The Economic History of Turkey, 1800-1914 by Charles Issawi

Review by: Halil Inalcik

International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2 (May, 1985), pp. 273-276
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/163613 .
Accessed: 08/05/2014 16:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
International Journal of Middle East Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 16:59:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Reviews 273

and history, pp. 123-209; (6) cultural, economic, and social geography, pp. 210-338;
(7) cross-references and regional classification (arranged after the regions of Gilan-
Mazanderan, Azerbaijan, Alborz, Khorassan, Zagros, Khuzistan, Central Iranian deserts,
Baluchistan-Sistan, and the Persian Gulf coastal area) of the titles listed in (1) through
(6), pp. 341-411. This last section is cleverly devised in that it enables one to find quickly
the relevant literature on, for instance, climate in Azerbaijan, archaeology in Khuzistan,
or the economy of the Persian Gulf area. This method of topical reference could serve as a
preferred model for future "area studies" bibliographies.
Naturally, Ehlers's specialty is apparent through the pages of his book in allocation of
space. The geographical sciences get the lion's share, as he is the first to acknowledge.
Conversely, the "humanities" occupy less room, roughly one-third of the total number of
pages. The author's judgment on the inclusion or omission of certain titles particularly in
this field seem to be less sure and confident. One may wonder about the relevance of
Bibliotheca Orientalis (Leiden) or W. G. Oxtoby, Ancient Iran and Zoroastrianism in
Festschriften (1975) and the absence, without any predilection as to their value, of such
compilations as U.S. Army Area Handbook for Iran (Foreign Area Studies Division, The
American University, 1963 and after)-random examples that could easily be paralleled.
Among important omissions is J. Rypka's History of Iranian Literature (1968), although
his Iranische Literaturgeschichte is mentioned (p. 144). Such errors as Filiooni-Ronconi
for Filipponi-R. (p. 422) are few and far between.
In summary, "those who have a professional or general geographical interest in Iran
and its population" will be grateful to Ehlers for the labor he spent on this book; the
"humanists" will get less profit from it. In the past, teachers as well as students have felt
the handicap caused by the absence of a decent introductory bibliography on Iran. It is
not too late for a team of humanists and social and physical scientists to undertake this
task in a concise balanced, comprehensive, and competent way.

University of Pennsylvania MARKJ. DRESDEN

CHARLESISSAWI,The Economic History of Turkey, 1800-1914, The University of Chicago,

Publications of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, no. 13 (Chicago and London:
The University of Chicago Press, 1980). Pp. 404.

As a complement to his previously published volumes, The Economic History of the

Middle East (University of Chicago Press, 1966) and The Economic History of Iran
(UCP, 1971), Charles Issawi's new book covers the lands within the boundaries of the
modern Republic of Turkey and the area known as Rumili, which together formed a
distinct historical unit under the Ottoman Empire.
Like the previous ones, this volume consists of selected documents and essays, arranged
according to the author's original plan of writing an economic history of the Middle East.
Following two chapters of general history (pp. 1-73), selections are arranged according to
the branches of economy in separate chapters-trade (pp. 74-145), transport (pp. 147-98),
agriculture (pp. 199-271), industry (pp. 272-320), finance and public finance (pp. 366-72).
By the addition of an epilogue, "The Turkish Economy, 1914-1975" (pp. 366-72), an
effort is made to complete the story. A list on weights and measures and a selected
bibliography are added. That 100 documents were published for the first time in this
volume makes it an original source book for researchers, even though the small number
of documents selected for such a vast area renders it inevitably limited and inadequate for
the purpose. The documents published were carefully selected and, in general, provide
substantial information on one or another aspect of the Ottoman economy.

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 16:59:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
274 Reviews

