You are on page 1of 129

T U R K I S H A N D O T T O M A N S T U D I E S

O T T O M A N P O P U L A T I O N
1 8 3 0 - 1 9 1 4
Demographic
and Social
Characteristics
K E M A L H . K A R P A T
T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F W I S C O N S I N P RESS
Published 1985
The University of Wisconsin Press
114 North Murray Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53715
The University of Wisconsin Press, Ltd.
1 Gower Street
London WC1E 6HA, England
Copyri ght © 1985
The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
A l l rights reserved
First pri nti ng
Printed in the United States of America
For LC C1P i nformati on see the colophon
Reg. N o :
ISBN 0-299-09160-0
C O N T E N T S
LI ST OF TABLES V l - V l l
PREFACE i x
I N TRODUCTI ON ' xi
MA PS xi v-XVi
CHA PTER 1 CON CEP T U A L A N D M ET H ODOL OGI C A L PROBI .F.MS
I N TH E STUDY OF TH E O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON
CHA PTER 2 P OP U L A T I ON DI STRI BUTI ON A N D T H E EV OL U T I ON
OF O T T O M A N CENSUSES, 1800- 1914
CHA PTER 3 T H E REL I GI OUS A N D E T H N I C DI STRI BUTI ON OF TH E
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON : A N OV ERV I EW
CHA PTER 4 P OP U L A T I ON M OV EM EN T S I N- TH E O T T O M A N STA TE
I N TH E N I N ET EEN T H CEN TURY
CHA PTER 5 T H E P OP U L A T I ON A N D TH E SOCI A L A N D E C ON OM I C
T RA N SF ORM A T I ON OF I STA N BUL :
T H E O T T O M A N M I CROCOSM
18
45
60
86
STA TI STI CA L A PPENDI CES
SECTI ON I GEN ERA L O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON STA TI STI CS
FROM CENSUSES, REGI STERS, A N D Y EA RBOOK S
SECTI ON I I T A BU L A T I ON S OF N A T I O N A L A N D REL I GI OUS
GROU P POPU L A TI ON S
SECTI ON I I I T H E P OP U L A T I ON OF I STA N BUL I N TH E N I N ET EEN T H
A N D EA RL Y T WEN T I ET H CENTURI ES
SECTI ON I V SOM E DEM OGRA P H I C, SOCI A L , A N D E C ON OM I C
CHA RA CTERI STI CS OF TH E O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON
I N TH E L A T E N I N ET EEN T H CEN TURY
107
191
201
209
I N DEX 227
L I S T O F T A B L E S
A . l . Yearbooks (Salnames) Publ i shed i n the Ottoman
Empi re and the Republ i c of Tur key:
Chronol ogi cal and A dmi ni str ati ve Di str i buti on . . 12
A .2. A dmi ni str ati ve Di vi si on of the Ottoman State,
1831 ( H . 1247) 14
A .3. A dmi ni str ati veDi vi si on of the Ottoman State,
1850-1853 ( H . 1266-1270) 16
A . 4. Some Bi rth and Death Stati sti cs, 1835-1853
( H . 1251-1268) 16
2.1. Head Tax Rate I ncrease, 1804-1834 21
2.2. Rel i gi ous Di str i buti on of the Ottoman Popul ati on,
1831 21
2.3. Popul ati on of Ottoman Bal kan Terri tori es, 1831 . . 22
2.4. Popul ati on of Ottoman Terri tori es i n Europe,
1820-1840 23
2.5. Popul ati on of Tuna Provi nce, 1868 ( H . 1285) 25
2.6. Popul ati on of the Ottoman State A ccor di ng to
Sal aheddi n Bey (1867) 25
2.7. Comparati ve Stati sti cs of Popul ati on of Sivas
Provi nce 34
B. l . Some 1831 Census Offi ci al s 36
B.2. N umber and Economi c Status of Some Chri sti ans
i n Rumi l i i n 1831 36
B.3. Sampl es of Popul ati on Regi sters Devel oped by the
Ottomans i n 1874: Reproducti ons of Or i gi nal
Regi sters wi t h Transl i terated and Transl ated
Versi ons 37
B.3.a. Sampl e Regi ster of Popul ati on 38
B.3.b. Sampl e Dai l y Events Regi ster 40
B.3.C. Sampl e Summar y Regi ster 42
B.4. Di rectors of the Ottoman Stati sti cal Offi ce,
1892-1916 (R. 1308-1332) .* 44
3.1. Ethni c Di str i buti on of the Ottoman Popul ati on i n
the Bal kans, 1876-1878 46
3.2. Greek Popul ati on i n European Tur kev, 1878 48
3.3. Greek Popul ati on i n the Ottoman State i n 1878
(A ccordi ng to Synvet) 48
3.4. Macedoni an Popul ati on (A ccordi ng to Vari ous
Nati onal Stati sti cs) 50
3.5. Popul ati on of Eastern Rumel i a before and after the
War of 1877-1878 50
3.6. A r meni an Popul ati on of the Ottoman Empi re,
1882 (A r meni an Patri archate Fi gures) 54
3.7. Musl i ms i n European Provi nces, 1860-1878 56
4.1. Refugees f r om Russi an L ands i n Samsun i n 1880 69
4.2. Rel i gi ous Structure of the Ottoman Popul ai ton i n
Europe, 1820-1900 72
4.3. Summary of Rel i gi ous Structure of the Ottoman
Popul ati on 72
4.4. Raci al -Ethni c Structure of the Ottoman Popul ati on
i n Europe, 1820-1900 73
5.1. Miri Budget of 1776 88
5.2. Budget of 1855 93
5.3. Popul ati on of I stanbul , 1794-1916: Vari ous
Esti mates 103
5.4. Popul ati on of I stanbul : Summar y of Census
Fi gures 103
5.5. Total Popul ati on of I stanbul , 1897 104
5.6. Ethni c Di stri buti on of I stanbul Popul ati on, 1897 104
5.7. Popul ati on of I stanbul i n 1885: Nati ves and
Newcomers 105
5.8. Occupati ons of I stanbul Resi dents, 1885 105
D. Maj or Publ i c and Pri vate Wor ks i n I stanbul i n the
19th Century ,~. 106
STA TI STI CA L A PPENDI CES ^
1.1. The Ottoman Popul ati on i n Certai n Di stri cts of
Rumi l i (Rumel i a) and A natol i a, 1831 109
1.2. Ottoman Popul ati on, 1844-1856 116
1.3. Popul ati on and N umber of Vi l l ages, Tuna
Provi nce, 1868 ( H . 1285) 116
1.4. Popul ati on and N umber of Vi l l ages, Tuna
Provi nce, 1869 ( H . 1286) 116
1.5. Popul ati on and N umber of Vi l l ages, Tuna
Provi nce, 1874 ( H . 1291) 117
1.6. Ottoman Popul ati on i n Europe and A si a, 1872
and 1874 117
1.7. A . Popul ati on of the Ottoman State, 1877/ 78
( H . 1294) 118
1.7. B. Summarv of Total s 121
1.8. A . Ottoman General Census of 1881/ 82-1893 122
I .8.B. Summary: Total s for Pri nci pal A dmi ni str ati ve
Di stri cts 148
I .8.C. Suppl ement to 1881/ 82-1893Census Resul ts:
Popul ati on Esti mates 150
1.8. D. Fi nal Summary: Counted and Esti mated Total s 151
1.9. Ottoman Popul ati on, 1894 152
1.10. Musl i ms and N on- Musl i ns i n the Ottoman State,
1894 155
1.11. Musl i m and N on- M usl i mSubjects Counted i n the
Census up to 1895 156
1.12. Musl i ms and N on- Musl i ms i n the Ottoman State,
1896 158
1.13. Ottoman Popul ati on, 1897 160
1.14. Ottoman Popul ati on Gr owth, 1874/ 75-1894/ 95
(R. 1290-1310) : 160
1.15. Forei gn Ci ti zens i n the Ottoman State, 1899
(R. 1315) 161
1.16. A . Summar v of Census of Ottoman Popul ati on,
1906 7. . ' I c2
I .16.B. Fi nal Summarv of Ottoman Popul ati on, 1906 7 168
•1.17.A. Ottoman Popul ati on, 1914 (R. 1330) 170
V l l
vi i i
¡. J7.B_ Summary of Ottoman Popul ati on, 1914 I s s
5 : ? ; u f o t t o m a n C e n s u s Spor t s,
Ü. 1. Comparati ve Tabl e Showi ng Vari ous' Esti mates of ^
the P op u l at e of Certai n Provi nces of the
Uttoman Empi re
the \ i l ave s of Erzeroum, Bi tl i s. Van, D.arbek.r
S s 8 ^ r p u t ; S l v a s ' a n d T r e b - « ^ « - '
H.3. Musl i m and N on- M usl i m Popul ati on i n Six
eastern Provi nces, ¡897 (R n i l ) 1 Q ,
1884-169/ (R. 13Ü0-1313)
11.6. Esti mates of the Popul ati on of Six Provi nces i n " " ^
Eastern A natol i a i n 1896
11.7. Popul ati on of Dobruca, 1 8 7 8 Í Q 8
" U . P ^ l a t i o n o f l s ^
HI .2. Popul ati on of I stanbul 2 0 2
I Í L 1 ( R o p s r n o f i s t a n b u i a n d i t s B o r ° u s h s ' i 8 8 2 ' " ' - 0 3
I I J .4. Popul ati on of 'i stanbui :'Comparati ve Fi gures' ' ' ' S
mo . Deaths m I stanbul and the Three Bor ougl s r o m '
1 December 1875 to 30 N ovember 1876 2 0 S
I I L 6 ' ^ l ^ ^ 1 ^ ^ ^ "
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ '
m
I V.3. Popul ati on Di str i buti on, A dnri ni strati vV Uni ts " ' ^
r u j P P ° P u i a t i o n Densi ty, 1899 (R. 1315) ' 2 11
L I ST OF TA BL ES
I V.5. N umber and Percentage of Mal es and Females i n
the Ottoman State, by A ge, 1894 , p
^ - - - 1 Percentage of Persons abov et he' ' '
I V.7. N umber and Percentage of Persons Empl o'ved i n' ^
Trade and I ndustr y (Crafts), 1894 95 ,R , S , 1 4 .
IV .8. N umber and Percentage of Persons i n " '
^ u 9 p 5 ; r i i i e r T h a n T r a d e - d ^ " - ' - e , •
I V.9. L i st of Occupat i onsmi st anbul and t heT hr ee"" ^
Boroughs i n 1878 (R. 1294)
I V. 10. Professi ons i n the Ottoman Sta'te,' bv N umber of
Practi ti oners, 1894/ 95 (R. 1310) . . . [ „ „ ;
i v u SP U hP i 'S, A " T o i n S S c h ° ° 1 S - 1 8 9 4 ' : 9 5 (R- "l 310)" ' ' 2 «
( H S i ) " T U n a P r ° V l n c e ' ^
I V.14. Expendi tures for Teachers and O t h e r ^
I V 15 „ ? " C a t l 0 n a l P e r sonnel , 1894/ 95 (R. i 3 1 0 ) .. . . 2 , 0
I V . l o. l i t er acy , n the Ottoman State, 1894/ 95
(R. 1310)..
I V.17. A gr i cuI tur al L and A rea and Cul ti vati on i n the' " ^
Ottoman State, 1894/ 95 (R 1310) ->->,
i v J o' r : " 6 3 1 P ot i on per k mJ , 1894/ 95 (R 1310) ' ' 222"
I V.19. Esti mated Val ue of Yearl y Cereal Pr oducti on^ ' '
8/ 4/ / 3 to 1894/ 95 (R. 1290-1310) . . ' , „
• 2 0 - i ^ ^ * ^ ^ ^ " :
rv.21. D a i i y d W o o ] P r o d u c t i o n / 1S94/g5(R
;
mo)
• • • g
I V.22. Cross A nnual I ncome, by Di stri ct and
, v „ P « C a p i t a , 1894/ 95 (R. 1310) 2 „
' 226
P R E F A C E
T
X H
His WORK provi des those i nterested i n the soci al trans-
f or mati on of the M i ddl e East, A natol i a, and southeast
Europe wi t h basic Ottoman popul ati on data for the peri od
1830 to 1914. The reasons that i mpel l ed me to undertake the
excepti onal l y di f f i cul t (but vi tal ) task of compi l i ng thi s i n-
f or mati on arose f r om my br oader study of the soci o-
economi c and pol i ti cal transf ormati on of the Ottoman state:
popul ati on movements were the di rect expressi on of that
transformati on.
The br eak- up of the Ot t oman commonweal th i nto a
group of ethni c- nati onal states f r om 1815 to 1920 and
beyond even to the present day has been consi dered, and
studi ed, as the consequence of forei gn i nterventi on and/ or
as a movement of nati onal revi val and, as wel l , as the l i ber-
al , i ndi vi dual i sti c, moder ni st reacti on of a new class of
elites to tradi ti onal i sm and autocrati c rul e. A ctual l y, the
gradual di si ntegrati on of the Ottoman state that began i n
the ni neteenth centur y was the resul t of f undamental
changes i n i ts economi c and soci al structure caused by the
i ntroducti on of a capi tal i st economi c system and the adop-
ti on of nati onal statehood as a new pri nci pl e of pol i ti cal
organi zati on. These events mani fested themsel ves not onl y
i n the emergence of a new soci al order but also i n a vari ety
of pol i ti cal and i deol ogi cal al i gnments condi ti oned as much
bv economi c i nterest as by rel i gi ous i denti ty, ethni c affi l i a-
ti on, or pol i ti cal -nati onal aspi rati on.
The popul ati on movements i n the Ottoman state were
both the agent and the chi ef consequence of the structural
t r ansf or mat i on. I ndeed, emi gr at i on and i mmi -
gr ati on—al ong w i t h bi r th and death rates that var i ed
among the di f f erent soci al , ethni c, and rel i gi ous groups and
the settl ement of mi l l i ons of nomadi c tri besmen i n A nato-
l i a, I raq, Syri a, and on the outski rts of the A rabi an Peni nsu-
la (whi ch i ncreased the numbers of the sedentary popul a-
ti on and spurred agri cul tural producti on)—-were the most
outstandi ng features of demographi c change.
I am persuaded bv my vears of research and wr i t i ng that
a ful l under standi ng of the soci al and pol i ti cal transforma-
ti on of the Bal kans and the M i ddl e East demands a compre-
hensi ve study of the size, gr owth rate, and rel i gi ous-ethni c
composi ti on of the Ottoman popul ati on and of the soci al
and economi c forces that condi ti oned i ts gr owth and di f-
ferenti ati on.
M v ori gi nal sf udv requi red a compl ete record of Ottoman
popul ati on i n the ni neteenth centurv. Therefore, I under-
took a systemati c and cri ti cal revi ew of popul ati on i nf or ma-
ti on, onl v to di scover that most of the exi sti ng studi es on
the topi c—that i s,, most of the mvr i ad so-cal l ed ethno-
•graphic studi es publ i shed i n the West and cl ai mi ng to deal
wi th Ottoman popul ati on i n the 1800s—were unrel i abl e. A t
the end, i t appeared that the most consi stentl y rel i abl e
sources of demographi c data were the fi gures i ssued by the
Ottoman government i tsel f; and i t tur ned out that the most
tr ustwor thy European wri ters on Ottoman popul ati on—
e.g., Ubi ci ni , Hel l e von Samo, Kutshera, and Cui net, to
name just a few—based thei r wor k on Ottoman offi ci al
data. Of al l the exi sti ng stati sti cs, onl y those of the Ottoman
government were compi l ed by maki ng an actual count of
the popul ati on. Thev were compi l ed for stri ctl y practi cal
purposes, such as tax l evi es, mi l i tar y conscri pti on, the
establ i shment of muni ci pal boundari es, and the bui l di ng of
rai l roads and hi ghways i n the most useful l ocati ons. Thus
they were r equi r ed to be as accurate as possi bl e. The
popul ati on censuses and regi strati on system, i n fact, epi to-
mi zed the Ottoman commi tment to admi ni strati ve ref orm
and the establ i shment of a new, r ati onal , systemati c
bureaucracv and ushered i n the peri od of moder ni zati on.
I t shoul d be noted at the start that the Ottoman "census"
consi sted of the regi strati on of the popul ati on of each di s-
tri ct by a commi ttee. Subsequent annual popul ati on fi gures
for the real m were obtai ned bv cumul ati vel y addi ng bi rths
and subtracti ng deaths as these were regi stered i n each
di stri ct bv the popul ati on bureau. A s these data were i n-
tended for i nternal admi ni strati ve use, onl v one or two
census resul ts were publ i shed i n book f or m, and these
were i n A rabi c scri pt and i n a l i mi ted number of copi es.
The text of the present book di scusses the hi story and
evol uti on of the Ottoman census and regi strati on ari d col -
l ecti on of stati sti cal i nf or mati on. The fi rst chapter surveys
the publ i shed l i terature; the second descri bes and anal yzes
i n detai l the vari ous censuses f r om 1830 to 1914 and the
purpose and f uncti oni ng of the popul ati on regi sters. Chap-
ters 3 and 4 deal , respecti vel y, wi t h the ethni c-rel i gi ous
composi ti on of the Ottoman popul ati on and wi t h the mi -
grati ons that so drasti cal l y affected the composi ti on and the
total size of the popul ati on; these are very general , it bei ng
my i ntenti on to provi de a thor ough anal ysi s of the change
i n the structure of the Ot t oman popul ati on i n a l ater
vol ume of thi s ongoi ng study. The fi nal chapter of the text
is devoted to the ci ty of I stanbul , for the transf ormati on of
the capi tal epi tomi zed and refl ected that of the empi re as a
whol e; it can be studi ed i n detai l because the ci tv was sub-
jected to fi ve censuses i n the ni neteenth centurv.
The common shortcomi ng of Ottoman censuses was the
consi stent under counti ng of popul ati on i n general and of
women i n parti cul ar. The Ottoman offi ci al s were aware of
thi s probl em and dul y noted those areas where the census
of women or other groups was i ncompl ete. They pr ovi ded
esti mates for nomadi c tri bes and for areas where the census
coul d not be carri ed out. Bei ng consi stent, the undercount
I X
X
PREFA CE
of the popul ati on can easi l y be corrected bv devi si n* a
proper margi n of error. ' °
The second, and major, part of thi s book, the stati sti cal
appendi ces, is di vi ded i nto several secti ons. The fi rst sec-
ti on contai ns basic popul ati on fi gures compi l ed by the Gov-
ernment. Other secti ons contai n data on rel i gi ous-ethni c
groups, on the popul ati on of the ci ty of I stanbul , and on
vari ous soci al and economi c facets of the state's devel op-
ment. Most of'these fi gures are publ i shed for the fi rst ti me
i n thi s wor k, whi ch is the fi rst comprehensi ve, qual i tati ve
survey-study of the Ottoman popul ati on to cover system-
ati cal l y the enti re ni neteenth century.
I have presented the stati sti cs wi thout major i nterpreti ve
anal ysi s (after subjecti ng them to some necessary correc-
ti on, systemati zati on, and cl ari fi cati on), for such'anal ysi s
woul d have cal l ed for the use of other fi gures and of hi stor-
ical and pol i ti cal data that coul d have obscured the i ntri nsi c
val ue of the ori gi nal stati sti cs. Extensi ve i nterpretati on and
anal ysi s wi l l be pr ovi ded i n another vol ume i n whi ch the
dynami cs of the popul ati on changes are studi ed. I have
pr ovi ded some i nf or mati on about the constantl y changi ng
boundari es of the Ottoman admi ni strati ve uni ts, i nasmuch
as the lists gi ve popul ati on stati sti cs accordi ng to the var-
i ous di stri cts and appeared i n need of el uci dati on on thi s
poi nt. I have also attempted to gi ve useful techni cal i n-
f ormati on (for exampl e, about the hi story of the Ottoman
cal endar) where i t seemed thi s woul d hel p the reader to
understand the popul ati on records better.
I t has requi red years of excepti onal l y tedi ous wor k to sort
out, type, add up, and check the ori gi nal figures, to make
necessary techni cal correcti ons, and then to put them i n
some meani ngf ul order and, finally, to retype them i n fi nal
f or m. I t is my fervent hope that thi s study wi l l sti mul ate
new i nterest i n the vi tal l y i mpor tant topi c of Ottoman de-
mogr aphy and wi l l be suppl emented and expanded by
addi ti onal studi es as the 21,000 or so popul ati on regi sters
known to exi st i n vari ous archi val stores are f ul l y cata-
l ogued and made avai l abl e to schol ars. I am deepl y grateful
to the vari ous persons who have assi sted me i n my en-
deavor to present thi s fi rst col l ecti on of stati sti cs i n usabl e
f or m. Thanks are due fi rst to H ayr i Mutl uçağ for hi s var-
i ous i nputs i nto thi s wor k; and I also thank Eric Bi ngen
Mi chael H ar pke, Hül ya Sower wi ne, Barbara H ussei ni '
Robert Eıls, Dr. Tevf i k Güran, N ur han and Erol Kati rci oğl u'
Dr. J usti n McCar thy, and Engi n A kar l i , and the pati ent'
har d- wor ki ng staff of the Department of H i stor y, Uni versi -
ty of Wi sconsi n- Madi son, for thei r vari ous efforts on behal f
of thi s wor k. I am al so very gratef ul to the Graduate School
Uni versi ty of Wi sconsi n- Madi son, and to the Social Science
Research Counci l for the sal ary suppor t and research assist-
ance that has enabl ed me to accompl i sh thi s wor k.
K E M A L H . K A RP A T
Madison, 20 June 1982
I N T R O D U C T I O N
I T HA S BEEN my ai m, i n the preparati on of vol umi nous
and di verse materi al , to present the stati sti cs and other
i nf ormati on i n thi s vol ume i n the most usabl e f or m possi -
bl e. Several probl ems have been sol ved al ong the way, but
others remai n f or the reader to sort out; some wi l l not be
compl etel y sol vabl e wi thout more i nf or mati on. For exam-
pl e, as I have poi nted out i n text, i n some cases popul ati on
compari sons cannot useful l y be made because we do not
have i nf or mati on about the exact boundari es of the areas
for whi ch popul ati on fi gures are gi ven. A l though popul a-
ti on l i sts f ol l owed admi ni strati ve di vi si ons after 1870, there
were frequent reshuffl i ngs of di stri ct boundari es, and one
cannot be sure, wi thout f urther i nvesti gati on, that a di stri ct
has remai ned the same i n area f r om one popul ati on l i st to
the next even when i ts name remai ns the same.
Place Names and Spel l i ng
The same l ocal i ty may be cal l ed by di f f erent names i n
di fferent sources, or a name may appear i n several di f f erent
spel l i ngs—e.g., Kosova, Kossovo, Cosovo. I n general , 1
have used the f or m of the name that appears i n Tur ki sh
sources and have used Ot t oman Tur ki sh spel l i ngs, as
opposed to European or transl i terated A rabi c names or
spel l i ngs, parti cul arl y i n the stati sti cal materi al ; thus, M an-
asti r i nstead of Monasti r, H ar put rather than K har put, Do-
bruca i nstead of Dobruj a, and so on. Neverthel ess, some
tabl es are presented essenti al l y as they appear i n the
source, compl ete wi t h European versi ons of names; and i n
the text I often use the common present-day names for
former Ottoman possessi ons, dependi ng on context. A l ter -
nate or present-day names of major l ocati ons are f r om ti me
to ti me gi ven parentheti cal l y or i n notes.
The name Cezayi r-i Bahr-i Sefi d is transl ated as "A egean
I sl ands," al though the boundari es of that provi nce often
extended beyond the A egean Sea to the nor th and the
south.
I have also used Tur ki sh spel l i ngs, i n general , rather than
European or transl i terated A rabi c, for wor ds other than
pl ace names; sancak rather than sanjak or sandjak, ciziye
rather than jiziyc or djiziye, harac rather than khamj, etc.
The or thogr aphy is moder n Tur ki sh, i n whi ch c = j , g =
soft g, c = ch, § = sh, and 6, u = o, u wi t h uml aut as i n
German. The short l , however, appears thr oughout as an
ordi nary dotted i , whi l e the l ong capi tal 1 is undotted. I
have also i gnored the conventi on that uses a, 6, and u i n
Tur ki sh wor ds of A rabi c or Persi an or i gi n and have el i mi -
nated l ong vowel marki ngs (a, i ).
Tabl es
Where i t seemed advi sabl e, and as noted, 1 have cor-
rected fi gures i n the tabl es. I have gi ven total s for conven-
ience where col umns were not total ed i n the ori gi nal . 1 have
corrected total s that are i ncorrect i n the ori gi nal (real i zi ng
the whi l e that the error i n the ori gi nal may be i n fact i n the
fi gures for whi ch the total is gi ven rather than i n the com-
putati on of the Ottoman stati sti ci an). N one of these correc-
ti ons si gni fi cantl y affects the basic data. Extensi ve notes
gi ve i nf or mati on of si gni fi cance about parti cul ar fi gures.
Cal endar and Dates
I n general the Ottomans used the M usl i m cal endar, i .e.,
the Hi cr i - K amer i (H.) cal endar that was ti ed to the l unar
year and began wi t h the year of the Hegi ra ( A . D. 622).
However , as earl y as 20 J ul y 1677 the devi ce of addi ng one
year to the cal endar every thi r ty years was adopted. Thi s
added year came to be k nown as the year of "şi vi s"—
roughl y, of "over l appi ng" or "i nterpénétrati on." By 1740
salaries and appoi ntments were bei ng cal cul ated on the
basis of a solar cal endar year begi nni ng i n Mar ch, whi l e
revenues and expendi tures were sti l l cal cul ated accordi ng
to the H i cr i cal endar. By J ul y of 1794, dur i ng the rei gn of
Sel i m I I I , a trend towar d appl i cati on of the sol ar cal endar i n
al l fi nanci al matters was establ i shed. The sol ar cal endar
was known as Mal i or Rumi (Roman) and was the same as
the cal endar i ntroduced i n 1582 by Pope Gregory XI I I and
cal l ed i n the West the Gregori an cal endar. I t w-as adopted
as a second offi ci al Ottoman cal endar on the fi rst of March
of the H i cr i year 1256 ( A . D. 13 Mar ch 1840). Rumi (R.) dati ng
then became standard i n the government stati sti cal offi ces
as wel l as i n the fi nanci al offi ces, al though the H i cr i cal en-
dar conti nued i n use also thr oughout the rei gn of A bdul ha¬
mi d I I (1876-1909). Wi t h the ri se to power of the Uni on and
Progress Soci ety i n 1908, use of the Roman cal endar became
general . I n 1912 the gover nment i ntr oduced the twenty-
f our-hour day {saati zevali); and on 1 Mar ch 1917 the solar
cal endar became the offi ci al cal endar for al l ' gover nment
transacti ons. A f ter the establ i shment of the Republ i c (1923)
the Gr and Nati onal A ssembl y br ought the Tur ki sh cal endar
compl etel y i nto accordance wi t h the western cal endar,
adopti ng, on R. 26 December 1341 (1925), a l aw decreei ng
that the dati ng system henceforth used i n the Republ i c of
Turkey woul d be the i nternati onal l y accepted one—i .e., the
solar cal endar wi t h the year begi nni ng J anuary 1. For a
ful l er expl anati on of the Ottoman system of dati ng, see Fai k
xi
xi i
Reşi t Unat, Hicri Tarihleri Miladi Tarihe Çevirme Kılavuzu
(Gui de to the conversi on of Hi cr i vears to solar vears] (A n-
kara, 1959). I n converti ng dates i n thi s wor k I have rel i ed on
Unat's Guide and, pri nci pal l y, on Gazi A hmet Muhtar Paşa,
Takvim-i Sinin [The Cal endar of Years] (I stanbul : Ceri de-i
Havadi s, 1331 [1915]).
Late i n the century popul ati on stati sti cs were prepared
by both the Popul ati on Bureau (Si ci l l -i Nüfus) and the Sta-
ti sti cal Of f i ce. These offi ces were attached to di f f erent
mi ni stri es, and each compi l ed its own stati sti cs, often wi th-
out reference to the other. A l though the Stati sti cal Offi ce
used the Rumi cal endar year (as di d the fi nanci al servi ces),
most other offi ces, i ncl udi ng the Popul ati on Bur eau,
adhered to the H i cr i cal endar. I have thr oughout gi ven the
western (Mi l adi ) date al ong wi t h the ori gi nal date. Where
the source i ndi cated month and day, the exact date of an
event is gi ven; i n cases i n whi ch the source gi ves onl y a
year, a Mi l adi date such as 1881/ 82 may be used, because of
the fact that the H i cr i year overl apped two western cal en-
dar years.
Sources and A bbr evi ati ons
Frequentl y ci ted sources are abbrevi ated i n notes as f ol -
l ows:
(1) I U K T Y = I stanbul Üni versi tesi Ki tapl ı ğı (I stanbul
Uni versi ty L i brary), Türkçe Yazmal ar (Tur ki sh manuscri pt
secti on); the abbrevi ated mai n reference is f ol l owed by the
document number and, someti mes, other i nf or mati on such
as the date and/ or ti tl e of the document.
(2) BA = Başbakanl i k Arşi vi (the Başbankanl i k A rchi ve
i n I stanbul ); the reference to the archi ve is f ol l owed by
secti on and subsecti on desi gnati ons, the document num-
ber, and, occasi onal l y, the date and/ or ti tl e of the docu-
ment. BA secti ons and subsecti ons are abbrevi ated as f ol -
l ows:
(C) = Cevdet (col l ecti on of documents fi l ed under
the name of thei r catal oguer);
(D) = Dahi l i ye (I nteri or Mi ni str y);
I N T RODU C T I ON
(H H ) = Hatt- i Hümayun (orders sent bv the sul tan
to the grand vi zi er for executi on);
(I ) = I rade (decrees);
(K K ) = K ami l Kepeci (documents fi l ed under the
name of thei r catal oguer);
(M) = Mal i ye (Fi nance Offi ce);
( M H ) = Mabeyn- i Hümayun (Secretari at of the I m-
peri al Pal ace—pri vate correspondence of
the sul tan);
( M M ) = Mecl i s-i Mahsus (Speci al Counci l );
(MV) = Mecl i s-i Val a (Supreme Counci l );
(P) = Per akende ("scatter ed"—mi scel l aneous
documents not cl assi fi ed preci sel y i nto sub-
secti ons);
(ŞD) = Şuray-i Devl et (Counci l of State);
(Y) = Y i l di z (a col l ecti on of documents contai ni ng
the correspondence of Sul tan A bdul hami d
transferred f r om Y i l di z Palace in toto and
kept together i n the archi ves).
(3) F M = the Tur ki sh For ei gn Mi ni str y archi ves; thi s
mai n reference is f ol l owed by the secti on desi gnati on,
document number , and, f requentl y, a descri pti on of the
document and date. Secti on abbrevi ati ons are the f ol l ow-
i ng:
(I d) = I dare (admi ni strati ve fi l e);
(S) = Si yasi (pol i ti cal fi l e).
(4) FO = Bri ti sh Forei gn Offi ce archi val materi al f r om
the Publ i c Records Offi ce i n L ondon; thi s reference i ncl udes
a fi l e number, vol ume or document number , and, frequent-
l y, a date and descri pti on of the document.
(5) H C A P = the House of Commons Accounts and Papers
i n Great Bri tai n's series of publ i shed Parliamentary Papers;
the abbrevi ated mai n reference is f ol l owed by the Parliamen-
tary Papers vol ume number and the number of the Accounts
and Papers vol ume (separated by a sl ant l i ne), the vol ume
year, and, of ten, the page number and i nf or mati on about
the materi al ci ted.
