Elena Frangakis

The ottoman port of Izmir in the eighteenth and early nineteenthcenturies, 1695 -1820In: Revue de l'Occident musulman et de la Méditerranée, N°39, 1985. pp. 149-162.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Frangakis Elena. The ottoman port of Izmir in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, 1695 -1820. In: Revue del'Occident musulman et de la Méditerranée, N°39, 1985. pp. 149-162.

doi : 10.3406/remmm.1985.2071

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/remmm_0035-1474_1985_num_39_1_2071

R.O.M.M., 39, 1985-1

THE OTTOMAN PORT OF IZMIR

IN THE EIGHTEENTH AND EARLY NINETEENTH

CENTURIES, 1695 - 1820

by Elena FRANGAKIS

Izmir, a major international port in the Eastern Mediterranean since the 17 th century, developped into the most important port in the area in the course of the 18th century (1). It linked the Ottoman Empire commercially with Western Europe. The greatest part of Ottoman export produce reached the West through Izmir. At the same time, the greatest part of European manufactured goods and colonial exports reached the Anatolian and Iranian market also through Izmir (2). To that extent, Izmir was a principal vehicle for the integration of the Ottoman Empire into the world economy and penetration of Ottoman agricultural production by the international market.

The growth of trade in Izmir followed the growth of trade between Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire and in particular between France and the Empire. However, when French trade declined, following the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, Izmir continued to grow commercially and dominate the Empire's trade with the West. In the early 19th century, the economic ties of Izmir with the West were strengthened as Britain took the place of France (3). For most of the 18th century, however, France dominated Ottoman trade, including that of Izmir.

Izmir's domination in the external trade of the Empire with the West dates from the mid-1740's onwards. Before that date, Izmir was surpassed by Egypt, the Syrian ports and those of the Islands of the Archipelago. In the first half of the 18th century, it exported 20% of the Empire's exports to France, as an annual average, whilst the Islands of the Archipelago exported 28% and Egypt 24%. In the second half of the century, it surpassed all other ports exporting 34% of the Empire's exports annually and importing 30% of total Ottoman imports. Istanbul was its closest rival in the import trade.

From the 1760's onwards, Izmir's exports to France grew at a faster rate than total Ottoman exports. The same occured in the import trade. Izmir's trade with Western Europe, as well as with France, reached its peak in the last decades of the 18th and in the early 19th centuries. Between the early 19th century, 1801 - 3, and the period following the Napoleonic Wars, 1817-1820, there was a dramatic increase in the volume of trade. Although France's trade with the Ottoman port increased in absolute terms, in relation to that of the Italian ports (1801 - 3) or with Britain (1817 -

150 E. FRANGAKIS

20), it had declined (4). The predominance of Britain manifested itself initially in the import trade. British cloth in the early 19th century, flooded the market in Izmir, replacing French cloth and rivalring German textile manufacture.

" Le négociant du Levant fait peu de retours et pour ceux qu'il ferait par la suite, il y a lieu de croire qu'il s'adresserait de préférence à Malte où les Anglais ne manqueront pas d'accumuler les marchandises et d'attirer à eux les marchands du Levant " (5).

Yet only in 1777, British cloth was no more than a luxury item in the Ottoman market. i

" Les Anglais ne fournissent à la Turquie que quelques draps fins qui sont trop chers pour que la consommation puisse s'étendre à certain point" (6).

In the Annexe 1, annual trade figures are given, concerning the external trade of Izmir with France, and in particular the port of Marseille, in the 18th and early 19th centuries (7).

The reason for Izmir becoming such an important entrepot, was its ability to draw to its port a large part of Ottoman agricultural production and distribute deep into Anatolia Western imports. Several factors account for this. Izmir had a good geographical position, conveniently situated for the Archipelago, with an accessible port (8). Istanbul, which shared with Izmir the Anatolian hinterland, had ceded to the latter the commercial functions. Within easy reach of the seat of Imperial authority, the Ottoman port was surrounded by a relatively quiet countryside (9). A tolerance of the Europeans on the part of the local inhabitants strengthened the presence of Western European merchants, who were driven to the city by the commercial opportunities offered (10). Izmir's multiple trade links both with the Empire and with Iran further East, guaranteed a return cargo to Europe for the Western merchant (11).

Three factors led to the commercial growth of Izmir at the end of the 17th century and beginning of the 18th. One was the deliberate policy on the part of the Sultan to centralize trade in Izmir. As early as 1620, international trade activity of small coastal ports such as Kusadasi or Chios in Western Anatolia was waved in favour of Izmir (12). Special tax exemptions were given to European merchants to induce them to use Izmir (13). For most of the 18th century, small coastal towns near Izmir stagnated, whilst the latter was allowed to flourish. At the end of the 18th and in early 19th century, the very considerable economic growth of Izmir allowed for a proportionate growth of these centres. It was a process that continued into the 19th century, as the Western Anatolian coast became integrated further in the international market.