I believe the following contemporary reports, mostly from the Public Record Office,
London, to be most interesting and useful.
1. "Classification of Town Industrials and Artizans" and balances of family budget for
each category, 1870 (pp. 45-50).
2. "A Memorandum on the Trade and Navigation in the Black Sea Area," 1803
(pp. 83-85).
3. "Correspondance on the Tarif and Customs Duties, 1802-1838" (sic) (pp. 85-100).
4. Documents on the Trade of Salonica, Izmir, Istanbul, Trabzon, Samsun, Kayseri,
and Adana as well as on the principal trading nations in the Levant, 1806-1913 (pp. 100-
45).
5. Documents on shipping (pp. 154-60, 165-67, 172-77) as well as Traditional Land
Transport (pp: 177-83).
6. Consular Reports on the Percentage Distribution of Farms by Size, 1836 (pp. 203-11,
rearranged by the author).
7. Consular Reports on Farming in Various Parts of Anatolia, mostly on Eastern
Anatolia, 1836-1899 (pp. 215-33).
8. A French Report on Viticulture in the Province of Hudavendigar, 1880 (pp. 265-68).
9. A comprehensive Report, 1836 (pp. 283-86) together with other Reports (pp. 280-98)
on Ottoman Mines and Mining.
10. Lord Elgin's Report on the Revenues of the Ottoman Empire, 1800 (pp. 343-48).
11. A French Report on the Taxes in Erzurum, 1850 (p. 356).
Issawi's work is definitely much more than a simple collection of documents. In addi-
tion to the valuable documents it includes comprehensive tables, analytical introductions
to each topic, and translations of studies by modern authors written in languages not
easily accessible to the general reader (E. Z. Karal, L. Gu,cer,M. S. Lazarev, H. Adjarian,
L. S. Semenov, A. D. Novichev). Of the tables, the following are of special interest: Popu-
lation of Main Towns 1830-1927 (pp. 34-35), Daily Wages 1891-1914 (pp. 40-42), Value
and Volume of Trade (p. 82), Trade of Salonica 1784-1913 (pp. 103-4), Trade of Izmir
1789-1912 (pp. 111-12), Trade of Trabzon 1830-1913 (pp. 125-26), Trade of Adana
1836-1912 (p. 131), French Trade with Turkey 1840-1860 (p. 136), Shipping at Izmir
1830-1840 (p. 153) and at Salonica (p. 157), Opium Production 1832-1877 (p. 263), Price
of Wheat 1800-1905 (p. 322), Exchange rates 1780-1844 (pp. 329-31), and Prices of
Foodstuffs 1800-1912 (pp. 335-36).
In general, pains are not taken in identifying and correcting the place names in the
documents and articles published. For instance, on p. 71, Yeni Maali is undoubtedly
Yeni-Mahalle; Aiba Saari (Sarayi) Eyubensari (modern Eyup) (Ayyub al-Ansari). Also in
Anatolia, Samastia (p. 65) must be Sivas, Malaga (p. 63) is Malatya, and Chugha is
Djulfa (Iran). The table of revenues of 1800 (pp. 343-45) contains place names that,
though distorted, could at least partially be identified by comparison with the available
lists of the Ottoman provinces and towns (lists published by T. Gokbilgin, Belleten,
vol. XX, pp. 247-85, 287-94; and 0. L. Barkan, Belgeler, I, with a map). In the fol-
lowing, the correct forms appear in parentheses: Islemiye (Islimye), Isdien (Izdin),
Kiordos (Kordos, Corinth), Tussia (Tosya), Metmen (Menemen), Sahri hisar (Seferihisar
rather than $ehrihisar as suggested), Jalikesri (Balikesir), Sandughi (Sandikli), Carasse
(Karahisar), Isenghemid (Iznikmid = Izmit), Bozauk (Bozok rather than Bozacik), Ekin
(Egin), Kelis (Kilis), and Rica (Ruha = Urfa rather than Rize). The index of place-names
prepared by the author does not include most of those mentioned in the texts.
In addition, some distorted Turkish words in the selected texts could easily be cor-
rected. For example becel (p. 267) is re(el, bedele Nusul is bedel-i nuzul (p. 343); Taraphe-
Amire (p. 343) is Darphane-icdmire; Gbsterme (p. 33) is gostermelik, mas (p. 31) is

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 16:59:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Reviews 275

masura, and ya mehram (p. 64) is na-mahrem. Also, the cotton production of the Serez
(Serres), given (p. 107) as being in the amount of 3,000-4,000 Ibs, must be a mistake
(perhaps for 3,000-4,000 bales).
The main source from which selections were made is the Public Record Office, London,
which is undoubtedly one of the most important archives for the Ottoman Empire, collec-
tion of consular reports being particularly important for Ottoman socioeconomic history
in the nineteenth century. But needless to say, no archive can render unnecessary the
Ottoman archives, and we fully agree with Charles Issawi in his wish that Turkish experts
mine this source and make materials available in a systematic way.
Turkish documentation is known to Issawi mainly through Vedat Eldem (Osmanli
Imparatorlugunun Iktisadi Sartlari hakkinda bir Tetkik, Ankara, 1970), whose book is
based on the statistics published by the Ottoman Ministry of Commerce and Agriculture
in the years 1907-1914. The Ottoman archival materials, even the easily accessible Cevdet
collection, important for the Ottoman economy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
(see A. (etin, Ba4bakanhk ArSivi Kilavuzu, Istanbul, 1979, pp. 10-11) has not been ex-
ploited by Eldem or by other Turkish specialists quoted or used by Issawi.
On wages and balances of family budget, a most important area for economic history
studies, Issawi made interesting calculations mainly based on A and P figures. But in
addition to these, the most important source for such an investigation is the Ottoman cadi
records, the so-called sidjillat, extensive for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In
fact, studies on archival materials concerning Ottoman socioeconomic history were begun
by Ahmed Refik Altinay [see his Volume IV on the nineteenth century, containing docu-
ments on Istanbul: Hicri On Uuiinci Asirda Istanbul Hayati (1200-1255), Istanbul, 1932;
and Osman Nuri, Mecelle-i Umur-i Beledi,yye, Istanbul, 1922]. The work has been con-
tinued by a number of Turkish and foreign researchers (see the bibliographical essay in
METU Studies in Development, 1979-1980, Special Issue, 329-71, incomplete; now see
Turkologischer Anzeiger, published by G. Hazai and A. Tietze, Vols. I-VII, 1975-1982,
which includes an extensive bibliography).
The risk, admittedly unavoidable, in making selections is that a particular area or situa-
tion may be given undue significance. In the case of land tenure, for instance, emphasis on
the eastern Anatolian case (see pp. 66-67, 220-27) can be misleading since the area had
always been and still is atypical in the overall picture of Turkish agrarian history. Also,
while the conditions of internal trade are discussed in the section on transport, no details
are given about other important topics-for example, Avrupa Tiiuccar and Hayriyye
Tuccari organizations that were part of a new policy to protect native merchants against
the handicaps created by the capitulations under Selim III (1789-1808) or the reorganiza-
tion of the handicrafts in corporations (4irket) in the period 1865-1873 (see 0. Nuri,
Mecelle, pp. 748-68). Cotton growing received due attention in the section on agriculture
(pp. 223-46) but almost nothing is said about cotton textile handicrafts, which consti-
tuted the most important section of all Turkish industries and the mainstay of urban
populations. The impact of the Industrial Revolution on this basic sector of the Ottoman
economy was a rather long and complex process. It was by the import of English cotton
yarns (mule, and twist varieties) that the conquest of the Levant market by the machine-
made goods first began in the 1790s. Then, new technological advances made possible
successful competition of western fine cotton fabrics, muslins, and prints over the Indian
ones from 1810 onward. But the most important development came only later, toward the
middle of the nineteenth century, when in the period 1830-1850 the British industries
could produce cotton goods for the peasantry more cheaply than could the home or guild
industries of the East. In all this development the decisive factor for competition was
always the differential in labor costs between competing countries-India, the Ottoman
Empire, and England. It was mechanical devices discovered in response to the need for

