Review of Middle East Studieshttp://journals.cambridge.org/RMS

Additional services for Review of Middle East Studies:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

Ottoman Customs Registers (Gümrük Defterleri) as Sources forGlobal Exchange and Interaction

Linda T. Darling

Review of Middle East Studies / Volume 49 / Issue 01 / February 2015, pp 3 - 22DOI: 10.1017/rms.2015.63, Published online: 14 October 2015

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S2151348115000634

How to cite this article:Linda T. Darling (2015). Ottoman Customs Registers (Gümrük Defterleri) asSources for Global Exchange and Interaction. Review of Middle East Studies, 49,pp 3-22 doi:10.1017/rms.2015.63

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/RMS, IP address: 193.140.168.108 on 13 Jan 2016

Review of Middle East Studies, 49(1), 3–22© Middle East Studies Association 2015DOI:10.1017/rms.2015.63

ARTICLE

Ottoman Customs Registers (Gumruk Defterleri) as Sourcesfor Global Exchange and Interaction

Linda T. DarlingUniversity of Arizona

AbstractThe Ottoman Empire, contrary to the stereotype, was a key player in global commerceuntil well into the nineteenth century. Customs registers (gumruk defterleri) compiled by theOttoman administration provide abundant information on ships, seamen, merchants, goods,and prices. This article summarizes the history of Ottoman customs taxation, enumeratesthe various types of records that contain information on trade and customs dues, andsurveys current scholarship on the customs registers. It also includes lists of customsregisters found in theMaliyedenMudevver collection of the PrimeMinister’s OttomanArchive(Basbakanlık Osmanlı Arsivi) and other collections also containing customs registers andrelated documents. The purpose is to stimulate further research into the Ottoman Empire’srole in global interaction and exchange, a core topic in the growing field of world history.

Keywords: Customs dues, tax registers, gumruk defterleri, mukataa, world history, globalcommerce, early modern trade, Ottoman taxation, Ottoman archives, Basbakanlik

In the rapidly growing field of world history, global interactions andexchanges of goods and people are a major focus of attention. Much ofEurope’s exploration of theAtlantic and IndianOceanworldswas intended

to bypass the Ottoman Empire’s near monopoly of East–West trade, not onlythrough the Mediterranean but also over Asian and African land routes.Sitting astride the Bosphorus andDardanelles and extending for thousands ofmiles into Europe, Asia, and Africa, the Ottoman Empire formed the nexus ofworld trade and travel. This fact has been obscured by decades of emphasis onthe European voyages to the New World and China, and on the Ottomans asa Mediterranean power.1 The Ottomans were also a major player in North–South commerce, the slave trade, piracy, smuggling, and the exchange ofraw materials for finished goods. European trade with the Middle East in

Linda T. Darling is a professor in the Department of History at the University of Arizona,Tucson, AZ; e-mail: ldarling@email.arizona.edu.

3

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries far outstripped that with more distantlands, and these proportions altered only gradually during the seventeenthand eighteenth centuries.The commerce of the Ottoman Empire was an important research topic in

the early andmiddle twentieth century, but it was studied almost exclusivelyfrom European sources (e.g., Popescu 1997/98; e.g., Heyd 1885; Masson 1896,1911; Epstein 1908; Wood 1935; Davis 1967). The Ottomans, however, keptdetailed records of their own, which have hardly been tapped, particularlyfor the later centuries of the empire. The study of these records couldreveal aspects of trade outside the European purview and yield new insightsinto Europe’s connections with the East. Ottoman customs registers (gumrukdefterleri) are full of data on ships, seamen, merchants, goods, and prices. Therecordswere kept at everymajor port by themenwho collected customs dueson goods passing Ottoman frontiers. Because they include the names, origins,and owners of incoming commercial vessels; the origins of merchants; typesand quantities of goods traded; amounts of customs dues paid at ports ofentry; and the dispensation of revenues, these customs registers could yieldan unparalleled look at trade and travel in and through the Ottoman Empire.Who were the Ottoman merchants and with whom did they associate?

How far did merchants from Asia or Europe travel within or across theOttoman realm? As European trade increased and decreased, what happenedto Ottoman trade? What alterations in taste affected commercial flows? Howfar did Ottoman goods spread around the empire or around the world? Bywhat paths did foreign goods reach Ottoman subjects? What about Ottomantrade with Muslim countries to the east; with Russia, Poland, and Sweden tothe north; or with countries to the south? The registers of customs dues (andthose on market taxes, not examined here) contain information relevant tosuch questions. The sheer quantity of data lends itself to overall comparisonsas well as detailed investigations. In the hope of stimulating further study,this preliminary article brings together the current scholarship on customsregisters through a keyword search on the terms customs dues, customs duties,douane, and gumruk. It includes information on documents in the PrimeMinister’s Ottoman Archive in Istanbul (Basbakanlık Osmanlı Arsivi; BOA)and provides a list of registers currently available there. It also explains thedifferent types of registers and the information they provide.Customs registers are available primarily in the Maliyeden Mudevver

(MAD), Kamil Kepeci (KK), and Bab-ı Defteri (D) collections of the BOA, withsome late registers in theMaliye Nezareti (ML) collection (see Appendix A fora provisional list). Their publication and studywere promoted byHalil Inalcıkand several Hungarian scholars whose works are noted below. According to

4

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

Suraiya Faroqhi (2005), however, most customs registers, mainly from theeighteenth century, remained uncataloged, and this hadnot changed by 2014.Of those cataloged, some registers are not yet digitized, and few are publishedor discussed. Faroqhi, however, is perhaps too pessimistic about what wecan learn from these documents. If the right questions are asked, especiallyof a series of registers distributed over space or time, these documents cancontribute greatly to our picture of Ottoman commerce.