The other factor was the taking over from Aleppo of the silk trade of Iran at the end of the 17th and in the 18th century. Protracted Ottoman - Iranian Wars had brought instability to the whole area surrounding Aleppo. The safer route of Isfahan - Izmir was thus preferred. Such a development brought to the Ottoman port one of the most precious raw materials for the industries of the West in the first half of the 18th century. At the same time, the lucrative market of the East was opened to Western manufactured goods. It thus paved the way for the creation of Izmir as an entrepot for the passage of goods from West to East and conversely. For the first two decades of the century, raw silk constituted the most important export produce of Izmir (14)

THE OTTOMAN PORT OF IZMIR 151

(Annexe II). When the continuous Ottoman - Iranian Wars caused the near-drying up of the Iranian market in the second half of the 18th century, Izmir's economy was not affected. Cotton, a produce of Izmir's immediate hinterland, was by then the most important export. Bursa also supplied the Ottoman port with silk in the second half of the 18th century, as did Morea to a lesser extent.

The third factor that contributed to the establishment of the Western Anatolian port as a major commercial centre in the area, was the near-monopoly of the export of mohair-yarn from Ankara. Although a certain amount of mohair yarn was bought on the place of production by European merchants, most of it was transferred by a network of Turkish and Jewish dealers to Izmir to be sold to the Europeans for export abroad (15). Mohair yarn was an even more important produce from the 1720's onwards. It maintained a position of importance until 1760 (see Annexe II).

Changes in the manufacturing industries in the West and the growth of the mass-produced cloth industry had direct effects on the export pattern of Izmir. Silk stuffs and camelot, which were exported in small quantities in the early decades of the century, ceded their place to raw silk and mohair yarn (16). These in turn ceded their place to cotton, and to a lesser extent cotton yarn and wool. Export of cloth, always very limited, diminished even more as the century progressed (see Annexe II). "

The exports of the Ottoman port were almost exclusively raw materials, foodstuffs or goods requiring no special treatment. Raw materials used in the manufacturing industry of Western Europe constituted the greatest part. From 1718 onwards and until the early 19th century, these constituted 55% to 97% of all exports. Exports of other raw materials such as galls, wax, safflower, various medicinal drugs, skins were irregular and they diminished as the century progressed. Foodstuffs, wheat and olive oil from the Archipelago and currents and dried fruit from Izmir, were exported in limited quantities throughout our period. Among the imports, the most important was cloth from Western Europe, as well as an assortment of small manufactured goods of an advanced technology (watches, clocks). Then came colonial goods re-exported to the Levant such as sugar, coffee, cochenille and indigo.

What produced the «take off» in the economy of Izmir in the second half of the 18th century, was the systematic supply of Western Europe and in particular of the market of Marseilles with good quality cotton. Unalike silk or mohair yarn, cotton was not subject to constraints of transportation and the added cost that this involved. Cotton was produced in the environs of Izmir and production could be to a large extent controlled according to demand in the international market (17). The growth in the export of cotton was due to an absolute increase rather than a relative one, as there was no great change in productivity in the 18tn century.

As the economy of Izmir became export-orientated, its volume of trade increased. Exports of Izmir to Marseilles, for which data is available, remained the same overall in value for the first half of the 18th century. For the second half, 1750-1789, trade figures doubled. For the years 1700 - 1775, trade figures rose four-fold, whilst for the whole century, 1700 - 1789, they rose six-fold. For the early 19th century, 1801 - 1820, trade figures again doubled. Taking into consideration the fact that prices of Ottoman exports rose in the first half of the century at a faster rate than in the second

152 E. FRANGAKIS

half, and at a rate that was higher than the devaluation rate of the Ottoman piastre vis- à-vis the European currencies, then the volume of exports fell in that period. In the second half of the century, the rise in the prices of exports was smaller and did not always keep pace with the rate of devaluation of the Ottoman currency. As a result, Ottoman exports were very marketable in the West. Overall, there was a net increase in the volume of exports in the second half of the century.

Imports to Izmir from Marseilles increased in the second half of the century, although at a slower rate than the exports. In relative terms, however, the increase was greater, for the prices of imports fell in Izmir as they did in the rest of the Levant quite considerably in that period. In the early 19th century, imports rose four-fold, reflecting the general economic growth of Izmir and expansion of the internal Ottoman market.