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 16:59:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
276 Reviews

reducing labor cost that led to the final British domination of the world cotton goods
markets. Along with West Africa and the West Indies, the Ottoman market played a
decisive role in every phase of this development. The economic historian has to determine
and follow closely the stages of this process that were crucial for socioeconomic changes
in the Middle East.
The handicrafts and guilds in general, and the process of their decline during the nine-
teenth century-the central phenomenon for the entire socioeconomic structure of the
countries under the Ottoman sway in the Middle East and the Balkans-undoubtedly
deserve more attention. Osman Nuri's Mecelle-i Umir-i Belediyye, which includes impor-
tant documents on this particular topic, has not been exploited either by Issawi or by
Novichev, whose short chapter is translated and added to the volume. G. Baer's paper,
cited as the principal study on Ottoman guilds, is actually based on some controversial
premises.
Closely related to the collapse of the guild system under the Tanzimat, the capitula-
tions, as well as the commercial treaties that actually extended them to suit better the new
requirements of the capitalist economies of the West, seem to have found a better treat-
ment in the volume (particularly see British documents, pp. 86-100).
In his introductions Issawi writes short essays on specific topics. In the section on
population for instance, we find introductions under such titles as these: "Grain and
Water Supply of Istanbul," "Wages," "Effects of Reforms on Status of Minorities," "For-
eign Residents," "Armenians," "Jews." Also, after a general introduction to the subject,
the chapter on trade includes the specific essays "Value and Volume of Trade," "Trade of
the Main Ports," and "Foreign Nations." These essays, while assessing the documents
published for the topic, seek to provide the pertinent literature. Points made in these
introductions need, of course, further elaboration, checking by evidence from other
sources (Ottoman archival material in particular), and sometimes essential modification.
The literature mentioned also needs substantial additions.
The introductions are an attempt to justify the title of the book, which otherwise might
be Materials for an Economic History of Turkey or British Documents on Ottoman
Economy in the Nineteenth Century, and so on. Personally I would have liked to see a
book with the latter title that put together a more comprehensive selection of documents
from the British archives in a systematic way. The author apparently thought it useful for
the general reader to include some materials from other sources and even translations
made for him from Turkish, Russian, and Armenian and, by adorning all this with essays
of synthesis on particular topics, to present a more complete work. Obviously the present
volume cannot be considered either as a systematic collection of documents or as a syn-
thesis of the economic history of Turkey. It is, nevertheless, a valuable contribution to the
field in general, because here important archival material has been published for the first
time. Also, points on various aspects of the Ottoman economy in the nineteenth century
have been suggested and in some cases substantially documented.

University of Chicago HALILINALCIK

ISKANDAR MUNSHI,History of Shah Abbas the Great, Roger Savory, trans., Persian Her-
itage Series 28, 2 vols. (Boulder: Westview, 1979). Pp. 1,399.

Iskandar Munshl's TarTkh-i'Alam Ara-yi 'AbbasThas often been recognized as probably

the outstanding achievement of Safavid historiography, a work that can stand beside
Baihaqi, JuvainT, or RashTdal-DTn as the best examples of a singular tradition of his-
torical writing. For the Safavid period it is supreme; it takes as its subject the most

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 16:59:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions