Photograph: LH. Kad OTTOMAN IZMIR Studies in honour of Alexander H. de Groot edited by Maurits H. van den Bogert NEDERLANDS INSTITUUT VOOR HET ABLE OOSTEN 2007” Cc. HEYWOOD: SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Soni An English Consul at Er: Paul Rycaut at Sra, 1667-1678 (Oxford, 1988) Bromley, 1S. Corsars and Navies, 1660-1760 (London snd Ronceverte, 1987) ‘Evy Celebi b Dervis Mehmed Zl, Bula Cele Seyahandmesl. IX. Kitp (672)— es. Yogst ‘Dagi, Seyit Ali Kabraman and Robert Dano (stent), 2005). Galland, Antoine, Sryre ancienne et mademe (od. Fr, Bauden, Le Voyage a Smyrme: un ‘nasert drone Galland (1678), Pai, 2000) Goffman, Daniel, lzmir andthe Levantne worl 150-1650 (Seti an Londen, 1990). {Great Britain, Admiralty), Naval Intelligence Division, Turkey 2 vols, 1-p., 1942; Geographical “Handbook Series, BR 307) [Great Britain, Admiraty and War Office}, Notes om Climate and other subjects tn Easter “Mlterrnean and adjacent courres (Landon, ns (1916) [reat Bets], Air Ministy, Meteorolgical Office, Weather in the Mediterranean, 2d. ed, (Conder, 1562) Grove, AT, “The “Lite Toe Age” and its geomorphological consequences in Mediterancan TBurope, Climate Change xvii 2001), 121-136. iasluck, F. W., “The Rise of Modern Syma’, Anal ofthe Bish School ot Athens, xii (1918 19), 1394147 ‘Reyeood, Colin, “The Kapudan Pasa, the English Ambassador and the Blckhar Galley: an pods in Anglo-Ottoman Martine Relations (1697), Elizabeth Zacharadou (68). The ‘Rupudan Pasha, ho Office and his Domain (Haleyon Days in Cet, IV. A Symposium ln ‘Retiymnon 7 Tannery 2000) Rethyzanon, 2002), 409-438. . Standing on Haslack’s Shoulders: Another Look at Francesco Lupazzolo's Aegean folario (1638), fortcoming. Kingion, J, ‘The Severe Winter of 169677, Weather li/11 (Nov. 197), 386-391, “The Severe Winter of 16971, Weather il (an, 1999) 43-9. Luerbacher, J. The Late Meunder Minimum (1675-1715) ~ Climax ofthe ‘Lil lee Age’ in ‘Europe in PD. lousy AE-1 Opivie, LD. Davies and KR. Drift es, History and Cats ‘Mambores ofthe Pure? (New York, 301), 29-54, =, and E. Xopleki, ‘500-year Winter Tempore ‘and Precipitation Vavibity over tbe ‘Mediecancan Aes and fs Connection tothe Largescale Aimospherc Cyvalton', Hans- JJugen Bolle C0), Medierrancan Climate: Variability and Trends (Belin and Heidelberg, 2005), 133-157 Panza, Deel, La poste dane Empire Ottoman 1700-1850 (Louvsia, 1985) : Quarantines et Lazar: Europe eta Pete d Orient (XVIF-10 sil (Aix-en-Provence, 1986). = La caravane maritime: Marne européens et marchands ottomans en Méditerranée (1680-1830) (aris, 2008), Rodgec, NAM, The Wooden World: n Anatomy ofthe Georgian Navy (London, 1988), 99 =, The Command o the Ocean A Navel History of Briain, 1648-1815 (London, 2004) Saimeri, Giovanni, ‘Frederick Wiliam Hasluck ftom Cambridge to Smyma’, i David Stankland Ted), Archoclogy, Anthropology and Herliage: The Life and Times of FW. Hasluck (2 vols, “tenb, 2008), T1108, ‘Tavernier, Jean-Beptste, The Six Vonages of John Bapsta Tavernier. through Tukey ino "Perse, andthe East indie, fnghed in he Year 1670... Made English by J. (Lanta, 167). “Toumefor, Joseph Piton de, Relation d'un voyage di Levant ft par ordre ch ray par M. ‘Ptton ce Tournefort 2 vols, Pats 1727), Wood, A.C, A History ofthe Levant Company (Oxford, 1935; p. London, 1964) ‘A SILENCE OF THE GUILDS? ‘SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF IZMIR’S CRAFTSMEN. ORGANIZATIONS IN THE 18" AND EARLY 19™ CENTURY email Haile Kadi Guilds were among the most important institutions of the social, economic and administrative fabric of Ottoman cities. Their importance for industrial production has been emphasized in some publications on Ottoman economic history. Others have focused, fon the guilds’ interelaionship with religious concepts ike ahi frwes, suftsm, and heterodox movements. On the adminisrative level the administrative structure of the ‘uilds, as well as their place within the administration of Oxtoman cities, has attracted the ‘attention of te scholar. Socal historians investigated the place of the guilds inthe fabric ff Ottoman cities, as well as intemal socal relations like that between the masters and ‘apprentices. Osman Nuri Esgin's impressive source collection, the Mecellesi Umir-r Beledyye, contains material on most ofthese aspects? Several publications on Oitoman cities illustrate the importance of guilds as Ottoman civic institutions. The publications by (Gzer Ergeng on Ankara and Konya, Bruce Masters’ work on Aleppo, and the studies of ‘Amnon Cohen on Jerusalem are just a few examples? Owing to these publications, itis no ‘exaggeration fo say thatthe guilds are one of the best known institutions of Ottoman ites. ¥ Oaman Nai Erga, Mecell-4 Uns Belpe, Qsuabal, 195) vol. On he importance of th guilis ‘eeu Ota ods produc ae Abmn® Tats, Trt at Tari (antl, 2003), 265-90; Bal Its, "capital Ferman inte Otoman Ezpie”The Journal of Econo History 291969), 98- 19. On the itrltonhip between te gus and hii, fleet and religious conops see Nejet (Gafaay, BT Kura Olan Abit (Askar, 197) st Tak Kalas ye Ae (Saab, 198), On the ‘eitions teovecn tbr alge sod lea aubeies see Ozer Ergen, "Ososa Shien Yeaein ‘Karuolanin Nis Caeende Ban Digiaeles” YI Tar tari tongres. Ankara: 11-15 im 1976 Tanoree smal idler (kaa, 1981) vl, 1265-74 On he ednisetve soar of Otoman gulls fee Cobre) Beer, “Tice Lonaanain Yap ve bu Yapusn Osan Sonal Tah iin One Ter “Grstrmelrt Dest 12197078), 99-119 a Susipa Fao, Crs and Change: 1590-169, in Hall {al and Doan Quatet (le) de economic ond soil istry of the Otoman Empire, 13001914 (Combi, 1999, 587-98, On the social spect of Otonaa’ Gulls cee Meet Geng, Osment ‘nparctoringnde Deve ve Eton (abl, 200), 204-307. On the reaons been he masters and ‘ppenies win te gui soe Shay Vater, ‘Miata wenver a Danascas waged ass aod ‘Be Otamaa labor movement, 1850-1914" inE.. Zurcher, ad D. Qua, (), Workrs ond the working ‘las nthe Ottoman Empire ond the Turkish Republic 1839-1950 (London, 1995), 35.57. For eet noes! of moat of tee arpcs re. Serve Farag, Rani Deaben, (ls), Craft and Crafamen (the Mile East (Ne Yor, 2005) * Ose Eegzag, Osmanl lait Donan Kent Targifine Kol, XV1 YT da Antara ve Kowa (Asis, 1998), One Eigen 160.1615 ilar Arad Antara Ded Turin Ait Ajtai’ iO. Oya, HCO Natontfle (es), Tarp Meta Tari Sinarl, MetntrTarsgmalr (Rts, 1975), 185-168, ‘igsay, ‘Osu Sohssrndett Yenetim Korumianam Nieigi Osernde Bax Distal’, 12651274; Brace Master, Mester Econo Dominance in the Me Fart Mercantila and th Ilan eonfe LHL Kabt Despite the substantial corpus of publications on zm, the guilds of tis city couse somewhat ofan exception. Not only does the availble iteratre offer very title Sation on the guilds of Lemi, tis lacuna self appears to have gone uanoticed in ‘ereases. Daniel Goffman and Tancer Baykara were aware of his lacuna, and atbuted it to the absence of local court records.” “The lack of sclls only pry explains the lak of attention on Tzmir's guilds, however Afterall we now tat several putes within the guilds, end between crafsmen tee ue hand andthe local authorities onthe other, sometimes required the intervention SE the central authors in Intmbul, leaving traces in the archives of te central Slelisation as a emule Suaiye Faroghi for example, cites the silzyet defterleri cancing come disputes among the anners of Bursa abott the allotment of hides. She se tise sie dat aout the taners of Yzmit on the basis of the Mhinme “eter! also onthe basis ofthe archives ofthe central administration, Yocel Ozkaya Sree is tat there were 60 snuff shops in Istanbul in 1750, while the maximum number saree sed to bo 4. Moreover Oalaya cites a Hat Fimayn about