The end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th was a period of new developments in the world economy. Growth in productivity in the Western economies, and in the British economy in particular, increased the needs for raw materials and for markets for finished goods. New partners came to trade with Izmir. For the Ottoman port, however, it was only the organisation of trade that changed. The nature of the trade relation remained the same. This was a relation of domination between the Western economies and the economy of Izmir, itself part of the Ottoman economy, established in the nature of the trade exchanges and manifested in the capitulations. The exchange of raw materials for manufactured goods led to the over- specialization of Ottoman production as well as to the commercialization of a large part of Western Anatolian agriculture. This commercialization however, did not lead to the transformation of the relations of production in the countryside. Growth of merchant capital did not lead to growth of industrial, productive capital. Izmir, as a major commercial, and to a lesser extent banking, centre grew. This economic growth was not reflected in its vast Anatolian hinterland, nor was the basis laid for an industrial growth in Izmir.

A number of manufacturing industries existed in and around Izmir, employing a small number of workers and making ordinary cloth and silk stuffs that catered for the lower end of the internal market. A few bigger concerns printed cloth and muslims and dyed cotton yarn for a wider internal market or even for export abroad. They were all functioning in the early 19th century and were in some cases rivalring similar products of French manufacture. Production, however, was very limited in scale. Even the beleaguered French manufacture did not feel threatened by local Ottoman manufacture at the time (18).

Part of the relation of domination that existed between the Ottoman Empire and Western Europe in the 18th century, was the fact that European merchants were allowed to trade in the Ottoman dominions — a right that was not reciprocal for the Ottoman merchants outside the Ottoman Empire — and with certain privileges that placed them above the Ottoman merchants. In fact, the external trade of Izmir was carried out, to a large extent, by European merchants established in the Ottoman port for this purpose. This was a phenomenon that was not unique to Izmir.

THE OTTOMAN PORT OF IZMIR 153

The most important mercantile communities were the French, Dutch and British. At the end of the 17th and in the early 18th century, the British and Dutch were the most prosperous trading communities. They were better organised and disposed of larger capital resources (19). After the 1730's, the French who had in the meantime built up their organisation in the Levant and their manufacture at home, became the most important trading nation in Izmir. They held their position of predominance until the French Revolution (20). After this date, the British became once more important together with the Americans and the Austrians who started large- scale trade with the Ottoman port at that time. In 1832, the United States accounted for 49,2% of Izmir's imports (21).

In the 18th century, European merchants were engaged in importing European and colonial goods to Izmir and exporting Ottoman goods to Western Europe. In the late 17th century and at the beginning of the 18th, Ottoman raya merchants, mostly Jews and Armenians, were also active in the external trade of Izmir. They had established mercantile communities in many Western European ports - Marseilles, Amsterdam, Livorno (22). As the 18th century progressed and Western Europe had a greater need of Ottoman raw materials, European merchants became better organised ousting their Ottoman rivals, both from Izmir and from Western Europe, as was the case with Marseilles (23).

Ottoman merchants were relegated to the position of commissioners, brokers and middlemen between the Ottoman producers and the European merchants. This was a position that the Ottomans fought hard to maintain against opposition of the Europeans who wanted to be able to go to the Ottoman producer direct, as was the case with other ports of the Empire such as Salonica, Péloponnèse or the Islands of the Archipelago (24). The Jews were the commissioners and moneylenders par excellence of Izmir, whilst the Armenians dominated the caravan trade with the East and the silk trade (25). They were also the hommes d'affaires of large-scale Ottoman producers (26). The Greeks were active in the retail and wholesale trade of cloth inside the city of Izmir and the environs (27). They were also active in the commission trade.

Other sectors of the economy such as customs, health, local taxes were exclusively in the hands of the Ottomans. Prosperous Jews and Turks held high offices in the Customs whilst the Greeks were the sole authority in matters of health for the port (28). The other sector of the economy that was in the hands of the Ottomans was internal trade. This was dominated almost entirely by Muslim merchants, who carried out the trade of Izmir with the rest of the Ottoman Empire, either by land or by sea (29). If they travelled by sea or sent their goods that way, this was usually done in European ships ! Till the closing decades of the 18th century, the carrying trade of the Ottoman port was dominated by Europeans and in particular by the French (30). Banking, which was informal and complimentary to trade in the 18th century, was done on an individual basis by both Ottomans and Europeans, although the latter usually disposed of larger capital resources. All communities lent at high interest rates. Usury was a very common practice at all levels (31). Those who lost out from it were the peasants who became indebted to their landlord and in many cases lost their land to him.

154 E. FRANGAKIS

In their competition with each other, the major European nations allowed for the Ottomans to carry out part of the trade. In this, a vital role was played by the Italian ports. Traditionally, these ports were outposts of trade for the Ottoman merchants — particularly Jews and Armenians. At times of War, when friction between the major trading nations of France and Britain was strong, a great deal of Izmir's trade with Marseilles or London was directed to Livorno (32). At times of peace, European merchants and in particular British, who worked outside the framework of the Levant Company, co-operated with Armenians or Jews and traded with Izmir via the Italian ports.

.." several unfree of the Company and others who were not to be governed by our positions, are sending their goods to Leghorn and thence into Jews'hands and that so plentifully that only one Jew of Smyrna this year has received to the value of 300,000 piastres in English commission which is more business than what the English Factory have received these three years" (33).