A n i mpor t ant sour ce f or back gr ound i nf or mat i on,
al though not much ci ted, was the French Forei gn Mi ni str y
A r chi ve i n Pari s.
M A P S O F T H E O T T O M A N E M P I R E
A S I A N P R O V I N C E S
E U R O P E A N P R O V I N C E S
Map. 1. Asian Ottoman Empire, 1883.
Based on Synvet's adaptation of a map by H. Kiepert.
Note: Some of the divisions shown on the map as provinces or *,,,<*** were, in fact, special districts. Samos was a / «,/ ,*, whi l e Canik
(bamsun), Cebdilubnan, Beyrut, and Kudus (Jerusalem) were mutwrifliks and were administered directly from I stanbul rather than from
the provincial centers.
xi v
XV
Map. 2. l-uropean Ottoman Empire, before the Treaty of Berlin, 1878.
xvi
I
r
O T T O M A N P O P U L A T I O N , 1830- 1914
4
C O N C E P T U A L A N D M E T H O D O L O G I C A L P R O B L E M S
I N T H E S T U D Y O F T H E O T T O M A N P O P U L A T I O N
p
I OPL ' L A TI ON MOV EMEN TS have al ways pl ayed a dynami c
role i n the transf ormati on of human soci ety. I ndeed, i n al l
of the hi story of the wor l d, the i mpact of mi gr ati on and
settl ement—as wel l as of hi gh or l ow rates of bi r th and
mortal i ty and of the soci al , cul tural , economi c, and pol i ti cal
effects of these demographi c events—i s cl earl y and wi del y
di scerni bl e. I n the hi story of the Mi ddl e East one f i nds
excellent exampl es. The M usl i m cal endar begi ns wi t h an act
of mi grati on, that i s, the hejira of A . D . 622. Mi gr ants goi ng
from the countrysi de to ur ban centers or fl eei ng f r om areas
hostile to I sl am have al ways exerted cruci al i nfl uence on the
social and pol i ti cal desti ny of M usl i m countri es. The ref-
ugees fl eei ng f r om Spai n to N or t h A fri ca i n the f i f teenth
and si xteenth centuri es, the forced mi gr ati on of Musl i ms
from Russia (the Caucasus and Cri mea) i n the ei ghteenth to
twenti eth centuri es, the shi fts of popul ati ons i n I ndi a,
Paki stan, and Pal esti ne si nce 1948, to cite just a f ew exam-
ples, have been major factors accounti ng, at least i n part,
for the soci al transf ormati on of the enti re M usl i m wor l d.
( A l i Shar i ati , the I r ani an f undament al i st teacher
[1933-1977], stated that he became aware of the i mportance
of mi grati on i n I sl am by readi ng the K oran.)
The soci o-pol i ti cal and economi c hi story of the Mi ddl e
East i n the ni neteenth century was i n l arge measure the
product of major popul ati on movements. These produced
increased social mobi l i ty, changed the rates of bi r th and
death, i ntensi fi ed urbani zati on, and generated a vari ety of
rel ated changes. Today, mi gr ati on f r om vi l l ages to cities
has changed the demographi c pi cture of practi cal l y al l the
Musl i m countri es and has been a power f ul factor i n soci o-
pol i ti cal change. For exampl e, i n the I sl ami c r evol uti on i n
I ran the parti ci pati on of the new arri val s i n Teheran was a
major factor.
Despi te thei r obvi ous i mpor tance, popul ati on move-
ments i n the Mi ddl e East, especi al l y dur i ng the Ottoman
era, have not vet been studi ed i n a broad hi stori cal and
conceptual f r amewor k. The few exi sti ng studi es deal essen-
ti al l y wi t h demographi c probl ems as i sol ated phenomena,
i gnor i ng thei r wi der hi stor i cal , pol i ti cal , and regi onal
di mensi ons. Few schol ars nowadays seem to have the ti me
or pati ence to pore over hundr eds of documents for months
on end i n dusty archi ves i n order to extract i nf or mati on that
can be condensed i n a f ew pages and may remai n l ong
unnoti ced and unappreci ated. I t is understandabl e, there-
fore, that consi derabl e i ngenui ty and i magi nati on have
been i nvested i n devi si ng "concepts," "theor i es," and
"model s" to expl ai n the enti re hi story and transf ormati on
of the soci ety i n that area. I n some cases the theori sts have
made sweepi ng false asserti ons, i nter pr eti ng Mi ddl e East-
ern events on the basis of preconcei ved western concepts or
scattered i mpressi ons wi thout regard for the di fferences—
i n cul ture, hi stori cal experi ence, and goal s—that l i mi t the
appl i cabi l i ty of these al i en concepts. Yet, paradoxi cal l y, a
major shortcomi ng of Mi ddl e East soci al studi es i n general
and of popul ati on studi es i n parti cul ar deri ves f r om the lack
of concepts and theori es capabl e of expressi ng the social
and hi stori cal experi ence of the Mi ddl e East wi t hi n i ts own
val ue system and patterns of change and accul turati on.
The devel opment of sui tabl e concepts and theori es, of
course, depends fi rst on the accumul ati on of usabl e empi r-
ical data. A nyone attempti ng to study popul ati on probl ems
i n the Mi ddl e East, especi al l y preci se topi cs such as ferti l i ty
or mortal i ty rates or f ami l y size i n a gi ven peri od of hi story
or for a parti cul ar regi on, is hampered bv i nsuffi ci ent data
on the size of the popul ati on and by l ack of knowl edge
about procedures for regi steri ng bi rths and deaths. I ndeed,
the studi es of Mi ddl e Eastern popul ati on hi story, besi des
fai l i ng to appl y methods and techni ques adapted to the
soci o-cul tural condi ti ons, suffer basi cal l y f r om l ack of i n-
f or mati on. A l though archi ves i n the area, especi al l y those
i n I stanbul and A nkar a, contai n much materi al on popul a-
ti on size and the regi strati on systems, very l i ttl e of thi s
materi al has been sorted out and used to study speci fi c
demographi c pr obl ems.1 Therefore, the fi rst task of the
1. There are some notable exceptions. Ottoman censuses and
surveys of the land i n the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are
known of through O. L. Barkan's pioneering works: "Tari hi De¬
mografi Arastirmalari ve Osmanli Tari hi ," Tarih Mccmuasi 10 (1953);
"Essai sur les données statistiques des registres de recensement
3
4
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
schol ar i nterested i n the soci al hi storv and the transforma-
ti on of the Mi ddl e East, southeast Europe, and N or th Afri ca
is to assembl e, systemati ze, and anal yze the popul ati on
data avai l abl e i n Tur ki sh archi ves and other places and to
study the procedures used i n gatheri ng these data. Thi s is
parti cul arl y vi tal for the ni neteenth centurv, when popul a-
ti on movements were more i nf l uenti al than ever before i n
generati ng social and pol i ti cal changes thr oughout the en-
ti re Ottoman state.
Studi es of Ottoman Popul ati on: A n Eval uati on
There is no dearth of wr i ti ngs about the popul ati on of the
Ottoman Empi re i n the ni neteenth century, but most of
these are ethnographi c wor ks. I t is true that thev are, i n a
way, i ndi spensabl e to any study of thi s topi c. General l y
however, thei r val ue is l i mi ted. They suffer f r om three ma-
jor shortcomi ngs. Fi rst, onl y a few of them uti l i ze rel i abl e
stati sti cal i nf or mati on based on the actual count of popul a-
ti on. Second, these studi es often were undertaken wi t h the
sole purpose of suppor ti ng the pol i ti cal cl ai ms of certai n
ethni c or rel i gi ous gr oups wi t hi n the empi re; besides dem-
dans l'Empire ottoman au X V et XVI * siècles, journal of Economic
and Social History of the Orient 1, no. 1 (1957); 9-21; and "Research
on the Ottoman Fiscal Surveys," i n Studies in theEconomic History of
theMiddle East, ed. M. A . Cook (London: Oxford University Press
1970), pp. 163-71. See also Heath W. Lowry, "The Ottoman Tahrir
Dettersas a Sourceof Urban Demographic Hi story:The Case Study
ofTrabzon(ca. 1486-1583)" (Ph.D. diss., University of California at
Los Angeles, 1977); Leila Erder, "The Measurement of Prei ndu-
tnal Population Changes: The Ottoman Empire from the Fifteenth
to the Seventeenth Century," Middle Eastern Studies 11 (1975)-
284-301; M . A . Cook, Population Pressure in Rural Anatolia-
UoO-1600 (London: Oxford University Press, 1971); Ronald J Jen-
nings, "Urban Population i n Anatolia in the Sixteenth Century- A
Study of Kayseri, Karaman, Amasya, Trabzon, and Erzurum" In-
ternational journal of Middle East Studies 7 (1976): 21-57; Wolf-Dieter
Hutteroth and Kamal Abdui fattah, Historical Geographyof Palestine
Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Centura (Erlangem
Frànkische Geographische Gesellschaft, 1977). A survey of the
Western bibliography on Ottoman popul ati on in the nineteenth
century is in Engin A karl i , "Ottoman Population i n Europe in the
19th Century; Its Terri tori al , Racial, and Religious Composition "
(M.A . thesis, Uni versi ty of Wi sconsi n-Madi son, 1970). See also
Marc Pinson, "Demographi c Warfare: A n Aspect of Ottoman and
Russian Policy, 1854-1866" (Ph.D. diss., Harvard Uni versi ty
1970). For further bibliographical i nformati on, see my TheCecekon-
du: Rural Migration and Urbanization in Turkey (New York' Cam-
bridge University Press, 1976), and my "Ottoman I mmi grati on
Polices and Settlement i n Palestine," in Settler Regimes in Africa and
the Arab World, ed. I brahi m Abu-Lughod and Baha Abu-Laban
(Wilmette, 111.: Medina University Press I nternational, 1974), pp
37-72. For a general survey of current popul ati on studies, see
Georges Sabagh, "The Demography of the Mi ddl e East," Middle
East Studies Association Bulletin 4, no. 2 (1970): 1-19. For a compre-
hensive study of Ottoman statistics, see Justin McCarthy The Arab
World, Turkey and the Balkans (1878-1914): A Handbookif Historical
Statistics (Boston: G. K. Hal l and Co., 1987)
onstrati ng an appal l i ng lack of i nf or mati on on practi cal l y
every aspect of Musl i m l i fe, they strongl y refl ect the pol i ti -
cal biases of the wri ters or of thei r i nf ormants, and, worst of
al l , i n some of them the stati sti cs were bl atantl y mani pu-
l ated or fal si fi ed outr i ght i n order to support some terri to-
rial cl ai m of an exi sti ng or potenti al pol i ti cal state. Thi r d,
most of these "popul ati on studi es" (or ethnographi c sur-
veys, as they are properl y cal l ed) by westerners deal t wi th
the European part of the Ottoman state, l eavi ng Anatol i a
and the A rabi c-speaki ng countri es unaccounted for; and
after most of the Bal kans had achiev ed the desi red i nde-
pendence (1878), the rate of pr oducti on of studi es of Otto-
man popul ati on dr opped drasti cal l y.
Because the maneuver i ng for terri tory and i nfl uence i n
the l ands of the Ottoman Empi re had' such a pr of ound
i mpact, I here address i n some detai l the issue of the di s-
honest use of popul ati on stati sti cs. The precedent for the
pol i ti cal mani pul ati on of demographi c data was set bv Rus-
sia, and the practi ce was thus i mmedi atel y l egi ti mi zed—as
seemed to be the case wi t h any such deed of a bi g power i n
the ni neteenth century; any subterfuge empl oyed agai nst
the Ottoman gover nment was at that ti me more often than
not vi ewed as i nevi tabl y r i ght and proper. Dur i ng the tal ks
at the I stanbul Conference, hel d i n December 1876 for the
di scussi on of "r ef or ms" (actual l y autonomy) for the Bal-
kans, the Russi an del egate submi tted a series of popul ati on
stati sti cs al l eged to have been prepared by a great author-
i ty. These stati sti cs i ndi cated that the Bul gari ans f ormed a
majori ty i n most of the central and northeastern parts of the
Bal kans—that is, i n the area whi ch became part of Greater
Bul gari a under the San Stefano treaty i n 1878. I n fact, the
Russi an stati sti cs had i nfl ated the comparati ve number of
Bul gari ans by compl etel y i gnor i ng the Vl ahs, Greeks, and
Serbs, whi l e mi ni mi zi ng the number of Musl i ms. I n reac-
ti on to the Russi an stati sti cs, the Greeks and, occasi onal l y
some other groups i ssued thei r own stati sti cs. Faced wi th
thi s strong reacti on f r om Chri sti ans who, no less than the
Musl i ms, objected to becomi ng part of Bul gari a, the Bri ti sh
government deci ded to i nvesti gate the numbers of Greeks,
Musl i ms, and other ethni c groups i n Thrace and other areas
of contenti on. I t sent to these places a number of mi l i tary
offi cers, whose vol umi nous popul ati on reports (al though
often di storted i n favor of the Greeks) are wor thy of study.2
I bel i eve that these reports were at least partl y responsi bl e
for i nduci ng the Bri ti sh to oppose, at the Berl i n Congress i n
1878, the cessi on of terri tory i n the central and southern
parts of the Bal kans to Bul gari a. (The Bri ti sh hoped to see
Greece acqui re these terri tori es, despi te the fact that the
Musl i ms f or med the maj ori ty i n many places.)
The mani pul ati on of popul ati on stati sti cs for pol i ti cal
purposes by vari ous ethni c and rel i gi ous groups was wi de-
spread and i ngeni ous. For exampl e, earl y i n the twenti eth
century the Greek Patri archate i ssued fi gures pur por ti ng to
show that the Greeks i n western A natol i a numbered 1.7
2. These reports, discussed more ful l y in Chapter 3 can be
found in the FO 78 and 242 series.
T T U A L A N D M E T H O D O L O G I C A L PROBL EM S
5
- . , n i o n The authors stated that these fi gures were f r om the
, a1 Ottoman censuses. I ndeed, the fi nal total s gi ven m
* r r cek and Ot t oman stati sti cs coi nci ded perf ectl y;
, L i n thei r cl assi fi cati on of the popul ati on accordi ng
L i e ori gi n the Greek-sponsored stati sti cs i gnored the
Ottoman cl assi fi cati on and substi tuted i nfl ated numbers for
u Creeks 1 These false stati sti cs were used by the Greek
nremi er El eutheri os Veni zel os, at the peace conference at
v a i l l e s i n 1919 as the basis for cl ai mi ng western A natol i a
for Greece; and l ater the League of Nati ons used then, to
calculate the number of Greek refugees f r om Tur key. The
A rmeni an patri arch adopted a di f f erent method for ar r i vi ng
at his i nfl ated figure for the number of the A r meni ans m the
Ottoman state. Submi tted to the Berl i n Congress m 1878,
this decepti ve fi gure has si nce been used extensi vel y by a
vari ety of schol ars and pol i ti ci ans. The patri arch si mpl y
added i n wi t h hi s fi gures for the A r meni an popul ati on of
the provi nce under consi derati on the A r meni an popul ati on
of one or more nei ghbor i ng provi nces and excl uded f r om
hi s count M usl i ms, ref ugees, and, at ti mes, K ur di sh
nomads Thi s subterfuge was di scovered by the Bri ti sh of-
ficials i n charge of i mpl ementi ng reforms i n the eastern
provi nces, and the patr i ar ch was f orced to admi t hi s
"error" (see Chapter 3).
A nother subterf uge used bv advocates of the vari ous
groups was to recl assi fy al l the Chri sti ans as "Bul gar i an" or
"Greek" or some other chosen nati onal i ty.4 I n other cases
Musl i ms woul d be di vi ded i nto tri bal groups, or i nto Shute
and Sunni , and cl assi fi ed as non- M usl i m i n order to pr o-
mote the preferred gr oup to numeri cal maj ori ty. For exam-
pl e, a stati sti cal tabl e put out by the A r meni an patri arch i n
1917 gi ves the total number of Chri sti ans i n six provi nces m
eastern A natol i a (Van, Bi tl i s, Si vas, Er z ur um, H ar put
[K harput], and Di varbeki r) as 1,183,000, or 45.2 percent of
the total popul ati on, and the number of the A r meni ans as
1 018,000—about twi ce the number i n the offi ci al Ottoman
census. The patri arch pl aced the total number of Musl i ms
at 1,178,000, or 45.1 percent of the total , that i s, just a shade
under the percentage of Chri sti ans. The r emai ni ng 9.7 per-
cent of the popul ati on, accordi ng to the patri arch's stati s-
tics, was made up of "var i ous other r el i gi ons." =I n a di ffer-
ent col umn i t is i ndi cated that these "other rel i gi ons" con-
sisted of Ki zi l ba§, Zaza, Çari kl i , and Yezi di s, that i s, A l evi
and other nonor thodox M usl i m groups. These were clas-
3. Justin McCarthy, "Greek Statistics on Ottoman Greek Popula-
tion " International journal of Turkish Studies 1, no. 2 (1980): 66-76.
4. This is how the results of the census of 1866 i n Tuna Province
were used. The original register for this census is i n the National
Library i n Sofia. 1have requested a copy of the register but have
not received it and have therefore relied on the figures as pub-
lished i n the yearbook and by Ni kol ai Todorov i n Balkanskiat Grad,
XT-XI X-VEK [The Balkan town, XV-XI X centuries] (Sofia, 19/ 2),
pp. 327 ft. See the English version of Todorov's book, The Balkan
Citv, 1400-1900 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1983).
5. The tables wi th detaile'd ethnic and religious classifications
may be found i n Marcel Léart, La Question arménienne à lalumière des
documents(Paris: A. Challamel, 1913), pp. 60-61. (It is mterestmg
to note that Léart was actually an Armeni an from I stanbul whose
real name was Ki rkor Zohrap; see FO 96 205.)
si fi ed as non- Musl i mi n order to back the asserti on that the
Chri sti ans f ormed a majori ty i n eastern A natol i a. Thi s pre-
posterous cl ai m was rejected by the even most bi ased of
European statesmen.
Evi dence of the shor tcomi ngs of ni neteenth- centur y
popul ati on studi es is cl earl y reveal ed i n the monumental ,
mul ti vol ume bi bl i ographi cal wor k by Ni kol a V. M i k hov . 6
Mi khov' s study was undertaken i n part to j usti f y Bul gari an
nati onhood and advance (i ndi rectl y) Bul gari an cl ai ms to
Macedoni a and i n part to counter Greek and Serbi an efforts
to i ncl ude the Bul gari ans as part of thei r own groups.
A l though i t is a permanent hi stori cal source and a monu-
ment to Mi khov' s dedi cati on to i ndustri ous schol arshi p,
the wor k has basic weaknesses. I n the fi rst four vol umes
the ti tl es of 3,050 books and arti cl es, together wi t h extracts
contai ni ng stati sti cs and i nf or mati on on Bul gari an hi story
and soci ety, are l i sted. These ti tl es i ncl ude 1,126 ci tati ons
f r om German, 1,123 f r om French, 731 f r om Engl i sh, 63 f r om
I tal i an, and 7 f r om other European l anguages. There are no
ci tati ons f r om Tur ki sh, and the wor k i ncl udes al most no
di rect quotati ons f r om the offi ci al Ottoman censuses (ex-
cept for a reference to Sal aheddi n Bey's fi gures dr awn f r om
A . Ubi ci ni ), al though M i khov refers extensi vel y to wr i ti ngs
and fi gures gi ven by western authors such as A . Ubi ci ni ,
Davi d Ur quhar t, and A mi Boue and to stati sti ci ans and
demographers such as E. G. Ravenstei n and H ugo K ut-
schera. I t is i nteresti ng to note that M i khov consi dered the
scarci ty of offi ci al censuses i n the Ottoman state to be nor-
mal , for even i n Europe regul ar systemati c censuses were
not' taken unti l earl y i n the ni neteenth century. M i khov
takes note of the fact that many of the ci ted authors esti -
mated Ottoman popul ati on by appl yi ng subjecti ve j udg-
ment or usi ng false i nf or mati on suppl i ed by nati ves. A s an
exampl e, he poi nts out that travel ers' esti mates of the total
number of Bul gari ans i n the per i od f r om 1800 to 1878
ranged f r om 500,000 to 8 mi l l i on. A si mi l ar mi srepresenta-
ti on had been noted earl i er by Wi l l i am Eton, who di smi ssed
the cl ai m by the Greeks that they number ed 8 mi l l i on at the
end of the ei ghteenth centur y.7
Doubt about the accuracy of Ottoman offi ci al popul ati on
fi gures was expressed by some Europeans who made un-
substanti ated cl ai ms about thei r own speci al knowl edge of
and i nsi ght i nto Ottoman affai rs. I n many cases these i ndi -
vi dual s were travel ers or professi onal s who l i ved i n excl u-
si vel y European secti ons of Ottoman ci ti es, communi cated
onl y' wi t h the Chri sti an groups, or wor ked i n remote cor-
6. Nasclemento na Turtsii i Bulgani.prez XVU1-X1X v. (La Popula-
tion dc la Turquic et de la Bulgariean XV11T ct an XIX1' sieclcs), 5 vols.
(Sofia, 1915-1968). The name of the author and the title of this
work appear in French on the title page of each vol ume; each
volume also has a preface in French. However, the text is entirely
in Bulgarian and 1 therefore cite it under its Bulgarian title only
throughout this volume. The essence of this work is i n the first
volume; volumes 2 through 4 list titles omi tted from vol ume 1,
whi l e the last volume concerns itself wi th Russian works on Otto-
man popul ati on.
7. .4 Sunvu oi the Turkish Empire, 2d ed. (London, 1799), p. 291.
6
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
ners of the real m. Upon r etur ni ng to thei r countri es of ori -
gi n, these "experts" on Ottoman affai rs wr ote books and
gave out esti mates and opi ni ons rel ati ng to everv aspect of
Ottoman l i fe. A good exampl e is F. Bi anconi , who wor ked
as an engi neer for a rai l road company f r om 1872 to 1876 and
then, upon r etur ni ng to the West, i ssued hi s own set of
popul ati on stati sti cs; he used no rel i abl e sources but tri ed to
enhance hi s own credi bi l i ty by denounci ng the Turks and
thei r stati sti cs.8' Despi te thei r gross di storti ons, Bi anconi 's
fi gures have often been ci ted as a major source of i nf orma-
ti on on Ottoman popul ati on.
Otto man Of f i ci al Data: I ts Val ue and Use
A l t hough the vi ews of those f ew mi si nf or med i ndi -
vi dual s who mi strusted Ottoman popul ati on stati sti cs en-
joyed consi derabl e publ i ci ty i n the European press, thi s
was compensated for by the testi mony of other Europeans.
A l arge number of Europeans of al l nati onal i ti es wor ked for
l ong peri ods i n the Ottoman state as di pl omati c representa-
ti ves (consul s, mi l i tar y attachés, embassy secretari es, etc.),
teachers, or busi ness representati ves. They l earned the l an-
guage, read the l oca! press, and became i nti matel y ac-
quai nted wi t h the Ottoman bureaucracy. They tri ed to com-
pi l e stati sti cs on matters such as Ottoman trade, mi l i tary-
strength, and defense capabi l i ti es i n order to pr ovi de thei r
home governments wi t h factual i nf or mati onneeded for the
maki ng of vi tal economi c and pol i ti cal deci si ons. These
men had to seek the most rel i abl e sources of i nf or mati on;
and after thor ough i nvesti gati on they came to accept the
Ot t oman of f i ci al stati sti cs as basi cal l y t r u st wor t hy ,
al though they often made adjustments to compensate for
certai n techni cal shor tcomi ngs.9 I n some cases, when i n
doubt about some fi gures, these Europeans questi oned
Ottoman mi ni sters and pr i me mi ni sters; Ubi ci ni , for exam-
pl e, had some of hi s popul ati on fi gures checked by A hmet
Vefi k Paşa. These Europeans devel oped a heal thy respect
for the Ottoman popul ati on stati sti cs and used them exten-
si vel y, of ten publ i shi ng them i n Europe. The data con-
8. Bianconi wrote: "Le peu de scrupule qui ont les Turcs étant
aujourd'hui universellement reconnu, on doit convenir que jamais
les statistiques fournies d'une façon officielle par la Porte, sur ses
sujets, n'ont pu être prises en sérieuse considération et ne doivent,
en conséquence, servir en aucune manière comme documents
pour l'élaboration d'un travail ethnographique de ces contrées"
{Ethnographieet statistiquede la Turquie d'Europeet de la Grèce 2d ed
[Paris, 1877], p. 16).
9. For instance, Paul Boutet, who used the Ottoman popul ati on
lists for 1877/ 78wrote: "Tout en tenant compte des erreurs inévi-
tables qui accompagnent toujours un premier essai d'un genre
pareil, surtout pour une oeuvre faite dans un pays oriental, on
peut accepter ces statistiques, publiées officiellement, comme de-
vant avoir une autorité de beaucoup supérieure à celle des divers
chiffres, plus ou moins fantaisistes, donnés jusqu'i ci par des publ i -
cistes qui pour la pl upart, n'avaient pas accès aux sources d'i n-
formati on" ("L'Empi re ottoman, Documents statistiques " Explora-
tion 2 [1877]: 159).
tai ned i n the offi ci al censuses or publ i shed i n i mperi al or
provi nci al yearbooks were accepted as sound and used (as
shal l be shown i n the next chapter) by Ubi ci ni , Boue, Ur-
quhart, Kutschera, Paul Boutet, A . Ri tter zur Hel l e von
Samo, Ernst Behm, H . Wagner, Vi tal Cui net, and other s;1 0
thei r wor ks i n tur n became pr i mar y sources for many lesser
wri ters and a great vari ety of peri odi cal s. N owadays even
scholars bel ongi ng to those ethni c and nati onal groups that
were at one ti me under Ottoman rul e and cri ti cal of its
pol i ci es have come to accept the Porte's offi ci al statistics as
mai nl y rel i abl e."
The Ottoman popul ati on stati sti cs were devel oped to
sati sfy pressi ng admi ni strati ve and mi l i tar y needs. Cen-
suses, l and surveys, and, eventual l y, a permanent popul a-
ti on regi ster system became vi tal l y i mpor tant for the gov-
er nment i n the ni neteenth centur y. Centr al i zati on had
forced i t to assume new admi ni strati ve responsi bi l i ti es, for
the successf ul di schar ge of whi ch knowl edge of the
empi re's human and fi nanci al resources was necessary.
The recrui tment of a moder n ar my and i ts organi zati on i nto
acti ve and reserve uni ts r equi r ed accurate i nf or mati on
about the number and age of the mal e popul ati on. The
conscri pti on system for Musl i ms i ntr oduced by M ahmut I I
i n 1838, the general conscri pti on i ntr oduced i n 1855 (but
never actual l y appl i ed to Chri sti ans), and, especi al l y, the
categori zati on of mal es obl i gated to do mi l i tar y servi ce
coul d have been i mpl emented onl y under a sound regi stra-
ti on system. I n the l atter part of the ni neteenth century
M usl i m mal es were di vi ded i nto f our age groups, wi t h
mi l i tar y obl i gati ons def i ned accordi ngl y: the acti ve duty
gr oup {muvazzaf) served f our years f r om age twenty; the
acti ve reserve gr oup {ihtiyat) served for two more years; the
i nacti ve reserve {redif) was under obl i gati on for another
fourteen years; and, f i nal l y, the terri tori al / l ocal mi l i ti a {mus-
tahfiz) served for f our years. (A mal e M usl i m thus mi ght
have some sort of mi l i tar y duty for as much as twenty- f our
years.)
The Ottoman mi l i tar y establ i shment was therefore the
fi rst to show keen i nterest i n popul ati on records and to
exert pressure on the sul tan and the gover nment to under-
take censuses and adopt a regul ar popul ati on regi ster sys-
tem. I n fact, ar my offi cers took acti ve rol es i n Ottoman
10. A group of British statisticians tryi ng to assess the human
resources of Turkey and Russia had the fol l owi ng to say about the
Ottoman figures: "I n treati ng the Turki sh statistics, therefore,
wi thout the aids we are used to i n countries where there is a good
administration, we need not be absolutely i n the dark. The results
wi l l not be so authoritative or so complete i n detail as it is expe-
dient to have them, but they wi l l be much better than no results at
all, and may leave no practical doubt on the more i mportant ques-
tions to be answered. The first question whi ch presents itself is that
of popul ati on and area. Of this a very good account has lately been
given by Mr. Ravenstein . . ." ("Turki sh Resources," Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society 40 [1877]: 633-34). (Ravenstein's work is
commented on i n Chapter 3.)
11. See Todorov, Balkanskiat Grad and "The Balkan Town in the
Second Half of the 19th Century," Etudes balkaniques, no 2 (1969)-
31.
CON CEPTUA L A N D M E T H O D O L O GI C A L PROBL EMS
7
ses kept thei r own regi sters for the Musl i ms, and
^oper at ed cl osel y w i t h ci vi l i an popul at i on of f i ci al s
throughout the ni neteenth and twenti eth centuri es.
To meet thi s strong admi ni strati ve need, then, the Otto¬
' n devel oped the censuses and the yearbooks {saluâmes),
both state and provi nci al , to be basic and rel i abl e sources of
i nf ormati on about the size and general rel i gi ous composi -
ti on of the popul ati on and, eventual l y, about the ethni c
di vi si on of the Chri sti ans as wel l . The census methods and
the qual i ty of the stati sti cs pr oduced under went conti nual
evol uti on, reachi ng a qui te advanced l evel i n the census of
1881/ 82-1893.12 (Earl i er fi gures, whi l e general l y rel i abl e,
have rel ati vel y hi gher margi ns of error than those of the
census taken i n the 1880s.)
The censuses taken at vari ous ti mes i n the ni neteenth
and earl y twenti eth centuri es are thus the pri nci pal Otto-
man source of i nf or mati on on the popul ati on. H owever ,
these have not been publ i shed offi ci al l y i n thei r enti rety,
al though some summari es were made publ i c: the i mpor tant
census of 1844, for i nstance, is k nown thr ough fi gures pub-
l i shed by Ubi ci ni and Boré. The detai l ed l i sts that were the
bases for the f i nal census fi gures ( wi th the parti al excepti on
of lists f r om the 1866 census of Tuna vilayet) probabl y wi l l
not be avai l abl e unti l al l the Ottoman documents of the
ni neteenth century are f ul l y catal ogued. The second major
source of i nf or mat i on on Ot t oman popul at i on is the
yearbooks.1 3 A l t hough i mperi al saluâmes coveri ng the en-
ti re real m began to be publ i shed i n 1847 (H . 1263), the
popul ati on fi gures for the whol e empi re appeared for the
fi rst ti me onl y i n the vol ume i ssued i n 1877/ 78. The fi rst
provi nci al yearbook (for Bosni a) was publ i shed i n 1866. By
1868 there were several saluâmes gi vi ng popul ati on fi gures
for thei r respecti ve provi nces. These fi gures, used exten-
si vel y by vari ous European ethnographers and stati sti ci ans,
were based on earl i er fi gures obtai ned by actual count and
12. This census w-as begun in the Hi cri year 1299, corresponding
to 1881/ 82, but it was not declared complete unti l more than ten
Gregorian years later. As wi l l be demonstrated i n detail in Chapter
2, it was, wi th the possible exception of the partial census taken i n
Tuna Province i n 1866, the most advanced and comprehensive of
all the Ottoman popul ati on surveys conducted i n the nineteenth
century.