he appointment of Sande we glasamakers of Istanba. Even the allotment of gra, fom the sate Gramarie othe craomen of Erzuram appears to have lft i traces in the Ottoman central archives. As we will see, the same is true for the guilds of Izmir, which has ‘equally left traces in various chanceres in Istanbul “This atic aims to investigate the guilds of Izmir in an attempt to fil in some of the lacunae in our understanding of their organization, elno-eligios composition and ‘eal and economic impo. For his parpose I wil ely extensively on primary material on {he quills of Laur fFom the achive ofthe central Ottoman administration. These new ae seea hod light on some aspects of Iai’ guilds such asthe question of membership ‘Ione religious lines (re. Muslims and non-Muslims, or only members of elt sone lcs awarded tothe guilds, or claimed by them: pre-emplve or exclusive purchase ‘Rue, saz ally, the interaction betwen the European in ki and the y's guilds 1h 1985 Tuncor Beykaa presented paper ina conference in Mich onthe guilds of ami inthe eighteenth century. Baykara's paper was based ona register he bad found in the archives ofthe Valor Genel Miiriagd in Ankare, The register inchded, among many other documents, a number of entries ‘concerning appointments to various “Tims positions in the guils of Tamir. Depending on the period, place and the “ee ee eee “epee, 1800-1750 (New York, 1988, Amon Coben, The Guilds of Otoman Jesalem (Leer, 001; ‘gros Coben, Economie Life ir Oxtomen Jersalem (Cambie 1989) Spaniel Goff, “Tani: fom village to colonial por city’ in Edhem Elem, Daniel Gofaan, Bruce Masta, Jie Ottoman City between East and West (Cambeidge, 1999), 119, opiate 106, Tancer Baya, Mam Yesjude Tamir Broa Teste Hallands Nota, Hans Georg Majer, Raout Mota (es), eee Weuchafesnd Soilgeahichte von 1071 bis 1920: Akten des I. Internationa Kongresset (Websheden, 1995), 27-3, 1 sunija Faoghi, Towns and Towmsmen of Otoman Anatolia: Trade, Crafts and Food Production in an Urb Sting, 1530-1650 (London, 1984), 158. forthe smut shops in Ital and he allotment of gai to the examen of Ermrum Orkaya cts mete Bom be Belediye section ofthe Covet xlleshon inte Baal Osman Arsiv (heater Sea aoa Oukaye, TIL yy. do Osment Karamar: ve OsmantTopaal yazan (Aakare, 1985), on, ASLENCE OFTHE GUILDS? 3 crafts, Ottoman guilds were generally administered by a seyh, kethiida or yidithast : Sontinaon of tase ype of hadoan’ Dae on es snes Bayan pesca ie following list of 31 appointments to administrative positions of guilds in Izmir during x eighteenth century. an oa et “Table 1, Appointments tothe guilds of lami inthe 18 century ~ Baykara’s ist Position Gui Seyh Berber (babes) Ustabap (head master) Berber (barbers) Ser Mia (architects) Seyh ‘Yorganc (blanket-makers) Seyh Dogramaci (carpenters) Kethada ‘Gazzaz (sik manufactures) Seyh ‘Gomleki gana: (potes) Yiitbap, elaye (tinsmiths) Seyh “Kirigi (Sting bowstrng makers) ‘Yanie (scribe) ‘Kauruyemig (ried frit and nat sellers) Borekgibage ‘Bure (pastry-makers) Seyh Balmumen (beswax-sellers) Mibasic (messenger) Zahieci (grain sellers) Kethada ‘Masi args (merchants at Egyption Market) Ustabess Boyaci (yer) Yigitbas, Bozzaz (cloth merchants) Kethida Haass (straw-mat makers) Kethida Haff (sboerskers) ‘Ai Babe Debbag (anners) Kethada ‘Basmacs (texile-prites) sabes ‘Kebabet ve hoabes (Kebab and compote cooks) ‘Kethida ‘Kuruyemie! ied fruit and mut elles) Kethida ‘Tage ooasons) Kethids Bgakg enif-makers) Kethida ask (furirs) Ustabagt ‘Natbant (blacksmiths) Kethnda ‘Tabib ve ceri (physicians and surgeons) Kethida Ispeogivar (prmacist?) Ustabag, Cute (oreadcloth makers) ‘Mekkibap, ‘Devesi ve Kstcs (camel drivers and muleteers) Kethlds ‘Sabuneu (soap producers) ‘The terminology can be confusing. The title of geyh was a remnant of the concept of fitzovet, which was once important forthe guilds, having distinct religious affiliations, as Fore dialed examination of ties of he guild offi soe Eamjong Vi, Gud Dynamics In Sovententh- Century Istanbul. li and Leverage (Lede, 2008), 70-8, " ayaa, ‘XVI, Ya ir Boa Tea Hakdanda Not 27-33.LHL Kant did the title of Ahi Baba, By contrast, the kedhida caried out secular functions. However, in Baykaras list not all heads of the guilds are refered to as geyh,kethda, yiitbas, oF ahi Baba, Some aze simply called “head” (-bast, ser) of the guilds, like the Leaders of the ‘Tehitects, pastry-makers, and camel drivers’and moleteers. The Auruyemisgi (dried fruit sind nut sellers), however, were headed by a yazicr, aterm which usually means “scribe”. ‘The grtin-elless, we discover, appoar to have been lead by a mlbayr the term used for sheseenger in other parts ofthe Ottoman administration. The temminology employed thus Seems to be as diverse asthe trades of Izmir's guilds "Another important document on the guilds of Izmir was published by Ytcel COrkaya in one of is publications almost none ofthe scholars studying cp he ison oF emir have consulted For this reason I will now discuss the document” in question in crime detail also because even the author himself seems to have underestimated the Jmportance ofthe information it contain. Tn 1765 a number of eafismen in Yemir submitted a petition tothe Porte expressing their opposition against a certain Erkilioghs Ali who was trying to become the esnaf sey Taree Tbe craftsmen and the guilds’ elders protested that they were content with the tonaf sek in office, Haci Mustafa Efendi, who had held the positon for a quater of » Genny. From the document we leara that the Izmir esnaf seyhligi was a part of the Srukatea of Lemir’s customs, and that it was farmed out for life (bervech! mlikane) in umn for an annual payment (mal) of SO hyrus. It appears that Ali had tried to secure the position for himself by offering 150 kurus per year for the office, despite the fact that he pew even not a resident of Izmir.” The petition Which made its way to Istenbul included the signatures and the stamps of the following 39 guildsmen. “Table 2. Signers ofthe petition of 178. Name Position Guild Musial Kethida "Maytaan (anita Osman Kethada 1Na’lsbendiyan (blacksmiths) Mehmed Kethvda Boyacryan (dyer) Ismail Kedhida Haffafan(shoemakers) ‘Abmed Ketynda ezzazan (cloth merchens) Mostafa Kethida Cilla (weavers) Ekbae Abmed Kethida ‘Mumeuyan (candle makers) Elseyyid et-bac Mustafa Ser ‘Semereiyan (pecksadle makers). Evbac Mebmed “Taoean Masueayan (merchants of the Egyptian Market) (Gazzazan (silk manufactress) Bezzaz (cloth merchan') ‘Berber (barber) lseyyid elhac Halil Kethida Lae Mabmad Usa Salih ¥ Qakaya, XVI. yp. da Osmanl Kurlan ve Osman Toplumsal agents, 82, "BOA. Covdet Beedle, No. 7197 34:10 Sevval 1178/1 Api 1765 © Quenya, AVI yp. da Orman Kunalar ve Osman Topunsalyozants, $2 bared on BO.A, Cavdct ‘lege, No 719338: 10 Sova 1178/1 Apel 1765. Asusnce or me cunast _ ea "i (aad ser Bern en) se tas ots Ebhae Kethiida anele utes) 5 (atom) Be ‘Ait abaan ee (om st rn (mbes) ac fim nipooe ——Detagin ames) Ee tein on me) Enoyid Ame sat Gite) : Ebseyyid ‘Abdullah | ‘Gazzaz (silk manufacturers) a = Salm ‘et ly ie Mind” Duagye Esa (pens of afte) me Hugin Keds Buiteg amen ee ee Bie ey Hutt Gisele) Bie eines Falcon tes) Etoviewn op eh ae) Beoyid “One nig ol Bey bom, Miya nina barre) Ee home ea (ate tie Tne Deni rmmonge) tie toon tte ‘Usta seyyid ‘Hiseyin mend tis Tinie oe Ome Bek my ater) ‘Usta, ‘Mehmed Seaeee some: (O.A. Cevdet Beleiye, nr. 7197 3-4: 10 Sevval 1178/1 April 1765, Te ae of igh Al eel same nw infmaton bn! of niin Fo Ths ft tng tnt ees te yee eee aan cn oh asthe common Tentnan of ls thi. hve not fun ay efecto ck tn office, which appears to be unique for Izmir."' In her recent monograph on the guilds of TSmbulEmjern dom oot meson sch + enum tea fore gue of Iban and icugh Osan Nut Ein dere toe comnon body (el) or he ‘guilds of Serres, no common esnaf seyhi appears to have known there either.” By te bgiming of he tenth ceny te of il existed : Sine the cepa pos oie frie veh elit) aren te Posy he same pine ie apoinneat of one spersepeeatave of sve communi tui th pointes of drt miller el, repeextve ofl nox-Masin ammonites in Aleppo inthe mitegceucetay, fut uforuntt too ite is known abst both oes to be eu, Bree Mase, Christians and Jes tthe Otoman Arab Worl: The Roots of Setariantsm (Cambridge, 201), 5 Yi, Guild Danis in Seventeenth Contry Ion 05110, 211; Ei, Mel 1 Bled Mi Gud Di ry lab, 105-110, 211; Brin, Moelle! Unurs Beles,80 LHLKabI thousand furuy as an advance payment (muaccele) and an annual payment (mal) of 100 Jhurug to the collector of the customs on fruit in Lzmir (mir meyve gimrigi), This ‘becomes clear from a petition sent in 1804 to the Porte by the esnaf sey, Seyyid Mehmed ‘Efendi. This petition also sheds some light on what the office actually entailed. Mehmed Efendi complained about the malpractices of some ustabagis and kethidas, who authorized some incompetent individuals to open shops and practice their crafts in Izmir. The esnaf ‘geyhi claimed that some of these people had subsequently fed the town without setling their debts. He therefore requested that an imperial order be issued clarifying his authority jn this matter and empowering the local court to solve the concomitant disputes “int accordance with the ancient law and usages” (kanun kadim ve olageldigt tare) Although the Porte approved Mehmed Bfendi's request to involve the local court, the Imperial Order does not clarify whether the esnaf seyhi himself had any authority in this matter. Maybe it ‘vas an unwritten rule that gave him such authority, which would explain why he insisted tne disputes be adjudicated by the local court in'accordance with the ancient law and usages. ‘Another striking aspect of Table 2 is the fact that the petition submitted against [Briklilioglu Ali was signed by a rather limited number of individuals. If Erklilioglu Ali ‘would be able to secure the position by adding 100 Aurus to the annul payment, he would undoubtedly levy this sum on the craftsmen later. Those who signed the petition were apparently aware of this danger, since they argued that the malikane did not have a fixed amount of revenue and would not be able 10 sustain a higher annual payment to the ‘weasury without causing problems and disorder. Ope would therefore have expected a sore widespread mobilization on the part of the craftsmen and guilds. While the number of signers is surprisingly low, the number of hacis among them {is higher than expected. More than half of the signatures (twenty-one out of the thirty-nine) ‘bear this title. If these craftsmen had all been able to afford to go on the pilgrimage 10 ‘Mecea in that period, this suggests that they were men of some substance.* On the other hhand, such documents were naturally signed by the more prominent craftsmen, and the ‘economic postion of these men does not necessarily reflect the general level of wealth of the craftsmen of the guilds in question. Nevertheless, the high number of hacis among the signer renuins stiking especialy when we conse ht the ptton wa alo signed by craftsmen who had more humble titles, like usta Ibrahim, usta Omer and usta Mehmet, The diversity of tiles used may prove evidence about a shift in the nature of Izmir's guilds, Since the office of seyh bad religious connotations, while the office of Kethida was more secular, changes in the titles of the guilds’ leadership might point to a breach with the firivver tradition and s further transformation into professional B.A. Covdet Belodiye No, 721, 26 Mabarem 1219106 May 104, ° Sursiya Feoghi rises doubts about whether te tle hac! mentioned in Otoman archival material suggest ‘hat these people relly went on pls. Surya Faroghi, Sultans and Pilgrims. The ha ndar the Ottomans (Condon, 1998), 5; Saraiva Pareqhs, "Azatoiaa Towson a Pgs t Mec: Some Evidence from the ‘Sixtoea-Sovetocnh Contre, ia Gils Veinein (ed), Soliman le Magnifique et son temps (Pai, 1992), 309-26 ASLENCE OF THE GUILDS? a organizations.'* Table 2 suggests that by the second half of the eighteenth century the guilds of Izmir bad already completed this transition, since it mentions not a single jeyh. ‘The “eanaf seyhi" isthe only exception, but itis not clear to what extent this tite bad religious connotations, if any. The fact that the Ahi Baba of the tanners remains constant is not suprising, since they are generally considered as one of the most conservative guilds. In ths respect the tanners of Izmir seem to have been similar to their colleagues elsewivere in the Empire.”* A comparison between Table 1 and Table 2 suggests that the barbers’ guild was tie only organization that may have replaced its yeyh with another kind of hheadmen-namely serberberdn o ustabast. According to Eujeong Yi, however, a—bas! of a auild refers cither to the Kethida, or to a separate fimctionary within the same guild!” ‘Therefor, it might be possible that a certain guild had both a seyh and a~Bay or ustabast for Ser- at the same time, only one of which occurs in these lists, We therefore cannot conclude from these lists alone whether the easier reference to berber seyhi and the later mentioning of serberberan and berber ustababays) indicates such a transition. Table 1 does provide some clues in this respect since after the geyh ofthe beeswax-sellers, it does not mention any more seyhs. Furthermore, Table 2 shows that the preacher of the guilds (duagizyar esnaf, uoguestionably a religious function and a remnant of the fsvver tradition, di stil exist in Hzmir in 1765. However, this transitory character of the religious aspects of guild leadership inthe cightcenth century was not peculiar to Hzmir.* ‘The fact that the petition of 1765 was signed exclusively by Muslims is a somewhat striking point especially considering the demographic structure of Izmir atthe time, It is ‘tue thet Y's study on Istanbul shows that ethno-religiously mixed guilds had almost always Moslem headman and that even the guilds which had exclusively non-Moslem members could have a Moslem headman. But even among the few masters who signed the petition, there is not any non-Moslem, More importantly we have substantial evidence that ‘non-Muslim guild officals did exist in the region. A memorandum dispatched on 12 May 1786 by the Porte to all foreigners forbade the Geratts (non-Muslim Ottoman protégés of the Europeans) to acquire administrative position in the guilds.” The order which was probably based on the situation in Chios and Izmir might inthis context be considered as & piece of evidence ofthe existence of guilds with non-Moslem headmen and members since the berats were always non-Muslim. ‘A mumber of documents from the Ottoman archives shed some valuable light on ‘this question. The frst concems a complaint by the tailors of Izmir about their greedy © Gobeil Boe, ‘Guilds in Midle Eastern History, in M.A. Cook (ed), Studies Inthe Economie Histon of ‘he Male Eas fram the Rise of slam tothe Prsint Day (Now York, 1970, 1; sim Ones, Guide i Seventen- Century Ansotisn Bars, Arian and ican Stair 11 (1976), 5, tna Ine document the head ofthe soup makers in Izmir was also refewed to as Ah Babe. BOA. Ccovdet Dust, No. 987: 4 Cemaziyyelevel 1219/10 August 1804. However, here is sbstntial evidence ‘bat the headin ofthe sop makers asin fat ksi. bid. and Bayan, "XVI Vasyl lm saat ‘Teylan Haldanda Nota’ 28. Yi, Guild Dynamics in