This was probably an exaggeration, however, it showed the type of trading contacts that were going on at the time. Nevertheless, the amount of trade that was carried out by the Ottoman merchants was small compared to the total volume of trade in Izmir.

The Europeans were involved in a number of activities that left them profits in addition to that from trade. The carrying trade between Izmir and the other Ottoman ports or along the Western Anatolian coast as well as with Western Europe was in the hands of the Europeans, together with maritime insurance, shipbuilding and other related activities. Lending, monetary speculation and investment in trade were other activities.

" Sur la loi de système, le Levant était pour la France à beaucoup d'égards une véritable colonie ; la possession commerciale de ce pays nous était assurée à tel point, que tous nos échanges d'importation et d'exportation le faisait, presque sans autre intermédiaire que nos nationaux qui avaient ainsi tout le bénéfice du commerce et de navigation, ne laissant aux sujets Ottomans que celui d'agriculture et du débit de nos marchandises, bénéfice que nous ne pouvons ni ne devons convoiter" (34).

The average rate of devaluation of the Ottoman piastre vis-à-vis the Venetian sequin was for the first half of the 18th century 9%, for the second half 38% and for the closing decades of the century, 1774-1789, 47,5% (35). Thus a rise in the price of an Ottoman produce was eliminated or reversed when translated in European currency. This was the case in the second half of the 18th century with cotton wool, mohair yarn, Izmir mohair wool, certain qualities of lambswool and ardassine silk whose prices rose at rates which were below the rate of devaluation. It was not so for all exports of Izmir. Prices of Bursa silk, red and white cotton yarn and some othçr qualities of lambswool rose at rates which were higher than the rate of devaluation. However, a large part of the rise was, even here, eliminated. For instance, laines surges rose 47% in Ottoman currency in the years 1760 - 1788. This gave a net rise in the international market of only 5%, taking into consideration a rate of devaluation of 42% for the period (36). At the same time, these prices were not set according to the needs of the Ottoman economy but represented the fluctuations of the stronger economies of the West which dominated the international market.

THE OTTOMAN PORT OF IZMIR 155

Izmir showed an active balance of trade with France for most of the century and with Western Europe as a whole in the closing decades of the century and at the beginning of the 19th, when such documentation exists. The only time when France had an active balance of trade was in the 1770's. There were also periods of overall equilibrium, as in the duration of the Seven Years War. During that time, Marseilles had difficulty in supplying the market of Izmir with goods. For those years, the port of Livorno substituted Marseilles. The deficit for France increased at the end of the 18th century and reached its peak at the beginning of the 19th century. The reasons for this are not so much the inability of the market of Izmir to absorb French goods but the internal problems that France and French industry were facing at the time (37).

Izmir had an active balance of trade with Britain in the last quarter of the 18th century. This was reversed in early 19th century (38). At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, Holland which was the third trading nation in Izmir, had a trade deficit that was larger than that of France or Britain. At that time, Holland was acting as a kind of entrepot, distributing to other places in Europe many of the goods it imported from Izmir. It also exported to Izmir considerable quantities of German manufactured cloth (39).

The Italian ports of Livorno, Genoa and Messina which also acted as entrepots in the trade of Izmir with Western Europe, showed large trade deficits at the end of the 18th century. In the early 19th century, these were entirely reversed. The ports of Ancona and Trieste, also entrepots, had a passive balance of trade with Izmir in the last quarter of the 18th century which was greatly diminished in early 19th century (40). At that time, Marseilles had again severe difficulties in supplying the market of Izmir. British and German manufactures were reaching Izmir through the Italian ports whose trade with the Ottoman port had greatly increased (41). The greatest increase occurred in the trade of Izmir with Ancona and Trieste.

One of the principal exports of the Italian ports was money. Despite the continuous trade surplus, the market of Izmir was facing chronic monetary dearth. A number of factors contributed to this.

Part of the trade surplus was directed to Istanbul, to be converted into Ottoman piastre in the Imperial mints. Continuous wars had drained away money from the Imperial Treasury. The deliberate policy of devaluation carried out by the Sultan impoverished large sections of peasant population who were unable to meet additional taxation for the needs of the State. Money also went by way of Alexandria, Mecca or Bagdad to India. In early 19th century, part of this money went to Britain, by way of Malta, to pay for imports of British cloth. This was one of the reasons why interest in foreign currencies was high in Izmir at that time (42).

A great deal of the money from the trade surplus went back to the West in the form of a passive balance of payments for Izmir. Many activities related to trade were carried out by the Europeans, as described above. Profits thus realized were repatriated either during the merchant's stay in the Ottoman port, or upon his repatriation. Despite the lack of documentation to quantify the balance of payments of Izmir with Western Europe, it is to be assumed that a great deal of the trade surplus of Izmir was eliminated, with a possible deficit for the local economy as a whole.