13. The i mperi al yearbooks, known as Dcvlct-i Ahyc Salnamelcri,
or sahmmes for short, consist of sixty-six volumes published reg-
ularly, except duri ng the First Worl d War, from 1847 to 1918. The
provincial saluâmes, whi ch began to be published roughl y from
1868 onwards and amount to several hundred volumes of various
sizes, are very valuable sources on Ottoman socio-economic his-
tory despite the fact that, wi th the partial exception of those for
Avdm and Hudavendi gar provinces, few were published regular-
ly. The best and most comprehensive study of the saluâmes, whi ch
includes i nformati on about their location i n libraries i n Turkey, is
that published by the Research Centre for Islamic Hi story, Art, and
Culture, Ottoman Year-Books (Salnamc and Nevasal) (I stanbul, 1982).
See also Justin McCarthy and I . Dennis Hyde, "Ottoman I mperi al
and Provincial Salnames," Middle East Studies Association Bulletin
13, no. 2 (1976): 10-20; and Hasan R. Ertug, "Osmanl i Devrinde
Salnameler," Hayai Tanh Mecmuasi 10, nos. 103, 104 (1973). See"also
IslamAnsiklopedesi, s.v. "Salnamc."
also f r om tax regi sters and other i nf or mati on avai l abl e to
the provi nci al admi ni strators. Popul ati on esti mates gi ven
by vari ous European schol ars and di pl omats, as wel l as by
Ottoman geographers and encycl opedi sts, rel y ei ther on
these offi ci al publ i shed records or on the i nf or mati on sup-
pl i ed by offi ci al s i n charge of popul ati on affai rs. A l i st of
yearbooks accordi ng to publ i cati on date is i ncl uded as
A ppendi x A . l f ol l owi ng thi s chapter.
The stati sti cal tables compi l ed by the Ottoman govern-
ment i n the ni neteenth century al so pr ovi de excel l ent i n-
f ormati on for measuri ng the l evel of urbani zati on. The cen-
sus resul ts are gi ven by vilayet/eyalet (provi nce), livalsancak,
and kaza—that i s, accordi ng to the mai n admi ni strati ve
uni ts of the ti me. Of ten the fi rst fi gure gi ven f ol l owi ng the
name of a speci fi c admi ni strati ve center is the popul ati on of
the capi tal ci ty, usual l y under a headi ng such as merkez
kcizasi (central kaza). I n the case of Edi rne Provi nce, for ex-
ampl e, the central kaza i ncl udes the mai n ci ty and the vi l -
lages i n the vi ci ni ty of the ci ty. A l though the size of the
terri tory of the central kaza vari es, the popul ati on i n the
villages" is sel dom more numer ous than the popul ati on of
the ci tv i tsel f; theref ore,, one can arri ve at a tentati ve
popul ati on f i gure for the ci ty by subtracti ng f r om the total
popul ati on of the central kaza a certai n number of peopl e
deemed to l i ve i n the vi l l ages attached admi ni strati vel y to
i t. Some censuses refer speci fi cal l y to the popul ati on of a
gi ven t own; the census of 1831 occasi onal l y i ncl udes the
popul ati on of the ci ty, e.g., of K onya, Edi rne, Manasti r
(Bi tol i a), and other smal l er towns. The sur r oundi ng areas
(the nei ghbor hoods— nahiyes) i ndi cated separatel y, maki ng
possi bl e the compari son of the ur ban and r ur al popul a-
ti ons.
Popul ati on Censuses and A dmi ni str ati ve Di vi si on
The study of Ottoman popul ati on is vi tal l y dependent on
preci se, up-to-date maps showi ng the admi ni strati ve di vi -
si on of the real m. I nternal popul ati on movement is after al l
si mpl y a transfer of peopl e f r om one admi ni strati ve uni t to
another. I n the ni neteenth century the admi ni strati ve di vi -
si on of the Ottoman state under went several changes that
tend to confuse one unf ami l i ar wi t h the process. The ori g-
i nal di vi si on, adopted i n the second hal f of the fi fteenth
century, had survi ved, despi te vari ous changes, unti l that
ti me, and the Cihanmima, the classical wor k on geography
of K ati p Çel ebi (1609-1658), provi des fai rl y estensi ve i n-
f ormati on about thi s. A detai l ed descri pti on of the admi ni s-
trati ve di vi si on of a l ater per i od was gi ven at the begi nni ng
of the ni neteenth century (1804) by P. L . I nci ci yan, who
devoted three vol umes of hi s el even-vol ume wor k on wor l d
geography to the descri pti on of I stanbul (vol ume 5), Rumi l i
(vol ume 6), and A natol i a (vol ume 10).1 4 J oseph, Frei herr
von Hanvmer-Purgstal l , M . D'Ohsson, and Ubi ci ni , among
14. The section on Rumi l i has been published recently i n a ver-
sion prepared by H . D. Andreasyan; see "Osmanl i Rumelisi Tarih
ve Cografvasi ," Güney Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi 2-3
(1973-1974): 11-88, and 4-5 (1975-76): 101-152.
8
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
western students of Ottoman affai rs, pr ovi ded i l l umi nati ng
i nf or mati on on the admi ni str ati ve di vi si ons of the late
ei ghteenth and the ni neteenth centuri es. A mong other re-
cent wor ks, a comprehensi ve study by A ndreas Bi rken is
notewor thy. l ?
I t is not necessary here to provi de a detai l ed descri pti on;
it suffi ces for the purpose of thi s study to say that the
Ottoman admi ni strati ve di vi si on i n 1831—that is, when the
fi rst moder n census was taken—i ncl uded 29 eyalets (wi th
one or two of them, e.g., Vi ranşehi r, retai ni ng a rather
conf usi ng status) subdi vi ded i nto livas or sancaks; one of
these subdi vi si ons was chosen as the seat of the provi nci al
governor and was k nown as "paşa sancagi ." The liva or
sancak was di vi ded i n tur n i nto kazas, whi ch were basi cal l y
judi ci al di stri cts under a j udge (kadi). The kazas were f urther
subdi vi ded i nto nahiyes—mainly rural di stri cts whi ch had a
gi ven number of vi l l ages. I n 1834 Sul tan M ahmud I I i ntro-
duced a new admi ni strati ve di vi si on consi sti ng of 28 eyalets,
31 sancaks, and 54 i ndependent voivodas subdi vi ded i nto 126
livas and 1,267 kazas.lb Fi ve years l ater thi s new di vi si on
was abandoned, and the empi re reverted to the ol d admi n-
i strati ve system.
Yearbooks publ i shed after 1847 gi ve i nf or mati on on the
admi ni strati ve di vi si on. I n the earl y 1850s the Ottoman
state appears to have been di vi ded i nto 36 eyalets, of whi ch
15 were i n Europe, 18 i n A si a, and 3 i n A fri ca; however,
thei r pol i ti cal and admi ni strati ve status was vari ed, Egypt,
Wal l achi a, Mol davi a, and Serbi a bei ng al most i ndepend-
ent, whi l e Tuni si a had speci al status. The eyalets were sub-
di vi ded i nto 440 livas, or sancaks (admi ni stered by a kayma-
kam or mutassanif), kazas (admi ni stered by a mildir assisted
by a counci l of notabl es), and nahiyes (admi ni stered by
el ected muhtars or kocabaşı, the fi rst usual l y among Mus-
l i ms, the second i n non- Musl i mcommuni ti es). Li sts of the
admi ni strati ve uni ts of 1831 and the earl y 1850s are gi ven i n
appendi ces A .2 and A .3 f ol l owi ng thi s chapter.
The gradual evol uti on of a new admi ni strati ve organi za-
ti on began wi t h the pr omul gati on of the Vi l ayet L aw of
1864. ' The ref orm was a sl ow process. I t was partl y com-
pl eted by 1871 but conti nued thereaf ter.1 8 The vilayet of
Tuna was the fi rst, created i n 1864 by combi ni ng the eyalets
of Si l i stre, V i di n, and Ni ş i nto a uni t under the gov-
er nor shi p of Mi that Paşa; thi s was the pi l ot project for
achi evi ng moder ni zati on. 1 9 I n 1867 and 1871 new vilayets
were created; i n 1870 there were 23 vilayets; i n 1875 the
number was 25. By 1893 there were 27 vilayets i n Europe
15. Die Provinzen des osmanischen Reiches (Wiesbaden- Reichert •
1976).
16. See Ernest Dottai n, "La Turqui e d'Europe d'apès le Traité de
Berl i n," Revue de géographie 3 (1878): 97-123.
17. George Young, Corps de droit ottoman 1 (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1905): 47-69.
18. For a survey of the administrative reform (but wi thout the
list of vilayets), see Roderic H . Davison, Reform in the Ottoman
Empire 1856-1876 (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1963) DD
157-71. , ' F F '
19. See for details Hans-Jurgen Kornrumpf, Die Territorialverwal-
tung imöstlichen Teil der europäischen Turkey vom Erlass der Vilayets-
and Asi a (excl udi ng N or th A f ri ca), 4 speci al di stri cts (Çatal -
ca, Bi ga, Küdus-i -Şeri f [J erusal em], and i zmi t), and the
capi tal . (I t shoul d be remembered that terri tori es i n the
Bal kans and Caucasus had been l ost thr ough the treaty of
Berl i n i n 1878: these were Bosni a, Tuna [Bul gari a], Kars-
A r tvi n, and eastern Rumel i a.)
The Vi l ayet L aw of 1864, as amended, basi cal l y preserved
the ol d di vi si on (eyalet, liva/sancak, kaza, nahiye) but changed
the eyalets i nto vilayets admi ni stered by valis (governors)
appoi nted by the central gover nment. There were changes
also i n the admi ni strati ve ti tl es: a mudir became the admi n-
i strator of the nahiye. The purpose of the ref orm was to
strengthen the author i ty of the central gover nment by el i m-
i nati ng or neutral i zi ng the i nfl uence of the derebei/s and
other l ocal l ords. Or i gi nal l y the vilayet was l arger than the
ol d eyalet; gradual l y, however, the vilayets were parti ti oned
i nto smal l er uni ts for more effi ci ent admi ni str ati on. For ex-
ampl e, i n 1878/ 79 the vilayet of Er zur um was subdi vi ded
i nt o the vilayets of V an, Bi tl i s, Mamur etül azi z, and
Er zur um; i n 1880 Bağdat (Baghdad) was di vi ded i nto Bağ-
dat, Kerkük (Mosul ), and Basra; meanwhi l e, parts of Zor
(Dei r) were attached to H al ep (A l eppo) and Damascus,
whi l e Hal ep i tsel f was di vi ded i nto Hal ep and A dana; and
Di yar beki r ceded Si i rt to Bi tl i s and Mal atya to H ar put
(K harput). A ny compari son of the popul ati ons of the var-
i ous regi ons, especi al l y of the vilayets, i n di f f erent years
must be sure to take i nto account the creati on of these new
admi ni strati ve uni ts as wel l as the concurrent use of Tur k-
i sh and Arabi c, Sl avi c, or Greek names for a gi ven l ocal i ty
wi thi n the same vilayet.
I n sum, i t is extremel y i mpor tant to have a compl ete and
detai l ed study of the Ottoman admi ni strati ve di vi si on and
of the boundary changes i n the ni neteenth century. Unf or-
tunatel y such a task goes far beyond the scope of thi s wor k,
whi ch is confi ned to a quanti tati ve study of popul ati on.
Probl ems i n the Use of Ottoman Census Data
Ottoman popul ati on stati sti cs cannot be accepted at face
val ue. They have parti cul ar characteri sti cs whi ch must be
understood, as wel l as shortcomi ngs whi ch must be over-
come or, at l east, taken i nto consi derati on. Bri efl y, the
standards to be appl i ed i n eval uati ng Ottoman data are
(1) i nter nal consi stency, (2) consi stency w i t h moder n
enumerati ons gi ven by the governments of the new states,
and (3) consi stency wi t h demographi c r ul es.2 0 Some of thé
defi ci enci es reveal ed by the appl i cati on of these standards
are techni cal and easi l y remedi ed by ari thmeti cal adjust-
ordiumg (1864) bis zum Berliner Kongress (1878) nachamtlichen osma-
nischen Veröffentlichungen (Wei sbaden: Klaus Schwarz Verlae
1976). & '
20. See Justin McCarthy, "Popul ati on of the Ottoman Fertile
Crescent" (Paper delivered at the I nternational Conference on the
Economic History of the Mi ddl e East, 1800-1914, Haifa Israel De-
cember 14-19, 1980), pp: 3-4. (The final version of this paper is
"The Population of Ottoman Syria and I raq, 1878-1914," Asian and
African Studies 15, no. 1 [ 1981J: 3-44.)
CONCEPTUA L A N D M E T H O D O L O G I C A L PROBL EMS
9
t s Others stem f r om the speci al Ottoman concept of
P e n
c e n s u s and f r om a vari ety of soci al and admi ni strati ve
i tors affecti ng the composi ti on and di str i buti on of the
cul ati on; these are less easi l y -corrected. The census
l P °e thods were devi sed i n accordance wi t h the speci al Otto-
man phi l osophy of the popul ati on count, and the resul ts
reflected the soci o-cul tural envi r onment i n whi ch i t was
carried out.
The pervasi ve flaw i n these data is the understatement of
" ovul ati on. N o census taker, i ncl udi ng the most sophi sti -
cated contemporary one, can tr ul y count the enti re popul a-
ti on For i nstance, the New York Times of 9 Mar ch 1980
reported, i n regard to the Uni ted States census to begi n on
1 A pr i l 1980, that "the Census Bureau is under i ntense and
mounti ng pressure to pr ovi de a means of arti fi ci al l y adjust-
i ng its fi nal count to i ncl ude the mi l l i ons of peopl e who are
expected to el ude the census takers A pr i l 1, despi te al l
efforts to i mpr ove the count. " The Census Bureau esti -
mated that i n certai n densel y popul ated areas as much as 18
percent of some age groups woul d escape the count. I f the
Uni ted States, wi t h al l i ts trai ned personnel and sophi sti -
cated computers, cannot conduct a perfect census i n the
late twenti eth century, i t is total l y unreal i sti c to cri ti ci ze the
Ottomans for not havi ng been abl e to count exactl y thei r
entire popul ati on i n the ni neteenth century.
The raison d'etre of Ottoman popul ati on counts was ori gi -
nal l y not the si mpl e desi re to have an accurate record of the
total number of peopl e i n the real m or detai l s about thei r
soci o-ethni c composi ti on. The tradi ti onal Ottoman tahrir
was a survey carri ed out for tax purposes, and i ts resul ts
were recorded i n l and deed regi sters (tapu defteri). The
fi fteenth- and si xteenth-century tahrirs i nvol ved the reg-
i strati on of adul t mal es—especi al l y househol ds heads as
taxpayers but also bachel ors and others—and thus the tapu
defteri are regarded as a fai rl y good source of demographi c
i nf or mat i on; 2 1 but the object of the tahrir, i t must be
emphasi zed, was to assess the area of cul ti vated l ands for
the l evyi ng of taxes on the cul ti vator. I n the ni neteenth
century new consi derati ons di ctated a new type of survey.
However, for the Ottoman government the fi rst moder n-
style census, begun i n 1831 (or 1830, accordi ng to new- but
unveri fi ed i nf or mati on), was sti l l not an end i n i tsel f. I ts
mai n purpose was to establ i sh a quanti tati ve basis for the
l evyi ng of personal taxes on non- Musl i ms and, as previ ous-
l y poi nted out, for the conscri pti on of M usl i m mal e adul ts
i nto the ar my. Thi s di rect assessment of the mal e popul a-
ti on repl aced the f ormer rel i ance on i ncompl ete i nf or mati on
suppl i ed by communal heads. H owever , the government
was noi then i nterested i n and di d not seek to regi ster those
i ndi vi dual s—women, orphans, Chri sti ans bel ow the age of
puberty, the mental l y or physi cl al y i ncapaci tated, hi gh-
ranki ng offi ci al s, etc.—who were not obl i gated to pay per-
sonal taxes or do mi l i tar y servi ce. L and sur veys, then
21. See opinions summarized i n A mnon Cohen and Bernard
Lewis, Population and Revenuein the Towns of Palestinein the Sixteenth
Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 3; see also
Lowrv, "Ottoman Tahrir Deltas."
known as emlak tahrin, conti nued to be conducted but were
taken separatel y f r om the popul ati on count.~
Bv the mi ddl e of the ni neteenth century, that i s, after the
si gni ng of the Pari s treaty i n 1856, the Ottoman census
phi l osophy under went another change. The Porte began to
embrace the European concept of f uncti onal government
and servi ce to soci ety. Consequentl y, i t fel t the need to
reassess i ts human and natural resources. Moreover, the
ri si ng nati onal consci ousness among the Chri sti an groups
had mani f ested i tsel f i n the f or m of a var i ety of de-
mands—e.g., for the establ i shment of nati onal churches
and school s—as wel l as i n cl ai ms for i ndependence and
terri tory, often supported by data i gnor i ng other groups;
hence there arose the necessi ty of l earni ng the exact num-
ber of each major Chri sti an ethni c gr oup. These humani st-
f uncti onal i st-nati onal i st consi derati ons were mani fest i n
the census and regi strati on system i mpl emented i n 1881'
82-1893. Thi s census used several ethni c-confessi onal cate-
gori es for the Chri sti an popul ati on, but al l the Musl i ms
conti nued to be counted as one homogeneous gr oup, de-
spi te the ethni c and l i ngui sti c di fferences among them.
A s the government's census phi l osophy changed, so.di d
the regi strati on uni t. The tradi ti onal tax uni t i n the fi fteenth
and si xteenth centuri es was the hane, or avanz hanesi, that
i s, the househol d as represented by i ts mal e head. The"' ol d
Ottoman "househol d" di d not necessari l y correspond to
ei ther the nucl ear or the extended f ami l y: i t was a house-
hol d def i ned fi nanci al l y, i n accordance wi t h the taxpayi ng
potenti al of i ts members rather than i n accordance wi t h i ts
numeri cal si ze. H owever , some of the Ottoman popul ati on
lists i ssued i n the second hal f of the ni neteenth century
menti oned the number of hane i n a regi on or i n the enti re
country. Thus used, the ter m referred ei ther to the soci o-
l ogi cal l y def i ned nucl ear f ami l y or to the extended f ami l y
rather than to the taxpayi ng househol d. The exact size of
the Ottoman "f ami l y" has not yet been accuratel y estab-
l i shed, and i t is erroneous to arri ve at categori cal concl u-
si ons regardi ng the size of the Ottoman popul ati on wi thout
cl earl y establ i shi ng the exact meani ng of the ter m hane and
wi thout consi deri ng other vari abl es.
One pol i ti cal l y i nspi red report di d gi ve some fi gures on
22. The existing records on taxation and the di stri buti on of miri
(state) land to cultivators could yield excellent figures on the Otto-
man popul ati on i n the sixteenth to the nineteenth century. For
instance, the yoklamas, censuses of the timars taken i n 1596, 1606,
1672, 1691, 1694, 1698, and 1715, indicate that tradi ti on was not
abandoned altogether. These surveys show a conti nui ng preoc-
cupation wi th the size of cultivablelands—at least wi th those given
as fiefs to the stpahis—and wi th their revenue. See Vera P. Mutaf-
chieva and Stashimir Di mi trov, Sur Petal du systeme des timars des
XVII'-XVIW siccles (Sofia: Academie Bulgare des Sciences, 1968).
The complexity of the popul ati on problem i n the Ottoman statei n
the sixteenth century becomes evident if one approaches it from
the vi ewpoi nt of agricultural producti on and urbanization; see
Hurican I slamoglu, "Dynami cs of Agri cul tural Production, Popula-
tion Growth and Urban Development: A Case Study of Areas in
North Central Anatol i a, 1520-1575" (Ph.D. diss.. University ol
Wisconsin-Madison, 1979).
10
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
fami l y size, but they are certai nl y i naccurate. Vl adi mi r Te-
pl ov undertook a study of the Bal kan popul ati on under the
auspi ces of the Russi an government and used, i n addi ti on
to the offi ci al Ottoman yearbooks, i nf ormati on suppl i ed bv
churches and nati ve i nf ormants. He based his fi gures on
the l atter two sources and arbi trari l y concl uded that Mus-
l i m fami l i es consi sted of 5 members, whi l e non- Musl i m
fami l i es had f r om 7 to 9.37 member s.2 ' These fi gures are
contravened by those f r om an actual f ami l y survey con-
ducted by VV. L. Stoney, a Bri ti sh consul ar offi ci al i n the
Phi l i ppopol i s (Pl ovdi v) area of Bul gari a. I n order to answer
some i nqui ri es f r om Engl and about the exact size of the
Bal kan f ami l y, Stoney surveyed 50,622 i ndi vi dual s bel ong-
i ng to 10,110 fami l i es i n 55 vi l l ages havi ng a predomi nantl y
Bul gari an popul ati on. He arri ved at the concl usi on that
each f ami l y had an average of 5.007 members.2"4 On the
other hand, one Bri ti sh consul ar agent i ndi cated that the
average size of some 600 A r meni an fami l i es pl anni ng to
mi grate to_ Persi a i n the l ate ni neteenth century was 7
member s.2 3 A recent survey of about 10,000 i mmi gr ant
f ami l i es settl ed i n A nat ol i a towar ds the end of the
ni neteenth century shows that i n a l ocal i ty representi ng the
mi ni mum the average f ami l y consi sted of 1.99 persons,
whi l e i n an area representi ng the maxi mum the average
was 9.60. The average for al l the fami l i es i n thesei mmi gr ant
vi l l ages was about 4.10 i ndi vi dual s per f ami l y. 2 6
For the 1831-1838 census the adul t mal e, regardl ess of
househol d status, became the offi ci al regi strati on uni t; he
remai ned so unti l the 1881/ 82-1893 census, at whi ch ti me
the basic uni t became the i ndi vi dual , regardl ess of age or
sex.
These changes i n the Ottoman census phi l osophy and i n
the offi ci al l y desi gnated regi strati on uni t were refl ected i n
the resul ts of the vari ous surveys. The under r epor ti ng of
the popul ati on conti nued thr oughout, however. Even after
the gover nment adopted the goal of regi steri ng al l i ts
ci ti zens as i ndi vi dual s, factors such as i sol ati on, di ffi cul ti es
i n communi cati on, and the resi stance of some subjects to
the census resul ted i n a consi derabl e number of persons
bei ng l eft unr egi ster ed.2 7
Popul ati on stati sti cs i ssued before the 1880s sel dom ever
menti oned the nomadi c tri bes. Such tri bes were onl y occa-
si onal l y subjected to an actual count; when the number of
nomadi c tri besmen was recorded at al l , the census offi ci al s
23. Materialy Dlya Statistikii Bolgarii, Trakii i Makedonii [Statistical
materials on Bulgaria, Thrace, and Macedonia] (St. Petersburg,
1877). Teplov's data also pointed to a relatively rapid rise i n Chris-
tian popul ati on and to a decrease i n the Musl i m popul ati on i n
certain areas of the empire, a phenomenon discussed later i n this
chapter.
24. HCAP 92/ 44(1877), p. 1.
25. HCAP 96/ 49(1890), p. 25, Ll oyd to White, 6 March 1890.
26. Nejat Goyunc, "A i l e Deyi mi Hakki nda," Tarih Derglsi 32
(1979): 331^13; for other estimates, see Hai m Gerber, "The Popula-
tion of Syria and Palestine i n the Nineteenth Century," Asian and
African Studies 13, no. 2 (1979): 58-20.
27. See McCarthy, "Popul ati on of the Ottoman Fertile Cres-
cent," pp. 4-5.
had rel i ed i n most cases on fi gures suppl i ed bv the tri bal
chi eftans. The census of 1881 '82-1893 was the fi rst to pro-
vi de compr ehensi ve esti mates of the popul ati on of the
tri bes and of the areas not subject to actual count. As to the
count of women, even after they began to be i ndi vi dual l y
regi stered i n the 1880s thei r number appears as consi stentl y
less than that of the men, rai si ng some questi on whether
there exi sted factors that caused a hi gher mortal i ty among
women.
I t is possi bl e to overcome, at least partl y, the i naccuraci es
resul ti ng f r om the under counti ng of vari ous segments of
the Ottoman popul ati on. 2 8 A reasonabl e esti mate of the
total popul ati on can be made for peri ods when women
were not counted si mpl y by doubl i ng the number of men,
as is regul arl y done by many students of Ottoman popul a-
ti on. I n addi ti on, however, one must adopt a margi n-of-
error percentage to account for persons unregi stered by the
census takers because they were exempt f r om taxes or were
not subject to conscri pti on or because they coul d not be
reached. I n thi s study I have adopted 8 percent as the mar-
gi n of error for the cal cul ati on of the popul ati on of some
areas and of some ethni c groups (but the fi gures i n the
stati sti cal appendi ces are not corrected for error). Thi s per-
centage was adopted after compar i ng vari ous fi gures gi ven
for one area or one gr oup over a peri od of ti me and assum-
i ng—based on vari ous gover nmental stati sti cs—that the
annual gr owth rate was 1 percent dur i ng the second hal f of
the ni neteenth century. (A ctual l y thi s percentage of error
may be rai sed to 10, or even 15, for remote mountai n areas.)
One mi ght arri ve at a more preci se cal cul ati on of the error
by studyi ng the bi r th and death entri es dur i ng a gi ven
peri od of ti me i n a gi ven area and by devi si ng a vari abl e
f ormul a to account f or the popul ati on that escaped the
count. Thi s coul d be achi eved onl y by l ocati ng and usi ng
the actual popul ati on regi sters kept i n vari ous admi ni stra-
ti ve centers. M any of these seem to have been destroyed,
but many others have sur vi ved.
The M usl i m popul ati on was under counted more often
than the Chr i sti an popul ati on, the l atter bei ng mostl y
sedentary, compactl y settl ed, and easi l y accessible. H owev-
er, the regi sters of thei r rel i gi ous consti tuency kept by the
Chri sti an ecclesiasts appear to have onl y l i mi ted val ue.
Most of the churches regi stered onl y marri ages and the
number of houses, nei ther of whi ch is a rel i abl e i ndex of
popul ati on. A s far as the tax l i sts were concerned, i t is
general l y accepted that these showed the Chri sti an males
to be far fewer than thei r actual number. I t is true that many
Chri sti an prel ates devel oped speci al rosters for regi steri ng
thei r fol l owers i n order to extract f r om them a payment for
thei r own servi ces, as they di d not recei ve regul ar salaries;
however, as woul d be expected, many i ndi vi dual s, usual l y
those l i vi ng i n l arge communi ti es, fai l ed to regi ster. Many
smal l , cl osel y kni t communi ti es, i n whi ch the pri est knew
everybody anyway, di d not have such regi sters at al l . Li sts
pr epar ed by var i ous n o n - M u sl i m communi t i es and
28. For a ful l discussion of the procedures that may be adopted,
see i bi d., pp. 5-7 and esp. n. 23.
CONCEPTUA L A N D M E T H O D O L O G I C A L PROBL EMS
11
ti onal i sl organi zati ons, i n whi ch the number of these var-
ious ethno-rel i gi ous groups was general l y overstated, were
consi dered unrel i abl e even by Europeans f ri endl y to those
communi ti es.
The assessment of f erti l i ty rates is an absol ute necessi ty
f o r the under standi ng of the gr owt h rate of the Ottoman
popul ati on. I t is general l y assumed that dur i ng the fi rst
thi rtv years of the ni neteenth century the Ottoman popul a-
ti on decreased, begi nni ng to i ncrease agai n after 1850. Thi s
assumpti on is one-si ded and onl y partl y true, for i t i gnores
' the di fferences i n gr owt h rates between M usl i m and non-
Musl i m groups. The non- M usl i mpopul ati on actual l y gr ew
at a fai rl y fast rate after the 1830s—probabl y 2 percent
annual l y; the M usl i m popul ati on decl i ned or remai ned the
samei n number . There are i ndi cati ons, however, that f erti l -
s jtv rates among the Musl i ms began to i ncrease after 1850.
The causes of the di sproporti onate f erti l i ty rates among the
two groups are to be f ound i n the speci al economi c and
social condi ti ons whi ch favored non- Musl i ms and penal -
ized the Musl i ms, especi al l y Turks. Mal e Turks spent thei r
peak reproducti ve years i n mi l i tar y servi ce and were unabl e
to marry and settl e d own to take advantage of economi c
opportuni ti es. Then, when i n the ni neteenth century the
Ottoman state was exposed to the i nfl uence of the Euro-
pean capi tal i st economy and to i ntensi f i ed i nternal and i n-
ternati onal trade, several non- M usl i m groups became the
early reci pi ents of the economi c benef i ts—and the pr omot-
ers as wel l —of the new economi c system. A l though numer -
ically a mi nor i ty, the non- Musl i ms, who had no mi l i tar y
obl i gati ons, throve under the changed economi c, cul tural ,
and soci al condi ti ons, and thi s had a posi ti ve effect on the
size of thei r popul ati ons. The Musl i ms, except for some
smal l bureaucrati c and agrari an groups, became the sup-
porters rather than the benefi ci ari es of the new order. They
appeared to retai n pol i ti cal control of the state machi nery,
but even thi s contr ol was sl i ppi ng away. M or eover ,
epi demi cs seemed to take a greater tol l among Musl i ms, i n
part because of mi sconcepti ons they had about disease and
the way to f i ght i t, whi ch l ed to a fai l ure to take necessary
precauti ons agai nst i ts spread. H owever , i t was di mi ni shed
economi c oppor tuni ty that, more than war , f ami ne, di s-
ease, or other cal ami ti es associ ated wi t h under devel op-
ment, sl owed the gr owth of the M usl i m popul ati on i n the
ni neteenth century. The i ncrease i n the gr owth rate after
1850, besi des refl ecti ng the absence of war and the presence
of better heal th practi ces, was attri butabl e also to the i m-
proved wor l d economi c condi ti ons that favored the agri -
cul tural sector, i n whi ch most of the Musl i ms wor ked, and
to the emergence of a M usl i m mi ddl e class that began to
adopt the same economi c, cul tural , educati onal , and pol i ti -
cal i nsti tuti ons (as wel l as sani tary faci l i ti es) that had
proved so benefi ci al to the non- Musl i ms.
I n sum, then, i n studyi ng the Ottoman popul ati on i n the
ni neteenth century, one must take i nto account the i mpact
of social and economi c forces that affected the f erti l i ty rates
among vari ous ethni c and rel i gi ous groups i n accordance
wi t h thei r rol es and functi ons wi t hi n the" economi c and
pol i ti cal system. (A ppendi x A . 4 f ol l owi ng thi s chapter has
tables gi vi ng a few bi r th and death stati sti cs for the peri od
1835-1850 whi ch show the di fferences between Musl i ms
and non- Musl i ms i n thi s respect.)
The soci o-cul tural and ethni c composi ti on of the Otto-
man popul ati on was al tered pr of oundl y by i nternal and
i nternati onal mi grati ons. Thi s massi ve popul ati on move-
ment was scarcel y refl ected i n the census data and has not
been studi ed at al l , despi te i ts vi tal i mportance to an under-
standi ng of the soci o-pol i ti cal changes i n the Mi ddl e East.