Gumruk and Its OriginsOttoman commerce was huge; customs dues in the fifteenth century totaledover 10 percent of state mukataa revenues (Inalcık 1994, 55–56). The empirewas divided into several customs zones. Merchants paid customs dues onlyonce in each zone and received a document (tezkire) attesting to the payment(Inalcık 1995, 91–92). Rates varied according to the type of goods andthe identity and religion of the merchant; Muslims paid less than non-Muslims, and Ottoman non-Muslims less than foreigners. Customs wereusually charged ad valorem (based on the estimated value of the commodity),but some goods were charged by measure, and later, specific tariffs wereestablished. Exports to Europe paid more than exports to Muslim lands, butimports in demand paid less (Inalcık 1995, 92, 95–96). Initially in kind, thesedues were monetized probably in the sixteenth century.Customs taxes have a long history prior to the Ottomans. The Turkish

word gumruk comes from the Latin commercio and the Greek kommerkion,which suggests a Roman and Byzantine origin. Similar taxes were collectedin the pre-Ottoman Islamic empires, also influenced by Roman-Byzantinepractices.2 As the Ottomans conquered former Byzantine territories andItalian trading posts, they absorbed existing relations with those ports’Mediterranean trading partners (Inalcık 1995, Thomas 1880–89, 1:313–18).For example, Aydın and Mentese had trade relations with Venice in thefourteenth century, and when these places came under Ottoman control in1390, Bayezid I confirmed the Venetian privileges and customs rates andextended them across the empire.3 The first Ottoman capitulation, grantedto Genoa by Orhan after the capture of Gelibolu in 753/1352, has beenlost, but its renewal by Murad I in 789/1387 is extant.4 The capitulationsclearly resulted from negotiation, and the Venetians considered them peaceor trade treaties, but the Ottomans couched them as unilateral grants ofprivileges in return for peace and friendship from a putative enemy (aman),an interpretation in accord with Islamic law (Inalcık 1971, Grignaschi 1976,Zarinebaf, Shafir, and Griffith 2014).

5

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

Although no actual customs documents from the fourteenth and fifteenthcenturies survive, the Venetian archives contain copies of trade agreementsand correspondence with Ottoman rulers and other Turkish princes,especially Mentese and Karaman.5 Ragusa (Dubrovnik), which came underOttoman suzerainty in 1433, preserved the old Byzantine customs rate of2 percent, making it a major port for Ottoman trade with Italy and aterminus of the cross-Balkan route to Iran and the East (Inalcık 1994, 256–64). After conquering Constantinople, the Ottomans extended commercialprivileges to the Genoese at Galata (1453) and later to the merchants ofother Italian city-states (Heyd 1885, 2:293, 310, 336–39; Inalcık 1971; Bulunur2009; von Hammer-Purgstall [1827–35] 1965, 675–77). The conquest of theArab lands brought the Catalans and French into the picture, as they hadlong-established trade relations with Egypt and Syria. The draft Ottoman–French capitulations of 1536 were not confirmed, but the Polish receivedcapitulations in 1553, the French definitively in 1569, and the English in1580.Mehmed II raised customs rates from 2 percent to as much as 5 percent

and issued regulations specifying who should pay, where, and on whatcommodities.6 In the sixteenth century, 5 percent was the general rate forforeigners, while Ottoman non-Muslims paid less and Muslims typically paid2 percent. Over time, customs dues were charged on more goods, and taxeswere adjusted according to the markets for different commodities. Sincethese amounts still varied according to location and type of commodity,ambassadors of foreign nations sought to negotiate fixed tariffs (Wood, 1935,27). The English capitulations of 1601 established a general customs rate of3 percent. This was repeated in the capitulations of 1675, which also listedtariffs for specific kinds of cloth and other commodities (summarized inHurewitz 1956, 25–32). In later centuries fixed tariff schedules proliferated(e.g., KK4354 is a tariff register for the Istanbul customs in 1242/1826–27, andMAD 19522 is a tariff register for the Austrian trade in 1300/1882–83).It used to be accepted that after a high point in the sixteenth

century, there was a decline in Ottoman commerce resulting from Ottomanperipheralization in the emerging capitalist world system, either in the latesixteenth century or in the mid-eighteenth century. Faroqhi (2005, 4) pointsout, however, that this view emphasizes oceanic commerce and neglects theoverland caravan trade, which remained healthy into the early nineteenthcentury, and that the decline in Ottoman–European trade reflected a declinein Europeandemand forAsian goods rather than a general decline inOttomancommerce itself or in trade with other parts of the world. The Ottomansremained essential players in global commerce and exchange throughout

6

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

the early modern period and did not totally lose their significance evenduring the nineteenth century. As a bureaucratic empire, they kept extensiverecords, the study of which will shed new light not only on their own tradebut also on global flows and interchanges with Western and Eastern Europeand with other regions in Asia and Africa.

Ottoman Customs RecordsFrom the seventeenth century on, customs rates for Europeans and Europeangoods were stated in the capitulations.7 The payment of customs left othertypes of records as well. Detailed registers or daybooks, called mufredat orruznamce, recorded daily arrivals at the port, including names and types ofships, names of shipowners and merchants, and types of goods carried, theirqualitative differences, quantities, and amounts paid in customs. Customsstations on land made detailed records of caravans and merchants, includingthe types of goods carried and their origins. Early registers also includedthe prices of goods. For descriptions of customs registers, see Kutukoglu(1980a). For a list of customs registers and documents in the BasbakanlıkOsmanlı Arsivi (BOA), see Appendix A. These detailed registers are themost interesting and useful of the Ottoman customs documents, but fewof them are accessible in the archives, and apparently their production orpreservation decreased over time. Other kinds of registers, however, werepreserved in larger numbers.Each port had regulations (kanunnames) for what taxes should be charged,

including detailed lists of customs rates and goods liable for payment.Customs dues were usually farmed or outsourced to the highest bidder(Genҫ 2000, Salzmann 1993). The absence of detailed registers for thefourteenth-century Aegean ports may be due to the farming out of customsdues to Italian agents (Fleet 2003). Each tax farmer had a scribe whomaintainedmukataa documents of various types, including detailed registersor daybooks (mufredat or ruznamce), summary reports (muhasebe and icmal),and arrears registers (bakiye or bekaya). Although few detailed registers areavailable, many summarized registers survive in the archives, especially forthe eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The mukataa registers provideinformation on revenues collected, tax farmers, collectors and their scribes,brokers, and weighers. Some individual tax farmers’ accounts also surviveand, most numerous of all, registers of expenditures of customs revenues onpensions and salaries (usuallymilitary). As Faroqhi (2005) notes, however, taxfarms often consisted of an amalgam of taxes for a particular area, and it maybe difficult to separate out the amounts coming specifically from customsdues. The later re-centralization of tax farming produced summary registers