156 E. FRANGAKIS

The urban sector as a whole gained from the growth of trade in Izmir. Merchants, middlemen, moneychangers and moneylenders, both Muslim and raya benefited from the development of commerce and banking and the raya communities even more so. This was also the result of general developments in the world economy at the end of the 18th century that warranted free trade and greater competition. The growth in the volume of trade between Izmir and the Italian ports was characterized by the taking over of large sectors of this trade by Greeks, Armenians and Jews (43). France and Britain abolished laws that excluded «foreigners», that is non-British or French, from their trade as this no longer served the needs of their economies (44). The Greek mercantile community was the main beneficiary of these developments. By the beginning of the 19th century, Greek merchants traded not only from their bases in Holland, Italy, Britain and France but also from the ports of Spain and the Black Sea, taking an active part in the international trade of Izmir and disposing of considerable capital resources. However, they displayed a high rate of bankruptcy.

" Depuis quelques années le corps des négociants grecs est devenu si considérable et a acquis des richesses si colossales qu'on peut les dire presque maîtres absolus du commerce de la place... des fortunes colossales acquises en peu de temps de s'évanouir assez vite... Il est rare de voir une maison grecque se soutenir pendant 20 ans dans le même état de splendeur" (45).

The other great beneficiaries from the growth of trade in Izmir were large-scale Turkish producers, also called ayans, in the 18th century. The most important ayans were the families of Karaosmanoglu and Araboglu. However, there were lesser ayans who owned land producing wheat and cotton in Manisa and elsewhere in the environs of Izmir. To their revenue from the land was added the profit from trading their produce in the international market. Revenue from trade was neither the sole nor the most important source of revenue for these agas. Administrative office gave them political and economic priveleges. Revenue from international trade, in which they participated either directly or through their representatives, helped their position but did not determine it (46). The settling of Greek peasants from Morea in the lands of Karaosmanoglu, which took place at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, showed that there was economic growth in the area (47).

Izmir suffered from certain environmental hazards — earthquakes which sometimes destroyed it almost totally ; fires which occurred often partly due to its wooden housing system, itself a deterrent against earthquakes ; plague which was brought to Izmir by caravans either from the land (Iran, Anatolia) or from the sea (Istanbul, Alexandria) and attacks of malignant fever. These hazards caused serious damage to trade, especially when they occurred simultaneously or followed one another (fires followed earthquakes). They do not appear to have had long-term effects on trade or the economy in general. They did, however, have an effect on the demography of the city which remained static throughout the 18th century.

To the extent that Izmir exported the agricultural produce of Anatolia to the West and imported Western manufactured goods, it contributed to the penetration of these areas by the international market. The impact and extent of this penetration was certainly greater in the immediate environs of Izmir and Western Anatolia at large, than further East. That said, international trade represented a relatively small sector

THE OTTOMAN PORT OF IZMIR 157

in the Ottoman economy in the 18th century. For the whole of the Ottoman economy, therefore, the impact from the international market could only be limited. There was certainly a pattern of domination established between the Empire and the West, the expression of which on the economic level were the trade agreements. Nevertheless, the Empire was not yet dependent politically or economically on the West, in a way that it was going to be in the 19th century.

The pattern of socio-economic development that the Ottoman Empire followed in the 18th century, was largerly the product of internal factors. These were affected and influenced by the stronger economies of the West, through the Empire's integration, largerly via Izmir, in the international market but were not determined by them.

ABBREVIATIONS

ANF Archives Nationales de France, Paris. AE Bi Série Affaires Étrangères, sous-série Bi. AE Biii Série Affaires Étrangères, sous-série Biii. F/12 Série F/ 12, Commerce et Industrie. AMAE Archives du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères. CCC Série, Correspondance consulaire et commerciale. ACCM Archives de la Chambre de Commerce de Marseille. I Série I, Statistiques. PRO Public Records Office, London. SP/105 State Papers, 105 Series ; Levant Company Archives. ARA Published Dutch Archives.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

(1) ACCM, I, 19 - 20, États des marchandises envoyées en Levant et Barbarie, 1749 -1789 ; I, 26 - 28, États estimatifs des marchandises venant du Levant et de Barbarie, 1700-1789.

(2) ANF, AE Bi 1053, Mémoire, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir, 22 nov. 1751. (3) ANF, F/12, 1850A, Consul Fourcade, Izmir 10 sept. 1812 to Minister in Paris. (4) ARA, VUIf Totaal Bedrag van de Invoer en Uitvoer te Smirna in de jaren, 1801 - 1803 in J. G.

Nanninga ed, Bronnen tot de Geschiedenis van den Levantschen Handel, vierde deel, 1765-1826, s* Gravenhage, 1966. See also, AMAE, CCC 35, État général des marchandises importées à Smyrne de diverses places d'Europe et de celles exportées de Smyrne pour les diverses places d'Europe, 181 7 • 1820.