Thr oughout the ni neteenth centur y the gover nment
made a sustai ned effort to settle vari ous Tur kmen, K ur di sh,
A rabi c, and other nomadi c tri bes thr oughout A natol i a,
Syri a, and I raq wherever cul ti vabl e l and was avai l abl e."9
These tri bes were over whel mi ngl y M usl i m and therefore
i ncreased the total of the M usl i m popul ati on as they be-
came accessible to the census takers. Moreover, between
1854 and 1908 the Ottoman state recei ved approxi matel y 5
mi l l i on M u sl i m i mmi gr ant s f r om Russi a (Caucasus,
Cri mea, K uban, and Central Asi a) and the Bal kans; at the
same ti me some 500,000 to 800,000 Greeks, A r meni ans, and
Arabs emi grated, chi efl y to Russi a and the A meri cas. The
number of the settl ed tri besmen and i mmi gr ants was not
i mmedi atel y refl ected accuratel y i n the Ottoman stati sti cs,
as these peopl e usual l y were regi stered onl y after they were
f i r ml y establ i shed i n thei r assi gned places and had become
economi cal l y capabl e of payi ng taxes and pr ovi di ng men
for mi l i tar y servi ce. A ny student of Ottoman demogr aphy,
therefore, ought to be aware of the cruci al but unrecorded
factor of mi gr ati on, whi ch strongl y affected the quanti tati ve
and qual i tati ve composi ti on of the Ottoman popul ati on,
chi efl y i ts M usl i m component.
I n concl usi on, one can say that the exi sti ng Ottoman cen-
suses and yearbooks are rel i abl e sources of i nf or mati on on
the size and composi ti on of the popul ati on of the Bal kans
and the M i ddl e East i n the ni neteenth and earl y twenti eth
centuri es. They contai n techni cal errors whi ch deri ve f r om
k nown causes and can be corrected by devel opi ng the
necessary stati sti cal cri teri a. These Ottoman stati sti cs can
be made i mmedi atel y useful by adopti ng a si mpl e mar gi n
of error percentage.
29. For the settlement process, see Wolf-Dieter Hütteroth, Länd-
lich Siedlungen im südlichen Inneranatalien in den letzten vierhundert
Jahren (Göttingen: Selbstverlag des Geographischen I nstituts der
Universität Göttingen, 1968).
A p p e n d i x A . l . Y ear bo o k s (Sahiames) P u b l i s h ed i n t he O t t o ma n E mp i r e a n d t he R ep u b l i c of T u r k ey :
C h r o n o l o g i c al an d A d mi n i s t r a t i v e D i s t r i b u t i o n
1263 (1847) Devlet.
1264 (1848) Devlet.
1265 (1849) Devlet
1266 (1850) Devle!
1267 (1851) Devlet.
1268 (1852) Devlet. _
1259 (1853) Devlet.;
1270 (1854) Devlet
1271 (1855) Devlet.'
1272 (1856) Devlet.
1273 (1857) Devlet.
1274 (1858) Devlet
1275 (1859) Devlet
1276 (1860) Devlet.
127? (1861) Devlet.
1278 (1861) Devlet.
1279 (1862) Devlet.
1280 (1863) Devlet.
1281 (1864) Devlet.
1282 (1865) Devlet, Sal. Askeri.
1283 (1866) Devlet, Bosna, Sal. Askeri
1284 (1867) Oevlet, Bosna, Haleb.
1285 (1868) Devlet, Bosna, Haleb, Konya,1 Suriye, Tuna.
1286 (1869) Devlet. Bosna, Diyarbekir, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni, Konya
Suriye, Trablus Garb, Trabzon, Sal. Askeri
1287 (1870): Devlet, Adana, Bosna, Cezair-i Bahri Sefid, Diyarbekir, Edirne. Erzurum,
Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni, Konya, Selanik, Sivas, Trablus Garb, Trabzon,
Tuna, Sal. Askeri.
1288 (1871): Devlet, Ankara, Bosna, Cezalr-i Bahri Sefid, Diyarbekir, Edirne, Erzur-
um, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni, Konya, Mısir, Selanik, Sivas, Suriye. Trablus
Garb, Trabzon, Tuna, Yanya, Rasathane-i Amire. Türkiye ti [sene1288-1290].
1289 (1872): Oevlet, Adana, Ankara, Cezalr-i Bahri Sefid, Dlyabekir, Edirne, Erzurum,
Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni, Konya, Sivas, Suriye, Trablus Garb, Trabzon,
Tuna, Türkiye fi [sene1288-1290].
1290 (1873): Devlet, Adana, Ankara, Bosna, Cezair-I Bahri Sefid, Diyarbekir, Edirne,
Erzurum, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni, Konya, Prizren, Suriye, Trabzon, Tuna,
Türkiye fi [sene1288-1290], Sal. Hadika.
1291 (1874): Devlet, Ankara, Bosna, Cezalr-i Bahri Sefid, Diyarbekir, Edirne, Erzur-
um, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni, Konya, Prizren, Selanik, Suriye, Trabzon, Tuna, Sal.
Askeri.
1292 (1875): Devlet, Bağdad, Bosna, Cezalr-i Bahri Sefid, Diyarbekir, Edirne, Erzur-
um, Girid, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni, Konya, Manastir, Selanik, Sivas, Suriye, Trab-
lus Garb, Trabzon, Tuna, Yanya, Sal. Askeri.
1293 (1876): Devlet, Adana, Ankara, Bosna, Cezair-i Bahri Sefid, Diyarbekir, Edirne.
Erzurum, Girid. Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni, Manastir, Selanik, Sivas, Trablus
Garb, Trabzon, Tuna, Yanya, Sa. Askeri.
1294 (1877): Devlet, Adana, Bosna, Diyarbekir' Edirne, Erzurum, Hüdavendigar, Kas-
tamoni, Konya, Selanik, Trablus Garb, Trabzon, Tuna, Yanya.
1295 (1878): Devlet, Ankara, Bosna, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni, Konya, Trab-
lus Garb, Trabzon.
1296 (1879): Devlet, Adana, Aydin, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni, Konya, Kosova,
Suriye, Trabzon, Sal. Ebüzziya.
1297 (1880): Devlet, Adana, Aydin, Diyarbekir, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni, Suriye,
1297 sene-i hicriyesine mahsus salname-i kameri, Rebi-i Marifet.
1298 (1881): Devlet, Aydin, Kastamoni, Konya, Ma'muret-ül-Aziz, Sivas, Suriye,
Trabzon, Yemen.
1299 (1882): Devlet. Ankara, Aydin, Bağdad, Erzurum, Haleb, Işkodra, Katamoni.
Konya, Selanik, Suriye, Yemen, Sal. Türki, Rebi-i Marifet.
1300 (1883): Devlet, Ankara, Aydin, Bağdad, Diyarbekir, Edirne, Haleb, Konya, Koso-
va, Sivas, Suriye, Rebi-i Marifet.
1301 (1884): Devlet, Aydin, Bağdad, BosnaveHersek, Cezair-i Bahri Sefid, Diyarbe-
kir, Edirne, Hicaz, Hüdavendigar, Konya, Ma'muret-ül-Aziz, Sivas, Suriye, Trablus
Garb, Rebi-i Marifet.
1302 (1885): Devlet, Aydin, Bağdad, BosnaveHersek, Cezair-i Bahri Sefid, Diyarbe-
kir, Edirne, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Konya, Kosova, Ma'muret-ül-Aziz, Sivas, Suriye,
Trablus Garb, Hariciye, Rebi-i Marifet.
1303 (1886): Devlet, Aydin, Bağdad, Cezair-i Bahri Sefid, Edirne, Haleb, Hicaz,
Hüdavendigar, Konya, Selanik, Suriye, Rebi-i Marifet.
1304 (1887): Devlet, Aydin, Bosnave Hersek, Cebel-i Lübnan, Cezair-i Bahri Sefid,
Edirne. Erzurum, Hüdavendigar. Konya. Kosova, Sivas. Suriye. Yemen. Rebı-ı
Marifet.
1305 (1888): Oevlet, Aydin. Cebel-i Lübnan. Edirne, Haleb. Hicaz. Hüdavendigar
Karesi, Konya. Kosova, Ma'muret-ül-Aziz. Suriye, Trablus Garb. Trabzon. Yemen.
Sal. Askeri. Rebi-i Marifet.
1306 (1889): Devlet. Aydin. BosnaveHersek, Cebel-i Lübnan, Edirne, Haleb. Hicaz.
Hüdavendigar. Kastamoni, Konya, Sivas, Suriye, Yanya, Yemen, Hariciye. Nev.
Marifet.
1307 (1890): Devlet, Aydin, Cebel-i Lübnan, Edirne. Haleb. Hüdavendigar. Konya.
Ma'muret-ül-Aziz, Selanik, Yanya, Yemen, Bahriye, Sal. Askeri, Nev. Marifet.
1308 (1891): Oevlet, Adana, Ankara, Aydin, Basra, Bosna, BosnaveHersek, Cebel-ı
Lübnan, Diyarbekir, Edirne. Girid, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Ma'muret-ül-Aziz, Musul,
Sivas, Suriye. Yemen, Bahriye. Sal. Askeri,
1309 (1892): Devlet. Adana, Bağdad, Basra, Bosna ve Hersek, Cebel-ı Lübnan.
Edirne, Girid. Haleb, Hicaz, Konya, Suriye. Trabzon, Bahriye, Sa. Askeri. Nev.
Marifet.
1310 (1892): Devlet, Bağdad. Bitlis, Cezair-I Bahri Sefid, Edirne, Erzurum, Hüdavendi-
gar, Işkodra. Kastamoni, Konya, Ma'muret-ül-Aziz, Manastir, Musul, Selanik,
Suriye, Sal. Askeri. Takvim-i Ebüzziya.
1311 (1893): Devlet, Ankara, Aydin. Bağdad, Basra, Cezair-i Bahri Sefid. Edirne,
Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni, Kosova, Manastir, Selanik, Suriye. Trabzon.
Üsküp, Yemen, Bahri, Sal. Askeri.
1312 (1894): Devlet, Adana, Aydin, Bağdad. Beyrut, Cezair-i Bahri Sefid. Diyarbekir,
Erzurum, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Işkodra. Kastamoni, Konya, Ma'muret-ül-Aziz. Man-
astir, Musul, Selanik, Suriye, Trablus Garb, Yanya, Bahri.
1313 (1895): Devlet, Aydin, Cezair-i Bahri Sefid, Edirne, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Man-
astir, Selanik, Suriye, Trabzon, Yemen, Bahri, Sal. Askeri, Musavver Nev. Servet-ı
Fünun, Masavver Newv. Servet-i Fünun.
1314 (1896): Devlet, Aydin, Bağdad, Edirne, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni,
Konya, Kosova, Manastir, Bahri, 1314 senesine mahsus Nev. Meşahir. Musavver
Nev. Osmani, Musavver Nev. Servet-i Fünun, Nev. Asr.
1315 (1897): Devlet, Aydin, Bağdad, Edirne, Erzurum, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Işkodra,
Selanik, Suriye, Van, Bahri, Musavver Nev. Servet-i Fünun, Nev. Asir, Nev. Nısvan,
Takvim-i Ebüzziya.
1316 (1898): Devlet, Aydin, Bağdad, Bitlis, Cezair-i Bahri Sefid, Diyarbekir, Edirne,
Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Işkodra, Suriye, Trabzon, Bahri, Maarif, Musavver Sal. Fenni,
Musavver Nev. Servet-i Fünun, Nev. Asir, Nev. Askeri, Takvim-i Ebüzziya.
1317 (1899): Devlet, Aydin, Bağdad, Basra, Beyrut, Bitlis, Diyarbekir, Edirne. Erzur-
um, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Kastamoni, Konya, Suriye, Bahri, Maarif, Nev. Afiyet,
Nev. Malumat.
1318 (1900): Devlet, Adana, Ankara, Bağdad, Basra, Bitlis, Cezair-i Bahri Sefid Diyar-
bekir, Edirne, Erzurum, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Kosova, Selanik. Suriye. Trabzon,
Bahri, Hariciye, Maarif, Nev. Afiyet, Nev. Osmani.
1319 (1901): Devlet, Aydin, Bağdad, Beyrut, Cezair-i Bahri Sefid, Diyarbekir, Edirne,
Haleb. Hüdavendigar, Trabzon, Yanya, Bahri, Maarif, Nev. Malumat.
1320 (1902): Devlet, Adana, Ankara, Aydin, Basra, Edirne, Haleb. Hüdavendigar,
Selanik, Trabzon, Bahri, Hariciye.
1321 (1903): Devlet, Aydin, Bağdad, Cezair-i Bahri Sefid, Diyarbekir. Haleb.
Hüdavendigar. Kastamoni, Sivas, Trabzon. Bahri, Maarif.
1322 (1904): Devlet. Beyrut, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Trabzon, Bahri, Nev. Afiyet.
1323 (1905): Devlet, Aydin, Bağdad, Diyarbekir, Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Selanik, Bahri,
Nev. Atai,
1324 (1906): Devlet. Bağdad, Beyrut. Haleb, Hüdavendigar, Konya. Selanik. Sal.
Gayret, Nev. Afiyet. Nev, Iktisad.
1325 (1907): Devlet, Ankara, Bağdad, Hüdavendigar, Ma'muret-ül-Aziz, Musul, Sela-
nik, Sivas, Sal. Gayret.
1326 (1908): Devlet. Aydin, Beyrut, Haleb, Bahri, Sal. Askeri, Nev. Ragib.
1325 (1909): Musavver Nev. Osmani, Nev. Bahri.
1326 (1910): Devlet, Karagöz, Musavver Sal Servet-i Fünun, Musavver Nev. Osmani.
1327 (1911): Devlet, Bağdad, Karagöz, Musavver Sal. Servet-i Fünun, Musavver Nev.
Osmani.
1328 (1912): Devlet, Musul, Karagöz, Musavver Sal. Servet-i Fünun, Rehber-i Seadet
Mektebi . . . . Musavver Eczaci Nevsali, Musavver Nev. Osmani, Musavver ve
Muhtirali Nev Hürriyet.
1329 (1913): Cemıyet-i Tedrisiye-i Islamıye Salnamesi. Osmanlı Hılal-ı Ahmer
Cemiyeti Salnamesi, Karagöz. Musavver Sal Servet-i Fünun.
1328-29(1913-14): Bahri,
1330 (1914): Konya. Boğaziçi Şirket-i Hayriye ! . , Ordu, Rüsumat, Nev Milli.
Nev. Ziraat veTicaret.
12
,330-31 (1914-15): Bahri
»1-32 0915-16)' Bahn.
,332 (1916): "m've.
ıiqi7V Beyrut. Bahri
İ K İ Sİ N İ - D e v l e î ' Bolu. Bahn Nev Baylan.
,35 (1920)' Dikenve İnci Salnamesi
336 (1921)- Salikveren Muhıbban . .
;,37_38(1921-22): Bolu.
338 (1922)' Kizil Acanstan. Milli Nevsal.
„8 1923)' Karesi Idadı-Sultani-Lisesı.
,3Q-(1923)' Mı"' Nevsal. Süs. Nev Edeb,
1339 0924): Bahri. Zümrüd-ı Anka Salnamesi.
1340 (1924): Milli Nevsal.
S o u r c , Research Centre for Islamic History. Art. and Culture. OKomar, Yearbook
.Salname'and News*/ ) (Istanbul. 1982V 112- ^ ^ ^ r M | m
Notes- Devlet is theimperial or sWe yearbook gı vj ^ ^ ^
Beginningin 1866 the«mes that toow ^ ^ J a l s 0 v o l u mes for
pr0v,ncesthai published y e r t * ^ , a l t o p l C 5 o f interest, and
military yearbook.
1340-41 (1924-25): Türk Ticaret
1340 (1925): Resimli Yi!
-,341 (1925)- Milli Nevsal
,34 -42 (1925-26): T C. Devlet. Bahn. Büyük Salname
19,6 Türk Deniz Ticareti. T C İstanbul Şehremaneti.
1 9 Z 6 - 1 9 27: T.C. Devlet, Resimli ' ^ Salnames,
Turk, Yilı, Resimli Ay Almanağı.
1928-1929: Muallim Almanağı
13
A p p e n d i x A . 2. A d mi n i s t r a t i v e D i v i s i o n of t he O t t o ma n State, 1831 ( H , 1247)
I . RUMELİ (RUMIU)
1. Sofya and Manastır
2 Selanik (Saiomca)
3. Uskub
4. Köstendi!
5 Ohri
6. Tırhala
7. Avlonya :
8. Delvine '
9 Vulçıtrin ;
10. Ilbasan
11. İskenderiye
12 Yanya
13. Oukagin
14. Prızren
14. Alacahısar
II. ANATOLIA
1. Kütahya
2. Hüvandendıgar
3. Karahisar-i Sahib
4. Sultanönü
5. Ankara
6. Kengiri (Çankiri)
7. Bolu ;
8. Kastamonu
9. Aydın
10. Saruhan
11. Menteşe
12. Hamid
13. Teke
14. Karesi
15. Viranşehir3
III. KARAMAN
1. Konya
2. Beyşehir
3. Akşehir
4. Kayseriye
5. Niğde
6. Kirşehir
7. Aksaray
IV. BOSNIA
1. Saraybosna(Sarajevo)
2. Hersek
3. Izvomik
4. Kilis
V. SILISTRE
1. Silistre
2. Niğbolu
3. Vidin
4. Çirmen
5. Vize
6. Kirkkilise
VI. CEZAYIR-I BAHR-I SEFID (AEGEAN ISLANOS)
1. Gelibolu
2. Kocaili
• 3. Suğla
4. Rodos (Rhodes) 1"
5. Kibris (Cyprus) J
VII MARAŞ
1. Maraş
2. Malatya
3. Samsat
4. Gerger
VIII. DIYARBEKIR
• 1. Amid
2. Hani
3 Mazgird
4. Mefarkin (Meyafarikın)
5 Harberut
6. Sıncar
7. Esferid
8. Siverek
9. Ergani
10. Anade
11. Hisni Keyf (Hasankeyf)
12. Çemişgezek
13 Nusaybin
14. Çapakçur
15. Sağman
16. Çermik
17. Kulb
18. Ilkıs
19. Penbek
20. Pertekrek
Palu (H)c
Giyen (H)
Cizre (H)
Eğil (H?)"
Hazzo (H)
Tercil (H)
Saru (Savur) (H)
IX. SİVAS (RUM)
1. Sivas
2. Amasya
3. Bozok
4. Çorum
5. Canik
6. Divriği (Divriki)
7. Arapgir (Arapkir)
X. ADANA
1. Adana
2. Tarsus
3. Alanya (Alaiye)
4. İç II (içel)
5. Sis
6. Uzeyir~je
7. BeylanJ
XI. ERZURUM
1. Erzurum
2. Erzincan
3. Hinis
4. Kelkit
5. Malazgirt
6. Tortum
7. Karahisar-i Şarki
8. İspir
9. Kuruçay
10. Pasin
11. Mamervan
12. Kozancan (Kazavcan)
13. Kiği
14. Mecenkerd
XII. ŞAM (ŞAM-I ŞERİF, DAMASCUS)
1. Şam-i Şerif
2. Gazza
3. Kudüs-ü Şerif (Jerusalem)
4. Nablus'
5. Lecun
6. Adan (Adun)
7. Tedmur
XIII. TRABLUSŞAM (TRİPOLİ İN SYRIA)
1. Trablusşam
2. Hama
3. Humus
4. Cebeliye
5 Selmıye
14
f
.' A p p en d i x A . 2. T h e A d mi n i s t r a t i o n D i v i s i o n of t he O t t o man State ( co n t i n u ed )
I XIV SAYDA
: 1 Sayda
2. Akka
F 3 Beyrut
4. Safed
5. Sur
1 XV. HALEP (ALEPPO)
' < 1. Halep
: 2 Maarret-el Misnn
3 Matic
4. Balis
: 5. Ayintap"
XVI. RAKKA
Ruha(Urfa)
Deyrrehbe
Cabur (Habur)
Birecik
Hamase
Ben-i Rebia
XVII. KARS'
1. Kars
2. Kağizman
3 Keçvan
4. Şuregil
5. Zaruşad
XVIII. ÇILDIR
Levane(Vartin)
Şavşad .
Mahcil
Cercer (Çirçir)
2 Adılcevaz
'i Ş^rve(Şirvan)
- Esbaberd
5 Köyin
6 Zeriki
7 Kerdkar (Kürdkar)
6 Ağakis
9 Erıcis
10. Mukus
11. Muş
Bargiri (H)
Hakkari (H)
Bitlis(H)
Hoşap (Mahmudiye) (H)
XX! HABEŞ (ABYSSINIA)
XXI!
Mekke-i Mükerreme
Medine-i Münevvere
Cidde-i Mamure
Yenbuğ
Tail
Nil (?)
5. Cebecun (Cebecik)
XIX. TRABZON (TREBİZOND)
1. Trabzon
2. Künye
KANDIYE (CRETE)
1. Kandiye
2 Hanya
3. Resmu
XXIII. ŞEHR-I ZOR
XXIV. MUSUL
XXV BAĞDAT(BAGHDAD)
XXVI BASRA
XXVII MISIR (EGYPT)
XXVIII. TRABLUSGARB(TRİPOLİ
XXIX. TUNUS (TUNISIA)
I NORTH AFRICA)
Source: FazilaAkba!. "1831 Tarihinde Osmanli İmparatorluğunda İdari Taksimatve
Nüfus." ße/ / efen 15. no. 60 (1961): 617-28. (Belleten isthepublication of theTurkish
Historical Society [Türk Tarih Kurumu}.)
Notes: Akbai's list, presented here in revised and condensed form, was based on
registers pertaining to various administrative units (e.g., theDetter-i Mutassal Liva-i
Saruhan) found in the Archives of Land Surveys and Deeds and in other archival
sources. It is probably one of the most accurate and complete administrativelist
availablefor theperiod.
The main divisions l-XXIX are eya/ eis: the subdivisions are //Vas (the same as
sancaks). and thefirst livaiisted in each casewas the"paşasancaği,"that is, theplace
of residence of the governor, or the capital.
"This division is called asancak in afew sources only.
"Rhodes and Cyprus are indicated as being sancaks only in the register for the
Aegean Islands tor theyears 1818-1831 (H. 1234-1247).
C(H) stands for Hükümet, that is. the seat of government of theadministrative
center.
"Shown as aliva in some registers and as ahükümet in other sources. 1
'Thesetwo places are shown in some old registers as being part of Halep Eyalet.
'The old registers donot show Nablusas a liva.
eShown as anahiye in one source.
"Several sourcesindicated Ayintap (Gaziantep) as being a sanca/ cin MaraşEyalet. In
1818 Ayintap was attached to Halep Eyalet as a kaza.
'Registers donot indicatewhether thetownsin thiseyalet were//vas, although one
source so labelsthem.
15
A p p e n d i x A . 3. A d mi n i s t r a t i v e D i v i s i o n of t he O t t o ma n State, 1850- 1853 ( H . 1266- 1270)
Eyalet
EUROPE
1. Edirne (Acnanople)
2 Sılıstre
3. Boğdan (Moldavia)
4. Eflak (VVaiiachıa)
5 Vidin
6 Niş(Nıssa) i
7. Usküp I
8. Belgrad (the fortress)
9 Sirp (Serbia)
10 Bosna (Bosnia)
11. Rumıii
12. Yanya IJanina)
13. Selanik (Salonica)
14. Cezayir-i Bahr-i (Sefid (Aegean Islands)
15. Gint (Crete)
ASIA
16 Kastamonu
17. Hüdavendigar
18. Aydın
19. Karaman
Capital
Adrianopie
Rusçuk (Russe)
lassi
Bucarest
Vidın
Niş
Uskup
Belgrao
Bosna-Seraı
Manastır
Janina
Salonica
Lamaca
Canea
Kastamonu
8ursa
İzmir
Konya
Eyalet
20. Adana
21 Bozüyük
22. Sivas
23. Trabzon (Trebizond)
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
24. Erzurum
25. Kurdistan
26. Harput (Kharput)
27. Halep (Aleppo)
28. Saida
29. Şam
30. Musul
31. Bağdat (Baghdad)
32. Habeş (Abyssinia)
33. Harem-i Nebevi (Medina)
AFRICA
34. Misir (Egypt)
35. Trablusgarp (Tripoli)
36. Tunus
Capital
Adana
Bozöyuk
Sivas
Trabzon
Erzurum
Van
Harput
Alep
Beyrut
Damascus
Musul
Bağdat
Adda
Medine
Cairo
Tripoli
Tunus
Source: Adapted from [JeanHenri] AJbçiolonyme] Ubicini, La Turquieactuelle(Paris,
1855), pp. xvi-xvii.
A p p e n d i x A . 4. So me B i r t h an d D eat h St at i st i cs, 1835- 1853 ( H . 1251- 1268)
MuslimBirth and Death Ratesin Akçay Kaza
Period of Time
Hicri
Year Miladi Year (A.D.;
Total
Population
Number
of
Births
Birth
Rate
(per 1,000)
Number
of
Deaths
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
4/ 29/ 1835—4/ 17/ 1836
4/ 18/ 1836—4/ 6/ 1837
4/ 7/ 1837—3/ 26/1838
3/ 27/ 1838—3/ 16*1839
3/ 17/ 1839—3/ 4/ 1840
3/ 5/ 1840—2/ 22/ 1841
2/ 23/ 1841—2/ 11/ 1842
2/ 12/ 1842—2311843
2/ 1/ 1843—1/ 21,1844
1/ 22/ 1844—1.9,1845
1,939
1,971
2,023
1,957
1,980
1,978
1,968
1,939
1.943
1,965
67
108
88
105
73
56
61
49
87
82
35.5
56.4
44.7
55.2
37.9
29.1
31.9
26.0
46.0
42.9
35
56
154
77
75
66
90
53
65
66
Muslim Birth and Death RatesinTerme Kaza, Canik (Samsun)
Period of Time
Hicri
Year Miladi Year (A.D.)
Total
Population
Number
of
Births
Birth
Rate
(per 1,000)
Number
of
Deaths
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
4/ 29/ 1835—4.171836
4/ 18/ 1836—4,6/ 1837
4/ 7/ 1837—3/ 26/ 1838
3/ 27/ 1838—3/ 16/ 1839
3/ 17/ 1839—3/ 4/ 1840
3.5,1840—2.22/ 1841
2/ 23/ 1841—2/ 11.1842
2/ 12/ 1842—1/ 31/ 1843
21/ 1843—1/ 21-1844
1 22/ 1844—1.9,1845
1.496
1,535
1,563
1,485
1,504
1,499
1,478
1,460
1,459
1.482
69
64
43
52
65
67
67
47.4
65.7
57.9
58.2
43.8
29.5
36.2
45.8
47.2
46.5
30
70
166
65
69
64
70
' 66 .
44
38
Death
Rate
(per 1,000)
18.6•
29.2
78.3
40.5
38.9
34.3
47.0
28.1
34.4
34.5
Death
Rate
(per 1,000)
20.6
46.9
109.2
45.0
47.2
43.9
48 7
46.5
31.0
26.4
Rate of
Increase;
(Decrease)
(per 1,000)
16 9
272
(33 6)
14.7
(1.0)
(5.2)
(15 1)
(2.1)
11.6
8.4
Rate of
Increase
(Decrease)
(per 1.000)
26.8
18 8
(51.3)
13.2
(3.4)
(14.4)
(125)
(0 7)
16 2
20.1
16
A p p en d i x A . 4. So me B i r t h an d D eat h St at i st i cs ( con t i n u ed )
3 Muslim Birth and Death RatesinVarious Localities
h__c_ty
Guzelhisar
Guzelhisar
Alaşehir
Balabanyolu
Balabanyolu
Erbaz
Karacasu (without
Yenışehır-İAydin)
Nazilli
Nazilli
İnegöl
İnegöl
Inav (Denizli)
Yearly Yearly Rate of
Period of Time
Number Birth Number Death Increase
Period of Time
Tota! of Rate of Rate (Decrease)
Hicri Date Miladi Date(A.D.) Population Births (per 1,000) Deaths (,per 1.000) (per 1,000)
1 Eylül 1263—31KanunEvvel 1262 9 131846—1121847 11.185 90 24.1 113 30.3 . (6.2)
1 Eylül 1264—31Kanun Evvel 1264 913/ 1848—1121849 10,774 66 18.4 156 43.4 (25.0)
1 Eylül 1268—31Kanun Evvel 1268 9131852—1/ 121853 4,569 45 29.5 37 24 3 5.2
1 Recep 1261—29Zilhicce1261 7/ 61845—12'29/ 1845 1,565 11 14.5 5 6.6 7.9
1 Eylül 1262—31KanunEvvel 1262 9/ 13/ 1846—1/ 121847 1,529 18 35.3 3 5.9 29.4
1 Eylül 1262—30Nisan 1263 9/ 13/ 1846—512/ 1847 3,138 73 34.9 54 25.8 9.1
1 Eylül 1265—31KanunEvvel 1265 9/ 13/ 1849—1121850 6,014 35 17.5 22 11.0 6.5
1 Mayis 1267—31Ağustos1262 513.1846—9121846 4.795 70 43.8 70 43.8 0.0
1 Kanun Sani 1262—30Nisan 1263 1/ 13-1847—512/ 1847 5,052 67 39.8 36 21.4 18.4
1 Mayis 1267—31Ağustos1267 5/ 13/ 1851—912/ 1851 2,358 11 14.0 13 16.5 (25)
1 Kanun Sani 1267—30Nisan 1268 1/ 13.1852—5121852 2,338 26 33.4 36 46.2 (12.8)
1 Mart 1266—31Teşrin Sanı 1266 3/ 13/ 1850—1112/ 1850 2,096 32 23.0 26 18.6 4.4
4. Non-Muslim Birth and Death RatesinVarious Localities
Period of Time
Locality Hicri Date Miladı Date(A.D.)
Total
Population
Number
of
Births
Birth
Rate
(per 1,000)
Number
of
Deaths
Rate of
Death Increase'
Rate (Decrease)
(per 1,000) (per 1,000)
Bırgı
Demirhisar
Demirhisar
1 Muharrem1247—29Zilhicce1247
1 Receb1254—30Zilhicce1254
1 Receb1258—29Cemayizelahir 1260
612/ 1831—5-30/ 1832
920-1838—3-16/ 1839
8/ 8/ 1842—7-16/ 1844
1.380 16 11.9 13 9.7 2.2
9,414 135 ' 29.5 126 27.5 . 2.0
9,033 325 18.5 — — —
5. Muslim Male Population Birth and Death Ratesin SomeProvinces
Locality
Period of Time
Hicri Date Miladi Date(A.D.)
Total
Population
Yearly
Yearly Yearly Population
Number Birth Number Death Increase-
of Rate of Rate (Decrease)
Births (per 1,000) Deaths (per 1.000) (per 1,000)
Denizli 1 Mart 1263—30Haziran 1263 3/ 13,1847—7/ 12/ 1847 7,349 41 16.7 15 6.1 10.6
Ezıne-i Lazkiye
(Denizli)* 1 Recep 1261—29Zilhicce1261 7/ 6-1845—12/ 29.-1845 6,182 86 28.6 82 27.3 1.3
Bırgı. Ödemiş,
and Kilas 1 Muharrem1247—29Zilhicce1247 6/ 121831—5,30-1832 15,012 231 15.8 264 18.1 (2.3)
Bırgı 1 Kanun Sani 1264—30Nisan 1265 1/ 13/ 1846—512/ 1849 7,797 24 9.2 59 22.7 (13.5)
Demirhisar (Paşa) 1 Recap 1258—29Cemayizelahir 1260 8/ 8-1842—7/ 161844 4,593 135 15.1 — — / —
Source:BA (KK)/ 6502, 6505, 6417, 629915, 6469, and 6536. and BA (C)/ (D)8321;
thebirth death figures in thesefour tableswerecompiled fromdatascattered through-
out thesedocuments.