Seventeen Cent Itanbul, 7, foto 110 " Him Gerber, "Gulls in Seventeenth Century Anatolian Burs,’ Asan and Alcan Sudle, 13(1976), 55; igin, Meclle| nur Bede, vel VI, 351 ' Maunts H, van den Booger, The Capitulcions and the Ottoman Lege! System: Qadi, Consus and erat nthe 18th Century, (Leiden, 2005)p. 107-08.2 LHL Kabt kethiida, Mehmet, and their demand to replace him with a certain Halil 2° Since the ae Mee: dat Min and non Martin wis alike wanted Mehmet replaced by Hh we can conclude hat tees” gid was mite, even fi had Matiz hedmen, san ea ie pate (naa) ns arene to have had 2 mixed membenhi. A Jocoent areal hata sumber ef tow Masi paciones ofthis rf were hindered i a sine ty the pls Matin ead, dept avin filled the rqsrement 1 practice the craft." “hioputebetvaen the Musi ees of be ui ofthe gypsum processors (alee) tod a moeMfinin cata, Yana veledi Dimi was also recorded inthe ceaual sat inoaion, Yani who cane oe bath a las maker (came) and 2 gyi in tok gypsum roceser, bth lesa he gypsum profess ree nace hi, Yok leet ta passing sod gyprum pressing ad aan cise os cat and sed tobe erased in one gui, unt thy bd spit a ee a ard oul npeble of practring bh cabs be tke fra Bera to Tee Nib info work as gypnum processor. The eadmen of the gypsum ae ser Yanire lm, argang tat te crf i queton had always been separate and that the glassmaker should not meddle with their profession.” The fact that SPE da gt ttn wa st wed ean argumest agaist hin, which suggests tat Meee eeu not an tbe The gids of bo te gamer and the gypsum Frac wee probly med oF a eg ery were open to oth Moss ad Son Misti. "Tere is more infomation onthe etho-jgious composition ofthe gulls of tami Th yes ofr were organized ia one gid with bls Malin and not-Mustim ‘members. Material from the beginning of the nineteenth century confirms the pattern. A setbeantes the cupenters Clframec) loeaed in Ian's European quater (ene estan ocd ene ety revels th thi era 00 Was caied out by religiously mixed groups of craftsmen,”* The guild of the skiff steerers (permeciler) Saeed the goods rome ship inthe arbor the sore ami didnot ave quays — likewise had a religiously mixed membership.* A document conceming a dispute over car ta bated kos Giger eof) of emi only bears te ames of 23 non- Tea amans' dach might mea is wao an excisvelyton-Musim guild. None ofthe a ee is tered toa fehda or waa, however, 30 they might have had ‘Muslim headman, nevertheless.”* %B.0.A. Cevdet Bledye, No, 267,25 Recs 11769 February 1763 2 bid, No, 106: 10 Safer 123828 Noverber 1819. = BOA, Covet iio No. 2220:21 Safer 1197713 May 177, Bid, No, 187: 16 2 Hiece 114620 May 1734 Bd, No, 828: 25 Seval 12327 September 1817 ® id, No, 52: 6 Safir 12345 December 1818. % fod, No, M428: 18 Raya 1249/5 August 193, From spoter document we lear tha he European (quater of izmir accommodated number of aver Keepers (meyhanea), barel makers (fi) and ale Takers (ara) preninaly era pracsed exchsvely by non-Muslims. We may wonder if Mustins would want tobe te lender of pls with suc unholy eoupsios.B.O.A. Covéet Belediye, No. 250 Rabiyalevel 11 77/September-Octber 1763 ASILENCE OF THE GUILDS? oo Not all the relevant documents give clues about the ethno-religious composition of the guilds they concemed. For example a document concering the olive oil purchases of the soap makers of Izmir mentions only three Moslem names as the soap makers’ elders, Unfortunately the document does not give any further clue about the ethno-religious composition of their guild.” Although the documents on the Tunisian cap vendors of Izmir beat the sume charter sem apart this er was paced exchively by ‘While the mixed character of many guilds in Izmir is apparent, few evidence is available on non-Muslim leaders. A document concerning the silk thread spinners (ibrigim biakica esnafi) reveals that they had elected four non-Muslims from their midst as their hheadmen by 1802” Apparently unique is the case of the sesame-cil producers (ir revganci) who bad a non-Muslim kethida called Mihail. Although the relevant document does not give any further direct information on the ethno-religious composition of the guild it does mention that this guild had a geyh-at the same time. Maybe Mibail acted as the fethidda over the guild's noa-Muslim craftsmen only, while the geyh represented its Muslim practitioners or all the sesame-oil producers, but without furher evidence we can only speculate.”® Other documents suggest thatthe guilds of Izmir were not unlike those elsewhere in the Empire with regard to their organization, monopolistic tendencies, pre-emptive purchase rights and control over the productive activities of the craftsmen, ‘A number of examples concerning individual guilds’ claims of monopoly over certain economic activities in Izmir ean be mentioned. As we have seen the painters (nakizs) and gypsum processors (algtc) took the initiative against “outsiders” in order to ‘uphold their monopoly over their crafts. A dispute between the carpenters (dogramaci) of the European quarter of Izmir and the carpenters located elsewhere in the city also concerned monopolies and is therefore worth examining in some detail. According to a petition submitted to the Porte in September 1817 by the voyvoda of nmr the ustabasis and some of the Muslim and non-Muslim carpenters of Izmir had came to him complaining about the behaviour of the carpenters of the European quarter. ‘According to them the Muslim and non-Muslim carpenters of Izmir constituted a single guild, and none“of the activities carried out by the carpenters was reserved to either ‘Muslims or non-Muslims, Nevertheless, the non-Muslim carpenters located in the ‘European quarter ad allegedly secured an imperial order giving them a monopoly over the production of fig, raisin, pomegranate and soap boxes. The plaintiffs argued that the production of boxes was their basic livelihood. If the monopoly was implemented they {eared they would no longer be abe to sustain their families and pay thei taxes. 73.0.4. Cevdet a, No. 2164, 15 Cemaziyelabi 1180117 Noverber 1765. ™ tn one document si names which were mentioned as precticing the craft bear Moslem names. B.O.A ‘Conde sat, No. 302, 13 Reee 1214/10 December 1799, > B.O.A, Cevet is, No. 245: 25 Cemaziyelabir 121720 October 1802, > pi, No 524: Evil Comaziyelbi 1143/1-20 December 1730, Bi, No 828: 25 Serva 12327 September 1817fa LHLKADI Having verified the claims of the plaintiffs, the voyvoda requested that the Porte ‘issue an order allowing all carpenters to take part inthe production of boxes. A subsequent investigation in the records of Imperial Chancery revealed that this dispute had produced at least two imperial orders before. The request of the carpenters in the European quarter had first been denied by an imperial order inthe first helf of April 1805 (evastn Zidhiece 1217). However, the kadi of Izmir had then sent a report (ilam) to the Porte stating that the carpenters in the European quarter constituted a separate group of craftsmen who alone had ‘been producing boxes and chairs uni the other carpenters intervened in their business. On between § and 18 August of the same year (evahiri R-Ahir 1218) the Porte subsequently ruled in favour of the carpenters in the European quarer, forbidding the other carpenters from producing boxes. Faced with new complaints, he Porte ordered the kadi of Istanbul, Mehmed Ragid, to investigate the case. Soon yet another, earlier, imperial order prohibiting ‘monopolies on purchases and sales (inhigart bey" ve siranm memnutivetini nate suatur eden htt: hdmayyun) was also brought to his attention. The investigator gathered further information with the help