7

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

recording customs totals on a daily, weekly, ormonthly basis.When the esham(shares)method becameprevalent in tax farming, esham registers of customsdues also appeared.Beginning in the late eighteenth century there were also customs tariff

registers specifying set import and export duties for certain commodities(gumruk tarifesi). The earliest tariff register for trade between the OttomanEmpire and the Kingdomof the Two Sicilies is transcribed into Ottoman print(Turan 1967). The document, dated 1216/1801, is taken from Ecnebi DefteriNo. 96/1 (pp. 132–35), which covers the years 1153–1276/1740–1859. A tariffregister of 1763 found in a manuscript of the dragoman Rodolpho Bragiottihas been translated into modern Turkish (Sahillioglu 1968). A tariff registercovering the period 1216–54/1801–38 (Register D.BSM 42279/26.) containstariff lists for several European countries that show the names of goods (e.g.,broadcloth of London, high quality), the units of measurement, and the oldand new tariffs (Matsui 2003). The register includes manufactured goodsboth Ottoman and foreign, industrial goods such as yarn and metals, rawmaterials, and foodstuffs. Edicts and regulations (hukums and kanunnames)record laws on trade and its taxation, while entries in ahkam, kayit/kuyud,and muhimme registers, as well as kadı sicills, describe specific problemsrelated to customs dues and their collection. Tax farmers encounteringcheating turned to the state, generating orders and edicts on such problems(Inalcık 1995, 97). Tensions between taxpaying merchants and tax collectorsseeking to maximize revenue led to smuggling, which left few records butgenerated court cases. The court records of port cities provide informationon commercial affairs, tax payment or non-payment, and problems with taxfarmers and smugglers. All of these sources can be used to uncover Ottomanmercantile practices and relations.Scholars have published only a few customs registers and only partial

data from others; a great deal remains to be done, particularly with respectto the Ottomans’ non-European trade, since trade with Western Europe hasbeen widely studied using European sources. A search of the archive catalogsyielded no additional detailed registers accessible as of summer 2014,but many summary registers are still unexploited, especially for the laterperiod. These registers provide information on Ottomans and non-Ottomansinvolved in commercial interactions, goods exchanged, and patterns of tradethrough both space and time.Detailed registers published in their entirety include a mukataa register

of the Budin customs covering the periods 1550–51, 1571–74, and 1579–80 (catalog number Flugel #1356), published in 1962 in printed Ottomanscript with a discussion in German (Fekete and Kaldy-Nagy 1962). Another

8

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

published register is a customs arrears register for the city of Kefe/Caffain Crimea for the period 1487–1490 (KK5280m). It is detailed but partial,showing only customs dues unpaid at the register’s date. This register ispublished in facsimile and in printed Ottoman script, with a translationand supporting studies in English (Inalcık 1995, 97). An undated registerfor Trabzon, Samsun, and associated ports in the late nineteenth or earlytwentieth century is published in modern Turkish translation (Aygun 2009).8This register gives the names of merchants, the amounts and types of goods,and the sums paid in customs dues in the month of Subat, with daily totals.Data from other registers, including customs registers of various types,treaties and agreements, regulatory codes, registers of important affairs(muhimme defterleri), and Islamic court registers (kadı sicilleri) appear in thescholarly articles discussed below.

Customs Registers and the Commercial WorldThe following survey of publications on customs registers focuses oncataloging information and the categories of data in each register type. Spaceconsiderations limit the discussion of Ottoman commercial interconnections,whichwould highlight the great potential of these registers. One of the oldestextant detailed customs registers is KK 5280m, an arrears register for Kefe inCrimea dated 892/1496–97 but covering the period 1487–90 and recordingtrade across the Black Sea (Inalcık 1995). This register lists ships anchoring atKefe with captains’ names and sometimes places of origin, the merchants oneach ship, the goods importedwith quantities and values, and the amounts ofcustoms unpaid. It also lists the prices of different kinds of cloth and the citiesfrom which or through which they were exported to Kefe. Cotton cloth andthreadwere brought fromAnatolian towns and villages to specificmercantilecenters for processing (weaving and dying) and subsequent resale (Inalcık1993, 265). Textiles and garments reaching Kefe, Kilia, and Akkirman were inturn exported northward in exchange for furs, Wallachian knives, and rawmaterials (Inalcık 1993, 268).Ships in the Kefe trade were owned by Muslims, Ottoman non-Muslims,

and Italians, by sea captains, state officials, and merchants, and themerchants they carried were not limited to their owners’ faith or ethnicity(Inalcık 1995, 113). Many of the same shippers and merchants also appearin a later register for Kilia and Akkirman (Inalcık 1995, 135–137). This stillunpublished register (MAD 6) is dated 899 in the catalog—and the sectioncovering the Ahyolu salt works is from 899/1493–94—but it also includes theKilia and Akkirman customs of 911/1505–06, with arrears from 909/1503–04and 910/1504–05. The information it provides on who arrived when yields

9

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

clues to shipping routes, which altered to avoid dangers and expenses andto maximize profits (Inalcık 1995, 114–16). One unused register for the earlysixteenth century, a collector’s ruznamce or daily register of 118 pages forthe customs of Akkirman, would round out our picture of this region’strade (MAD 15649, dated 915/1509 in the catalog but covering the year912/1506). The data on cotton exports have been used to trace the effectof Indian and European cotton imports on the Ottoman cotton trade. Inthe seventeenth century, Indian cotton began to flood the Ottoman market,and the Ottomans re-exported it to others. By the eighteenth century,imported fabrics dominated the luxury market, but cheaper cottons werelargely Ottoman-made (Inalcık 1993, 299). The Kefe registers have also helpedinterpret entries onmerchants in the court records of Bursa, making possiblea detailed description of early Ottoman trade through that city (Inalcık 1960,132 n1).A customs register including the town of Tulca reveals changes in the

Black Sea trade in the next few decades. Register MAD 30, which recordsthe customs dues of several Danubian ports, is dated 888/1483 in the archivecatalog, but the contents come from the years 902–03/1496–98, 912–14/1506–09, and 920–23/1514–17 (Inalcık 1960, 132 n1). Systematic study of theinformation on Tulca has shown that by 1517 all merchants trading therewere Muslims; after expelling the Genoese from the Black Sea in 1475,the Ottomans took over as intermediaries between the Black Sea portsand the Mediterranean (Hovari 1984). This register records the names ofmerchants, the dates of transaction, the quantities and values of each typeof merchandise, and the amount of customs duty paid. It notes the salariesof the tax farmer, agent, and clerk, as well as the remission of receipts tothe fortress of Akkirman. The register also records ferry fees for men andanimals across the Danube; slaves paid no customs dues, but the ferry feesfor slaves reveal a brisk traffic. Textiles were the principal items exported atTulca. Foodstuffswere next in value, followed bymanufactured goods such asmetalware, glassware, soap, and raw materials for manufacturing. Althoughno spices appear in this register, spices were traded through other Danubeports, and these registers make it possible to trace the routes they followedthrough Eastern Europe.Customs registers and documents may also survive in the archives of

countries that formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, such as Egypt,Yemen, or Bosnia, or in the National Library of Bulgaria, which has a large butmostly uncataloged collection of Ottoman documents (Aktas and Kahraman1994). Some customs registers for Hungary, for example, are in the archives ofVienna, preserved from destruction after the Ottoman loss of Budin (Hovari