Notes:Thelocalities listed in tables3and 4wereprincipally in Aydin Province, those
with (Denizli) following the name being neighborhoods attached tothe capital town of
thekaza Demirhisar (Paşa) was, however, akaza of Serez Sancak in Selanik.
In calculating percentages given in thesetables, theshorter Muslim calendar was
used.
For anevaluation of thesestatistics, seeAnsley J. Coal and Paul Demeny, Aeg/ ona/
Model LiteTables andStablePopulations (Princeton: Princeton University Press.
1966).
aThe totals for this locality include non-Muslims.
17
P O P U L A T I O N D I S T R I B U T I O N A N D T H E E V O L U T I O N ?
O F O T T O M A N C E N S U S E S , 1800- 1914
T
J _ Hl
. H E PURPOSE of thi s chapter is to provi de background
i nf or mati on about vari ous popul ati on stati sti cs appeari ng
i n the appendi ces by means of a peri odi zati on and a general
anal ysi s of exi sti ng censuses and some of the chi ef popul a-
ti on esti mates. The reader shoul d keep f i r ml y i n mi nd
thr oughout thi s di scussi on that i n the Ottoman context the
term "census," contrary to the moder n usage, does not
al ways i mpl y an actual head count (al though i t was far f r om
bei ng just a r ough esti mate). I t was, rather, the recordi ng of
the popul ati on i n speci al regi sters (sicils) on the basis of the
best i nf or mati on avai l abl e. Onl y i n the l ate ni neteenth cen-
tur y di d the Ottoman census seek to encompass an actual
count of i ndi vi dual ci ti zens.
Popul ati on Surveys, 1800-1878
The fi rst peri od stretches r oughl y f r om the end of the
ei ghteenth century to the census of 1844. Dur i ng thi s earl y
ti me the chi ef sources of i nf or mati on on Ottoman popul a-
ti on avai l abl e i n the West were the resul ts of the census of
1831 and the esti mates of Europeans, some of whom, such
as Wi l l i am Eton, Davi d U r quhar t, Geor g Hassel , and
others, apparentl y had access to some offi ci al i nf or mati on.1
A s was poi nted out i n Chapter I, the maj or i ty of the Euro-
pean esti mates were based on unf ounded assumpti ons,
erroneous i nf or mati on, and pl ai n, bi ased i magi nati on, and
consequentl y they must be used wi t h extreme care. Most of
the esti mates and fi gures are avai l abl e and need not be
ci ted at any l ength here.2
The "f i r st" moder n Ottoman census was conducted be-
gi nni ng i n 1828/ 29i n both Europe and A natol i a, al though i t
1. See Eton's A Survey of the Turkish Empire, 2d ed. (London,
1799); Urquhart's Turkey and Its Resources, Its Municipal Organization
anil Free Trade (London, 1833); and Hassel's Statischer Umriss der
Sämtlichen europäischen (Braunschwei g, 1805), Geographisch-
statistisches Handwörterbuch (Weimar, 1817), and Lehrbuch der Statis-
tik der europäischen Staaten (Weimar, 1822).
2. See Nikola V. Mi khov, Naseleniento na Turtsii i Bulgarii prez
XVlll-XlX v., 5 vols. (Sofia, 1915-1968). ' .
18
di d not count the popul ati on i n al l the kazas of the empi r e!
The hi stori an L utf i has noted that after the abol i ti on of the?
J anizaries i n 1826 "many of the ol d customs and procedures^
changed, and the popul ati on survey, whi ch is the basis of*
the admi ni strati on, was carri ed on i n the capi tal , but the!"
advent of the war [ wi t h Russi a i n 1828-1829] prevented te
gener al i zati on."3 Both Sul tan M ahmud I I (1808-1839) and;
Sul tan A bdul hami d I I (1876-1909), the two outstandi ng rul -i
ers of the ni neteenth century who attempted to ref orm the*
empi re's i nsti tuti ons by adher i ng to the ol d Ottoman tradi-j
ti ons of gover nment and admi ni str ati on, were deepl v in>i
vol ved i n practi cal l y al l matters concerni ng the popul ati on'
surveys. They per sonal l y or der ed the establ i shment of
popul ati on regi sters and supervi sed the conduct of cen-'
suses. They l ooked upon the gatheri ng of popul ati on data,
and al l rel ated matters as major reforms l i kel y to restore*
sound practi ces i n gover nment, such as those obtai ni ng in
the days of past gl ory. :.
The census of 1828/ 29-1831 is commonl y k nown as the
"f i r st" census because that is what i t was cal l ed i n the title
of the book by Professor Enver Zi ya Karal i n whi ch the'
summar y of i ts resul ts was fi rst publ i shed; Professor Karal
transcri bed i nto the L ati n al phabet the contents of the regis*
ter (defter) contai ni ng a consol i dated and corrected sum-
mary of the resul ts of that census.4 The essence of hunr
dreds of i ndi vi dual regi sters pr oduced by the census of-
fi ci al s i n 1831 is contai ned i n thi s summar y regi ster, known;
as "1247 senesi nde memal i k- i mahruse-i şahanede mevcut
nüfus def ter i " [Regi ster of the popul ati on present i n tht
3. Tarih-i Liitfi, vol . 3, p. 142.
4. Osmanli imparatorluğunda Ilk Nüfus Sayimi 1831, General
Directorate of Statistics Publication no. 195, Research Ser. no. 8i;
(Ankara, 1943). The author provi ded a succinct but informative
i ntroducti on (translated i n Charles Issawi, The Economic History<j <
Turkey, 1800-1914 [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), pp.
19-22) and i ncl uded, as wel l as the material from the register itself,'
the consolidated list of the census tables of 1831 compiled by the".
General Directorate of Statistics through the efforts of Celal Aybar,
the general director, who was keenlv interested in Ottoman statii
tics.
: p O P U L A T ] O N DI ST RI BU T I ON A N D T H E E V OL U T I ON OF O T T O M A N
]->47 i n the (di vi nel v) protected r eal m].n Careful scru-
% - U . of the ori gi nal regi ster of 1831 and, especi al l y, of the
t n \ i u s offi ci al documents per tai ni ng to thi s census thr ows
X w l i Çn i upon the Ottoman popul ati on regi sters and
popul ati on probl ems at the begi nni ng of the century.
A l though the census of 1831 has been descri bed as bei ng
the first one under taken i n the ni neteenth century, after a
hi atus of al most two centuri es, the accuracy of thi s desi gna-
ti on may be doubted: fi rst, because the col l ecti on of taxes
could not have been carri ed out wi thout popul ati on data of
some sort; and second, because correspondence exchanged
duri ng the preparati ons for the census i mpl i es otherwi se.
The kaymakam paşa—that i s, the offi ci al at the Porte substi -
tuti ng for the grand vi zi er and i n charge of correspond-
ence—suggested to the sul tan that one year mi ght not be
suffi ci ent to compl ete the census, that the popul ati on ought
to be cl assi fi ed accordi ng to age, and that the secrecy of the
census ought to be done away w i t h . 6 On the suggesti on of
Hüsametti n (the j udge of I zmi t assi gned to conduct the
census i n Kütahya), the kaymakam proposed that al l mal es
bel ow the age of ei ght be cl assi fi ed as asgar (smal l est), those
between ei ght and fi fteen as sagir (smal l ), those between
fi fteen and f orty as şabbi-anrcd (beardl ess), those between
fortv and si xty as sinni vusta (mi ddl e aged), and those above
sixty as pir (sage, ol d men). He noted that "nobody wi l l
understand anythi ng of t hi s. ' " Thi s may have been an al l u-
sion to the new termi nol ogy di f f er i ng f r om that used by the
popul ati on speaki ng the vernacul ar Tur ki sh or to the cen-
sus i tsel f as a new under taki ng. I n response to the sugges-
ti on, Sul tan M ahmud I I hi msel f wr ote angri l y that the cen-
sus of Rumi l i (Rumel i a—European si de) and A ndol u (A na-
tolia) was a matter deservi ng speci al attenti on and care
("di kkat ve i ti na") and that i t shoul d not be conducted by
devi ati ng f r om the ol d method ("bunu usul - u sabi kasi ndan
çikarmaga gel mez"). He expressl y ordered that each offi ci al
be i nstructed to conduct the census based on the ol d
method ("usul - u sabi ka").8
The ol d method referred to by the sul tan was probabl y a
cl assi fi cati on that di d not di vi de the popul ati on i nto age
groups but merel y menti oned thei r sui tabi l i ty for mi l i tar y
service or tax payment. On the other hand, i t may be that
5. I UKTV D-8/ 8867. Karal refers to this as being in the I stanbul
"Üniversitesi Kütüphanesi, istatistik Defteri, B 29" (Osmanli impa-
ratorluğunda, p. 12, n. 6). Some other documents cited by Karal also
appear now under different catalogue numbers in the Başbakanlık
Arşivi; 1 have been unable to locate at all some popul ati on statistics
for Kastamonu, probably because the document was recatalogued
under a different number i n a different section. Presumably the
many discrepancies between Karal's references and the current
catalogue numbers of these documents are the result of a reclas-
sification of the sources wi thout reference to their old numbers. I
give throughout this volume the current registration numbers of
the sources.
6. BA (MH)(HH)'19217, "About the instructions to be issued for
the officials who wi l l conduct the census in Anatolia and Rumi l i ,"
possible date 1246 (1830).
7. i bi d.
8. I bi d.
CENSUSES 19
what the sul tan was rel uctant to abandon was the tr adi ti on-
al Ottoman di vi si on of the çiziye taxpayers i nto three cate¬
gori es accordi ng to thei r weal th: ala (good), evsat (average),
and cdna (l ow). The three categori es had been devi sed i n
order to achi eve an equi tabl e di str i buti on of the tax bur den.
I n the past the gover nment had repeatedl y refused to
accept one uni f or m çiziye tax, despi te the fact that thi s
woul d have br ought more revenue to the treasury. Two
seventeenth- centur y documents gi ve evi dence of the
opposi ti on to a si ngl e rate for the head tax: when at one
poi nt the number of çiziye taxpayers i n a l ocal i ty decreased
f r om 2,956 to 2,450 fami l i es, the government refused to
spread the loss over the r emai ni ng fami l i es by l evyi ng an
equal (ales-scviye) amount on each, regardl ess of di fferences
i n weal th, but retai ned i nstead the three-l ayer system as
bei ng more equi tabl e; and i n Kayseri the government re-
fused to combi ne al l three categori es i nto a si ngl e one desi g-
nated ala (hi ghest), or der i ng that the taxpayers be cl assi fi ed
i nto three categori es as bef ore.9 I t appears also that the
cl assi fi cati on of a Chri sti an i n one of the three tax categori es
was based on hi s own decl arati on of weal th before the l ocal
judge (kadi) and the chi ef notabl e (ayan), al though at ti mes
the gover nment asked the taxpayer to provi de a wi tness or
guarantor (kefil) to support hi s decl arati on. I n any event,
the fact that i n 18'30 everybody, i ncl udi ng the sul tan, knew
of thi s "ol d met hod" i ndi cated that, whatever i t was, i t had
been repeatedl y used i n a not too di stant past, apparentl y
i n census taki ng.
The popul at i on offi ce and the popul ati on regi sters,
whi ch were the precursors of the si mi l ar admi ni strati ve de-
vices i n the Bal kans and the M i ddl e East, were created i n
the peri od f r om 1829 to 1831. A memor andum addressed
by the Porte to the sul tan i ndi cates that regi sters contai ni ng
the resul ts of the census had begun to arri ve i n the capi tal
and that the mai ntenance and admi ni str ati on of these regi s-
ters was a di f f i cul t and ti me- consumi ng task, r equi r i ng the
empl oyment of a f ul l - ti me offi ci al assi sted by a number of
secretaries. The Porte suggested, and the sul tan agreed,
that Sait Efendi , a member of the correspondence offi ces of
the Porte, be pl aced i n charge of popul ati on affai rs, assi sted
by fi ve to ten secretari es.10 (Thi s was a pr omoti on for Sait,
who was pai d an annual sal ary of 7,500 kuruş.) The newl y
f ormed popul ati on offi ce was cal l ed the Regi strar's Offi ce,
or Offi ce for Supervi si on of Regi sters (Defatir Nezareti).
The sul tan subsequentl y decl i ned to appoi nt popul ati on
offi ci al s for al l the kazas, as had al ready been done for the
kazas of Mahmutpaşa and H ayr abol u. " He f ound the i dea
general l y acceptabl e but l eft the maki ng of the appoi nt-
ments to a l ater date when popul ati on regi sters for the
enti re real m woul d be compl eted, that i s, unti l approx-
i matel y one year l ater. The sul tan also expressed hi s objec-
9. These documents for the seventeenth century may be found
in BA (KK)3508, dated 1101 (1698) and BA (M) 'Yenı ser. 769, dated
1092 (1681); both were supplied to me through the courtesy of
Professor Hal i l İnalcık.
10. BA (MH)<(HH)'19210, possible date 1246 (1830).
11. I bi d., 19263, possible date 1246 (1830).
20
ti on to the ti tl e Chi ef of Registers (Dcfatir Naziri) gi ven to
Sait Efendi , and he asked that the offi ce be'Ceride Nezareti
and that al l popul ati on regi sters be assembl ed ther e.1 2 (Dc-
fatir and ceride both mean "regi sters," but ceride had at the
ti me a more moder n connotati on; the census offi ce was the
Ceride-i Kaleni.)
The popul ati on regi strati on svstem establ i shed i n 1829
functi oned fai rl v regul arl y unti l about the begi nni ng of the
Cr i mean War i n 1853 (at w hi ch ti me the dr i v e f or
Europeani zati on l ed to the negl ect of Ottoman i nsti tuti ons
i n favor of European model s). The popul ati on offi ci al s i n
the kazas were requi red to regi ster al l bi rths, deaths, and
mi grati ons and to report several ti mes a year to the central
offi ce i n I stanbul . The kaza was the mai n uni t of popul ati on
regi strati on (a system si mi l ar to that adopted i n 1881/ 82, to
be di scussed l ater). The system produced a l arge number —
possi bl y about 21,000—popul ati on regi sters, thus gi vi ng a
rel ati vel y good i ndi cati on of the size and composi ti on of the
Ottoman popul ati on i n the earl y ni neteenth centur y. 1 3
The census of 1831 counted onl y mal es. I ts purpose,
accordi ng to the offi ci al expl anati on, was to correct the tax
i nequi ti es whi ch had resul ted f r om the change i n property
val ues, f r om transfers of l and and use of ol d l and deeds,
and f r om the conti nuati on of tax exempti ons gi ven i n the
past to derbends for the mai ntenance of roads and bri dges
now no l onger i n exi stence.1 4 The gover nment also wanted
to determi ne the number of Musl i ms el i gi bl e for mi l i tary
servi ce and to reassess the çiziye. Thi s head tax, l evi ed on
non- Musl i ms, usual l y those between the ages of fi fteen and
si xty, for mi l i tary protecti on, l ater came to be k nown as the
iane-i askeriyye or bedelat-i askeriyye, that i s, the "donati on"
or "cost" i n l i eu of mi l i tar y servi ce. I t is k nown that Sul tan
M ahmud I I pl anned to use the revenue f r om the çiziye to
fi nance the moder n ar my whi ch, after the abol i ti on of the
J anizaries i n 1826, became the mai nstay of the Ottoman
mi l i tary.
The census was "secret." Census offi ci al s were recrui ted
f r om among judges and schol ars, that i s, f r om the presti -
gi ous rel i gi ous establ i shment, i n order to al l ay the suspi -
ci ons of the M usl i m publ i c al ready ti red of l engthy peri ods
of mi l i tar y servi ce (between 1774 and 1829 many men,
mostl y M usl i m Turks, had to serve twenty or more years i n
the army) and to i nspi re confi dence i n the respondents, so
that they woul d gi ve correct i nf or mati on. The i mportance
attached to the census of 1831 is attested by the fact that
approxi matel y ei ghty-f i ve hi gh offi ci al s, assi sted by a num-
ber of secretaries, were sent out i nto the fi el d (A ppendi x
12. I bi d.
13. Of the i ndi vi dual popul ati on registers of 1831 onl y a few are
presently available; see BA (KK)/ 6299, 6417, 6502, and 6505, and
BA (C)»(D)8-321. It has been recently ascertained that there are
some 21,000 popul ati on defters, wi th a two-vol ume index, in the
Başbakanlik Arşivi—all as yet uncatalogued. A register for Ankara
that was located and subjected to a careful analysis shows the
usefulness of such data (see n. 24), and it is to be hoped that more
of this material wi l l become available soon.
14. See Karal, Osmanll imparatorluğunda, pp. 189-90.
OT T OM A N - P OP U L A T I ON , lS30—19i4j
B.l f ol l owi ng thi s chapter gi ves a parti al l i st of the offi ci ajt
i nvol ved i n the census effort).
Each census offi ci al was assi gned a number of kazasf
Onl y very general gui del i nes were i ssued, and the censu*
takers used vari ous methods i n thei r cl assi fi cati on of the!
popul ati on. The census regi ster at our di sposal shows thai]
the offi ci al s remai ned f ai thf ul to the ol d, classical Ottoman:
procedure, cl assi fyi ng the popul ati on accordi ng to the reli-j
gi on as Musl i ms, Chri sti ans (Or thodox), A rmeni ans, Jews,:
and gypsi es. They al so i ntr oduced i nnovati ons di ctated bvj-
the speci fi c purposes of the census and stemmi ng as wel|
f r om a certai n awareness of l i ngui sti c di fferences. Musl i ms;
were cl assi fi ed i n general as matluba muvafık and matlubi.
gayrimuvafik ("sui tabl e to the pur pose" and "unsui tabl e tof
the pur pose," i .e., to mi l i tar y servi ce). Because of the lacltj
of uni f or m procedures, some offi ci al s cl assi fi ed some of th£
Musl i ms as wel l as the Chri sti ans accordi ng to age (1-12 o£
1-14; 12-40 or 14-40; 40 and above); others si mpl y di vi dedt
them i nto "y oung" and " ol d " ; and sti l l others used clas-i
si fi cati ons such as tuvana, sibyan, and amelmande ("strong/ I
"chi l dr en, " "r eti r ed, i ncapabl e of w or k " ) . l D I t is i nteresti ng!
to note that i n some areas such as Hi rsova and Kostenje in'
Dobruca (Dobruj a) the M usl i ms wer e referred to occa-r
si onal l y by thei r ethni c names (e.g., Kabai l -i Tataran), while!
the gypsi es (kipti) were al ways cl assi fi ed separatel y, wi th a"
ci tati on also of thei r rel i gi on.
The Chri sti ans, as poi nted out above, were di vi ded into!
categori es accordi ng to thei r weal th: good (ala), medi um of
average (evsat), l ow (edna); and, occasi onal l y, "i ncapabl e of:
w or k " (amelmande—destitute, ol d, or handi capped and'
hence exempt f r om tax). Chi l dr en were not counted. The
three mai n çiziye categori es had been mai ntai ned almosl
f r om the i ncepti on of the Ottoman state. I n 1831 the tax
rates were 48, 24, and 12 kuruş, respecti vel y, for the three
categori es of weal th, but soon af terwards they were raised
by 20 percent to pr ovi de addi ti onal revenue for the sultan's,
moder n ar my. H ami d Hadzi begi c i ndi cates that the ratesr
began to cl i mb shortl y after the tur n of the century and that
the increases became progressi vel y greater thr oughout the
fi rst thi r d of the ni neteenth century (see Tabl e 2.1).1 6
There is no doubt that at thi s date the head tax was
general l y pai d i ndi vi dual l y (neferen), rather than as one'
l ump sum l evi ed upon a communi ty (maktu), a system thai
had been wi del y used before and was al so used afterwards;
but there were a few places i n A natol i a that sti l l pai d a
15. For example, the Musl i ms of Petriç were registered in three
categories: ihtiyaran (ol d), of whom there were 1,088; the 12 to 48
age group, whi ch numbered 1,255; and sibyan (children under 12),
numberi ng 1,550.
16. "Dzi zja i l i Harac," Prilozi 5 (Sarajevo: Oriental Institute,
1954-1955): 102. It is interesting that as early as the sixteenth cerr.
fury the wel l -known şeyhülislam I bn Suud, who played an impor-
tant role in bri ngi ng Ottoman legislation i nto conformity wi th Is-;
lamic law, declared that the cızıye shoul d be 48 kuruş for the rich, 24
for the middle class, .and 12 for the poor; see Budin Kanunname»
(I stanbul, 1973), p. 84. A detailed study of the çiziye l ew is in
Cevdet Küçük, "Tanzi mat 'i n I lk Yi l l ari nda Erzurum 'un Çiziye
Geliri ve Reaya Nüfusu," Tarih Dergisi 31 (1977): 199-234.
POPUL A TI ON DI ST RI BU T I ON A N D T H E E V OL U T I ON OF O T T O M A N
. , 9 1 Head Tax Rate I ncrease, 1804-1834
ible i- •
CENSUSES
21
Source:
•Dzizjaili Harac." Prilozi 5(Sarajevo: Orienta! Institute, 1954-1955): 102.
nitu criye, and thi s was dul y noted by the offi ci al s (The
" i was col l ected on a per-househol d basi s unti l l ate m
^seventeenth century despi te the shariat's prescri pti on
hat thi s tax be an i ndi vi dual l evy. I n 1691, however, pr ob-
a b y because of the need for more revenue for the prosecu-
f on of the war wi t h the Habsburgs, the col l ecti on of the
diye reverted to the ori gi nal I sl ami c pri nci pl e and was
levied i ndi vi dual l y. )1 '
I n S ome cases the Chri sti an groups were menti oned by
t h d r ethni c names. Thus the Bul gari ans (ta,fe-i Bulgarian
specifically menti oned i n the census of Fi l i be (present-day
Pl ovdi v), as are the A r meni ans; speci al reference >s made to
the PauUcians (Pavl i ki an). The general name for Or thodox
Chri sti ans was reaya-z ter m used unti l the ni neteenth cen-
tury to desi gnate al l the l and cul ti vators regardl ess of thei r
S o u s affi l i ati ons. J ews were l i sted separatel y, as had
been the practi ce thr oughout the previ ous centuri es.
A ccordi ng to the (uncorrected) census resul ts the tota
mal e p op u l at i on of the Ot t oman state m 1831 was
3 722 738 Thi s f i gure, i f doubl ed to gi ve a count i ncl udi ng
women, woul d put the total Ottoman popul ati on at about
17 See Bruce McGowan, Economy life in Ottoman Europe (Lon-
don and New York: Cambridge Uni versi ty Press, 1981), pp. 80-82.
7 5 mi l l i on, whi ch was far bel ow the actual number The
qui te substanti al undercount i n thi s case was attri butabl e to
several factors. The one-year ti me per i od, gi ven the i nex-
peri ence of the offi ci al s, was excepti onal l y short, whi l e he
territory to be covered was extensi ve. I t i s'qui te cl ear that
few offi ci al s went out to the vi l l ages or even to the remote
towns; thus i t must be sai d that there was no real attempt to
count a substanti al par t - pr obabl y close to 50 per cent - of
the popul ati on. I n Kars and A dana the counts were respec-
ti vel y onl y 19,741 and 92,619; these fi gures are by every
i ndi cati on very l ow. Moreover, the offi ci al s seemed to be
most i nterested i n counti ng the Chri sti ans as accuratel y as
possi bl e i n vi ew of the i mportance the sul tan attached to
[he head tax. Despi te the government's i nterest m knowi ng
the potenti al number of i ts sol di ers, the offi ci al s appeared
to have pai d onl y l i mi ted attenti on to the registration of
Musl i ms, for conscri pti on based on the regi sters was har dl y
an establ i shed procedure. That the census of 1831 di d not
serve the mi l i tary ends envi saged by the government ,s
cl earl y i ndi cated'by the fact that thi rteen years l ater, m
1844 a new census was taken under the di recti on of a
mi l i tan- offi cer especi al l y for the army's purposes. Even-
tual l y ' i n 1855, general conscri pti on for Musl i ms was i ntr o-
duced i n A natol i a and Rumi l i , that i s, i n the areas wher e
the Musl i ms were mostl y Tur ki sh.
Despi te the gross under count of Musl i ms the figures
show them to have been i n the maj ori ty i n the regi on as a
whol e; Chri sti ans are shown as the maj ori ty m Rumi h, an
area where the census of Musl i ms was especi al l y nonri gor-
ous. Tabl e 2.2 shows the ethni c and rel i gi ous di str i buti on of
the popul ati on. 1 8
18 See Faz.la Akbal , "1831 Tarihinde Osmanli İmparatorluğun-
da I dari Taksimat ve Nüfus," Belleten 15, no. 60 (1961): 628. There
« différences between Akbal's totals and those shown m the
statistical appendices (1.1), the appendix figures bei ng based on
recalculated totals for some areas and on corrected lists.
Table 2.2. Rel i gi ous Di str i buti on nf the Ottoman Popul ati on, 1831
Muslims Christians _ Gypsies_
Jews
Armenians
Administrative
District
Number
Rumıli
(Rumelia)
Silistre
Anatolia
Sivas
Karaman
Adana
Trabzon
(Trebızond)
Kars
Çildir
Cezayir-1Bahrı-i
Sefid (Aegean
Islands)
Tota!
217.227
273.936
1.044.925
270,820
228,942
81,166
125.119
17,580
73,272
148.754
'2,481.741
0.29
051
0.87
0.84
0.87
0.88
0.92
0 90
0 93
0.44
0 66
Number % Number % Number
505,760
251.579
138.463
49,593
0.67
0.47
0.11
0.15
20.313
8,151
485
60
0 02
0.015
0.0004
0.0001
7,780
2,353
1,361
34,461
2.762
0.13
0.03 5.865 0.06
11,431 0.08
Number
Total
0.01
0.005
0.001
105
176.531
1,170.685
0.002
0.53
0.31
191
910
0 002
0 002
35.975 001
318
3.659
15.471
0.004
0 01
0.004
368
1.755
3.727
2.826
2.161
4,887
3.142
18.866
0.0005
0.004
0.003
0.03
0.10
0.062
0.01
0 005
751.448
537.774
1.188.961
320.473
- 263.403
92.619
136.550
19,741
78.773
332.996
3.722.738
Source: F
- ^ - ^ ^ ^ Nutus. Be**, 15, no 60 (1961): 628 (F,ures bavebeen rounoeo 0,1,
22
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
There is no questi on but that the size of the Ottoman
popul ati on was rather l i mi ted, bei ng consi derabl y bel ow
the number necessary for a vi abl e economy and defense.
(Today approxi matel y 40 mi l l i on peopl e l i ve i n the area
subject to the census i n 1831.) However, students fami l i ar
wi th the popul ati on of the Bal kans dur i ng thi s peri od have
gi ven much hi gher fi gures than the census of 1831. Ur-
quhart, who was by far the best i nf or med student of Otto-
man affai rs, had the f ol l owi ng to sav about the govern-
ment's efforts to col l ect stati sti cal i nf or mati onand about the
size of the Bal kan popul ati on i n the 1830s:
Previ ous to the last Russi an war [1828] the Porte
entertai ned the most extravagant noti ons as to the
popul ati on of the country. I t trusted to i ts ol d regi sters
or admi tted i nscrupul ousl y the swol l en esti mates. . . .
But the passage of the Bal kans has qui ckened thei r
si ght, and awakened energy wi t h apprehensi on,
stati sti cal detai l s have been demanded thr oughout the
whol e country, and these can easi l y be col l ected f r om
the muni ci pal i ti es. The governors and pashas of late
appoi ntment . . . seem to have taken up stati sti cs wi t h
spi ri t. I can bear testi mony to the readi ness wi t h whi ch
they have communi cated to me al l the i nf or mati on they
themsel ves possessed.19
A ppar entl y on the basis of thi s i nf or mati on and other
sources Ur quhar t gave the popul ati on fi gures for the Bal -
kans (adjusted accordi ng to r el i gi on and ethni c ori gi n)
shown i n Tabl e 2.3.2 0
Tabl e 2.3. Popul ati on of Ottoman Bal kan Terri tori es, 1831
Muslims
Turks
Albanians
Bosnians, Tuleman
Pomaks
Total Muslims
700.000
1,066,000
2,000,000
3,766,000
Christians
Greeks (excluding
Greece) 1,180,000
Slavs 4,000,000
Albanians 530,000
Vlahs 600,000
Total Christians 6,310,000
Others (Jews.
Armenians, etc.)
GRAND TOTAL
600,000
6,910,000
10,676,000
Source: David Urquhart, Turkey andItsResources, ItsMunicipal Organization and
FreeTrade(London, 1833), pp. 272-73,
I t is hi ghl y desi rabl e that the census of 1831 be studi ed
f urther i n order to determi ne the extent of the r ur al area
that remai ned uncounted and the reasons for thi s negl ect.
Thi s can be achi eved onl y after the compl ete regi sters for at
least fi fteen or twenty kazas are l ocated and pr oper l y cata-
l ogued.
The census regi ster for 1831, i n addi ti on to the numeri cal
i nf or mati on on vari ous rel i gi ous and ethni c groups, pr o-
vi des excel l ent i nsi ghts i nto the soci al , economi c, and cul -
tural characteri sti cs of the Ottoman popul ati on at the begi n-
19. Turkey and Its Resources, pp. 271-72.
20. I bi d./ pp. 272-73.
rang of the ni m-teenth century. A l arge number of Chri s-
ti ans apparentl y- were not payi ng the head tax at al l , for
they di d not possess the customary recei pts. The majority-
of Chri sti ans M-cmed to have possessed enough property to
place them i n tl „. evsat category, that i s, the mi ddl e range of
taxpayers. A i . , l , | c showi ng the tax status of Chri sti ans in
vari ous kazas in K umi l i is i ncl uded as A ppendi x B.2 fol l ow-
i ng thi s chapU-i .
I t is i nteresti ng to note that the pr opor ti on of the Chri s-
ti ans i n the three çiziye categori es remai ned more or less
constant. Had/ i begi c cal cul ated that thr oughout the ei ght-i
eenth and i nt.. the earl y ni neteenth century the ala com-i
pri sed roughl y 7.5 to 8 percent of the Chri sti ans; the evsat,\
65 to 68 percent,- and the edna, 24 to 27.5 percent.2 1 j
The amount <>f the çiziye was theoreti cal l y the equi val ent!
of one dirham ,,f si l ver, as decreed i n the earl y I slamic]
l ayvs." Chri sti ans i n the ala category were payi ng approx-j
innately the equi val ent of one dirham, whi l e the others paid)
l ess—an i ndi cati on of the Ottoman adherence to I slamicl
practi ces. M al unud I I , who rai sed the rate several times!
dur i ng hi s tenure, cl ai med that he di d so because the cur-j
rency had become debased i n val ue and that i n real termsj
the tax remai ned constant. j
The true size , ,f the head tax and i ts rel ati ve i mpact can bet
ascertai ned onl y i f we know- the annual i ncome and thej
amount of pr oper ty owned by the taxpayers of each cate-i
gory. Thi s is i ndeed essenti al i f the soci al effect is to bè-
determi ned at al l . The summar y resul ts of the census for)
1831 do not contai n any i nf or mati on on the subject. There!
are, however, ,, number of i ndi cators whi ch shoul d permi tj
one to f or m an opi ni on about the rel ati ve bur den of the;
çiziye. The resul ts of a study conducted i n Bul gari a are!
rather suggesti ve. Thi s study concerns the economi c status}
of the Bul gari .i l , peasants i n the 1870s; however, one can!
say that the si tuati on i n the 1830s, al though admi ttedl y less,
favorabl e, coul d not have been too di f f erent f r om the pre-i
vai l i ng some f orty years l ater. A ccor di ng to L . Berov andj
N i kol ai Todoroy, peasants possessi ng up to 30 dönüms (one:
dönüm bei ng t - , | U a i t o 919.3 s q u a r e meters) of l and were
consi dered "poor "; those possessi ng 31 to 100 dönüms were]
consi dered "mi d d l e" or "average"; and those possessi ng!