(5) ANF, AE Biii 242, Sur l'article 30, de l'ordonnance du 20 sept. 1810, 28 sept. 1814. (6) ANF, F/12, 549-550, Mémoire sur le commerce du Levant en général, 1777. (7) For the compilation of this table the following sources have been used : Consular Corres

pondence, ANF, AE Bi 1045 - 6, 1053, 1056, 1062, 1065 - 9 ; AE Biii 269, 271 - 7 ; AMAE, CCC 35 ; and Statistics of the Chamber of Commerce of Marseilles ACCM, I, 19-20 and 26-28 ; also ANF, F/12, 549-550 and ARA, VUIf. Where there is more than one source for a single year, the highest figure has been chosen.

(8) C. Le Bruyn, Voyages de Corneille Le Bruyn au Levant, La Haye, 1732, p. 86 ; see also W. Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia, 2 vols, London, 1842, p. 58 vol. 1 ; and C. Frankland, Travels to and from Constantinople in the years 1827 and 1828, London, 1829, p. 67.

(9) There were exceptions to the general rule, the most notable one being the Saribeyoglu disturbances in 1738; PRO/SP/105/336, Register of Assemblies ; see also, R. Pococke, Voyages de Richard Pococke 1739, 5 vols., Paris, 1772, p. 19 vol. 5.

158 E. FRANGAKIS

(10) Despite a record of peaceful co-existence for most of the 18th century, in the closing decades Izmir fell prey to the wave of anti-Christian feeling that swept the Empire. In 1774 and 1797, the Christian population and in the latter date the Europeans also, were objects of attack. In the case of the Europeans this amounted to material losses only. PRO/SP/105/126, Consul Werry, Izmir 17 Mar 1797 to Levant Co, London ; see also, C.C. de Peyssonnel, Lettre de M. de Peyssonnel, ancien consul à Smyrne, contenant quelques observations relatives aux mémoires qui ont paru sous le nom de Baron de Ton, Amsterdam, 1785, p. 78.

(11) ANF, AE Bi 1052, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir 29 jan. 1749 to French Minister in Paris. (12) J.-B. Tavernier, Les six voyages de J. -B. Tavermer en Turquie, Perse et aux Indes, 6 vols.,

Paris, 1712, vol. 5, p. 105 ; see also P. de Tournefort, Relation d'un voyage au Levant, 2 vols., Paris, 1717, vol. 2, p. 512.

(13) J. Bowring, Reports on the Commercial Statistics of Syria, London, 1840, p. 40. (14) For the compilation of this table, the following sources have been used : ANF, AE Bi 1065 -

9; AE Biii 269, 271-7; AMAE, CCC 35; ARA, VUIf; ACCM, I, 19-20 and 26-28. (15) ANF, AE Bi 1053, Mémoire, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir 22 nov. 1751. (16) ACCM, I, 26-28. (17) ANF, AE biii 242, Mémoire sur le commerce de Smyrne, Consul Fourcade, Izmir, ? 1814. (18) Ibid. (19) Arvieux, Ch. de, Mémoires du Chevalier d'Arvieux, 1653-1657, Paris, 1735, p. 89 ; see also,

J. du Mont, Nouveau voyage du Levant, La Haye, 1694, p. 268 ; and, PRO/SP/105/145, An account of English Woollen Manufactures, Tin and Lead Exported by the Levant Company in the Years 1699-1706, London, 10 may 1708.

(20) ANF, AE Biii 243, Renseignements sur le commerce du Levant, Miège, Livorno, 13 may 1825.

(21) AMAE, CCC 43, Exportation et Importation de Smyrne, 1832. (22) Macler F., "Notes de Chahan de Cirbied sur les Arméniens d'Amsterdam et de Livourne ",

Annahir. 1, 1904, p. 10 ; see also ANF, AE Biii 235, Commerce du Levant : Mémoire sur les Juifs, 1693. (23) PRO/SP/105/115, Levant Co, London 14 aug. 1695 to Con Raye, Izmir ; see also Tekeian,

C-D, " Marseille, la Provence et les Arméniens ", Mémoires de l'Institut Historique de Provence, 1929, XI, pp. 22-26.

