol. 3, pp. 668-71; Seyfettin Gürsel, “Osmanlı Dış Borçları,” TCTA, vol. 3, p. 679.

45 Veli Aydın, “Osmanlı Maliyesinde Bir İç Borçlanma Örneği Olarak Esham Uygulaması,” Türkler ed. Hasan Celal Güzel et al., (Istanbul: Yeni Türkiye yayınları, 2002), vol. 14, pp. 340-50.

46 Feridun M. Emecen, Tarih İçinde Manisa, (Manisa: Manisa Belediyesi, 2007), pp. 173-89.

47 Coşkun Çakır, “Trade,” Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, ed. Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters, (New York: Facts On File, 2009), pp. 568-570; “Ticaret [Osmanlı Döneminden Günümüze],” DBİst.A 7, 266-68.

48 Ahmed Refik, Hicri On Birinci Asırda İstanbul Hayatı, p. 10.

49 Tevfik Güran, “İstanbul’un İâşesinde Devletin Rolü (1783-1839),” İFM, vol. 44 (1988), no. 1-4, pp. 247-55, 258-59.

50 Coşkun Çakır, “Tanzimat Döneminde Ticaret Alanında Yapılan Bir Kurumsal Düzenleme Örneği Olarak Ticaret Nezareti,” İFM, vol. 50:1-4, (2000), pp. 141-66; Aziz Tekdemir, “Ticaret Nezareti (1839-1876),” (Ph.D. diss., Istanbul University, 2010), pp. 116-17, 127-28.

51 İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Ekonomik ve Sosyal Tarihi, vol. 2, pp. 935, 954.

52 Zafer Toprak, “Milli İktisat,” TCTA, vol. 3, pp. 744-45; Zafer Toprak, “Kemal Bey (Kara),” DBİst.A, vol. 4, pp. 519-20.

53 Ali İhsan Bağış, “Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyete Türk-Müslüman Burjuvazisi Oluşturma Çabaları,” Osmanlı, ed. Güler Eren, (Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999), vol. 3, pp. 543-545.

54 Cem Behar, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun ve Türkiye’nin Nüfusu (1500-1927) (Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü Yayınları, 1996), p. 77.

55 İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Ekonomik ve Sosyal Tarihi, vol. 2, pp. 956-58.

56 Zafer Toprak, “Ticaret Odaları,” DBİst.A, vol. 7, pp. 269-70.

57 Coşkun Çakır, “Tanzimat Döneminde Ticaret Alanında Yapılan Kurumsal Düzenlemeler: Meclisler,” Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları, 2000, no. 43-44, pp. 363-79.

58 Adnan Giz, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Ticaret, Sanayi Odaları ve Borsalar,” TCTA, vol. 3, pp. 748-52.

59 Coşkun Çakır, “Türkiye’de İktisat Eğitimi: Tarihsel Bir Perspektif,” Yirmi Birinci Yüzyılda Üniversite Eğitimine Bakışlar, ed. Alparslan Açıkgenç, Vildan Serin and Sami Gören, (Istanbul: Fatih Üniversitesi, 2006), pp. 118-29; Ahmet Mülayim, “Ticaret Liseleri,” DBİst.A, vol. 7, pp. 268-69.

60 Ayhan Aktar, “Şark Ticaret Yıllıkları’nda Sarı Sayfalar: İstanbul’da Meslekler ve İktisadi Faaliyetler Hakkında Bazı Gözlemler,1868-1938, Toplum ve Bilim, 76 (1998), p. 117.

61 Gülenaz, Batılılaşma Dönemi İstanbul’unda Hanlar, pp. 251-56; Göncüoğlu, Yolu İstanbul’dan Geçen Kervan’ın Sarayları, pp. 149.

62 Fethi Gedikli, “Osmanlı Şirketleri,” Osmanlı, ed. Güler Eren (Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999), vol. 3, p. 433. For the disputes of inan and mudaraba companies heard at the qadi offices between 1742-79, See Tabakoğlu et al. (ed.), İstanbul Ticaret Tarihi, pp. 20-22, 61-62, 127-28, 328.

63 Bağış, “Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyete Türk-Müslüman Burjuvazisi,” pp. 545-47.

64 Tekdemir, “Ticaret Nezareti,” p. 132.

65 For some of the joint-stock companies established in Istanbul, especially during the Second Constitutional Era, See Table Appendix 2.

66 Celali Yılmaz, Osmanlı Anonim Şirketleri (Istanbul: Scala Yayıncılık, 2011), pp. 27-28, 33.

67 Haydar Kazgan, “Cumhuriyet’ten Önce Şirketler,” TCTA 3, 782-84; Şevket Pamuk, “19. yy’da Osmanlı Dış Ticareti,” TCTA, vol. 3, pp. 664-65.

68 Murat Koraltürk, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Şirketleşme, İlk Anonim Şirket ve Borsanın Kuruluşu,” Osmanlı, ed. Güler Eren, (Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 1999), vol. 3, pp. 443-44.

69 Tevfik Çavdar, Osmanlıların Yarı –Sömürge Oluşu, (Istanbul: Ant Yayınları, 1970), pp. 133-34, 140-44.

70 Ramazan Balcı and İbrahim Sırma (ed.), Ticaret ve Ziraat Nezareti, Memalik-i Osmaniye’de Osmanlı Anonim Şirketleri, (Istanbul: İstanbul Ticaret Odası, 2012), p. 21.

71 Arzu Varlı and Rahmi Deniz Özbay, “İstanbul’da Perakende Ticareti: Tüketim Mal ve Hizmetleri Piyasası (1840-1909),” Uluslararası 9, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi Bildirileri, (Sarajevo: 2011), 2, p. 414.

72 Varlı and Özbay, “İstanbul’da Perakende Ticareti,” vol. 2, pp. 416-19; Aktar, “Şark Ticaret Yıllıkları’nda Sarı Sayfalar: İstanbul’da Meslekler,” p. 128.

73 Şener, “18. yy’da İstanbul’da Ticaret,” pp. 46-49.

74 “Ticaret [Osmanlı Döneminden Günümüze]”, pp. 266-67.

75 Vedat Eldem, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İktisadi Şartları Hakkında Bir Tetkik, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1994), 109.

76 Kemal Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu (1830-1914) (Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2010), p. 437.

77 Aktar, “Şark Ticaret Yıllıkları’nda Sarı Sayfalar: İstanbul’da Meslekler,” p. 129.

78 Eldem, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İktisadi Şartları, p. 36.

79 İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Ekonomik ve Sosyal Tarihi, vol. 2, p. 859.

80 Eldem, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İktisadi Şartları, pp. 214-15, 227-28.

81 Özgür Kolçak, “Selanik Yünlü Dokumacılığının Tarihsel Gelişimi (1500-1629),” Osmanlı Araştırmaları, vol. 31 (2008), pp. 93-126.

82 İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Ekonomik ve Sosyal Tarihi, vol. 2, 623; Halil İnalcık and Donald Quataret (ed.), Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Ekonomik ve Sosyal Tarihi: 1300-1600, vol. 1, tr. Halil Berktay, (Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık, 2000), pp. 85, 235-36.