101 to 150i/ o)iK.'..(s were deemed "r i ch. " The average i ncome i
per dönüm w.ı „ cal cul ated to be 54 kuruş (12.9 French
francs). Consequentl y, the average annual i ncome of a poor
peasant was about 700 kuruş; of the average peasant, 700 to-
2,000 kuruş; auv | 0 f the r i ch farmer, 2,000 to 3,750 kuruş.23
The three categori es def i ned by the Bul gari an schol ars were
not the same ,,s those used for çiziye purposes; neverthe-
less, if the tot.,! annual i ncome of the Chri sti ans i n al l the
three categori es i s compar ed to the tax pai d, the l atter'
21. "Dzi zja i l l Harac," p. 42, no. 1.
22. On the b.i , kground of the çiziye, see Encyclopedia of Islam,
new ed., s.v. " I 'l ^-va"; for the practice i n the Ottoman era, see the
section wri tten K Hal i l inalcık.
23. The fi gurcv supported by extensive bibliographical data, are
cited i n Slavka lYaganova., "Différenciation de fortune dans les
village de la Bu l H , m e j u nord-est durant les années 60 et 70 du
XI Xe siècle," Hu:<<:nan Historical Review, no. 2 (1980): 68-70.
POPUL A TI ON DI ST RI BU T I ON A N D T H E E V OL U T I ON OF O T T O M A N CENSUSES
23
amount appears to be rather l ow, despi te change i n the
v a | u e of the currency.
The summary regi ster of 1831 contai ns also a vari ety of
i nformati on on the names of tri bes and thei r subdi vi si ons,
the number of i mmi gr ants and seasonal wor ker s, the num-
ber of houses and l and estates i n a knza, the number of
fcllahin as di fferenti ated f r om A rabs (i n Tarsus), and the
l i ke. I n sum, the census of 1831 (reproduced i n the stati sti -
cal appendi ces 1.1) is an excepti onal l y val uabl e quanti tati ve
source for the study of Ottoman soci al hi story, and i t de-
serves far more attenti on that hi therto gi ven i t . 2 4
Estimates of the Ottoman Popul ati on f r om 1831 to 1853
The size of the Ottoman popul ati on i n Europe was the
subject of numer ous esti mates after the census resul ts be-
came avai l abl e and, apparentl y, l eft most of the i nterested
parties di ssati sfi ed. Tabl e 2.4 gi ves the average fi gures f r om
a number of these esti mates; Serbia (popul ati on 95,000) and
Wal l achi a and Mol davi a (popul ati on 1,500,000) are ex-
cl uded.
The di fference of about 1.2 mi l l i on between the two total s
i n Table 2.4 probabl y stems f r om the fact that the fi gures
not broken down i nto ethno-rel i gi ous categori es are esti -
mates for the begi nni ng of the century, whi l e the others
describe the si tuati on i n the 1830s. Both sets of fi gures
underesti mate the European popul ati on (as a compari son
wi th the much more rel i abl e fi gures coveri ng the per i od
after 1882 cl earl y reveal s). Esti mates of the popul ati on of
the A si an and A f r i can provi nces dur i ng thi s per i od ranged
from 6 to 15 mi l l i on. Thus the esti mates of total Ottoman
popul ati on dur i ng the earl y part of the ni neteenth century
vari ed f r om 14 mi l l i on to 23 mi l l i on. By al l accounts, the
hi ghest of the fi gures underesti mated the total by 10 to 12
mi l l i on. 2 3
N ew i nf or mati on on the Ottoman popul ati on became
available after the census i n 1844. The Ottoman govern-
ment apparentl y di d not publ i sh the resul ts of thi s i mpor -
tant census, and the archi ves have not yet yi el ded any re-
lated stati sti cal materi al ; f ortunatel y, Ubi ci ni and Eugène
Boré seemed to have had access to these fi gures. Ubi ci ni , i n
his summar y of the census resul ts, cl ai med that hi s popul a-
ti on tables "i f not ri gorousl y exact . . . are at least as correct
as i t was possi bl e to render them. They are compi l ed f r om
the general census taken i n 1844 thr oughout the empi re,
when Riza Pasha, the Mi ni ster of War, under took to re-
organi ze the army by al teri ng the method of r ecr ui t i ng. "- 6
24. A great deal of i nformati on may be gleaned from some of the
1831 census registers. Musa Çadirci points out i n a detailed study
of one of the basic registers, namely the census register for Ankara,
that some of the vilayet censuses i n 183031 included extensive
i nformati on about the age, occupation, rel i gi on, and even the
geographic ori gi n of the respondents. Studies of the i ndi vi dual
deftersfor the entire realm similar to the register for Ankara woul d
indicate the age and occupational structure of the Ottoman popula-
tion at that time; see "1830 Genel Sayimina göre Ankara şehir
Tabl e 2.4. Popul ati on of Ottoman Terri tori es
i n Europe, 1820-1840
A. iy Province
Province
AverageFigure
Istanbul
600,000
Thrace 1.700.000
Bulgaria 1.500,000
Bosnia 820,000
Albania 350,000
Macedonia 700,000
Thessaly and Epirus 700.000
Livadia 550.000
Morea 420.000
Crete 250,000
Other (inc. Islands) 400.000
Total
7.990,000
B. By Composition
Ethnic-Religious Composition
AverageFigure
Muslims
Turks 1,700,000
Albanians 1,000.000
Bosnians (inc. Herzegovinians) 1,100,000
Pomaks 200.000
Total
4,000.000
Christians
Greeks 2.050,000
Slavs (mainly Bulgarians) 1,650,000
Albanians 300.000
Vlahs 600,000
Armenians 80,000
Total
4,680.000
Jews
280.000
Gypsies
200,000
GRAND TOTAL
9,16.0,000
Source: Compiled fromstatistics giveninE. Akarli, "Ottoman PopulationinEurope
in the 19th Century; Its Territorial. Racial, and Religious Composition" (M A. thesis.
University of Wisconsin-Madison. 1970) and from various documents.
merkezi nüfusu üzerinde bir araştirma," journal of Ottoman Studies
1 (1980): 109-32.
25. For a compilation of statistics from sixteen major sources on
the Ottoman popul ati on, see Engin Akarl i , "Ottoman Population
in Europe i n the 19th Century; Its Terri tori al , Racial, and Religious
Composi ti on" (M.A . thesis, Uni versi ty of Wi sconsi n-Madi son,
1970). A mi Boué, who gave extensive statistical i nformati on of his
own, placed the total Ottoman popul ati on at about 15 mi l l i on (of
whom 11.5 mi l l i on were in Europe) and gave the total number of
Turks in Europe as 700,000 and of Slavs, as over 7 mi l l i on; see La
Turquie d'Europe (Paris, 1840).
26. Letters on Turkey, trans. Lady Easthope (London, 1856; re-
pri nt ed.. New York; Arno Press, 1973), pp. 23-24; see also Eugène
Boré, Almanach de l'Empire ottomanpour l'année 1849'1850 (Constan-
tinople, 1849 -50), and A. Yiquesnel, Voyagedans la Turquie d'Europe
(Paris, 186S). For the census order, see "Traducti on d'un mémor-
andum de la Sublime-Porte, adressé aux missions étrangères à
Constantinople, et relatif au recensement général décrété par S.
Hautesse," Le Moniteur universel, no. 248 (4 September 1844).
24
A ctual l y the census that was started i n 1844 conti nued wel l
bevond that date, for the gover nment tri ed also to count the
nomadi c tri bes, appoi nti ng census offi ci al s i n the vilayets of
A ydi n and Menteşe i n 1851 and maki ng efforts to expand
f urther the census taken i n Cypr us i n 1857. The census of
the nomadi c tri bes i n these two provi nces was carri ed out
by army offi cers bel ongi ng to the uni ts stati oned i n the
area.2 ' I t appears f r om offi ci al correspondence that the cen-
sus of the Musl i m popul ati on i n Cypr us was concl uded by
1861 and that a census of the non- Musl i m popul ati on was
ordered i n 1862, wi t h the purpose of r ef or mi ng the tax
system. The census of the non- Musl i ms was carri ed out by
four teams, each consi sti ng of one M usl i m and one Chri s-
ti an offi ci al pl us a secretary. I t was expected that the census
of the non- Musl i ms l i vi ng i n vi l l ages and towns woul d take
four to fi ve months. The Porte debated at l ength whether
the expenses of the census shoul d be covered f r om the
general treasury, rai sed thr ough a tax l evy of one kuruş per
person, or deducted f r om the annual tax col l ected f r om
Cypr us. 2 8 ,
Ubi ci ni reproduced the resul ts of the Ottoman census
wi t h apparentl y onl y mi nor adjustments. He was the chi ef
source for many Ottoman popul ati on studi es that i n tur n
suppl i ed materi al for. other studi es. Hi s fi gures have been
used, i ntact or wi t h some modi f i cati on, by a vari ety of peo-
pl e rangi ng f r om the Bri ti sh consul ar agents (an exact re-
pr oducti on appears i n the House of Commons Accounts and
Papers of 1860) to J. L . Farl ey, Emi l e I sambert, Sir James
Porter, H . von Boehn, F. W. Reden, E. H . Mi chel sen, C.
Mol beck, and others whose wor ks served as sources of
i nf or mati on for a vari ety of al manacs and other popul ar
publ i cati ons. The resul ts of the census of 1844, as publ i shed
by Ubi ci ni and Bore, were cri ti ci zed by some Europeans as
bei ng parti al to Musl i ms, al though Bore, i n fact, exagger-
ated the number of Slavs whi l e mi ni mi zi ng the number of
Turks. (Ubi ci ni 's fi gures are reproduced i n the stati sti cal
appendi ces, 1.2.)
The Tuna Provi nce Census and
Popul ati on Stati sti cs to 1878
The rel i gi ous-ethni c composi ti on of the Ottoman popul a-
ti on i n the Bal kans became an i mpor tant i ssue after the
Islahat Fenuani was i ssued i n 1856. The chi ef purpose of thi s
edi ct prepared by European power s was to i ntroduce "re-
f or ms" for the benefi t of the non- M usl i m subjects of the
Porte; i n fact, the edi ct accel erated the i ntr oducti on of a
capi tal i st economy among the non- Musl i ms and prepared
the gr ound for the emergence of the new entrepreneuri al
groups whi ch, as was menti oned i n Chapter 1, began to
27. See BA (I)/ (D)/ 14855, letter of 7 Safer 1268 (2 December 1851);
see also Felix Phi l i pp Kanitz, Donau-Bulgarien and der Balkan, 3vols.
(Leipzig, 1875), and La Bulgarie danubienne et le Balkan: Etudes de
voyages, 1860-18S0 (Paris, 1862).
28. See BA (I)/ MV)/ 21366, letter of 28 Safer 1279 (25 August
1862).
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
monopol i ze the i nternal and external trade, as wel l as the
newl y created professi ons. Thi s occupati onal shi ft worked
to the detri ment of the M usl i m popul ati on, whi ch became
the agri cul tural sector of the emergi ng capi tal i st order. I n
general the Musl i ms managed to retai n thei r hol d on the
l and; but even there the si tuati on became precari ous, be-
cause many bi g l andowners—as wel l as the smal l farmers
who were wi thout l egal protecti on agai nst usurers, often
non- Musl i ms—began to sel l thei r l and to the Chri sti ans.
Contrary to a vari ety of uni nf or med opi ni ons, the eco-
nomi c status of the Chri sti ans, parti cul arl y the Bul gari ans,
i mpr oved rapi dl y after the 1830s, and especi al l y dur i ng the;
1850s, thanks to speci al pol i ti cal condi ti ons created at first
by the Tanzi mat reforms i n 1839 and then rei nforced by the
Ferman of 1856. The economi c i mpr ovement experi enced
by vari ous Chri sti an ethni c groups was accompani ed by
vi ta! cul tur al and pol i ti cal changes that i ncreased thei r
nati onal consci ousness, as cl earl y i ndi cated by the estab-
l i shment of nati onal chur ches and the emergence of
nati onal i st movements (see Chapter 3).
The census of 1866 i n Tuna (Danube) Provi nce (a parti al
census was carri ed out al so i n I raq) was requi red because of
the pr of ound changes whi ch had taken pl ace i n the ethni c,:
rel i gi ous, economi c, and soci al composi ti on of thi s vi tal
area. Tuna Provi nce was compr i sed of Rusçuk, V i di n,
Sofi a, Ti rnova, Varna (nor ther n Bul gari a), Ni ş (Serbi a), and
Tul ça (Dobruca-Romani a). Carri ed out over the peri od f rom
1866 to 1873 under the supervi si on of Mi that Paşa, the gov-
ernor, thi s census was probabl y the most comprehensi ve of
al l Ot t oman censuses, r egi ster i ng the occupati ons and
properti es of the respondents i n addi ti on to the usual data
(al though femal es sti l l were not regi stered). Mul ti pl e regis-
ters were used, and these eventual l y were reduced to a
si ngl e one. Offi ci al s went f r om house to house to note the
number of peopl e i n a househol d, thei r ages, mari tal status,
occupati ons, and real estate hol di ngs. Speci al l i sts i ndi cated
the number of househol d heads, thei r real estate hol di ngs
and rents, thei r occupati ons, and thei r total i ncomes. A l l
these data were summar i zed i n sti l l other l i sts showi ng the
total number of the taxabl e popul ati on and i ts ethni c com-
posi ti on, the number of dwel l i ngs, the total i ncome of the
popul ati on, the total val ue of real estate, and the amount of
tax col l ected. One of the purposes of the census of 1866 was
to issue to al l Ottoman subjects a tezkere-i osmaniyye, or
Ottoman i denti ty card, whi ch coul d then be used to regi ster
changes i n an i ndi vi dual 's status. Preparati ons were made
to pr i nt and di stri bute5 mi l l i on card i n the Tuna vilayet and,
i n anti ci pati on of a countr ywi de census, another 15 mi l l i on
for the rest of the real m.
The i nf or mati on i n thi s census materi al is so ampl e and
uni que as to make i t a pr i mar y source of i nf or mati on on the
soci al and demographi c hi story of the European posses- :
si ons of the Ottoman state.2 9 Professor Ni col ai Todorov, a
member of the Bul gari an A cademy, who was the fi rst to use
29. See the Tuna Vilayet Salname of 1285 (1868); the census
material, under the serial number PC 79/ 8, is found i n the Oriental
Section of the National Library of Bulgaria i n Sofia.
,, A T I 0 N DI STRI BUTE AND THE EVOLUTI ON OE OTTOMAN CENSUSES
25
pop U
,< materi al i n detai l , i n conducti ng hi s study of the
*
i 6 C e n
Zand thei r soci al structure, has expl i ci tl y ac-
*
l k a n
Tic t val ue and r el i abi l i ty. * A succi nct summar y
' ^i î l c nsùs d ta for Tuna Provi nce is gi ven i r, Tabl e
°f * n t f . r o m the Tuna Provi nce yearbooks of 1869 and
^ ncl uded n the stati sti cal appendi ces, 1.3 4, and
1 8 7 4 3 „ t hat the total popul ati on of the Danube pr ov-
- >l t i S
a
C e o >Tr T m l non p'eorple; a mor e comprehensi ve
i n C e , of the ori gi nal surveys coul d yi el d addi ti onal cl ues
• f a K 4 at n w e accurate (and possi bl y hi gher) fi gures
£ *e whol e popul ati on of thi s i mpor tant provi nce.
T a b l r ^ J ^ g u ^ ^ ^
Tabl e 2.6. Popul ati on of the Ottoman State A ccor di ng to
Sal aheddi n Bev (1867)
Vilayet
Number ot
Villages Muslims
833
138,692
391 56,689
434 25,338
711 24,410
453 71,645
252 39,133
549 54,510
3623
410,417
95,834
20.769
124,567
147,095
104.273
17,929
100,425
610,892
234,526
77,458
149,905
171,505
175,918
57,062
154,935
1,021,309
Muslims Chr^m1_l 2ttyer£
Europe
Edirne(including Istanbul)
Danube(Bulgaria)
Prezerin, Tirhala, Rumelia
Bosnia
Yanina and Salonica
Islands, includingCretebut
not Cyprus
Serbia
Wallachia-Moldavia
Total
Rusçuk
Varna
Vidin
Sofia
Tirnova
Tulça
Niş
Total
of 1285 (1868) and c e n s u s ^« e » Hie no,
7 9 8Tthe Oriental Section of the National Library of Bulgana m Soda.
d S d onl y sl i ghtl y f r om .he (i rs. se. of
,0 - H , , M t an Town mİ h. S«™d H ,» of lh= » * / i ™ ^' .
(London: Vari orumReprints, 19/ / ), ı
(Seattle: University of W«hi ng ton P ^s WM).
5 T , I , « m UtMnl 's own noi .s . o p ™" ' ? » ™ "' .
r i S n , b Î i n « , d o- =H „ *„ 8 .od c o d i n g « M - 1«
blamed the Ottomans.
Asia
West and Central Anatolia
and Cyprus
East Anatolia (Erzurum
Kurdistan, Harput)
Syria, Baghdad
Hejaz, Yemen
Total
Africa
Tunisia, Egypt. Tripoli
3,900,000
3.000.000
2.087.000
1.100,000
2,700,000
700.000
13.487.000
1,000.000
4000.000
~^fm 6,103.000 12,100,000 284,000
10,907,000
1,906.000
2.750,000
900,000
1 ^ 0 0 13,223,000 3,160,000 80,000
5.050.000 5,050,1
GRAND TOTAL
40,000,000
nnivu l u"-"- ——
Source:Salaheddin Bey, La lurQuieaimposition un.erseiiede1867 (Paris. 1867),
pp. 210-14.
z ^. i W i n B,ys » r . : « »
V T J Ö Ä S Ä Ä »o «v „ , l « « — T
26
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830-1914
J ews;-14 Yakshi ty cl ai med that he had wor ked wi t h i nf orma-
ti on and documents obtai ned di rectl y f r om Ottoman ad-
mi ni strators i n Europe. E. G. Rayenstei n, the Engl i sh stat-
i sti ci an, usi ng the mai n l i teratureavai l abl e at the ti me, gave
the total popul ati on of European Turkey as 9,561,000 (ex-
cl udi ng the army) and that of Asi a (i ncl udi ng the Arabi c-
speaki ng areas) as 6,4S3,000, to make a total of 16,325,868
for the enti r e'r eal m.3 3
Mor e compl ete and comprehensi ve than the tabul ati on of
Sal aheddi n Bey was the wor k of A . Ri tter zur Hel l e von
Samo, the A ustri an mi l i tary attaché i n I stanbul , who com-
pi l ed a series of stati sti cs based on the Ottoman provi nci al
yearbooks for 1871-1876. Hi s wor k stands as some of the
best of its ki nd, not onl y for i ts cri ti cal handl i ng of the data
i n the saluâmes and other sources but also for its broad
under st andi ng of the Ot t oman ad mi ni st r at i on and
peopl es.3 6 Hel l e von Sa mo's stati sti cs for 1872 and 1874 are
reproduced i n the stati sti cal appendi ces (1.6). The popul a-
ti on statistics of 1844 shoul d be read i n connecti on wi t h
these fi gures, whi ch gi ve the total popul ati on of the Otto-
man empi re as 40,512,111.
Eval uati on of Ottoman Censuses
and Stati sti cs of 1831-1878
One can conti nue for many pages ci ti ng authors who
showed great i nterest i n the Ottoman popul ati on i n the
peri od f r om 1865 to 1878. Dur i ng those years the Ottoman
state and Russia and, as wel l , the European powers that
stood ready to expl oi t what Russia had secured by the
swor d, were fast approachi ng a showdown i n the Bal kans.
The outcome was to depend on the ethni c and rel i gi ous
al l egi ances of the popul ati on. A s was poi nted out i n Chap-
ter 1, at the I stanbul conference of December 1876 the
ethni c-rel i gi ous di str i buti on of the Bal kan popul ati on had
al ready become the basis for proposed "r ef or ms, " i ncl ud-
i ng autonomy for the vari ous ethni c groups. A t that confer-
ence the Russi an del egates pr oduced popul ati on tabl es
compi l ed by "exper t stati sti ci ans," i ncl udi ng H ei nr i ch
Ki epert, who, i t tur ned out, had compi l ed hi s stati sti cs
stri ctl y i n accordance wi t h Russi an wi shes. These Russi an-
sponsored stati sti cs pur por ted to show that most of the
eastern and central part of the Bal kan peni nsul a was i nhab-
i ted by Bul gari ans, thus suppor ti ng and l egi ti mi zi ng the
Russi an effort to establ i sh a l arge Bul gari an state bor der i ng
on the Aegean Sea.
Thi s pol i ti cal mani pul ati on of demographi c and ethno-
34. First published by Ernst Behm and H . Wagner, Die Bevölker-
ung der Erde (Gotha, 1874); see also later editions of this work,
whi ch are numerous.
35. "The Populations of Russia and Turkey," journal of the Royal
Statistical Soclet}/ 40 (1877): 449.
36. See Die Volker des osmanischen Reiches (Vienna, 1877) and Dus
Vdajet der Inselen das Weissen Meeres, das Priviligirte Beylik Santos-
(Syssain), und das selbständige Mutessarflik Cypren (Kybris) (Vienna
1878).
graphi c data had a rather benefi ci al effect on Ottoman
popul ati on studi es. Pri mari l y the Greeks, but also Al ba-
ni ans and other Musl i ms who fel t threatened bv the pros-
pect of i ncl usi on i n a Greater Bulgaria-, engaged i n a franti c
rebuttal of the Russi an and Bul gari an fi gures through the
publ i cati on of thei r ow n popul ati on stati sti cs. Engl and, a
supporter of the Greeks, came to the rescue, del egati ng
several of her offi cers trai ned i n cartography to conduct
fi el d i nvesti gati ons among the popul ati on of the Balkans.
The reports of these offi cers, al though tendi ng to throw
l i ght on the ethni c composi ti on of some areas i n the Bal-
kans, are too numer ous and too i ncompl ete to be of use for
thi s study. H owever , at the Berl i n Congress i n 1878 Eng-
l and used these reports on the popul ati on composi ti on of
the Bal kans i n her ar gument i n favor of l i mi ti ng Bul gari a's
terri tory and was successful i n getti ng Macedoni a and
Thrace (gi ven to Bul gari a under the San Stefano treaty
si gned just three months earl i er) detached f r om the new
state.
Before di scussi ng the Ot t oman popul ati on censuses
taken i n the l ast quarter of the century, i t is essenti al to
el uci date the i nconsi stenci es i n vari ous popul ati on fi gures
i ssued i n the per i od f r om 1844 to 1878. L eavi ng asi de a
great number of wor ks on the Ottoman popul ati on pub-
l i shed f r om 1860 to 1878,37 one can di vi de the tabul ati ons
and the opi ni ons expressed by the compi l ers i nto two
groups, whi ch I cal l minimalist and maximalist. The mi ni mal -
ist gr oup i ncl udes practi cal l y al l of the Ottoman i mperi al
and pr ovi nci al yearbooks and the tabul ati ons based on
them, such as those of Ubi ci ni , Yakshi ty, Kutschera (who
was A ustr i an consul i n Rusçuk), 3 8 Hel l e von Samo, Synvet,
Stei nhouser, and others. These European mi ni mal i sts, i t
must be emphasi zed, i ncl uded the l eadi ng experts on the
Ottoman popul ati on, schol ars who accepted the data i n the
saluâmes and other offi ci al fi gures as sound and rel i abl e.
They esti mated the Ot t oman popul ati on as rangi ng be-
tween 8 and 10 mi l l i on i n Europe and between 9 and 15
mi l l i on i n A si a. They regarded the Ottoman offi ci al fi gures
as bei ng rather l ow, but they fai l ed to present a rel i abl e
yardsti ck for correcti ng them.
The maxi mal i st school , of whi ch the most notabl e repre-
sentati ves were Sal aheddi n Bey and Recl us, came close to
an agreement about the total Ottoman popul ati on but they
di ffered on the detai l s of i ts demographi c-ethni c di stri bu-
ti on. Thei r fi gures ( wi t h the excepti on of those of Reclus)
are hi gher for Europe than those of the mi ni mal i sts, but
l ower for Asi a and A f r i ca. The di fferences between the
mi ni mal i sts and maxi mal i sts may i n fact i ndi cate knowl -
37. These are reproduced by Mi khov i n great detail and need
not be repeated here. However, special menti on should be made of
A. Synvet's much-cited Traité degéographie générale de l'Empire otto-
man (I stanbul, 1872); and see Carl Sax, Ethnographische Karte der
europäischen Türkei und ihrer Dependenzen zur Ziel des Kriegsaus-
bruches im Jahre 1877 (Vienna, 1877), and "Bevölkerung der Tür-
kei ," Österreichische Monatsschrift für den Orient, no. 7 (1877).
38. Much of Kutschera's work was published in the Österreichis-
che Monatsschrift für den Orient of the years 1875 to 1878.
porui -ATi oN DI ST RI BU T I ON A N D T H E E V OL U T I ON OF O T T O M A N CENSUSES
27
à o C m the mi nds of some i nsi ders of the i mpor tant demog-
L' "i^c factors of i nternal mi gr ati on, i mmi gr ati on, and set-
fcnient, factors overl ooked by the offi ci al regi sters. A f ter
',856 the' expandi ng capi tal i st rel ati ons, whi ch i ncreased the
c ph e r e of smal l i ndi vi dual enterpri ses and services mostl y
the gr owi ng ur ban areas, attracted l arge numbers of bc-
I flis (si ngl e mal es; see chapters 4 and 5) to the ci ti es. Exter-
nal mi grati ons meanwhi l e became a major factor (as i t had
been i n earl i er ti mes: i n the seventeenth and ei ghteenth
C enturi es, for exampl e, Serbi ans and Bul gari ans emi grated
to A ustr o- H ungar y and to the area nor th of Danube; and
duri ng the peri od f r om 1774 to 1783 the Turki c peopl es had
i mmi grated to Ottoman l ands f r om Cri mea and southern
Russia as these areas were annexed by Russi a).3'' Begi nni ng
in 1862, and conti nui ng thr ough the fi rst decade of the
twenti eth century, mor e than 3 mi l l i on peopl e of Caucasi an
stock, often referred to col l ecti vel y as Çerkeş (Ci rcassi ans),
were forced by the Russi ans to l eave thei r ancestral l ands,
whi ch l ay between the Bl ack and the Caspi an seas, and
came to settl e and swel l the popul ati on of Ottoman l ands i n
the ni neteenth centur y. I n addi ti on, l arge number s of
nomadi c tr i besmen wer e settl ed thr oughout A natol i a,
Syria, and I raq and began to f ar m the l and whi l e sti l l mai n-
tai ni ng, to a l arge extent, thei r pastoral habi ts.
The Ottoman offi ci al stati sti cs fai l ed for most part to
reflect pr omptl y the presence of the i mmi gr ants and the
newl y settl ed popul ati on, l argel y because these peopl e di d
not at once begi n to pay taxes or pr ovi de men for the ar my
but appeared to be transi ti onal , unstabl e, and, i n some i n-
stances, at odds wi t h the establ i shed popul ati on. I t is true
that once the i mmi gr ants became engaged i n pr oducti ve
occupati ons they were subject to regi strati on, but thi s di d
not take pl ace for a consi derabl e per i od of ti me. The Otto-
man gover nment recrui ted many i mmi gr ant Çerkeş for
mi l i tary and pol i ce duti es—the zaptiye (pol i cemen) i n towns
were of ten Çerkeş—but thi s was achi eved i n many i n-
stances thr ough the i nter medi ar y of the l eaders of the tri bes
rather than thr ough conscri pti on based on the popul ati on
registers. A consi derabl e number of the seasonal wor ker s,
i mmi grants, and tri besmen remai ned unregi stered despi te
the pr ovi si on desi gned to resul t i n the i ncl usi on of the
i ti nerant popul ati on i n the regi sters. Some l i sts of stati sti cs
occasi onal l y had a col umn for i mmi gr ants (muhacir); thi s
was the case wi t h the Danube census of 1866 (whi ch gi ves
extremel y l ow fi gures for i mmi gr ants), but i t was not the
usual practi ce thr oughout the real m. By the late 1890s some
Ottoman offi ci al s and Bri ti sh agents began to report the
popul ati on of an area by ci ti ng, i n separate col umns, the
numbers of the establ i shed resi dents, M usl i m and non-
Musl i m, and of i mmi gr ants. These reports were i ncompl ete
but neverthel ess showed that some Ottoman offi ci al s,
chi efl y those I have cal l ed maxi mal i st, were aware of the
effect'of i nternal and i nternati onal mi gr ati on and strove to
take thi s factor i nto consi derati on.
Sal aheddi n Bey was the fi rst to gi ve a rather accurate
39. See my article; "Popul ati on Movements i n the Ottoman
State in the Nineteenth Centurv: A n Outl i ne" i n Contributions à
l'Histoire Économique et Socialede l'Empire Ottoman. Collection Turci-
esti mate of the number of Ci rcassi an newcomers i n the
Ottoman state. H e menti oned a total of 1,008,000, i ncl udi ng
recent arri val s f r om Cri mea, whose number was ar ound
100,000; he cl ai med that 595,000 Ci rcassi ans were settl ed i n
Europe and 413,000 i n Asi a M i nor . 4 0 I f one consi ders the
fact that these fi gures were put f or th i n 1867—that i s, wel l
before the Caucasi an i mmi gr ati on ended—then the enor-
mous i mpact of thi s demographi c factor becomes cl earl y
evi dent. (The f ew European stati sti ci ans who menti oned
the Ci rcassi ans pl aced thei r maxi mum number at 200,000,
i ndi cati ng that they were-unaware of the magni tude of thi s
mi grati on.)
The status of popul ati on censuses and esti mates before
the Berl i n Congress i n 1878 can be summar i zed as f ol l ows:
(1) The Ottoman gover nment i tsel f, wi shi ng onl y to reg-
ister i ts mal e popul ati on for purposes of tax assessment and
mi l i tar y conscri pti on, consi dered ethni c or nati onal di s-
tr i buti on of no i mportance and di d not record i t; rel i gi ous
di str i buti on was i mpor tant, however , because personal
taxes were assessed agai nst Chri sti ans, whi l e the duty of
mi l i tary servi ce was demanded of Musl i ms. (A deci si on had
been made to i ncl ude thé Chri sti ans i n the ar my after
general conscri pti on was i ntr oduced i n 1855, but the Chri s-
ti ans objected and were exempted, for whi ch.pr i vi l ege they
conti nued to pay the çiziye, now cal l ed the mi l i tar y tax.) The
ori gi nal census, therefore, had separate categori es for M us-
l i ms, Chr i sti ans, J ews, gypsi es, and, i n some cases,
nomads, al though i n most cases persons i n the l atter two
categori es were nei ther conscri pted nor taxed. Some Mus-
l i m areas (Syri a, Bosni a) were subjected to census onl y after
the scope of conscri pti on was extended to cover them. The
popul ati on of regi ons such as A rabi a that di d not suppl y
troops was never subject to a f ul l census count.