(24) ANF, AE Biii 242, Commerce du Levant en général, Jumelin, 1812. (25) ANF, AE Bi 1058, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir 9 jun. 1769 to Minister in Paris. (26) ANF, AE Bi 1054, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir 9 may 1754 to Minister in Paris. (27) ANF, AE Bi 1053, Mémoire, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir 22 nov. 1751 ; see also ARA, 349,

Fremeaux, van Lennep and Enslie to van Haaften, 29 jun. 1782. (28) PRO/SP/105/127, Consul Werry, Izmir 17 jun. 1800 to Minister in Paris. (29) ANF, AE Biii 242, Mémoire sur le commerce de Smyrne, Consul Fourcade, Izmir, ? 1814. (30) ANF, AE Biii 272-4, État des bâtiments, Izmir 31 mar. 1763 to 30 jun. 1774. (31) ANF, AE Bi 1055, Consul Gilly, Izmir 28 jun. 1755 to Minister in Paris. (32) C. Carrière & M. Courdurié, " Les grandes heures de Livourne au XVIIIe siècle ", Revue

Historique, CCLIV, 1, pp. 1-40. (33) PRO/SP/ 105/336 Register of Assemblies. (34) ANF, AE Biii 242, Sur l'article de l'ordonnance... 28 sept. 1814. (35) These calculations are based on figures given for the annual devaluation of the Ottoman

piastre vis-à-vis the Venetian sequin, in V Kremmydas, To empono Us Peloppomsou ton 18o eona, 1715-1792, Athens, 1972, p. 116.

(36) ACCM, I, 28 and ANF (ACCM), AE Biii 271-7. (37) ANF, AE Biii 415, Mémoire sur le commerce d'importation à Smyrne du produit des manufact

ures de plusieurs nations étrangères, Consul Amoureux. Izmir, 7 may 1781.

THE OTTOMAN PORT OF IZMIR 159

(38) ANF, AE Bi 1065-9; AE Biii 276-7; AMAE CCC 35. (39) ANF, AE Biii 415, Mémoire... , Consul Amoureux, 7 may 1781. (40) ARA, VIHf ; AMAE CCC 35. (41) ANF, AE Biii 243, Renseignements..., Miège, Livorno, 13 may 1825. (42) ANF, AE Biii 243, Inspection générale du Levant, No 1, F. de Beaujour, Izmir 5 jul. 1817. (43) ANF, AE Biii 243, Renseignements..., 13 may 1825. (44) PRO/SP/105/129, Consul Werry, Izmir 13 aug. 1804 to Levant Company, London. (45) ANF, F/12, 1850A, État général des maisons de commerce ottoman établies à Smyrne, 1820. (46) ANF, AE Bi 1054, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir 7 jul. 1754 to Minister in Paris ; see also ANF,

AE Biii 242, Sur l'ordonnance... 28 sept. 1814 ; and G. Veinstein, • Ayan de la région d'Izmir et le commerce du Levant (deuxième moitié du X Ville siècle), Revue de l'Occident Musulman et de la Méditerranée, 1975, p. 137.

(47) G. Keppel in L. Erder, The making of industrial Bursa Economie activity and population in a Turkish city, 1835-1975, PhD, USA, 1976, p. 41.

160 E. FRANGAKIS

Annexe I — External Trade of Izmir with France (Marseilles) in the 18th century 1700 - 1820, in livres tournois

Year

1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750

Imports

2,004,666

3,370,779

4,222,984 4,686,087

Exports

2,047,314 3,806,715 1,272,044 1,257,253 1,685,059 1,381,727 1,526,296 1,074,995

816,396 827,382 707,094 910,901

2,619,961 1,771,889 4,360,226 1,013,527

796,668 638,698

3,027,022 5,048,319 2,354,957 2,004,663

187,526 1,428,642 2,347,781 1,914,878

963,007 2,462,597 1,333,603 1,513,879

759,297 1,984,360 2,339,204 1,877,808 3,274,737 1,209,526 2,282,234 2,006,095 1,825,751 1,572,380 2,008,846 2,669,222 2,455,357 3,340,845 1,916,877 1,825,972 2,751,934 3,227,007 2,050,258 4,531,162 5,629,076

Year

1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789

1802 1803

1817 1818 1819 1820

Imports

4,500,000 4,132,544 5,439,862 4,080,184 4,264,640 6,454,847

3,677,262 3,591,534 4,337,454 4,058,151 7,357,215 8,503,920 6,832,581 9,608,652

11,443,158 7,653,294 7,108,446 7,275,192 7,813,611 9,922,167

10,338,201 11,028,570 14,205,774 13,370,161 7,257,198 7,057,534 7,095,493

10,905,215 9,264,351

12,560,880 9,692,147 9,350,429

11,586,840 13,056,355 13,460,268 13,202,551 9,545,773

16,254,291 11,779,146

19,173,441 4,223,295

31,555,716 15,425,574

Exports

4,500,000 4,280,905 5,205,557 6,553,717 7,207,383 6,745,689 5,728,464 2,701,449 3,156,858 3,557,450 3,762,726 4,078,926 7,796,237 8,614,880 7,942,008

10,611,300 10,024,464 10,752,484 7,668,723 8,121,159 7,137,435 8,670,096 9,655,497

10,337,697 12,993,429 9,967,419

13,277,592 10,389,025 8,119,006

11,987,816 10,047,784 11,424,148 12,402,387 10,100,861 13,371,591 14,130,347 16,903,862 16,499,726 12,805,693