10

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

1984; Flugel 1865–67, 2:459–67). Hungarian scholars Lajos Fekete and GyulaKaldy-Nagy published a large account register covering the mukataa of theiskele (docks) of Budin and Peste for the period 1550–80, which incorporatesseveral detailed registers of customs dues along with other market taxes(Fekete and Kaldy-Nagy 1962). This register begins by reporting the totalsof each tax collected, followed by a detailed, day-by-day listing of each shipthat arrived, each merchant and his goods, and the taxes paid. On firstglance, the ship-owners were mostly Muslim, but the merchants were quitediverse: Muslims, local Christians and the occasional foreigner, Jews, Gypsies,Janissaries, and Ottoman officials, and the occasional foreigner all took partin the trade. It would be interesting to track changes among them over time.An example from the cattle trade suggests what can be done with

this information. Anna Horvath studied the customs dues of the townof Szolnok in the sixteenth century from a register similar to that ofBudin (Horvath 1971, 235–40).9 After the Ottoman conquest in 1552, thecustoms dues and river crossing fees at Szolnok became a mukataa. Themukataa accounts for Szolnok in the years 1558–75 show that customsreceipts increased from 5,500–7,500 akces per month to 11,400–12,800, adoubling of trade. The primary items traded were animals (cows andsheep) and salt (Horvath 1969). The registers for 1558 and 1559 listpayments for 603 and 1489 oxen, respectively, but the registers for 1573and 1575 show that only fifteen years later, 28,365 and 15,011 oxen,respectively, were exported via Szolnok—a tremendous growth—along withequal numbers of sheep while the amount of salt exported in the sameperiod increased more than sixfold. Most of the exporters seem to havebeen Christians, but a Muslim bey who built a bridge for the cattle mayhave been a partner in the trade. Thus, these registers inform us notonly about trade but also about infrastructure, production, and socialrelations.Customs registers for port cities provide a view of shipping through

those ports. A register for Antalya in 968/1560–61 (MAD 102) lists thirty-three ships arriving in port over eleven months (Kutukoglu 1980a). Ofthose, twenty-three were from Egypt. They imported slaves, rice, camelskins, and linens and exported carpets, fish, nuts, and opium. A registerof the tax on slaves records the ebbs and flows of the slave trade. Thisis Istanbul register D.BSM.128, dated 1016/1606–07 in the catalog andcovering the year 1015/1605–06 (Yagcı 2013; see also Yagcı 2011, 2007). Itincludes daily aggregate totals of slaves imported and taxes collected, aswell as a detailed list of the arriving ships with their captains and ports oforigin.

11

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

The customs registers for port cities clearly reveal the global characterof Ottoman trade in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Registers forthe port of Alexandretta/Iskenderiye dated 1624, 1626, 1627, and 1628 werebound together as TK.MA 1306 and preserved in the Topkapı Sarayı archiveand are now available in digital form in the BOA (Kaldy-Nagy 1965, 300 n8).Kaldy-Nagy’s study of them reveals that besides merchants from WesternEurope, there were some from Baghdad and Bukhara who sold their waresdirectly to Europeans in Aleppo. An undated customs register (DocumentNo. 4139/53/1, presumably in the Egyptian national archives) studied by ElMouelhy, which may refer to the seventeenth or eighteenth century, showsgoods from the Indies arriving at the port of Suez (El Mouelhy 1952, 90–91).The register lists the customs due on each item and the quantity imported. AFrench memoir in 1790 stated that these customs brought in the equivalentof a million francs (El Mouelhy 1952, 93). Eighteenth-century registers forIskenderiye and Izmir show ships from Europe, Malta, Crete, and Aleppo, aswell as Anatolia (Kutukoglu 1980a).Customs registers from Erzurum (detailed, summary, and mukataa)

survive in large numbers from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.Erzurum was the entry point for trade from the east and northeast, and itsregisters on the trade to and from Iran and the Caucasus began to be studiedin the 1980s (Erim 1984, using numerous documents of all types relatingto gumruk). Detailed customs mukataa and inspection (nezaret) registersprovide copious information on tax farmers and their revenues (Pamuk2013). They also show that while the principal commodity on this route wassilk from Iran, also imported were fur, leather, Indian cotton, tobacco, andCaucasian slaves (Erim 1991). Exports included woolen and cotton textilesand large amounts of silver. The imported silk was carried initially to Aleppoand later to Izmir, where much of it was sold to Europeans. When importsof fine silk declined, Indian printed cottons rose to take their place. Of themerchants coming from Iran in a single year (1744), 70 percent were Armeni-ans and 17 percent were Muslims. A monthly calculation of revenues in 1770indicated that caravans arrived from Iran mainly in November, December,and February, while the low point came in July; trade going fromAnatolia wasmore evenly distributed. The registers list Erzurum’s connections withmanyeastern Anatolian and Arab cities, but only Istanbul and Bursa in the west,vividly illustrating how premodern international commerce was normallynot composed of far-reaching and risky mercantile ventures, as we todayimagine, but of many local transactions connected end-to-end.The Aegean town of Kusadası became a port in the seventeenth century

after the harbors of Ephesus and Ayasoluk silted up. Cahit Telci translated

12

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

a customs register from this port: Kusadası gumruk defteri D.MMK 22754,a summary register from 1135/1722 covering four months (Telci 1997).10This register does not contain as much detail as earlier registers; oftenthe merchant is not listed, and the quality or value of the goods is neverprovided. It does, however, list the types of goods, usually their quantities,and their customs dues. Summary customs registers were also used byEnsar Kose, among other sources, to discuss Mediterranean commerce inthe eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Kose 2013; see also Kose 2011).Although disappointed in the level of quantitative data in these summarizedsources, Kose was able to see from the register which ports traded withwhich and what goods came over those routes. A similar register (KK 5252), asummary customs register for Kale-i Sultaniye (Canakkale) for 1236/1820–21 gives the localities, names of ships, types of goods, and customs fees(Bulunur 2008). Numerous summary registers like these survive from avariety of port cities large and small; they list the goods and amounts in somedetail but omit other information. Put together, however, they would painta detailed picture of the coasting trade and commercial relations betweenthe coast and the hinterland that might challenge the common picture ofstagnation.Some customs ports were not on the coast. Mubahat Kutukoglu studied a