of the chief scribe of the Porte (havacegant divaniyeden), Hseyin Efendi, who was in Izmir at the time, andthe city’s kad, both of whom confirmed the voyvoda's account. Mehmed Ragid therefore advised in favour of the plaintiffs, ‘whereupon and the Porte issued a new order, allowing all carpenters of Izmir to produce ‘boxes again. Interestingly enough one of Mehmed Rasid’s arguments was that the Mustim ‘cerpenters of Izmir suffered from the monopoly of their non-Muslim colleagues in the ‘European quarter. Mehmed Rayid equated the Garpenters in the European quarter with the ‘non-Muslims, cozsidering all carpenters elsewhere in the city Muslims, despite the petition submitted by the voyvoda informs us some non-Muslims had also objected to the ‘monopoly. ‘Another document about the monopolies of guilds of Tzmir dates from the middle of the eighteenth century, when the sik manufacturers (gazzaz esnafi) claimed that despite ‘an earlier order confirming their monopoly over the trade in mastic (saivz harct gaytan), ribbon (ser), yam and buttons, the sellers of harayi and broadcloth (hatayici ve gukact taifesi) located in the bezistan violated this monopoly by importing these goods clandestinely from Chios and selling them to outsiders. The guild of the silk manufacturers ‘usually gathered all such goods imported in Tamir in two of their shops, subsequently distributing them among its members. The Porte granted their request for an order condemning violations of their monopoly on 1 April 1758. On the margins of this order ‘was copied an order issued at the end of March 1750, from which we lear that by then orders forbidding violations of the monopoly had been issued twice before already, in 1732-33, and 1744-45," ‘The Porte sometimes issued contradictory orders with regard to monopolies.” In some cases these contradictions might be attributed to e change in Portes policies about ‘monopolies which became gradually more anti-monopoly by the end of the eighteenth 2B pid, No. 79-28 Rees 11712 Api 1758 2 The phenomenon of contradictory order from Istanbul is well ateted inthe trae and was probably due to th Port's sometimes unreal acceptance ofthe version of events peste to it in petitions. For tumezous example, se Karen Burkey, ands and Bureoueat. The Otoman Route of Sze Conalzation (tac, 1999, ASILENCE OF THE GUILDS? century, while in many other cases it was just contradictions in practices having mo ‘elevance with one or another policy. Some documents about Tamir atthe beginning of the ‘ineteenth century illustrate this point. An ilam submitted to the Porte by the hadi of Lam in 1802 states that some ofthe town’s inhabitants had come tothe court complaining about ‘the guild of the sik thread spinners (irisim billed esnafi), who claimed t monopoly over the spinning of silk thread in Izmir. The non-Muslim elders of the guild apparently ‘gathered all available raw materials and distributed this among the craftsmen, preventing ‘non-members spinning silk thread. Inthe records ofthe Porte no previous order was found sgranting the guild the monopoly they claimed. The clerks in Istanbul did find another ‘imperial order which attributed price increases in Istanbul to the monopolistic practices of the guilds. This order was copied in the margin of a new order issued on 20 September 1802, denying the spinners of sik thread any monopoly over this activity.” Less than five years Inet, however, the guild's claim to a monopoly was confirmed by yet another imperial order. This document states that Izmir’s silk thread spinners and treadmill or cupboard makers (dolape: esnaff) shared a common workshop (karhane), which had twenty-six rooms (oda), each accommodating two craftsmen. Both groups of craftsmen, who worked along side one another in harmony, had a monopoly over their own activities, The order explicitly mentions that all spun and raw silk thread imported to the city had to be sold to the silk thread spinners. Recently, outsiders (ecanib) had begun to import in lamir silk thread from Filibe and Rhodes, and refused to sell it exclusively to the guild Moreover, other people from the Aegean islands too imported spun and raw silk to the city, selling it to outsiders and “profiteers”. The order dated 18 January 1807 emphasized that the silk thread spinners had a monopoly over the spinning of silk thread, and that all silk tread entering the city had to be sold to them.® ‘Many Ottoman guilds appear to have had pre-emptive or exclusive purchase rights to the raw materials they needed for their crafts. The evidence indicates that Izmir was no ‘exception. The town's caulkers, for example, enjoyed exclusive rights to the purchase of all tar and naphtha.” The same is true for the soap producers. As Izmir was an important ‘centre for soap production which supplied the capital with this basic product, the Porte provided certain tax exemptions to furnish the soap producers with olive oil they needed for soap production.” ‘Ain undated petition submitted by certain individuals who had sold olive il to the soap producers illustrates the harmful consequences which could result from such purchase privileges. The petitioners alleged thatthe soap producers, after having purchased olive oil from them, refsed to pay their debts, arguing that the sellers had also sold olive oil to ‘unauthorized purchasers. Its interesting to observe that whenever an isgue relevant tothe ™B.O.A, Covet ssa, No. 245: 23 Comaziyylabir 1217/20 October 1802, ® Bid, No. 1038: 10 Zkade 122/19 January 1807. % B0.A.Covdot Belodie N.130: 25 Safer 118925 April 1775.1 is quit interesting ose that en atte 4iom the Fach capinions wes cited inthe onder. ‘The acl peneles thatthe profes should not hinder the Preach who wane fo purchase naphihs sd tar for caulking thir ships athe over this eile ‘us been cited to argue that the napa and tar inthe city should aot be solo poitees bt to the calles, ”'B.O.A.Cevdet its, No, 216,15 Cemaziyelai 1180/18 November 1766, * Bid, No. 934 unde. :86 LL Kapt snr opi tn ons ut nig “Regis Samana maya ely coe en en nae ape er cn ne i og a col soe Cn en oe irate ofp nt Meee en nee poche Fe ee tena ht ees Se ne ea font location.” Similarly the red-dyers of Izmir were sued by the rest of the (elvanboyacilar) ii Say ee a ee eee I ae amen! Fe a es are eg ai of ay a ie ey sy gene etc re sua ser Lanse se pied zn ee hn ne oe a ‘maximum number of shops engaged in the sale of caps to 20." The order was reasonably «ce i a a ay See a er el a Bei eee) te omen mee eae cee Pe te Paros ee peta ea SE a ee ot ene ae ae ee omen er Se ee ni nt tebe cen ee ce purchase rights ofthe later The vigilance of the guilds in protecting their position and se a eh Th i os a bc BOA ABSMSTI, fle: 21, doe 207: 11 Cum, Evil 1115 November 19% BOA, Cee ist ‘No. 28 Make 1604p ay 17 OA. Cee No. 870167, Hice 14620 May 1734 4 pid No. 30:1 Reve LA Desoer198 id, No. 187%: 17 Sova 125611 Desnber 1860 ° B.O.A. Cevdet Belediye, No. 690: 25 Safer 1222/3 May 1807. “Sua Frehiergn at e Earpen micas a conser auto in Ofioman tvs dt nat omni erere ey oer iy etc aly wi tae of ea poets ‘om tt ou coun pecs and fon te Ota Empey imported ew ata sh {ct ors rds chlo or in’ Sua Feo, Otcnan Caen: robles Si Soucx wis ec Ems on ho beth cota) Say Fag, Rac Depo, Grand Cron of te ie Fa Ne Yor, 200) 108 oT ee eee ASIENCEOF THE GUILDS? Pe conficts of interests were inevitable. One should also keepin mind thatthe main export prodict ofa certain Ottoman locality was in many cases also the main raw material forthe local craft production. In this respect mohair industry of Ankara had a. in {izmir’s soap industry which was dependent on the locally produced