(2) The Europeans, except for a f ew persons such as Re-
cl us and Ravenstei n who pur sued speci al prof essi onal
ends, were i nterested i n the popul ati on of the Ottoman
state l argel y for pol i ti cal reasons. Consequentl y, thei r i n-
qui ri es centered on the ethni c di str i buti on of the Chri sti an
popul ati on and, chi efl y, on the European provi nces—that
i s, the areas wi t h the heavi est Chr i sti an concentrati on
where ri si ng ethni c nati onal i sm was expected to cul mi nate
i n pol i ti cal i ndependence. The Eur opeans gener al l y
showed no i nterest i n the number and the ul ti mate fate of
the M usl i m popul ati on i n the Bal kans. They of ten i nfl ated
the number of the non- Musl i ms i n thei r tabul ati ons, cl ai m-
i ng that Musl i ms accounted for onl y 20 to 30 percent of the
total . Seri ous students, on the other hand, stated other-
wi se; for exampl e, Ubi ci ni and Y akshi ty stated that approx-
i matel y 43 percent of the Ottoman popul ati on i n the Bal-
kans was M usl i m, 54 percent Chri sti an, and the rest J ewi sh
and others.
(3) The Ottoman popul ati on was consi stentl y under-
counted. The number of i mmi gr ants and emi grants was not
properl y refl ected i n the records. Moreover, once the cen¬
ca, vol . 3, ed. jean-Loui s Bacque-Gramont and Paul Dumont
(I stanbul, Paris, London, 1983).
40. See La Turquie à 1'Exposiiion. chapter 3.
28 O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830—19h POPUL A TI ON DI ST RI BU T I ON A N D T H E E V OL U T I ON OF O T T O M A N CENSUSES 29
sus began to regi ster women as wel l as men, the Ottoman
statistics consi stentl y showed men to be si gni fi cantl y more
numerous than women. (Thi s may have merel v been a
refl ecti on of the census takers' i nabi l i ty to regi ster al l the
women properl y or it may have reveal ed a real i mpact of
factors such as wor k condi ti ons, age of marri age, f ami l y
size, etc., upon the number of women. Ravenstei n was the
onl y European who, to my knowl edge, menti oned these
demographi c aspects of the Ottoman popul ati on studi es
carri ed out dur i ng hi s ti me; but i nstead of proposi ng mea-
sures for correcti ng Ottoman fi gures, he i ndul ged i n subjec-
ti ve cri ti ci sm.)4 1 The shortcomi ngs of the Ottoman censuses
resul ts may easi l y be remedi ed thr ough a cri ti cal study of
the Ottoman popul ati on regi sters f ound i n vari ous pr ovi n-
ci al centers, as has been poi nted out ; 4 2 these regi sters con-
tai n entri es concerni ng bi rths and deaths, f r om whi ch one
may extrapol ate f er ti l i ty rates, f ami l y si zes, and other
demographi c data.
The Popul ati on Regi ster System, 1831-1878:
Effects of the Ber l i n Treaty
The Berl i n Congress of 1878 was a watershed i n the hi s-
tory of the Ottoman state. The peace treaty i tsel f depri ved
the state of its major possessi ons i n Europe. The ol d vilayet
of Tuna was parti ti oned between Serbia (whi ch took Ni ş)
and the pri nci pal i ty of Bul gari a (whi ch was created out of
the fi ve sancaks of Rusçuk, V i di n, Ti r nova, Varna, and
Sofia) and Romani a (whi ch recei ved Tul ça [Tul çu]; Roma-
ni a, consi sti ng of Wal l achi a and Mol davi a, had al ready be-
come f ul l y i ndependent). A substanti al part of the vilayet of
Edi r ne (A dr i anopl e) became an autonomous pr ovi nce
under the name Eastern Rumel i a, and i n 1885 i t was
annexed by the pri nci pal i ty of Bul gari a. Bosni a and Herze-
govi na (except for the Novi bazar sancak) were occupi ed by
A ustr o- H ungar y; Montenegr o and Greece took secti ons of
41. For example, he sought to explain the discrepancy between
the number of males and females by saying, "When females lead a
life of seclusion and ease, not conducive to health, as i n an Oriental
harem, their life wi l l naturally be shortened, and the i mmoral prac-
tices carried on there, and generally speaking amongst most Ori en-
tals, must lead to the sameresul t" ("The Populations of Russia," p.
446).
Obviously the author was influenced by the western vision of a
"decadent Ori ent" mi red in sex and general debauchery and thus
ripe for cleansing reform—i .e., occupation by "ci vi l i zed" Euro-
peans. Ravenstein showed his strong anti -Turki sh bias elsewhere
also; whi l e discussing the popul ati on figures for the Balkans, he
wrote; "The intervention of little Serbia [i n the war i n 1878] was as
wise as it was chivalrous. I t has brought about a state of things
whi ch wi l l force Chri stendom, for very shame, to abatetheTurki sh
nuisance . . ." ("Di stri buti on of the Population i n the Part of
Europe Overrun by Turks," The Geographical Magazine 3 [1876| :
259).
42. See, e.g., Justin McCarthy, "The Musl i m Population of Ana-
tolia, 1878 to 1927" (Ph.D. diss., University of California at Los
Angeles, 1978).
I şkodra (Scutari i n A l bani a), Ti rhal a, and Prevesa; and Rus-
sia occupi ed i mpor tant secti ons of the Caucasus. I t was
esti mated that the Ottoman state l ost approxi matel y 4.5
mi l l i on peopl e wi t h these ceded terri tori es. Thus the major-
i ty of the Chri sti an popul ati on was removed f r om Ottoman
contr ol , l eavi ng the Ot t oman state an over whel mi ngl y
Musl i m country whose mai n terri tory l ay i n Asi a Mi nor and
the Mi ddl e East.
The acti ons of the French and the Bri ti sh i n occupyi ng,
respecti vel y, Tuni si a (1881) and Egypt (1882) spurred the
Ottoman gover nment to i nsti tute reforms i n i ts effort to
sur vi ve. Mor eover , the Ber l i n Congress had expressl y
charged the Ottoman gover nment wi t h the carryi ng out of
reforms i n the eastern provi nces i nhabi ted by A r meni ans.4 3
The reforms made after 1878 by A bdul hami d I I were con-
centrated on the practi cal , rather than bei ng di rected to-
wards mai nl y cosmeti c changes i n the admi ni strati ve and
pol i ti cal spheres, as had been the custom si nce the Tanzi -
mat edi ct of 1839. The Ottoman offi ci al s consi dered that the
successful i mpr ovement of materi al condi ti ons i n the coun-
try requi red a thor ough knowl edge of i ts human and natu-
ral resources, so that devel opment coul d be concentrated in
the most densel y popul ated areas. They opted eventual l y
for the total reorgani zati on of the popul ati on regi sters and
the methods of census taki ngand i ni ti ated the fi rst compre-
hensi ve Ottoman popul ati on census of 1881/ 82-1893.
I n the 1830s the Ot t oman gover nment had, as men-
ti oned, establ i shed the Of f i ce of Popul ati on Regi sters
(Ceride-i Nüfus Nezareti) as part of the Mi ni str y of I nteri or.4 4
By 1839 the census responsi bi l i ti es were decentral i zed. Var-
i ous of f i ci al s—i nspector s of popul at i on (nüfus nazırı),
popu l at i on of f i ci al s (nüfus memuru), and regi strars
(mukayyid)—were appoi nted to the provi nces and smaller
admi ni strati ve di stri cts and charged wi t h recordi ng bi rths
and deaths and peri odi cal l y compi l i ng l i sts (cedvels) i ndi cat-
i ng the total number of peopl e i n each di stri ct. These of-
fi ci al s were ori gi nal l y attached to the Offi ce of Popul ati on
Registers i n the capi tal ; but, owi ng to a vari ety of i nternal
causes, thi s offi ce was soon abol i shed and the provi nci al
popul ati on offi ces were reassi gned, fi rst to the Offi ce of
Property Surveys (Tahrir-i Emlak idaresi) and then, for a
short per i od, to the Mi l i tar y A f f ai rs Offi ce. Dur i ng this
per i od i nterest i n the mai ntenance of the regi sters I an-'
43. Henry D. Barnham, a British consular official i n eastern Ana-1
tolia, reported i n 1880 that a census was planned for theArmeni an-'
inhabited Diyarbekir Province; he believed that this census would ı
meet a need for better and more complete statistics, the data in the
hands of the government and Christian clergymen being so un-
satisfactory that both sides wanted a new census. See HCAP 100/ 44
(1881), pp. 235-36.
44. See Stanford J. Shaw, "The Ottoman Census System and,
Population 1831-1919," International journal of Middle East Studies 91
(1978): 325-36. The name ceride, gi ven ori gi nal l y to someof the land
and popul ati on registers, came later to mean "newspaper." The
name ceride-i nüfus (popul ati on register) was later changed to nüfus
sicili and nüfus kütüğü to indicate its role as the source of all popula-
tion i nformati on.
gui shed, r evi vi ng onl y w i t h the r enewed concern f or
popul ati on censuses i n the late 1860s. A f ter the Counci l of
State (Suray-i Dcvlet) was establ i shed i n 1867, i t assumed
juri sdi cti on of al l popul ati on matters, i ssui ng reports and
regul ati ons t hr ough i ts Tanzi maf bur eau or i ts general
counci l .4 5 I n 1874 the Counci l i ntr oduced a series of mea-
sures for taki ng a census and establ i shi ng a regi strati on
system; and i n 1881/ 82 i t engi neered the establ i shment of a
General Popul ati on A dmi ni str ati on (Niifus-u Umumi ldaresi)
attached to the Mi ni str y of I nteri or (where i t remai ned unti l
the end of the empi re). I n the l ater 1880s a stati sti cal offi ce
attached to the Mi ni str y of Trade and Constructi on (l ater
reorgani zed as the Mi ni str y of Trade and A gr i cul tur e) was
establ i shed; i t i ssued popul ati on stati sti cs on the basis of
i nf ormati on suppl i ed by the Popul ati on A dmi ni str ati on.
A fter 1870, census taki ng and the establ i shment of an
accurate, permanent regi strati on system became a matter of
pri ori ty for both the sul tan and the offi ce of the pr i me
mi ni ster, as attested by thei r frequent orders to the offi ces
concerned. These offi ci al s recogni zed that the ol d perma-
nent popul ati on regi sters had become useless. Thr oughout
the vears when offi ci al i nterest was l acki ng they had suf-
fered f r om negl ect. The great movements of peopl e i nto
and wi t hi n the real m had gone unrecorded; f ur ther mor e,
the pr omul gati on of the Vi l ayet L aw of 1864 and i ts'amend-
ment i n 1870/ 71 had l ed to the abol i ti on of the posi ti ons
assi gned to popul ati on offi ci al s and to the di versi on of the
funds f or mer l y al l ocated for thei r sal ari es to other pur -
poses. Thi s pr oduced f urther di sorder i n the deteri orati ng
si tuati on of the popul ati on regi sters and under mi ned the
col l ecti on of taxes and conscri pti on. The Counci l of State
appoi nted a speci al commi ttee to study the possi bi l i ty of
taki ng a new census and establ i shi ng a new regi ster sys-
tem. The commi ttee reported that the synchroni zati on, up-
dati ng, and correcti on of the exi sti ng popul ati on regi sters
woul d take a very l ong ti me; i t commented that the i nf l ux of
bona fi de forei gners (ecnebi) and the r api d i ncrease i n the
number of Ottoman- bor n non- Musl i ms who hel d passports
from European power s and served as nati ve protégés ai d-
i ng forei gn i nterests (mahmi) aggravated f urther the woes of
the regi strati on system. Consequentl y, the commi ttee rec-
ommended, and the Counci l agreed, that the best sol uti on
was to conduct a new census and to establ i sh new regi sters
to cover the enti re countr y, except for Hejaz and Y emen. 4 6
I n 1874 the Counci l i ssued an order and three regul ati ons
for the carryi ng out of a new census and the establ i shment
of a new regi strati on system. The fi rst regul ati on concerned
the census methods; the second pr ovi ded for the establ i sh-
ment of a system based on three types of regi sters; and the
thi rd deal t wi t h the appoi ntment of popul ati on offi ci al s.
45. Some i nformati on on the history of PopulationAdmi ni stra-
tion is found in Council report no. 438 of 21 Cemaziyulevvel 1298
(21 Apri l 1881) in BA (I)/ (SD)-3148 and in a letter of 7 Safer 1268 (2
December 1851) in BA (1)/ (D)/ 14855.
46. See BA (I)-'(MM)'2086, Council report no. 695 of 29 Zilhice
1290 (17 February 1874); all the reports concerning the census of
1874 are in one folio.
The census was to be taken by a commi ttee establ i shed i n
each kaymakamlik (kaza, or di stri ct). The commi ttee was to
consist of one government offi ci al (a Musl i m) , one non-
Musl i m chosen f r om among communi ty l eaders, a secre-
tary-, and hi s assi stant.4' Ol d popul ati on regi sters were to
be used when possi bl e, but the census was to be conducted
mai nl y by goi ng to each vi l l age and t own quarter (mahalle)
i n the area. A l l mal e i nhabi tants, i ncl udi ng chi l dren, had to
appear before thi s commi ttee and the vi l l age counci l of
el ders (ihtiyar meclisi) to regi ster thei r ages, ni cknames
(künye), col or of eyes and compl exi on, and speci al physi cal
di sabi l i ti es "whi ch wi l l not fade wi t h age"; and the census
commi ttee members were i nstructed to see " w i t h thei r own
eyes" even newbor n babi es, to study each cl ai m to exemp-
ti on f r om mi l i tar y servi ce, and to see to i t that nobody
remai ned "hi dden" and unr egi ster ed.4 8 Each f ami l y had to
be regi stered as a uni t. The resul ti ng roster of the vi l l age
census was to be veri fi ed by the el ders' counci l and a copy
of i t gi ven to the popul ati on offi ce at the kaza center; the
kaza offi ci al i n tur n woul d send a cumul ati ve l i st of the
number of mal es i n hi s di stri ct to the superi or admi ni stra-
ti ve uni t, whi ch woul d convey the l i sts to the ul ti mate au-
thori ty at the center, the Mi ni str y of Property Records (Def-
ter-i Hakani). Offi ci al s i n each kaza were obl i ged to send
copi es of the regi sters of M usl i m mal es to the regi onal army
offi ces and to serve as the reposi tory of al l vi l l age popul a-
ti on regi sters.
The census commi ttee was empower ed to use force to
br i ng before the regi strati on offi ci al s those who refused to
appear; however, i t was i nstructed to act wi t h tol erance and
respect towar d vi l l agers and to refuse any gi ft offered by
i ndi vi dual s. 4 9 The census i nstructi ons contai ned a series of
provi si ons concerni ng the regi strati on of those absent f rom
the l ocal i ty, of forei gners, and of "pr otected" peopl e, the
l atter two groups bei ng l i sted i n speci al regi sters.
A census system based on the use of three types of
popul ati on regi sters was envi saged.3 0 The basic regi ster
(esas defter) was to l i st al l mal es l i vi ng i n vi l l ages and town
quarters (the Vi l ayet L aw of 1871 def i ned a t own quarter as
a cl uster of at least f i f ty houses), number i ng i ndi vi dual s
consecuti vel y i n the fi rst col umn and, i n the second col -
umn, l i sti ng the fami l i es and thei r respecti ve members.
Thi s regi ster, to be kept by the offi ci al i n the kaza center,
i ncl uded col umns for regi steri ng the i ndi vi dual 's age and
changes i n hi s mi l i tary' and personal status. The second
regi ster, the summar y (icmal), l i sted the total number of
peopl e f ound i n the vi l l ages and towns of the kaza, and i t
47. See BA (])-(MM)'2089, "Tahi r-i Nüfusun Suret-i Icraiyyesini
Mutazammi n Tal i matti r" [I nstructions concerning the conduct of
the popul ati on census], 1 Rebiyülevvel 1291 (18 A pri l 1874).
48. I bi d., article 2.
49. I bi d., arts. 8-10. Boys under the age of three, the sick, and
others who had valid excuses could be registered by proxy.
50. I bi d., "Tahri r-i Nüfus için İttihaz Olunacak Uç Türlü Defter-
in Suret-i İstimalini Mübevvin Tari fnamedi r" [I nformati on con-
cerning the use of the three registers to be created for conducting
the population census].
30
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
was to be compi l ed on the basis of i nf or mati on deri ved
f r om vi l l age and mahalle regi sters. One col umn i n the sum-
mary regi ster pr ovi ded for the l i sti ng of Chri sti ans accord-
i ng to thei r millet (rel i gi ous and ethni c affi l i ati on) and for
the separate recordi ng of Musl i ms, Greeks, Bul gari ans
A rmeni ans, J ews, and others. A thi r d regi ster, dai l v events
(yevmiye vukuat), was to be kept i n the kaza for the recordi ng
of bi rths, deaths, mi grati ons i nto or out of the di stri ct, and
changes i n an i ndi vi dual ' s mi l i t ar y status. Ever y si x
months, the total number of these "dai l y events" was'to be
entered i n the icmal regi ster. A model for each of the new-
regi sters was draf ted by the Counci l ; reproducti ons and
transl ati ons of these model regi sters are presented i n
A ppendi x B.3 f ol l owi ng thi s chapter.
The admi ni strati ve offi ci al s of the census and regi ster
system pl anned i n 1874 i ncl uded a popul ati on mi ni ster-
i nspector (nüfus naziri) at the provi nci al l evel , a regi steri ng
offi ci al (mukayyid) at the kaza l evel , and two secretaries for
each of f i ci al . 3 1 These offi ci al s regi stered al l the bi rths,
deaths, and other changes as reported to them by the l ocal
leaders on speci al i nf or mati on certi fi cates (ilmuhabers) sup-
pl i ed by the gover nment. The popul ati on offi ci al s were
obl i ged to take tri ps i nto the countrysi de to study the si tua-
ti on on the spot and to report al l changes to thei r superi ors
and, eventual l y, to the Offi ce of I mperi al Regi sters (Defter-i
Hakanı Nezareti— the new name gi ven i n 1871 to the ol d
Defterhane) i n the capi tal . A copy of the regi sters kept i n
areas i nhabi ted by Musl i ms was to be sent to the proper
mi l i tary authori ti es. Those f ai l i ng to report bi rths, deaths,
and changes i n personal status were subjected to vari ous
penal ti es.
The i nstructi ons i ssued by the Counci l were submi tted by
Premi er Hüseyi n A v ni Paşa to the sul tan, who appr oved
them and i ssued a speci al order for thei r executi on 5 2 Prepa-
rati ons were made, but the census and regi strati on system
devi sed i n 1874 coul d not be carri ed out. The revol ts i n
Bosni a-Herzegovi na i n 1875, the abdi cati on and sui ci de of
Sul tan A bdul azi z, the procl amati on of a consti tuti on and
accession to the throne of Sul tan A bdul hami t I I i n Î 876
and, especi al l y, the di sastr ous war w i t h Russi a of
187/ -1878 and the resul ti ng loss of terri tory substanti al l y
upset Ottoman i nternal order. I n addi ti on, the i nf l ux of
l arge numbers of M usl i m refugees f r om the Bal kans i n
1877/ 78 and, thereafter, and the need to settl e them, cre-
ated demogr aphi c pr obl ems not foreseen i n 1874 ' The
census was therefore del ayed unti l these probl ems woul d
be wor ked out.
J w u „ T Mahnısa-i Şahanede Tahri r-i Nüfus icra
Kılınan Mahallerde i sti hdamOlunacak Nüfus Nazi rl ari ve Katipleri
de Mukayyi t erin Suret-, Tertip ve Tayinler, ile Vazifeleri Hakkl nda
Talimattır [I nstructions concerning the organizations, appoint-
ment, and responsibilities of the popul ati oninspectors, secretaries
and registrars to be appointed i n the localities of the realm where
census has been decreed].
1874) ' b i d " C ° r r e S p 0 n d e n c e o t 8<9 Rebiyülahir 1291 (25, 26 May
The Census and Regi strati on System of 1881.82
As soon as the pol i ti cal si tuati on stabi l i zed, the sul tan
i ssued an order for a new census. He compl ai ned thr ough
his secretary- that as the countr y di d not possess registers
i ndi cati ng the exact number of sol di ers avai l abl e for'aeti ve
and reserve duti es he coul d not carry out a pl anned reor-
gani zati on of the ar my. I n 1881 the Palace charged the War
Mi ni str y wi th the duty of counti ng Musl i m mal es; offi ci al s
i n the Mi ni str y of I nteri or were to count the non- Musl i ms. 5 3
As usual , the issue was referred to the Counci l of State
Thi s moder n- mi nded offi ce, eager to adopt advanced tech-
ni ques of organi zati on, debated the i ssue and came out
wi t h a series of recommendati ons whi ch were based i n
l arge measure on the 1874 r egul ati ons.5 4 These recom-
mendati ons and the r esul ti ng regul ati ons (whi ch were
broader m scope and di f f erent i n essence f r om the sul tan's
di recti ves) became the basis for the census and regi strati on
system used after 1881. The Counci l acknowl edged that the
census of 1874 coul d not be carri ed out because of i nternal
probl ems, al though the knowl edge gai ned i n devi si ng i t
was very useful i n pl anni ng the new one. I t agreed wi th the
mi l i tary authori ti es that the di vi si on of the M usl i m popul a-
ti on i nto age groups was a matter of vi ta! practi cal i mpor -
tance. I t stressed also the necessi ty of pr ovi di ng each Otto-
man ci ti zen wi t h an i denti ty card (tezkere) to be used i n the
i ncreasi ngl y frequent contacts between the gover nment
and i ndi vi dual s. The Counci l recogni zed that popul ati on
stati sti cs were useful for admi ni strati ve as wel l as for mi l i -
tary purposes, especi al l y for the assessi ng of the tax i nstead
of mi l i tary servi ce (bedelat-i askeriyye) on non- Musl i ms As
menti oned, the tax had been l evi ed i n the past as a l ump
sum on each communi ty wi thout ascertai ni ng the exact
number of i ts numbers; but as the number of non- Musl i ms
was hi gher than i ndi cated i n the tax rol l s, there was a si g-
ni fi cant loss of revenue, so once more then government
endeavored to put the col l ecti on of the head tax on the
i ndi vi dual basis that was prescri bed by I sl ami c l aw.
A new census was cl earl y necessary. H owever , the
Counci l poi nted out that a "census shows the size of the
popul ati on at a gi ven moment. The popul ati on changes
bei ng conti nuous and . . . natural , i t is necessary to devi ce
a sound basi s, a new system whi ch wou l d record al l
popul ati on changes and thus deri ve the utmost benefi t
f r om a census. "" I n other wor ds, the Counci l no l onger
regarded the census as a suffi ci ent goal i n i tsel f, but now
consi dered i t a provi si onal measure necessary to the estab-
l i shment of the stati sti cal f oundati on for a permanent regi s-
ter system to record conti nuousl y al l bi rths and deaths and
to pr ovi de general stati sti cal i nf or mati on on the enti re
popul ati on. The i mportance of stati sti cal data was strongl y
emphasi zed.
53. BA (I)/ (D)/ 65276, order of 15 Recep 1297 (23 June 1880)
54. BA (1)/ (SD)/ 3148, Counci l report no. 438 of 21 Cemazivülev-
ve! 1298 (21 A pri l 1881).
55. I bi d.
POPUL A TI ON DI ST RI BU T I ON A N D T H E E V OL U T I ON OF O T T O M A N CENSUSES
31
I ndeed, dur i ng the 1870s the Ottoman government be¬
a r n e i ncreasi ngl y i nterested i n moder n stati sti cs, begm-
L
i n e to publ i sh some stati sti cal i nf or mati on and eventual l y
establishing a separate stati sti cs offi ce. Stati sti cs on f orei gn
l r a de were compi l ed regul arl y begi nni ng m 1878 (R. 1294).
The stati sti cal system was f or med i n 1879 on the recom-
mendati on of Küçük Sait Paşa for the purpose of pr ovi di ng
t n e central admi ni strati on wi t h sound i nf or mati on for deci -
sion maki ng. I n 1891 the Stati sti cal Counci l of the Subl i me
Porte was created. The stati sti cs offi ce wor ked m col l abora-
tion wi t h the General A dmi ni str ati on of Popul ati on and
came to be headed l argel y by hi gh- r anki ng professi onal s,
many of w hom were non- Musl i ms or forei gners. The de-
gree'of conti nui ty of di rectors and thei r rank i ndi cates, I
believe, the degree of professi onal i sm among the col l ectors
of statistics and the i mportance attached to such data and,
hence the qual i ty of the stati sti cs. Yearbooks publ i shed
between 1892 ( H . 1310) and 1916 (H . 1334) gi ve the names
and ranks, and I have compi l ed that i nf or mati on i nto a l i st
gi ven as A ppendi x B.4 f ol l owi ng thi s chapter.
I n consi deri ng the basi s for the new system i t deemed
desi rabl e, the Counci l proposed to uni f y and consol i date al l
the el ements i nvol ved i n popul ati on management, i ncl ud-
i ng census taki ng, popul ati on regi strati on, and admi ni stra-
ti ve organi zati on. A l l provi si ons concerni ng the census and
regi strati on svstem were therefore combi ned i nto a si ngl e
"Regul ati on for Popul ati on Regi ster s."3 ' The regul ati on
was debated and appr oved by the general commi ttee of the
Counci l and pr omul gated by the sul tan i n 1881.3
I n addi ti on to expressi ng str ongl y the desi rabi l i ty of
obtai ni ng accurate popul ati on stati sti cs, the Counci l bol dl y
affi rmed that i t was necessary to l ook at the practi ces of
other countri es i n Europe and A meri ca and to take them as
model s. I n a report on the census the Counci l stated:
I t is a duty to menti on before ever ythi ng else that the
i nterest of a gover nment i n the compi l ati on of
systemati c popul ati on stati sti cs does not stem sol el y
f r om mi l i tary consi derati ons. To know the exact number
of its own popul ati on is a great achi evement m matters
of order and regul ari ty for a government i nterested m
l aw, pr oper ty safeguards, fi nanci al stabi l i ty, and
muni ci pal order and securi ty. The European States
attach great and conti nuous care to the col l ecti on and
di stri buti on of i nf or mati on on the [enti re] popul ati on I t
is i mperati ve, urgent, and essenti al for us to accompl i sh
thi s i mpor tant task [census and regi strati on] m a perfect
f ashi on.3 9
56 These statistics, published bv the General Directorate of Sta-
tistics are available in their entirety for the period 1878-1900and ,n
less complete form for 1900-1913; see Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun
Ticaret Muvazenesi, 1878-1913, nos. 123-73 (Ankara, 1939).
57 See BA (I)/ (SD)/ 3148, "Sıcill-ı Nüfus Ni zamnamesi of 8
Şaban 1298 (5 July 1881); all reports and correspondence concern-
i ng the census of'1881/ 82 are in one folio.
58 I bi d., "Şuray-i Devlet Umumi Heyeti Mazbatası" ot 8 Şaban
P98 (5 July 1881).'Of the twenty committee members who partici-
pated i n the debate, only two voted against the proposal; all the
three non-Musl i ms voted tor i t.
59. I bi d., Council report no. 438 of 21 Cemazivulevvel 1246 (¿1
Apri l 1881).
The keen i nterest of the Ottoman government i n the
adopti on of moder n stati sti cal methods and i ts wi l l i ngness
to l ook to other countri es for gui dance was shown also
dur i ng a recepti on gi ven for the A mer i can ambassador i n
1886 A mbassador Samuel Sul l i van Cox (who repl aced i n
that post General L ewi s Wal l ace, the author of Ben Hur)
menti oned that the U ni ted States had compi l ed new
popul ati on stati sti cs whi ch were of great use to hi s country
and suggested that such stati sti cs woul d be useful also to
the Ottoman government. H e was tol d that an actual cen-
sus (the one under di scussi on here) was bei ng conducted,
and the sul tan then asked hi m for a stati sti cal revi ew avai l -
able i n the A mer i can embassy. Eventual l y, the ambassador
sent wi t h the i nterpreter of the embassy two vol umes of the
revi ew for transl ati on i nto Tur ki sh. The sul tan tol d the
ambassador that he was greatl y i nterested i n such wor ks
and poi nted out that i t was hi s hi gh hope to have compi l ed
a compl ete and systemati c stati sti cal record of the enti re
popul ati on i n hi s real m, and that he had i ssued an order to
carry out hi s i ntenti on. 6 0
Cox who as the chai rman of the census commi ttee was
i nstrumental i n passi ng the census l egi sl ati on i n the Uni ted
States Congress, confi rms thi s story. I n hi s memoi rs he
wri tes:
I n some meeti ngs whi ch I had wi t h the Sul tan, and i n
repl y to hi s curi osi ty as to the mi racul ous gr owth of our
own l and i n popul ati on and resources, I tol d hi m that
the onl y way i n whi ch he coul d possi bl y understand our
advancement woul d be to take the sal i ent poi nts out of
our Census reports, and especi al l y the Tenth Census
(1880), have them sui tabl y transl ated, and appl y them to
hi s own l and. H e woul d thus see what an
adverti sement a good census woul d be of the vast
resources of hi s own empi r e.6
A ccor di ng to Cox, the sul tan was presented l ater wi th
copi es of the Uni ted States census data and concl uded that
wi th such data avai l abl e for use i n f or mul ati ngadmi ni stra-
ti ve pol i ci es, the A mer i cans coul d not be other than
prosperous.
The Sul tan wi t h i ntel l i gent grasp, comprehends thei r
[the census data's] uti l i ty, and the need of thei r
appl i cati on to hi s own country. Then he remi nds me of
our conversati on about a census for hi s own country
and sai d that he had di rected hi s Gr and Vi zi er, K i ami l
Pasha to organi ze a commi ssi on to begi n the wor k. He
was anxi ous as to i ts costs. He asked me if I woul d ai d i t
by my advi ce, when the commi ssi on was f or med, l o
whi ch I responded that, consi stent wi t h my duti es to
my country and heal th, 1woul d do so, if the Presi dent
di d not object. The l aw, the i nstructi ons to
superi ntendents, enumerators, and bl anks for returns,
and the modus operandi of speci al experts, were f ul l y
detai l ed by the pri nted papers i n the envel opes whi ch
were i n the box. These envel opes he sealed wi th hi s
60 For the sultan's orders concerning the American statistics,
see BA (1)'(D)77419, letter from the sultan's private secretary,
Surevva of 21 Cemazivulevvel 1303 (25 February 1886).
6l ' See Diversions via Dsr>mi ">Turkey (New York, 1887), p. . v.
32
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
own hand, and gave them di recti on at once. So that
probabl y Turkey may, if peace prevai l , have a census of
her own. "'
The popul ati on census and regi strati on regul ati on i ssued
by the Counci l of State consi sted of f i f ty arti cl es di vi ded
i nto ni ne secti ons. The fi rst thi rty- ei ght arti cl es, consti tut-
i ng ei ght secti ons, were devoted to the organi zati on of the
regi ster system, whi l e the last twel ve, assembl ed under the
headi ng "pr ovi si onal r egul ati on" (ahkam-i muvakkate), deal t
wi t h the census i tsel f. I n accordance wi t h the Counci l 's
previ ousl y di scussed reasoni ng, the regul ati on treated the
census as an ad hoc project, whi l e its by-product, the regi s-
ter system i ntended to be comprehensi ve and permanent,
was gi ven great attenti on.