customs register of 1253/1838–39 for the province and city of Saraybosna,whose trade seems to have been mainly with Austria or places in Bosna.The register included Muslim, Christian, and Jewish merchants (althoughplaces of origin were rarely recorded). Kutukoglu (1980b, using register MAD19673) charted the communal identities and comparative tax liabilities ofimporters and exporters. The data in this register showperiodswhen importswere greater, such as September and December, and periods when exportsovertopped imports, such as November. Similar information gathered for aseries of ports, or series of years, would graphically demonstrate patterns oflocal trade.Necmettin Aygun (2009) used data from a customs register to illustrate

the economic role of Trabzon in the nineteenth-century Black Sea trade.This register indicates that most merchants trading there were from the areabetween Giresun and Rize, but they included Greeks and Armenians as well asMuslims. The goods traded were foodstuffs, textiles, metals, and gunpowder(Aygun 2009, 57–74). These registers demonstrate that all of the empire’speoples engaged in its commerce and that the earlymodern Ottoman Empiredid not become, like Europe’s colonies, merely a source of raw materials;Ottoman-manufactured goods were eagerly sought after from the fifteenthcentury straight through to the nineteenth.

13

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

ConclusionFrom these studies, we can see that the Ottoman customs registers will yielda sensitive record of the Ottoman Empire’s interconnections with the worldeconomy in the early modern period, revealing the materials traded and thepeople involved. For a truly global picture, Ottoman data must be broughtinto connection with information on trade in the countries linked to theOttoman routes. In this way it is possible to gain an accurate picture ofwhere these commodities came from and the many hands through whichthey passed on the way to their final destinations, as well as how thesediverse merchants conducted their intercultural business and how goodswere reworked and repurposed in different settings. Erim (1991, 136) pointsout that the merchants must not be seen as lone individuals but as membersof networks that included small-scale local traders, businessmen based indistant cities, and traveling merchants who linked them. Network analysisand other modern techniques should help in developing a much finer andmore interesting picture of Ottoman world commerce.The more recent registers are less full and less interesting, and they must

be studied in the context of other sources. Theydo, however, give informationabout how the Ottomans conducted commerce that is unavailable inEuropean sources. If the analysis of imports and exports bymonth performedon the Erzurum and Saraybosna registers were done for more of theseregisters, for example, it would be possible to see in detail the rhythms oftrade over the course of a year and how these rhythms changed over thecenturies. Charting the places of origin of the goods traded would improveour map of Ottoman production and allow us to identify the real hinterlandsof port cities and towns and their changes over time. These registers revealthe participation of the Ottoman Empire in global exchange both before andafter the European explorations; its role in the flow of goods to the north andeast aswell as to thewest; interactions between long-distance and local trade;the changing ownership of commercial shipping; the activities of Christian,Jewish,Muslim, and foreignmerchants inOttoman commerce; and the effectsof overseas trade on local cultures.

14

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

Appendix A: Provisional List of Customs RegistersAccessible June 2014This section lists customs registers, mostly detailed, in theMaliyedenMudevver catalog of thePrimeMinister’s Ottoman Archives in Istanbul and some taken from publications. Other typesof registers on customs, such as ahkam defterleri, are not included, and some of the summaryregisters may have been missed. Below this list are other collections containing documentsand registers related to customs. The registers appear in order of catalog date, which oftendiffers from the date(s) covered by the register. Some registers include information fromseveral years. All digitized registers were checked. The date listed is usually the first year in theregister (sometimes thefirst and last), and thenumber after the slash is thefirst Gregorian yearcorresponding to that Hijri year. The lists of places covered in these registers are suggestive,not exhaustive. Most of these registers have not been studied.

Catalog RegisterArchive No. Date Date Place Type

MAD.d.7387 884 ∗ Antalya,Athens

mukataa

MAD.d.6222 884 884/1479 Ala’iye,Aydın

mukataa

MAD.d.176 884 884/1479 Rumeli mukataaNote: The three above are parts of the same register, covering most of 1451–81.

MAD.d.30 888 902/1496+ Tulca,Semendire

ruznamce

KK.d.5280m 892 892/1487 Kefe (Caffa) ruznamceMAD.d.6 899 899/1493 Akkirman,

Kiliaruznamce

MAD.d.102 906 967/1559–60 Antalya ruznamceMAD.d.7189 978 976/1568 Vidin mukataa

iltizamMAD.d.3258 985 968/1560 Midilli, Sakız mukataaMAD.d.4969 986 970/1562 Vidin,

Semendiremukataa

MAD.d.6148 993 993/1585 Vidin mukataailtizam

MAD.d.3906 999 999/1590 Temesvar irad ruznamceMAD.d.4118 1000 1000/1591 Yemen mukataaMAD.d.7449 1000 1001/1592 Tuna mukataaMAD.d.7607 1002 1002/1593 Mısır irad, masrafMAD.d.15683 1003 1003/1594 Temesvar,

Szegedinvazifehoran

15

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

MAD.d.7555 1009 start & endmissing

Yemen varidat,masarifat

MAD.d.7343 1026 1026/1617 Erzurum Erz. hazineruznamce

MAD.d.4126 1032 1013/1604 Akkirman muhasebeTK.MA.d.1341 1035 1034–5/

1624–5Iskenderiye mufredat

TK.MA.d.1306.0004

1036 1035/1625 Iskenderiye Valide hasmuhasebe

TK.MA.d.1306.0003

1039 1036–7/1626–8

Iskenderiye Valide hasmuhasebe

MAD.d.7382 1044 1044/1634 Erzurum Erz. hazineruznamce

MAD.d.16104 1054/1644 ∗ Erzurum ruznamceMAD.d.16097 1059/1649 ∗ Erzurum mukataa

muhasebeMAD.d.4402 1065 1056–9/

1646–9Haleb,

Erzurum, etc.mukataa

MAD.d.18260 1082 1082/1671 Iskenderiye mufassalAE.IV.Mehmed3151

1083 1083/1672 ∗ mukataatevcih

MAD.d.657 1093 1093/1682 Bosna, Sam,Erzurum

mukataa

MAD.d.18525 1099 1100/1688 Baghdad,Erzurum

mukataa

MAD.d.10139 1104 1103–4/1691–2

Mısır,Baghdad

mukataa

MAD.d.10140 1111 1104/1692 Mosul mukataaMAD.d.10142 1114 1106/1694 Rakka,

Arabgir,Trabzon

mukataa

MAD.d.10155 1123 1124–6/1712–14

Trabzon mukataa

MAD.d.10152 1124 1124/1712 Trabzon mukataaMAD.d.10307 1129 1119/1707 Basra, Haleb,