olive oi. Furthcrmore, the available data has revenled that not only the locally produced raw materials but also the imported goods (raw or finished) could have led to encounters between the parties dic to the guilds’ claims of pre-emptive or exclusive purchase rights to these goods, For other localities of the Empire we do have some information on the relations between the local craftsmen and the European merchants, mostly from European sources and the records of the Ostoman central administration. For example, Ralph Davis’ monograph on the English merchants in the eighteenth-century Aleppo shows how carefully the English merchants observed the activities of the local silk artisans since both of the parties’ behaviour in the market had a direct impact on the activites of the other. The same source also reveals thet when the English merchants inthe city attempted to sell their cloth in retail, this provoked the anger and opposition of the local shopkeepers Exclusively on the basis of European sources Bruce Masters mentions two disputes between the European merchants in Aleppo and the muleteers who had a monopoly over the transportation of goods between Iskenderun (Alexandrets) and Aleppo. Edhem Eldem provides some relevant examples of disputes between the French merchants and the local craftsmen of Istanbul” In te records ofthe central administration in Istanbul I found case of 1762 concerning an agreement between the Dutch merchants who brought coffee to Istanbul and the guild ofthe perfumers and herbalists (attaran). It appears that two years before the agreement, the Dutch merchants had imported a certain amount of coffee to Istanbul, offering it to the guid. Th herbalists, however, nether wanted to buy the coffee, nor allow the Dutch merchants to sel it to others. With the intervention of the Porte the herbalists finally accepted not to prevent the Dutch selling the coffe to others.* ‘An ildm issued by the kad of Ankara in 1740 and the subsequent correspondence of the Ottoman central administration” reveals another striking example of contestation between local craftsmen and European merchants in different Ottoman towns. According to the ‘lam on the ninth of July of that year the European merchants in Ankara went tothe local court and complained about the workers (ige tsi) who had been packing mohair ‘yar bales (by pressing and binding it with iron thread) that were consigned by European ‘merchants to Lzmir for further shipment to Europe. European merchants claimed tht in the past (kadimee) they had been paying two kurus per load (it-two bales) for the work, but that the workers had steadily increased the price to 3.5-4 kuray and refused to do the job unless the European merchants paid the fee accordingly. As the workers-who consisted of titty non-Moslem individuals-had a monopoly over the job, the European merchants * Ralph Davis, Aleppo and Devonshire Suave: English Traders inthe Levant inthe Eightoonth Century, (Londen, 1967), 124, 159-60 * aster, Westorn Economie Dominance nth Mie East, 21 © Se Ede idem, Fronch Trade in taba nthe Eightoonh Conny, (Leiden, 199), p. 7,252. “'D.0.A. Divel eobiye Dele elemenk Abide Deft 2/1, p,39Ienry 1646: EvantsR, Abit 117629 October November 1782 8.0.4. Cevdet iat, No, LBL: 14 RAs 115309 July 1740,88 LHL Kapt srgued that the workers behaviour had paralysed their business and consequently caused 3 considerable damage tothe treasury (mfr), Therefore the European merchaots requested an {imperial order fixing the packing fee at two kuru. The Tam ofthe Ankara court relates, also thatthe allegations of the European merchants were confirmed by the stamp tax collector (damga mukataasi emi) and te other knowledgeable people inthe tov. Hoving received the Zam, the imperial court iavestigated whether an ealier order had been issued on the topic. ARer it was found out that there was nt such an ores, the sadrézam ordered the defierdar to issue an order in accordance with the iam of the ‘Ankara court Like many other local disputes in the eighteenth century Ottoman Empire, this Alispute too di not come to an end with a single imperial order. By 1754 the non-Moslem ‘workers had already increased the fees again, which provoked some Moslem workers in [Beypazan to offer ther service fora lower fec. As the later were prevented todo the job in Ankara they bed to limit their activities to Beypazan. However, with the instigation of nnon-Moslem Workers some notables of Ankara intervened and prohibited the workers in Beypazan to do the job, alleging that these craftsmen were not capable of doing the job propery. The English Ambassador atthe Porte responded to these developments by ‘applying to the Ottomen central administration. The Porte, in its tum ordered thatthe craftsmen who are willing to do the jo should not be hindered. ‘But what about the Weitem communities and the guilds in Izmir? Despite the fact that Inmir accommodated the biggest European merchant community in the Empire inthe eighteenth century, the publications on lzmir'srelatidns withthe outside word tellus tle about its guilds, Daniel Goffman mentions a dispute between the baker of the Dutch nation, in Lzmir and the local bakers, who tried to prevent him purchasing flr inthe town's market, and a similar dispute between the tailor ofthe Dutch nation and the loca tiles ‘who atempiod to prevent him from practicing his eraft** Edhem Elder refers to confit Tretween the Freach merchants and the Tunisian cap vendors in lamir who claimed monopoly over the product, but he gives nether the date nor other useful details” A document concerning a similar quarel reveals thatthe Tunisian cap vendors in Temi claimed to have a monopoly over ap trade, hindering a number of Jewish shopkeepers ‘ho sold caps they had purchased from French merchants. The document suggests that the ‘Tunisian cap vendors had no right to prevent the Freach merchans from importing cape either from Tunis or from France. ‘An imperial order found in the Dutch register of the imperial chancery (Felemenk hidname defer) denounces the behaviour of those who prevented the baker of the Dutch nation selling bread in the Jewish and Ammenian quarters of Zamir. Although the document does not explicitly mention the local bakers, we can assume that they took the initiative ‘ageinst him." Another example dates ffom 1818 and concer a petition of the local skiff * Okay, XVI yy. da Ouran Karamar ve Osman Tplumsal yay, 14647 * colina, “mis: fom Vilage to Colonia Prt iy’ 119. ® Eldem, French Trade Itanbul ith Eightanth Contry, 252 BO. Cevdet isnt No, 1571: 10Receb 11782 January 1765. * BOA. Diveli Eencbiye Defers Felemenk Ahidaime Defer 22/1, p 17entry 620: Evabins Safer 111773-22Jane 1705, A SILENCE OF THE GUILDS? 