13,612,353 12,033,309

26,626,710 6,802,545

39,253,851 13,659,156

THE OTTOMAN PORT OF IZMIR 161

Annexe II — Share of Mohair Yarn, Silk, Cotton Wool, Cotton Yarn, Wool and Manufactured Cloth to Total Exports from Izmir to Marseilles, 1700-1820

Year

1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748

% Share (Mohair Yarn)

24 16.5 12.1 26.1 33.4 15.3 13.3 4 5 9.3

12.2 39 36.2 18.2 10 6.2 „ — 26 21.4 20.1

16 47.3 30 10.4 21 22.1 34 26.1 27.1 34 27.1 36.5 31.1 40 40 41.3

17 34.3 46 33.2 45 32

30.4 35 28.1 15

% Share (Silk)

29 38 52 41 21.2 17.3 21.4 31.2 24.3 43 10 17.1 22 28.4 _ — 8

54 17.2 19 20

2.3 1.4 7.1 6.3 4

12 6 1

„—. 1 5.1

6 7.2 1.3 2.4

12 15.2 12 16 15 4.1 5.2 0.4 2.5 2 2.1

% Share (Cotton Wool)

1.1 1 1 4.5

10 7 6.1 1.2 __ __

1 1 4 6

12 10.1 7 0.3 9

21.1 41

1 1 1 7

17.2 10 13.3 17.1 21 2.1

19 27.1 15 6.3

17.5 25

35.5 17.5 7 8

11 23 ___ 52 40.3 30.2 24.4

* Share (Cotton (Yarn)

16 10.4 6.2 7 8.2

15.4 14 9.4 4 3 2 0.4 0.1 2.4 5.3 4.3 0.1 0.2 4 1.5 0.3 1.4 9 0.2 7 3.4 6 1.4 4 4.4 0.3 3 4 3.2

__ 0.4 1

5.5 1 0.3 5.1 1 1.3

_„_ 0.2 1.1 0.5

% Share (Wool)

14.3 8

13 8

28.1 13 16 21 24.4 19 24.4 19.3 15 8

12.5 30.2 19 22.1 22.4 17

3.3 24.1 19.4 14.3 23.1 15.1 15.2 13 14.4 35.3 7.5

14 16.3 29 22.5

7

12.3 12 11.4 8

11 18 5 3.2 9 7.4

24.4

S Share (Cloth)

1.4 1 3 2. 2.3 7 7 4.2 1 3 3 2 2 3.1 __ ' 4 5.1 2.3 1.4 1

3.4 4.3 5 6.4 5 2 2.3 6 —— 7.3 2 3 2.3 2 0.3 1

1.4 1 2.5 1.5 2 2.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.4

162 E. FRANGAKIS

Annexe II - .../... 1749-1820.../.

Year

1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789

1817 1818 1819 1820

% Share (Mohair Yarn)

29 24.4 30.1 19.3 28 28 23.4 15.3 35.5 43.2 49 37.3

1.2 10 16 17 5

11.3 12 23.2 26.5 22 13.3 21.3 15 16 10 13 9.2 9 8

12 9.1 5.5

12 -i 10 20.2 18 8 6 4

2.4

2 7.2

% Share (Silk)

10.3 6 1 6

13.5 2.2 0.5 3.4 2 2.5 6 9

10 10 7 4.5 6 8.1 3

10.4 11.1 7.2 7 6.2 9 8 5 4.1 4 3 3 5.4 4 7

12 3 4 1 5.1

10.2 4

1

4.3 2

% Share (Cotton Wool)

25.1 39 28 41 27 29.4 28.5 36 38 22.5 46.1 17 42 54 43 47.4 47 36.4 42.1 28 23.4 30.4 33 26.2 15 36 49 57 56.1 72 42.3 50.1 51.3 57 41.4 • 44 50 51.3 53 48 40.5

21.4

9 12

% Share (Cotton (Yarn)

1 6.1 7 1 0.5 8.2 2.4 7 1.5 1.4

11 17 23 21.4 16.4 19 21 25 31.4 21.2 18.1 21 29 21 22.2 23.3

. 16 14 13.5 22 27.2 16 16 10.3 12 20.2 18 13 10 13.2 16

_.._ 0.02 -™~

% Share (Wool)

22 16 21 21.2 25 21 25 29 12 20.5 12.5 16 5 6.2

12 10.1 2

11 9.4

11 17 15 22.5 15 7 5.1 3

10.3 12.4 8.1 7.3

14 10 14.5 15.5 15.1 8

12 13.4 14 11

8 6

__ 15.1

% Share (Cloth)

1 1 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 1 0.2

0.2 0.2 0.5

0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 ......

0.2 1 0.5 0.2 0.2

0.2 0.4 1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3

— —