Diyarbakirmukataa

MAD.d.10159 1130 1128/1716 Mosul mukataaKK.d.5239 1130 1130–32/

1717–9Izmir mukataa

teslimatD.MMK.d.22754 1135 1136/1723 Kusadası iradD.HMK. 22082 1137 1136/1723 Kusadası iradMAD.d.10164 1137 1137/1724 Trabzon,

Istanbulmukataa

16

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

MAD.d.3956 1139 1140/1727 various mukataaMAD.d.10171 1148 1142/1729 Erzurum mukataaMAD.d.9521 1148 1148/1735 Istanbul,

Edirne, Sakızmukataa

KK.d.5240 1148 1148–9/1735–6

Erzurum icmal-imukataa

MAD.d.10175 1151 1146/1733 Kıbrıs, Sakız,Girit

mukataa

MAD.d.10178 1153 1148/1735 Trabzon,Sakız

mukataa

MAD.d.10170 1155 1141/1728 Girit, Jaffa,Mosul

mukataa

MAD.d.10181 1158 1153/1740 Erzurum,Sakız

mukataa

MAD.d.10185 1166 1155–8/1742–5

Trab, Isknd,Avlonya

mukataa

MAD.d.10199 1168 1168/1754 Yafa, Ayntab,Bagdad

mukataa

MAD.d.10189 1171 1159–60/1746–7

Kıbrıs mukataa

MAD.d.10195 1174 1166/1752 Mosul mukataaMAD.d.10191 1178 1161–2/

1748–9Trabzon mukataa

MAD.d.10206 1178/1764 ∗ IstanbulTutun

mukataa

MAD.d.10205 1181/1767 ∗ IstanbulTutun

mukataa

MAD.d.10203 1182/1768 ∗ Iskenderiye,Avlonya

mukataa

MAD.d.686 1183 1183/1769 Erzurum mufassalMAD.d.10209 1209/1794 ∗ Belgrad, Nis,

Izmirmukataa

C.ML.d.17867 1220/1806 ∗ Izmir TazeMeyve

icmal

MAD.d.10280 1239 1245–7/1829–31

Istanbul,Sakız

mukataa

C.ML.d.17458 1246/1830 ∗ Izmir Kahve,Efrenc

mufassal

C.ML.d.16388 1246 1251/1835 Izmir mufassalMAD.d.19673 1253/1837 ∗ Saraybosna mufassalMAD.d.12158 1254/1838 ∗ Istanbul bedel-i iltizam

17

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

MAD.d.20084 1254/1838 ∗ Istanbul mukataaKK.d.5260 1257 1257/1841 Rumeli,

Anadolumufassal

MAD.d.20135 1261/1845 ∗ Istanbul muhasebeMAD.d.12017 1268/1851 ∗ Istanbul varidatMAD.d.9517 1277 1106–1217 Erzurum,

Trabzonmukataa

D.BSM.TZG.d.17229

late 1800s–early 1900s

Trabzon muhasebeicmal

∗ indicates information that is missing because the register was digitized and could not bechecked in the time available.

There are also registers and documents relevant to gumruk or customs dues in otherarchival collections. Similar documents await discovery in still other collections, but this listincludes the major deposits as of June 2014:

Maliyeden Mudevver (MAD), 1,630 registers in addition to those listed aboveTopkapı Sarayı (TS.MA), 758 items related to gumruk, dated 986/1578–1267/1850Ali Emiri (AE), 6,687 documents from Mehmed III’s reign to Mahmud II’s, 1574–1839Former Ecnebi Defterleri, now Bab-ı Asafi Duvel-i Ecnebiye Defterleri (A.{DVNSDVE), 118registers dated 975/1567–1307/1889

Evkaf Defterleri, 56 registers dated 1244/1828–1341/1922Cevdet Maliye (C.ML.), 3,018 documents, all from the nineteenth centuryCevdet Darbhane (C.DRB.), a few related documentsKamil Kepeci (KK), formerly separate categories for registers issued by differentdepartments, now a single collection, 415 gumruk-related registers dated 892/1487–1270/1853

Bab-ı Defteri’s numerous sub-collections contain many gumruk-related registers:Avlonya Gumrugu (D.AVG.), 23 registers dated 934/1528–1206/1792Bursa Mukataası (D.BRM.), 24 registers dated 988/1580–1244/1828Bas Muhasebe (D.BSM.), 467 registers dated 992/1584–1254/1838Duhan Donumu (D.MMK.DHN.), 83 registers dated 1107/1695–1251/1835Erzurum Gumrugu (D.BSM.ERG.), 67 registers dated 1135/1720–1255/1836Haslar Mukataası (D.HSK.), 12 registers dated 1131/1718–1184/1770Haremeyn Mukataası (D.HMK.), 191 registers dated 1061/1651–1254/1838Istanbul Gumrugu (D.BSM.IGE.), 50 registers dated 1157/1744–1255/1838Istanbul Mukataası (D.ISM.), 69 registers dated 974/1566–1255/1839Maden Mukataası (D.MMK.), 248 registers dated 984/1576–1253/1837Istanbul Gumruk Emini (D.MMK.IGE.), 346 registers, dated 1015/1606–1254/1838Mevkufat (D.MFK.), 3 registers dated 1142/1729–1226/1811Trabzon Gumrugu (D.BSM.TZG.), 3 registers dated 1036/1627–1209/1795A few miscellaneous registers in other parts of the collection.