89 ‘operators (permeciler) who transported goods from ships lying at anchor in the port to the shore, until some Europeans under the protection of their consulates began to interfere with their business. In the Dutch records a letter of 1759 from the Dutch ambassédor in Istanbul to the Directors of Levant Trade in the Netherlands mentions a dispute between the Dutch ‘merchants in Izmir and some “Turks” who claimed to have a monopoly on the import of rails in the city. The ambassador tumed to the director of the eustoms (gum emtini) in Istanbul, Ishak Af, for help. This officer subsequently wrote a letter to his colleague at Tzmir denouncing the claims as unfounded. It seems likely that the unspecified Turks involved were probably craftsmen specialised in the production andlor sale of these goods ** Another case which might be interpreted in the same line was mentioned by Elena Frangakis-Syrett.Frangakis mentions a league of Cian merchants who by the end of the eighteenth century monopolized the trade of Dutch cloth imported to lemir, This league mentioned by Frangakis,” however, seems more like # monopoly based on its practical power in marketing Dutch cloth, rather than a conventional local guild relying on its ancient rights tothe trade in Duteh cloth, In 1766 European ships were involved indirectly in a dispute over olive oil. A ‘number of elders of the soap producers of Izmir went to Istanbul complaining about the ‘malpractices of the officers of the tax farm on olive ol tax ofthe island of Midilli and its surroundings (resmi mir-i reygam zeyt cezire-i Midilld ve tevabit mukataast). The soap producers claimed that they had reached an agreement with a merchant from Izmir wh ‘bad bought a considerable amount of olive oil from Seferihisar. However, ater the soap producers had made a partial payment and the merchant had transported part of the olive oil to Izmir, an officer of the tax collector intervened, selling the oil to a European ship. ‘The reason for his actions was probably that oil purchased by the local soap producers was exempt from taxes, but oll sold to the Furopeans was not.** ‘Which conclusions can be drawn from this material? The evidence suggests that the guilds of Izmir had much in common with craft organisations elsewhere in the Ottoman ‘Empire. Several guilds in Izmir wore clearly mixed, for example, having both Muslim and ‘non-Muslim members. The craftsmen of the Anstolian port also appear to have been keen to acquire and guard monopolies on their activites as much as possible, often claiming pre-emptive or exclusive purchase rights. The existence of one representative for all guilds, the esnaf seyhi, is not attested elsewhere, however, and might well be unique to Iz. 5 OA. Ceviet fsa, No. S82: 6 Safer 1254/5 Dscember 1818, On this issue see also Muabat ‘Ktkogls, “Tenzimat Dewinde yabanilana Desai Faaiyter, in e. Hats Durnin Vil, 150. Yano Tarcimat (Ankara, 1982), 91-138. Nationsnlarchef, 0.0220, 167, . 87-50. Bena Frangakis-Syet, The Commerce of Spi he Bighcenth Century (170-1820), (Athens, 1992), pi0i-102, * BOA. Covet Its, No. 2168: 15 C.Abic 1160/18 November 1766: ‘fowl tccarndon bir tactin ‘Seferibisorkaxasndanmbayos epee Kliyelt reygan bande frit ve henlerinde Babs ha beirgam mexbttaraflarndan onboy ake tem ve ys kantr mikdan femir'e mal tu the aohabt mmalitane train bert empl glen acs med altrotinan baka hat olmmas yorbr miste'ner ghnesne fib ve Seferihsarkartunda SicokImannda seine! mexbura nal elaine bundon gaye Sefeihiserda ya olmamaglo sabunhaneer mata eligedan.30 LILKADI ‘The available documents do not support aay generalisations about the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in the guilds of Izmir. A brief survey of the cases discussed earlier illustrates this point: in two cases non-Muslim craftsmen contested the actions of Muslim guild officials; in three cases a coalition of Muslims and non-Muslims acted against a Muslim officer of their guild, against European intruders, and against a ‘group of non-Muslim craftsmen, respectively; in one instance the inhabitants of Izmir in ‘general seem to have acted against non-Muslim guild officials; while finally, we have seen fone case in which non-Muslim erafismen were pitted against other non-Muslim members ‘of their guild. It is tempting to conclude that the European quarter of Izmir was clearly distinct from the rest of the town on the basis of the carpenters located inthis area and those outside, but in that case, too, the party against the carpenters in the European quarter ‘consisted of Muslims and non-Muslims. Nevertheless one wonders whether the dispute between the carpenters was an exceptional case, or one among a number of others which ‘would imply that the city was being tom apart along two interest orientations; one associated with the European quarter and the other withthe rest of the town. ‘The absence of local court records about Izmir clearly limits our understanding of its guilds dramatically. The archives of the central administration of the Ottoman State allow us to fll in some of the gaps in our knowledge, but the material necessarily concerns conflicts and disputes, because the partes involved only turned to the Porte if they could not seftle matters locally. Considering this bias in the records of the chanceries in the Ottoman capital the limited number of relevant document found there is siriking. This is ASILENCE OF THE GUMLDS? ot APPENDDC: Table of guilds with references to archival material and 10 docurnents ‘Guia Source Alboyaeilan (Fed den) (Covder Hat, ne. 1870) ‘Alc esa (gypsum processors) (Cevdet ssa, nr. 2220) ‘Arak eseafi (aks makers) (Cevder Beledive, ar 250) ‘Balmumeu (beeswax sellers) ‘Baykara) Basmaci (exie-prites) (Baykara) Berberin (barbers) (Baykara; Covdet Belediyg i. 7197 3-8) Bezzis (cloth mechani) (Gayhar; Cevet Beever, 1973-4) BigaksGiife-makes) ‘Bayiar) Bove (psy) (Baykare; Covet Beadiye a T1973) Boyacryén dyer) (Bayaa; Covdet Beetye ny. 7197 3.4) (Cases esnafi (lst makes) (Covet Disa, 7220) iain Gesvers) (CevdetBeeive, s, TIST3) ‘Gmiekei Cannes (ote) (Geykera) Debbi (anne) (GBaykare; Gvdet Beldiye ar 715734) Dani (rosmnge) (Covet Beloie nt. 71973- Dever ve Kr cme dvs and malo) | (yar) Dojjramacs (carpenter) (Baykara; Cevaet iktisat, nr. 828) ‘particularly true for the relations between the Eurgpean mercantile communities in ‘and the town’s guilds, which appears to have been quite harmonious. This may well point to a weakness of Izmir’s guilds, which must have adapted themselves to the port's ‘evolution from a litte town to an international trade centre. The very openness of Izmir to the outside world and the domination of the city's economy by international trade may have forced its guilds to go with the flow, resulting in what we might call @ relative silence ‘of the guilds in our sources. ‘Dolaperesnai (weadmil o cupboard makers) | (Cevdet tsa, nr. 1034) ‘lbentgi esnai (Musin-seles) (Covdet fiat, nr. 1435) es (cp vedo) (Cevdet Detisat, nr 302; 1571) eat, kayak ve pestle (cp, sash and towel aural a towel | Covdet ist, ne. 836) Tiga Esnaf (based makers) Gazzizin (si manufactures) (Covet Beediye, wr. 250; Tia, ne 1428) (Bryans; Covdet Belediye, ox. 7197 3-4) ‘affifin Ghoesmakes) (Baykara; Cevdet Beleiye, a. 719734) Hallicin (coton er) (Cevdet Belediye nr. 7197 3-4) asus (staw-mat make?) Baykars) Ee eermmene een uena|| cpio Coax Rates rs) ‘origin bik sna (ik thread spines) (Covet Tia, nr 245) ‘spengiyar (pharmacists?) (Baykara) ‘Kalafats esnaf (cakes) (CovdetBeledive 130) Tanta ia) ‘Kebaber ve hogaber(Kebep and compote cooks) | aykara) ‘Kebapet (Kebap maker) (Covdet Beledive, nr. 7197 3.4 2 et clea wher cap vend les hep sth al bth oe masse (Ps agai ve pestamalci esnafi) were the same guild. However it is clear that the cap, sash anc ‘owel ‘makers-sellers constituted one guild and bad the same kethida, ee ear2 LHL Kant A SILENCE OF THE GUILDS? [Gaia ‘Source ‘Krigei (sting bowing make) (Gayla) “| [Karke (urer) Gaykara) - [ Kuryemigei (died fruit and nt produce) | aykara) 1. Petition ofthe non-Muslim painters (nobkay) about an intervention by the guild’s elders ‘who wanted to prevent them practicing their craft (10 Safer 1235/28 November 1819) [ Mermer... marble) (Cevdet Bold, a. 7197 3-4 ‘Meybanes ena (aver keeper) (Cevdet Beleiys, 250) | Mimar(rcitee) (Bayar a Mumcayin candle mak) (Coudet Belediye or. 7197 3-4) Muy (enimal bn procesors) (Cevdet Belediye, we. 7197 3-4) [ie lebenyén (backs) [Baxaras Cevdet Beever. 7197 3-8 ‘Naka (painters) (CevdeeBelediye, a. 106) Perel (af steere) (Cevdet isa, 582) =| 1 ‘Sabuocu (o9p producer) (Gaykara; Cove tat. 2164; 987) ‘Sarag(sade-make) (Covdet Beedle, ar. 7197 3-4) Selb. Guteber) [(Cevdet Blediye, 7973-4) Semeriyin (pacsadale maken) —[(Cevdet Belay, we. 71973-4) | | | Sicevganc esa (seme ol producer) (Covde Hest. 524) | [rabbis cook (Cevdet Beedle, a. 719734) de “abi ve consi physi Gaye) | “Tag (razon) “Taya ai / Tera (aloe) (Geviet Balsa, a 1973) — “Tacein Muswrcayén (merchants a Exyptian Market) | (Baykara; Cevdet Belediye, a. 7197 3-4 ‘Yorgans (blanket- make) (Gaykara; Covdet Beleiye ar 690) Zabirci (rain seller) (Bayi) ‘BOA, Cevdet Belediy, No. 105LELKabi 2, Petition of the ket ofthe caulkersroqueting the renewal ofthe imperial onder ‘according them exclusive purchase rights on naphtha 25 Safer 1189/26 Api! 1775 HOA, Cevdet Beli, No, 130 [ASILENCE OF THE GUTLDS? 3. Complaint about the malpractice ofthe tlre’ kaha in mir requesting that he be replaced by someone else (25 Receb 117619 February 1763) aS ‘BOA, Cevdet Belediy, No. 267 4. The verdit ofthe ha of Izmir ona case concerning the dispute among the barel makers of lamir (18 Rabiylair 1249/5 August 1833) eee "BOA, Cevdt tia, No, 1428,96 LHL Kant the guild’ elders 5. Petition ofthe esnaf sey of mir about the malpractces ofthe guild (G6 Menartem 1219/06 May 1804) ‘BOA, Cavdet Belediye, No. 721 SILENCE OF THE GUILDS? 6. Petition ofthe sik manufacturers (gazzaresna) concerning their monopoly over the trade in mas, ribbon, yam and buttons (23 Reeeb 1171/2 Apel 1738) BOA, Cevéet nat, No. 79. 798 LIL KADI 17. Petition ofthe guilds” elders in Izmir concering thee opposition to the replacement of the Izmir exmafjeyh (10 Sewval 117811 April 1765), ‘Source: BOA, Cewdet Belediye, No. 7197-3 ASILENCE OF THE GUILDS? 8, Petition conceming a dispute about the replacement ofthe Izmir esnaf yh (1178/1765) Soure: BOA, CerdetBeloiiye, No, 71974 99100 1 Kant Asiuner orm duns? 101 9. Onder eoncering the alive ol purchases of th sop sakes of emi 10, Petition tothe kd ofr conceming the deni of Vani vee isi 15 Camasiyeli 1180/17 November 1766 To work a ypu proceso (2 Sar 1187/13 May 1723)102 LIL Kant PRIMARY SOURCES Sakasi Osan Ary) Peet ot, Now 124, 25, 302, 524,52, 79, 28, 836, 934, 987, 1034, 1181, 1428, 1438 {Sri 170,878 21642220 ended Nos 16,130,250, 267, 680, 3, 719734, sesMstiy mc Dovel neve Dee Feemenk Abii Dest 21 NA Vasonl Acie) fo Leptechit Test 1811 (1.62.20), No: 167, p. 87-90, SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY (Gabriel Bar, ‘uid in Mid Ease History’, n M.A. Cook (ed), Stites nthe Economic “History ofthe Mile Bas fromthe Rise o slam tthe Present Day (New Yotk, 1970), pp. 1130 Bayle, Tancer, “VIL Yozyld lame soa Tepilat Haklonda Not’ in Hans Georg Majer, Raoul Moti (ds), Tirktsohe Wirschaft-und Socalgschichte von 1071 bis 1920: Aten des I Inersationaien Kongreses(Weisbaden, 1995), 27-33. Boog, Mauris H. van den, The Capilation and the Otoma Legal System: Quis, Consuls tind Barats inte th Conary (Leiden, 2005) Chea, Amnon, The Guild of Otoman Jersaem (eid, 200). ~, Beonomie life» Oto Jerusalem (Cambri 1989) Davis, Ralph, Aleppo and Devonshire Square: English Tagers nthe Levant In he Bightenth Centary (London, 1967 Elden, Bet, French Trade tn Istanbul the Eighenth Century (Leiden, 199) rgeng, Ozc, Omanl Klas Dien Kent Tarhligine Kats, XVI Y¥ da Ankara ve Konya (Gakars, 1995). " =, 1600-1615 Yalan Arasnda Ankara isn Tariine Ait Araghrmar’ in O. Okyar, 1.0. Nabantogl ed), Try Dat Tarihi Seminer, MtinlrTartpmalar (Akar, 1973), 145- 168. .“Osmaal Sehierindeki Yooetin Kurumlann Nitigi Ozsrinde Baza Dagteeler’ in VI Tir orth Kongest: Ankara I-15 Ein 1976 kongree suraan blir (Anka, 1981) vol 2, 1265-1274 Frog, Suaiya, Towns and Townsen of tomar Anatolia: Trade, Caf and Food Production ‘nan Urban Senn, 1520-1650 (London, 1984) Fogh, Susiya and Randi Deguitm (cs), Cras ond Craftsmen ofthe Mie Bast (New York, 12005), (Geshe, Haim, ‘Guid ia Seventont-Centry Anatolian Bus’, Asian aed Aflean Sues UL (0975) 5987 GGoffinas, Danis, "mit: fom village to coloil pt ci’ in Eahem Elden, Daniel Goffman, ‘Buse Masters, The Otoman City Between East nd West (Cambidge, 199), pp. 79-138 Master, Bruce, Wester Economic Dominance inthe Mile Bas: Mercantila and the Islamic ‘Economy in Aleppo, 1600-1750 (New Yotk, 1988). Ergin, Osman Nuri, Mecells Umar Beledye (Itnbul, 1995) Gakay, Yoel, XV yd Osants Kurla: ve Osman Toplunsa yapants (Ankara, 985). FREEMASONRY IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY IZMIR? A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ALEXANDER DRUMMOND’S TRAVELS (1754) Maurits H. van den Boogert From the middle ofthe seventeenth century Izmir was one ofthe most important centres of ‘international tade inthe Ottoman Empire" For this reason the Anatolian port was host o a considerable number of European residents. In theory their residence was limited by Islamic law to a period of ten consecutive years, but in practice some Europeans settled in Tamir for life? Others merely visited the port city for a short period, few travellers failing to include it in their itinerary. It is therefore not surprising that Izmir was described and epicted by many travellers, including the French diplomat and traveller, Laurent Chevalier d’Arviewx and the Dutch draftsman, Comelis de Bruijn (see illustration below). Despite the continuous Wester presence, Ottoman Izmir never became a prominent centre of Western leaming in the Levant. Aleppo, by contrast, had hosted a ‘number to leading scholars, including Golius and Pococke. Huntington hed stayed there too, serving the English community in Aleppo as the Levant Company chaplain, From the seventeenth century the Levant Company also sent chaplains to Izmir, but the incumbents tended to be of a lesser academic calibre. For example, Edmund Castll’s successor asthe ‘Adams professor in Arabic at Cambridge, John Luke, had resided in Izmir for seven years, but because he never published anything, he is considered an academic “non-entity”™ today.’ Another chaplain in Izmir, Edmund Chishull, was one of the few to devote a separate publication to Anatolian antiquities — but one of the principal monuments it Aeseribed was found not in Izmir, but in Ankara.* * On the vast comps of erature on mir, se the bibliography of Elena Fangs Sets contribution this volume, an those of Daniel Goffman, “mir: ftom village to colonial por, in Edhem Elem, Dal Gotinsn, aod Brice Masters, The Onoman City Breen East and West leppa,lemir, and tard (Cambridge, 1999, 79-134; Elena FranglseSyret, The Commerce of Smyrna inthe Eightonth Contery (1700-1820 (Athens, 1992} and Daniel Goin, emir ad he Levantne Worl 1380-165 (Sete, 190, * On the legal status of foreigners in tbe Otoman Empire, cee MH. van den Booget, The Capitulation and ‘the Otoman legal System. Qs, Consuls and Berti nth 18" Canty (Leiden, 2005) 2 PM, Holt, "The Sty of Arabic Historians in Seventeenth Century England: The Background and the ‘Work of Edward Pocock, Suen ofthe Scho! of Oriental and African Sides, Unneraity of Landon 190 (0957, 4-855, exp. 444, ‘© Chic, Antiquttes Asiuice ehrigianam srmm antecedents; ex primariis monunentis Geesis descrip, Latint vers, noiague & comments ius accodit Monamentim Latour Ancyronin (Condon, 1728). Foran early contbuion to he natal history ofthe Ottoman Enpie by another Levant Company cpl, see "An Account 2 seange Kind of Er, tea p near Smona, of which e made Soe, topetier with te Way of making, comminiaed by Dr. Edvard Sent, FS. Pilasopicl Tanacions ‘ofthe Royal Soci of London 19 (1695-1697), 228230, The forgot accoant offer etal about emis ‘soap industry which might sil be valuable economiehistrins of the Ottoman Ep oy.