Ibnul-Emin Maliye (¤E.ML.), 719 documents dated 923/1517–1259/1843Hazine-i Hassa (HH.d.), 48 registers dated 1185/1771–1336/1917Maliye (ML.), 309 registers dated 1252/1836–1290/1873 or datelessMasarifat Muhasebesi (ML.MSF.), 162 registers dated 1254/1838–1299/1881Varidat Muhasebesi (ML.VRD.), 115 registers dated 1255/1839 or dateless

18

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

Bab-ı Ali Evrak Odası Idare Kısmı Belgleri, Dosyas 78 and 79, post-1914Hariciye Nezareti, Mektubi Kalemi (HR.MKT.), 7,130 documents dated 1261/1845–1929

Endnotes1Giancarlo Casale’s Ottoman Age of Exploration (2010) has the virtue of making us look

outward again from the Ottoman center.2Arabic maks, pl. mukus, from Aramaic maks; Persian baj, koruj, or gomrok (Bjorkman 1991,

Darling, forthcoming).3Heyd (1885, 1:540–45, 2:262), and Venetian text in Thomas (1880–89, 2:222–23). See also

Zachariadou (1976, 229–40). For earlier Anatolian trade treaties, see Tafel and Thomas ([1856]1964).

4For Latin translation of Greek original, see Silvestre de Sacy et al. (1787–1819, 11/1:58–61).5Iorga (1899–1916, 1:125–26, 136–39, 196–99, 200–01, 222–24); Thomas (1880–89, 2:290–93

#159, 302–04 #164, 318–20 #172, 323–26 #182, 336–39 #198, 370 #201, 382–85 #209); Heyd (1885,2:268–69).

6Inalcık (1994, 261). Mehmed’s customs regulations are in Akgunduz (1990–96, 1:381–83(1481), 413–25 (1461, 1476), 430–34 (1476), 448–49 (1476), 605–8 (1454–63 or 1479–81); see alsoBulunur (2007). On Ottoman capitulations and commercial policy, see Gucer (1987).

7See Inalcık (1971) as well as the references provided there.8Aygun (2009) cites the register number as D.BSM.TZG 17229, but that is incorrect;

D.BSM.TZG 17229 is dated 1036/1626 and shows expenditures of customs revenues. The correctregister number is probably D.MMK 23242, the only undated customs register in the Bab-ıDefteri catalog.

9Nationalbibliothek, Mxt. 574 (Flugel #1360), pertaining to 1557–58, 1559, 1573–74, and1575–76.

10Telci also used D.HMK 22082, a summary register from one month in 1136/1723.

Works CitedAkgunduz, Ahmed, ed. 1990–96. Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukukı Tahlilleri. 9 vols. Istanbul: Fey

Vakfı.

Aktas, Necati, and Seyit Ali Kahraman, eds. 1994. Bulgaristan’daki Osmanlı Evrakı. Ankara: T. C.Basbakanlık Osmanlı Arsivleri Genel Mudurlugu.

Aygun, Necmettin. 2009. “Osmanlı Devleti’nin Son Zamanlarında Karadeniz’in GuneyKesiminde Iktisadı Faaliyetler.” Karadeniz Arastırmaları 6.23: 41–76.

Bjorkman, W. 1991. “Maks.” Vol. 6 in Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed., edited by C. E. Bosworth, E.van Donzel, and Ch. Pellat, 194–95. Leiden: Brill.

Bulunur, K. Ilker. 2007. “Osmanlı Donemi Karadeniz Ticaret Tarihine Katkı: Akkirman Gumru—u (1505).” InOmeljan PritsakArmaganı: ATribute toOmeljan Pritsak, edited byMehmet Alparguand Yucel Ozturk, 525–82. Sakarya: Sakarya Universitesi Yayınları.

Bulunur, K. Ilker. 2008. “19. Yuzyılın Ilk Yarısında Canakkale (Kale-i Sultaniye) Gumrugu.” InCanakkale Savasları Tarihi, II, edited by Mustafa Demir, 1067–85. Istanbul: Degisim.

19

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

Bulunur, K. Ilker. 2009. “II. Mehmed Tarafından Galatalılara Verilen 1453 Ahidnamesi ve BunaYapılan Eklemeler Hakkında Yeni Bilgiler.” Tarih Dergisi 50: 59–85.

Casale, Giancarlo. 2010. The Ottoman Age of Exploration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Darling, Linda T. Forthcoming. “Customs dues.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam Three (Online), editedby Kate Fleet et al. Leiden: Brill.

Davis, Ralph. 1967. Aleppo and Devonshire Square: English Traders in the Levant in the EighteenthCentury. New York: Routledge/Thoemmes.

Epstein, Mortimer. 1908. The Early History of the Levant Company. New York: E. P. Dutton.

Erim, Nese. 1984. “Onsekizinci Yuzyılda Erzurum Gumrugu.” PhD diss., Istanbul University.

Erim, Nese. 1991. “Trade, Traders and the State in Eighteenth-Century Erzurum.” NewPerspectives on Turkey 5–6: 123–49.

Faroqhi, Suraiya. 2005. “Ottoman Cotton Textiles, 1500 to 1800: The Story of a SuccessThat Did Not Last.” Paper given at Ottoman Cotton Textiles, 1500 to 1800, GEHNConference, University of Padua, November 21–24. Accessed 15 March 2014, gram-matikhilfe.com/economicHistory/Research/GEHN/GEHNPDF/PaduaFaroqhiPaper.pdf.

Fekete, Lajos, and Gyula Kaldy-Nagy. 1962. Rechnungsbucher Turkischer Finanzstellen in Buda(Ofen), 1550–1580. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.

Fleet, Kate. 2003. “Tax-Farming in the Early Ottoman State.”Medieval History Journal 6: 249–58.

Flugel, Gustav. 1865–67. Die Arabischen, persischen, und turkischen Handschriften der kaiserlichenund Koniglichen Hofbibliothek zu Wien. 2 vols. Vienna: K. K. Hof- und staatsdruckerei.

Genc, Mehmet. 2000. Osmanlı Imparatorlugunda Devlet ve Ekonomi. Istanbul: Otuken.

Grignaschi, Mario. 1976. “Una raccolta inedita di «Munseat»: il Ms. Veliyyuddin Ef. 1970 dellaBiblioteca Beyzait Umumi de Istanbul e gli «Ahdname» concessi dalla Sublime Porta aChio (muharrem 927 h), a Firenze (muharrem 934) e ad Antivari (Ramadan 983).” In Studipreottomani e ottomani, edited by Aldo Gallotta. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

Gucer, Lutfi. 1987. “XVI.-XVIII. Asırlarda Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nun Ticaret Politikası.” TurkIktisat Tarihi Yıllıgı 1: 1–128.

Heyd, Wilhelm. 1885. Histoire du commerce du Levant au moyen-age. 2 vols. Leipzig: OttoHarrassowitz.

Horvath, Anna. 1969. “Le commerce dans l’eyalet de Buda durant la secondemoitie duXVI.emesiecle.” Tarih Arastırmaları Dergisi 7: 57–64.

Horvath, Anna. 1971. “The Cattle Trade of a Hungarian Town (Szolnok) in the Period of TurkishDomination.” In Studia Turcica, edited by Lajos Ligeti, 235–40. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.

Hovari, J. 1984. “Customs Register of Tulca (Tulcea), 1515–1517.” Acta Orientalia AcademiaeScientiarum Hungaricae 38: 120–29.

Hurewitz, J. C. 1956. Diplomacy in the Near andMiddle East: A Documentary Record, 1535–1914. 2 vols.Princeton: D. van Nostrand.

Inalcık, Halil. 1960. “Bursa and the Commerce of the Levant.” Journal of the Economic and SocialHistory of the Orient 3.2: 131–47.

Inalcık, Halil. 1971. “Imtiyazat.” Vol. 3 of Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed., edited by B. Lewiset al., 1179–89. Leiden: Brill.

20

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

Inalcık, Halil. 1993. “The Ottoman Cotton Market and India: The Role of Labor Cost in MarketCompetition.” In The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire: Essays on Economyand Society, 264–306. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Turkish Studies and TurkishMinistry of Culture.

Inalcık, Halil. 1994. An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Vol. 1. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Inalcık, Halil. 1995. Sources and Studies on the Ottoman Black Sea. Vol. 1 of The Customs Register ofCaffa, 1478–1490. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Iorga, Nicolae. 1899–1916. Notes et extraits pour servir a l’histoire des croisades au XVe siecle. Paris:E. Leroux.

Kaldy-Nagy, J. 1965. “Names of Merchandises in a Mediterranean Turkish Customs Register.”Acta Orientalia Academiai Scientiarum Hungaricae 18: 299–304.

Kose, Ensar. 2011. “XIX. Yuzyıl Baslarında Icel Limanları.” In Turk Deniz Ticareti TarihSempozyumu-III, Mersin ve Dogu Akdeniz, Bildiriler Kitabı, edited by Fevzi Demir, 139–62.Mersin: Mersin Deniz Ticaret Odası.

Kose, Ensar. 2013. “18. Yuzyılın Ilk Yarısında Icel ve Antalya Sahilleri’nde Ticaret.” Cedrus 1:299–328.

Kutukoglu, Mubahat S. 1980a. “Osmanlı Gumruk Kayıtları.” Osmanlı Arastırmaları 1: 219–34.

Kutukoglu, Mubahat S. 1980b. “1253 Mali Yılına ait Saraybosna Gumruk Defteri.” Guney-DoguAvrupa Arastırmaları 8–9: 23–36.

Masson, Paul. 1896. Histoire du commerce francais dans le Levant au XVIIe siecle. Paris: Hachette.

Masson, Paul. 1911. Histoire du commerce francais dans le Levant au XVIIIe siecle. Paris: Hachette.

Matsui, Masako. 2003. “A Customs Tariffs Register of the Ottoman Empire in the EarlyNineteenth Century.” Annals of Japan Association for Middle East Studies 18.1: 137–57.

El Mouelhy, Ibrahim. 1952. “Les rouages administratifs de la douane de Suez de 1517 a 1801.”Bulletin de la Societe d’Etudes Historiques et Georgraphiques de l’Isthme de Suez 4: 85–97.

Pamuk, Bilgehan. 2013. “Erzurum Gumrugu’nun Tesekkulu ve Tekamulu (XVI-XVII.Yuzyıllar).” Belleten 77.279: 523–48.

Popescu, Anca. 1997/98. “Un centre commercial du Bas-Danube ottoman au XVIe siecle: Br|ila(Bra’il).” Il Mar Nero 3: 198–248.

Sahillioglu, Halil. 1968. “1763’de Izmir Limanı Ihracaat Gumrugu ve Tarifesi.” Belgelerle TurkTarihi Dergisi 2.8: 53–57.

Salzmann, Ariel. 1993. “An Ancien Regime Revisited: ‘Privatization’ and PoliticalEconomy in the Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Empire.” Politics and Society 21: 393–423.

Silvestre de Sacy, A. I., et al., eds. 1787–1819. Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothequenationale et autres bibliotheques. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.

Tafel, G. L. F., and Georg Martin Thomas. [1856] 1964. Urkunden zur alteren Handels- undStaatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig mit besonderer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die Levante vomneunten bis zum Ausgang des funfzehnten Jahrhunderts. Reprint, Amsterdam: Hakkert.

Telci, Cahit. 1997. “Hicri 1135 (M.1723) Tarihli Kusadası Gumruk Defteri.”Tarih Incelemeri Dergisi12: 135–54.

21

MESA R o M E S 49 1 2015

Thomas, Georg Martin. 1880–89. Diplomatarium Veneto-Levantinum sive Acta et Diplomata ResVenetas Graecas atque Levantis. 2 vols. Venice: Sumptibus Societatis.

Turan, Serafettin. 1967. “Osmanlı Imparatorlugu ile Iki Sicilya Krallıgı Arasındaki TicaretleIlgili Gumruk Tarife Defterleri.” Belgeler 7-8: 79–167.

von Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph. [1827–35] 1965. Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches. Reprint,Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt.

Wood, Alfred C. 1935. A History of the Levant Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yagcı, Zubeyde Gunes. 2007. “The Slave Trade in the Crimea in the Sixteenth Century.” InThe Black Sea: Past, Present and Future, edited by Gulden Erkut and Stephen Mitchell,73–80. London: British Institute at Ankara, and Istanbul: Istanbul TechnicalUniversity.

Yagcı, Zubeyde Gunes. 2011. “Istanbul Gumruk Defterine Gore Karadeniz Kole Ticareti (1606–1607).” History Studies 3.2: 372–84.

Yagcı, Zubeyde Gunes. 2013. “H. 1015/1016 (M. 1606/1607) Tarihli Istanbul Gumruk Defteri.”History Studies 5.2: 507–37.

Zachariadou, Elizabeth A. 1976. “Sept traites inedits entre Venise et les emirats d’Aydin et deMentese (1331–1470).” In Studi preottomani e ottomani, edited by Aldo Gallotta, 229–240.Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

Zarinebaf, Fariba, Nir Shafir, and Zoe Griffith. 2014. “Galata, Ottoman Ports and theCapitulations.” Ottoman History Podcast, no. 144, 8 Feb. Accessed 26 July 2014,http://www.ottomanhistorypodcast.com/2014/02/ottoman-empire-capitulations.html.

22