The census proper was to consi st essenti al l y of regi stra-
ti on i n the sicil, to be carri ed out by commi ttees establ i shed
i n each kaza. Each commi ttee consi sted of one member f r om
the kaza admi ni strati on counci l , one f r om the muni ci pal
counci l , the popul ati on of f i ci al , and a reserve mi l i tary-
offi cer (redif). I n the kazas that had vari ous rel i gi ous groups,
one addi ti onal member was sel ected f r om the most numer-
ous non- M usl i m gr oup; a popul ati on secretary and hi s
assi stant accompani ed the commi ttee (arts. 39-40). The reg-
i strati on i nf or mati on was to i ncl ude the respondent's name
and ni ckname, hi s or her father's name, and hi s address,
age, rel i gi on, occupati on or professi on, el ectoral status,
physi cal di sabi l i ti es, and ci vi l status. N on- Musl i ms were
regi stered i n a separate regi ster so as to faci l i tate the tax
l evy. The i nf or mati on was to be suppl i ed di rectl y by the
person i nvol ved; but l egi ti mate excepti ons were recog-
ni zed, and i n such cases a thi r d person accompani ed by-
two wi tnesses over the age of twenty- one coul d regi ster for
an absent party. (Thi s pr ovi si on apparentl y was i ntended
to excuse women f r om appeari ng before the census com-
mi ttee, as thi s was to be thei r fi rst experi ence wi t h the
regi strati on system.) A t the end of the census of a vi l l age or
town quarter, the accuracy, compl eteness, and authenti ci ty
of the resul t was to be certi fi ed by the imam, the muhtar, and
the communi ty counci l . The kaza popul ati on offi ci al was
obl i ged to compi l e, wi t hi n three months after the end of the
census, a l i st of al l i nhabi tants i n hi s di stri ct and to send i t
to the provi nce capi tal , whi ch sent i t ul ti matel y to the
General A dmi ni str ati on of Popul ati on (Niifus-u Umumiyye
Idaresi).
Compl i ance wi t h the census regi strati on was ensured i n
the f ol l owi ng manner . Each regi stered i ndi vi dual was
i ssued an offi ci al "popul ati on bul l eti n, " or i denti ty card
(nufus tezkeresi) gi vi ng al l the rel evant regi ster i nf or mati on
about the bearer (i n the Republ i c thi s card came to be
known as the nufus ciizdani—"population card"). The card
had to be shown to the authori ti es before buyi ng, sel l i ng, or
i nher i ti ng property, before bei ng accepted i n an occupati on
or professi on, for obtai ni ng travel documents, or for con-
ducti ng any offi ci al busi ness. A person wi thout such a card,
besi des bei ng vi r tual l y unabl e to conduct busi ness, was
62. I bi d., p. 44.
puni shed by a sti ff fi ne and a jai l term (whi ch mi ght be
twenty- f our hours or as l ong as one month) i f he coul d not
present to the court an acceptabl e excuse for his l ack of
i denti fi cati on (art. 5). A nyone who had fai l ed to regi ster i n
order to avoi d mi l i tary servi ce was to be i mmedi atel y con-
scri pted.
The Popul ati on A dmi ni str ati on consi sted of a centra!
admi ni str ati on wi t h a di rector genera! and a secretariat
attached to the I nteri or Mi ni str y (Dahiliye). Each kaza had a
popul ati on offi ci al , whi l e the speci al di stri cts had popul a-
ti on admi ni strators (nüfus naziri); each of these was assisted
by a popul ati on secretary and hi s assi stant.6 3 The loca! lead-
ers and kaza popul ati on offi ci al s were made responsi bl e for
the i mpl ementati on of the per manent regi ster system.
Bi rths, deaths, mi grati ons, and marri ages occurri ng i n the
vi l l ages and mahalles after the census were to be recorded
by the muhtars i n one of f our types of standard i nformati on
certi fi cate (ilmühaber) i n accordance wi t h the i nstructi ons
i ssued by the popul ati on offi ci al (arts. 11-12). The l atter in
tur n were obl i ged to f or war d the annual summar y (icmal) of
the vi l l age and mahalle popul ati on reports—after due i n-
specti on and appr oval by the kaza admi ni strati ve counci l —
to the superi or offi ces not l ater than A pr i l 1 of each year.
Eventual l y, the reports f r om al l the vilayets reached the
capi tal : "The copi es of the regi strati ons reachi ng the Mi ni s-
try of I nteri or wi l l pr ovi de the General A dmi ni str ati on of
Popul ati on wi t h [stati sti cal data] necessary to compi l e the
annual general stati sti cs and wi l l be preserved i ntact. A list
of peopl e reachi ng mi l i tar y age together wi t h the [descri p-
ti on] of thei r i denti ty wi l l be compi l ed and f or war ded to the
Mi l i tar y A dmi ni str ati on" (art. 14).6 4
The regul ati on contai ned other detai l ed i nstructi ons con-
cerni ng the regi strati on of bi rths (arts. 15-22), marri ages
(arts. 23-26), deaths (arts. 27-29), and mi grati ons (arts.
30-31). A speci al secti on (arts. 32-39) establ i shed proce-
dures for the control and supervi si on of popul ati on regis-
ters (thus assuri ng a constant upwar d f l ow of i nf ormati on
f r om the vi l l ages to the superi or popul ati on authori ti es), for
regi steri ng those mi ssed dur i ng the ori gi nal census, and for
correcti ng the regi sters' shortcomi ngs, i f any. The regul a-
ti on pr ovi ded for f i nanci ng the regi ster system by chargi ng
smal l sums for regi steri ng bi rths and i ssui ng travel certi fi -
cates. A l l these proposal s were accepted by the sul tan, who
ordered thei r i mpl ementati on as soon as possi bl e.6 3
63. Duri ng the debates i n the Counci l of State the general com-
mittee suggested that, as some non-Musl i m communi ty leaders
could not speak Turki sh and consequently faced di ffi cul ty in filing
the bi rth certificates, the popul ati on officers sent to these areas
should be selected from those who spoke the native languages. In
other words, instead of compel l i ng the citizens to learn Turkish,
the language of the admi ni strati on, the Ottoman government
sought at this date to get its own officials to speak the regional
languages; this custom remained l ong i n practice.
64. BA (I)/ (SD)/ 3148, "Sicill-i Nüfus Ni zamnamesi " of 8 Şaban
1298 (5 July 1881).
63. I bi d., correspondence between Porte and Palaceand the sul-
tan's orders, 7 Şevval 1298 (1 September 1881) and 8 Şevval 1298 (2
September 1881).
POPUL A TI ON DI ST RI BU T I ON A N D T H E E V OL U T I ON OF O T T O M A N CENSUSES
33
The system of regi strati on, the i denti ty card requi rement,
a nd the admi ni strati ve organi zati on pr omul gated i n 1881/ 82
v e r e i mpl emented, wi t h certai n expansi ons and modi f i ca-
tions, and remai ned i n effect thr oughout the rest of the
existence of the Ottoman Empi r e. A l aw i ssued i n 1318
(1900T) broadened consi derabl y the regi strati on provi si ons
0 f the regul ati on of 1881/ 82 and was i n tur n superseded i n
1320 (1902/ 3) by another l aw wi t h accompanyi ng regul a-
tions that f urther cl ari fi ed the process of census taki ng and
regi strati on. (The taki ng of a census under thi s newest law-
was apparentl y begun i n 1321 [1903/ 4]; see the f ol l owi ng
section.) The basic el ements of the system survi ve to the
present day i n a vari ety of f orms i n Turkey and other places
in the Mi ddl e East.
I mpl ementati on of the 1881/ 82 Popul ati on Census
and Regi strati on
Because of the ti me needed for preparati on, the census
and regi strati on commi ttees establ i shed at kaza l evel were
unabl e to begi n thei r wor k unti l someti me i n 1882. The
census i tsel f —that i s, the regi strati on of al l the i nhabi tants
i n the vi l l ages and t own quarters and the i ssuance of the
i denti ty documents—took far l onger than expected because
of physi cal di ffi cul ti es such as l ack of transportati on and
bad weather. The fi rst resul ts f r om the more accessible
areas came i n dur i ng 1884/ 85. Some of these pr el i mi nar y
stati sti cal resul ts were publ i shed i n vari ous pl aces, such as
the saluâmes, but they have been used by onl y a f ew wr i t-
ers, and onl y recentl y. M any provi nces apparentl y di d not
compl ete thei r censuses or establ i sh thei r regi ster systems
unti l 1886/ 87; for i nstance, even the ci ty of I stanbul , whi ch
had conducted fi ve censuses dur i ng the century and was
gi ven pr i or i ty i n thi s one, barel y compl eted i ts new census
by 1885.66
I n 1881/ 82the census commi ttees, and especi al l y the l ocal
popul ati on offi ci al s, had the doubl e task of conducti ng the
census i n vi l l ages and of keepi ng up to date the regi sters of
di stri cts i n whi ch the census was al ready compl eted. I n
addi ti on, the popul ati on offi ci al s had to fi l e thei r yearl y
reports. Consequentl y, the census progressed rather sl ow-
l v. I n order to expedi te the wor k, the establ i shment of new
provi nce census teams, cal l ed kol, was decreed late i n 1884.
A s the wor k i n some of the vilayets appeared near compl e-
ti on, the government deci ded, late i n 1885, to send speci al -
66. A report gi vi ng some estimates for 1882 by the head of the
census committee (niififs talmr komisyonu) indicated that this was
the fi fth census of the city but that the lists for the first two cen-
suses could not be found. It appears that these were conducted
after 1265 (1848) when the government empowered the ihtisah (the
Office of the Censor of Morals—later becoming first the Zaptiye
[gendarmerie] and then the I nterior Mi ni stry) to mai ntai n popula-
tion lists to be completed every year according to the deaths and
births occurring i n the country; this measure was abandoned and
then revived after the Crimean War. See 1UKTY 89 and BA (I).'(D)/
24 and 402. See also Chapter 5, and Section I I I of the statistical
appendices, whi ch includes the first census (1830) of the city.
]y qual i fi ed teams of i nspectors to control the census re-
sul ts, to compi l e general popul ati on stati sti cs, and to take
whatever measures seemed necessary to ensure a con-
t i nuous and accur ate r egi st r at i on of al l popu l at i on
changes.6 7 I nspectors were sent to Hüdavendi gar (Bursa),
Edi rne, Trabzon, Cezayi r-i Bahr-i Sefi d (A egean I sl ands),
A dana, Sivas, and Karesi (Bal i kesi r). A bout three months
l ater, Trabzon i nf or med the gover nment that i t had com-
pl eted i ts census, and i t was pl aced i n the category of the
fi rst-cl ass vilnyets.bS The Palace showed constant i nterest i n
the census and i ssued deadl i nes for i ts compl eti on and the
draf ti ng of empi r e- wi de popul ati on stati sti cs.69 I t is safe to
assume that the censuses of most of the Ottoman terri tori es
i n the Bal kans, A natol i a, and Syri a (i ncl usi ve of J ordan,
most of L ebanon, and Pal esti ne) were al most f i ni shed by
1888/ 89. There sti l l remai ned a f ew peopl e not regi stered,
even i n the areas where the census was decl ared to be
compl ete. I n a f ew i naccessi bl e areas the popul ati ons, par-
ti cul arl y the nomadi c tri bes, were not counted at al l , but
were esti mated on the basis of i nf or mati on suppl i ed by
tri bal l eaders and l ocal offi ci al s.
I t is i mpossi bl e at thi s stage to state preci sel y when the
census endeavor that began i n 1881/ 82 ended, i f, i ndeed, i t
ever actual l y ended at al l . H owever , on 5 Safer 1311 (17
A ugust 1893), Premi er Cevat Paşa submi tted the census
records i n a bound manuscri pt to the sul tan, who had so
consi stentl y pressed for thei r accurate compl eti on. 7 0 These
popul ati on records i ssued i n 1893 represent the most com-
pl ete and rel i abl e Ottoman popul ati on fi gures compi l ed i n
the ni neteenth century'. Unl i ke earl i er general popul ati on
stati sti cs, these gave preci se and detai l ed i nf or mati on on
the popul ati on of al l areas, noti ng the di stri cts and regi ons
where the census was not compl eted and pr ovi di ng esti -
mates for the areas not subjected to i ndi vi dual census and
regi strati on. The fi gures i n these stati sti cs were consi dered
def i ni ti ve and rel i abl e and were used as a basi s for offi ci al
statistics concerni ng the Ottoman popul ati on and for sub-
sequent admi ni strati ve measures.7 1
67. BA (1)/ (D)/ 760006, letter from premier's office, 20 Zilkade
1302 (31 August 1885).
68. BA (1).'(D)/ 80019, Palace letter of 9 Rebiyüiahir 1304 (5 Janu-
ary 1886).
69. I n 1886 the vilayet of Halep (Aleppo) demanded at least nine
more months to finish its census, and the indications are that it
took much longer than that; see BA (1)/ (D)'77419, correspondence
of 19 Cemaziyülevvel 1303 1303 and 25 Cemaziyülahır 1303 (23
February' 1886" and 31 March 1886).
70. The accompanying letter states that the register was pre-
pared by the Population Admi ni strati on fol l owi ng the sultan's
orders and that it included the number of the Musl i m and non-
Musl i m popul ati on and of the foreigners; see BA (Y)-(P)'11S 311
215, Bab-i A l i , Dairev-i Sadaret, Amedi Di van-i Hümayun, no. 333.
71 See 1UKTY 9184, Mi ni stry of Trade and Construction, Gener-
al Directorate of Statistics, Dcvlet-i Aliye-i O&namyyenm Binüçyüzo-
ııüç SenesineMahsus Istatıstik-i Unmmiyyesi [General statistics of the
Ottoman State for the year 1313] (I stanbul, 1316 [1898]); this pub-
lication was compiled by the statistical office on the basis of i n-
formation supplied by the Population Admi ni strati on.
34 O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830-19U
The fi nal concern is the mar gi n of error, that is, the num-
ber of unregi stered peopl e i n the stati sti cal tables for 1881/
82-1893. I t is i mpossi bl e to provi de a def i ni ti veanswer. M v
own vi ew, stemmi ng i n part f r om i nsi ghts gai ned by wor k-
i ng wi th such materi al s, is that the mar gi n of error for
establ i shed communi ti es l ocated i n the rel ati vel y devel oped
areas wi t h reasonabl y good communi cati ons is l ow, pos-
si bl y betw een 2 and 5 percent. The need for an i ndi vi dual to
produce an i denti ty card i n al l hi s deal i ngs wi t h the govern-
ment forced practi cal l y everyone i n such areas to regi ster.
The margi n of error i n remote areas probabl y i ncreased to
between 6 and 12 percent; but even here the need for tax
revenues and for personnel for the ar my forced the govern-
ment to be as thor ough as possi bl e.
The popul ati on i n some areas such as I §kodra (Scutari ) i n
A l bani a opposed the census f or rel i gi ous reasons; the
nomadi c tri bes i n eastern A natol i a remai ned, as usual , el u-
si ve; some of the popul ati on i n some vilayets coul d not be
regi stered for a vari ety of i nternal reasons. The Ottoman
stati sti cal offi ce was careful to menti on the speci fi c vilayets,
sancaks, and tri bes l eft out of the count and to gi ve popul a-
ti on esti mates for these areas; the "suppl ementar y state-
ment" attached to the census (see the stati sti cal appen-
di ces, I .8.C) must be' read i n conj uncti on wi t h, and re-
garded as an i ntegral part of, the census report. For i n-
stance, the basic stati sti cal tabl e does not show the number
of women or the nomadi c tri bes l i vi ng i n Basra and Bagh-
dad; however, the suppl ementar y statement gi ves the esti -
mated total of women and nomads i n Basra and Baghdad
as 900,000. The suppl ementary statement also reveal s that an
esti mated 3 mi l l i on peopl e l i vi ng i n vari ous vilayets under
di rect Ottoman admi ni str ati on were l eft out of the census.
A ddi ng thi s fi gure to the total of 17,388,562 persons actual -
l y counted, we get a total Ottoman popul ati on i n Europe,
A natol i a, Syri a, and I raq i n 1893 of 20,488,562. The over-
whel mi ng maj ori ty of those l eft out of the regul ar count
were Musl i ms, thus i ncreasi ng the percentage of Musl i ms
to sl i ghtl y above 80 percent of the total . There is no ques-
ti on that the Ottoman offi ci al s d i d thei r utmost to produce
the best popul ati on record possi bl e under the ci r cum-
stances prevai l i ngat the end of the ni neteenth century. The
end pr oduct of thei r efforts compares favorabl y wi t h the
statistics pr oduced by some of the techni cal l y more ad-
vanced countri es.
The val i di ty of the census resul ts compi l ed i n 1893 can
be tested agai nst some other rel i abl e fi gures. Fortunatel y,
we have a number of esti mates on the popul ati on of vari ous
i mpor tant vilayets i n A natol i a and Rumi l i . For exampl e, the
Bri ti sh consul ate col l ected ei ght di f f erent popul ati on esti -
mates for the popul ati on of Si vas. One of these was that
i ssued by the A r meni an patri arch, whose fi gures wer e
grossl y wr ong for both Musl i ms and non- Musl i ms. The
remai ni ng seven esti mates, made by the A r meni an bi shop
i n Sivas, by forei gners, and by Ottoman offi ci al s acquai nted
wi t h the l ocal si tuati on, do not di f f er greatl y f r om the
fi gures obtai ned by the Ottoman gover nment i n 1893. The
government figures^ whi ch i ncl uded bi rths regi stered after
1880, gave the. total popul ati on of Sivas as 926,671, of whom
160,113 were Chri sti an and 766,558 Musl i m. The A r meni an
Cathol i c Patri arch Hassoun I X showed the Chri sti ans to be
62,000 i n number to the Musl i ms' 80,000, for a Chri sti an-
Musl i m rati o of 1:1.3 (he also cl ai med that there were 10,000
A r meni ans, whi l e the Ottoman fi gure was onl y 3,052);
however, the other esti mates of the total popul ati on of
Sivas i n 1881 r un f r om 708,550 to 895,682 and place the
Chr i sti an- Musl i m rati o at f r om 1:3.4 to 1:5.01, excl usi ve of
50,000 Ci rcassi ans. These vari ous esti mates are shown i n
Tabl e 2.7.7 2
Tabl e 2.7. Comparati ve Stati sti cs of Popul ati on
of Sivas Provi nce
Christian-
Muslim
Sourceof Statistics Christians Ratio Muslims Total
Supplied by theArmenianPatriarch
toMajesty's Ambassador 62,000 1:1.3 80,000 142.000
Supplied by theArmenian Bishop of
Sivas toLieutenant-Colonel
Wilson, Jan. 1880 201,245 1:3.4 694,437 895,682
Supplied by theArmenian Bishop of
Sivas toLieutenant Chermside,
Aug.1880 201,245 1:3.4 694,431 895,676
Supplied by AbedinePashato
Lieutenant-Colonel Wilson, Jan.
1880; statistics obtained by
doubling themales 143.174 1:4.0 584,604 727,778
Supplied by unknowntoLieutenant-
Colonel Wilson, Jan. 1880;
statistics obtained by doublingthe
males 136,432 1:4.2 578,166 714,598
Supplied by Government to
Lieutenant Chermside, Aug. 1880;
statistics obtained bydoublingthe
males 143,176 1:5.1 729,872 873,048
Sivas Almanacfor 1878; statistics
obtained by doublingthe males 131,586 1:3.9 711,264 892,850
Accordingto Baker Pasha; statistics
obtained by doublingthemales 140,732 1:4.0 567,818 708,550
Source: HCAP 100-44, p. 99.
The pattern of agreement between i nf or med and rel ati ve-
l y unbi ased esti mates and the Ottoman stati sti cs is more or
less the same for other vilayets. I n sum, the census of 1881/
82-1893, the fi rst comprehensi ve and rel ati vel y sophi sti -
cated Ottoman popul ati on survey, can be used, wi t h mi nor
adj ustments, as a sound quanti tati ve basi s i n studyi ng
Ottoman demogr aphy. These stati sti cs, when pr oper l y
used, may gi ve a pi cture of the Ottoman state di fferent
f r om the stereotype hi therto pr esented.7 3
72. See HCAP 100/ 44, p. 99.
73. See Vedat Eldem, Osmanli Imparatorlugunun Iktisadi Sartlari
Hakkinda Sir Tetklk (Ankara, 1970), pp. 49-65; Eldem mentions the
fact that the Ottoman government took a census i n 1882-84 but
does not elaborate further. However, Vital Cui net also seems to
have relied on that source; see Syrie, Ld'an et Palestine: geographic
administrative, statistique, descriptive et raisonnee (Paris, 1896). For
some i nformati on on the popul ati on of Palestine, see Moshe
Ma'oz, ed., Studies on Palestineduring theOttoman Period(Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1975).
k ™ r F V O I I ' T I ON OF O T T O M A N CENSUSES
POPUL A TI ON DI ST RI BU T I ON A N D T H E E\ OL L T I O,
35
T he Last Ottoman Census, 1905/ 6
The census of 1905/ 6, the last Ottoman popul ati on count,
I undertaken for reasons both techni cal and pol i ti cal .
, v a s undertake . a n d u n d a t e d memor andum
peni nsul a, *e r e r nai ned unregi stered and
S S wa detr i mental born to the M usl i m cause and t
treasury Thus the Ottoman offi ci al s are shown to
b ' e taken h I census duti es seri ousl y and been con-
n e d to correct thei r errors. The pol i ti cal reason for th
, ™ tn carry out a new census stemmed f r om the
! n W i s t s r u l i e " L n g Greeks, Bul gari ans, Serbi ans
pt. 9/ 2631, 2632, folder 4, envelope 72, and BA W ^)
and 17.
church i t meant that the i ndi vi dual or gr oup had deeded
o be "Gr eek," regardl ess of l anguage and backgr ound. The
br eakdown of the uni versal Or thodox communi ty m the
age of nati onal i sm had made nati onal i ty a matter o i ndi -
vi dual preference. The fi erce struggl e between the nahona -
£t £ d « of the Bul gari an, Greek, and Serbi an communi ¬
es centered on the mani pul ati on of popul ati on stati sti c
" h each si de cl ai mi ng to possess numeri cal superi on
over the other. The fiercest struggl e took pl ace ,n the Bal -
k am wher e most of the Or thodox Chri sti ans l i ved. »
0 der to put an end to thi s battl e of popul ati on stati sti cs, the
Porte der i ded to conduct a new census, enl i sti ng he sup-
1 one aeci u r e D r esent at ves of the l ocal
port a ^ P ^ ^ t e i t K e resul ts thus obtai ned
C T u Wn r o be ; t ted and the ethni c gr oup i n the major-
I w l to be enhtl ed to appoi nt the pri est (or "despot," as
r o t omans cal l ed h i mj ' l n cases where ethni c commum-
t h e u t t o m a
h w appoi nt i ts own pri est.
^ o S t d d e f t o Sni sh the ceL us i n three months
a n " n ^
Zrur tezkeresi, or travel card, "sued d »r , ng ^1 8 4 * I t
was esti mated that the census woul d cost 4,563 / Ui M "
i n L i ' l h e , 1 8 i ,r, these — n t s ate mCnded
among the stati sti cal appendi ces (1.16, !/ )•
A p p e n d i x B . l . Some 1831 C ensu s O f f i ci al s
Divan-i hümayunkaleminden ibrahimNabi Efendi
Dıvan-i hümayun Mühımmenüvısanindan Naili Efendi
Oivan-i hümayun Mühımmenuvisanindan Ata Efendi
Divan-i hümayun keîebesindenTayfur Bey
Divan-i hümayun ketebesınden Tahsin Efendi
Müderrisinden Sıtkizadedamadi Arif Efendi
Hacegandan Osman Efendi
Seyit Mehmet Ragıp Efendi
Ruznamçe-ı evvel Arif Efendi
MevalidenAhmed Efendi
Mektubi hulefasinden Sadullah Efendi
Kapicibaşi Sirri Bey
Kapicibaşilardan Hakki Paşazadeİzzet Bey
Müderrisinden Seyit Mehmet Raşid Efendi
Remzi PaşazadeİzzetEnver Bey
Hacegandan Osman Ferit Efendi
Hacegandan Ragip Efendi
Mektubi HulefasindanHaci Ahmed Efendi
Bursamuhtesibi Hafiz Ağa veşeriki Hüseyin Bey
Reayasayimini yapanMevall-i devriyyeden Hüsnü Efendi
Mevaliden MustafaPaşazadeOsman Bey
Mevali-i devriyyeden llyaszadeSeyld İbrahimEfendi
Müderris Ahmed Nazif Efendi
Mevaliden sabik Belgrat kadisi İbrahimEfendi
(Member of theimperial secretariat)
(Imperial secretariat, important affairs)
(Imperial secretariat, important affairs)
(Secretary of theimperial secretariat)
(Secretary of theimperial secretariat)
(High ranking member of theulema. or religiousestablishment)
(Bureau chief)
(Probably samerank asabove)
(Chief financeofficial in chargeof daily accounts)
(High ranking ulema: mevali istheplural of molls)
(Correspondenceclerk)
(Chief of theimperial guard)
(Oneof thechiefs of theimperial guard)
(High ranking ulema)
(Member of theOttoman bureaucraticaristocracy)
(Bureau chief)
(Bureau chief)
(Correspondenceclerk)
(Weights and measuresclerk of Bursa)
(High ranking ulemain chargeof Christians' census)
(High ranking ulema)
(High ranking ulema)
(High ranking ulema)
(Former judgeof Belgrade, member of theulema)
A p p e n d i x B. 2. N u mb e r an d E co n o mi c St at us of So me C h r i st i an s i n R u mi l i i n 1831
Rich Middle Poor Non-
Kaza (a/a) (evsat) (edna) Taxpayers Taxpayers
Tikves1 131 2,369 1,475 — —
Berkofga" 234 5,978 1,124 2,379 4,957
Sofia0 1,589 12,794 12,794 15,732 11,445
Uzuncaabat, Hasköy, and
Sultanyeri 268
Radovişte 122
Vardar (2,133
Perzinek 148
Avrathisar 55
Doniced 747
Radomir 544
Ivraca 629
Perlepe 238
Köprülü 569
Kesriyee 303
Source: Compiled from theregister of the 1831census(but not exhaustive of all
such figures in theregister).
Note: "Taxpayers" arethose found to possess receipts for thehead tax; "non-
taxpayers" arethose whodid not have receipts. There isnocorrelation between the
numbersof taxpayersand non-taxpayersand thenumbersin thethreewealth columns.
"Tikve? is shown to have had apopulation of 2,131 children and 3,975taxable
persons.
b0f the234persons in the"rich" category in Berkofca, only 3had previouslypaid
thehead tax.
°Thenumbersfor Sofiacontain someerror which could notbecorrected becauseof
5,163 280 5,711 466
2,593 777
_ _
subject, 1 668not subject to çiziye)
2,101 169 — —
4.593 14 — -
6.050 231 2,797 4,614
3,425 175 2,435 1,709
6,898 738 2,148 6,117
7,697 2,066 — -
6.839 1,024 — —
4,428 934
our inability to find theactual material used to compilethisfigure. It should be noted
that thenumbersof taxpayers in the"middle" and "poor" categoriesareequal; usually
thelatter would be22to 27percent of thetotal, or roughly 3,600people. Of the1.589
persons in the "rich" category, only 250had previously paid thehead tax.
"The totals excludeseveral hundred peoplesubject to a variant of the ciziye.
'The official taking thecensusindicated that 305Christiansof all ageshad cometo
Kesriyefrom other fetzas.Of thenew arrivals, 44wereworking outsidethe locality.
Figuresfor newcomers aregiven for several other teastoo, indicating theexistence of
acertain degreeof demographicmobility.
36
^
B
'
3
' g ^ S ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ S u ^
m»- WhileI have sought to maketheEnglish translations as literal as possible,
J Z « someawkwardness, , havealso given guilefree transat.ons where
,Pri for sense For example, theword "fiane," commonly translated family, is
;^;:,ed as household," asthat isCose, tothesensein which it was used in these
I n thetranslated versions of theregisters I haveconserved spaceby deletinglines
7 j ; 5 and 201APPendix B.3.aand lines 4-12inAppendix B.3.b. wherethereare no
entries in theoriginal.
Note that persons and households are numbered consecutively mcols 1-3of
AppendixB 3.c. Thelast figuresin cols. 1 and 3when registration wascompletewould
b tal of persons and households in Petrig; subtotalsin col. 2show thenumber ot
nersonsm eachot thenumbered households. As this register wasdesigned for theuse
of themilitary in thedraft system, only males arenoted. '
° WeJ l sl a. es as"person" or "individual." or simply "number , to save repeti-
tion, it isnot translated in thecolumn headings of Appendix B.3.C
A p p e n d i x B. 3. a. Samp l e Regi st er of P o p u l at i o n ( co n t i n u ed )
SsüHl
aded
Page
NumDer
Vilayet
Province
/. /Va -
••strict
DEFTER-I NÜFUS
REGISTER OF POPULATION
Kaza
Township
Sehir
City
Kasaba
Town
Beher Sakat ve esnan-i Kura Esnam İhtiyata
Aded-i haneye Eskali-i mahsusa nakis-ulaza askeri isabet tecavuz'e dahil
umum mahsus Şöhret ve Boy velevn Sene-ı mahal-i olduğu eylediği rsd.fedahii olduğu
nut us numara Hane esami-i nüfus vegözdür veledat is,areti sene sene oldugu senesene
General Number Household Titleand name Personal description. Birth Serious defects and Year of Year ol Year of Year of
popularon per (number) of pcrsons Height. year missinglimbs, location reaching selection reaching reaching
number household complexion. of stigma military by lottery first second
eye color serviceage [for conscription] reserveage reserveage
1 1 1 ŞerifoğluMuştala kısaboylu 1240
binAli short 1824.25
Şerif oğlu Mustafa. elagözlü
son of Ali brown eyes
beyazbenizli
whitecomplexion
2 2 OğluAH ortaboylu 1263 1285
sen, Ali mediumheight 1846.47 186869
siyahgözlü
black eyes
beyazbenizli
whitecomplexion
3 3 Diğer oğluSüleymanuzun boylu 1265 1283
ûtherson, Süleyman tail 184849 186667
siyahgözlü
black eyes
Beyazbenizli
whitecomplexion
4 4 Diğeri Ibrahim
other son.
Ibrahim
siyahgözlü
black eyes
beyazbenizli
whitecomplexion
1281
1864-64
bir eli
cpklakdir
onehand
crippled
5 5 Hafidi Mahmud
veled-i AH
nephew Mahmud.
son of Ali
mavi gözlü
blueeyes
beyazbenizli
whilecomplexion
1285
1868.69
Hafidi Abdürrezzak mavigöziü 1289
veled-i AH blueeyes 1872 73
nephew , beyazbenizli
Abdul-Rezzak, son whitecomplexion
of Alt
Katiboğlu Yusuf ortaboylu 1260 1284
veled-i Süleyman mediumheight 1844 1867E
Katıpoğlu Yusuf, son mavigöziü
of Süleyman blueeyes
bğdaybenizli
wheat-colored (iight
brown) complexion
OğluSüleyman
son. Süleyman
mavigöziü
blueeyes
esmerce
somewhat dark
1282
1865-66
Diğeri Ibrahim
other son, ibrahim
elagözlü
brown eyes
esmer-ülevn
dark complexion
1285
1868.69
ÇobanoğluHalil elagözlü 1255 1285
veled-iMehmed brown eyes 1839-40 18686
Cobanoğiu Hali!, son uzun boylu
of Mehmed tali
beyazbenizli
whitecomplexion
38
A p p e r x d i x B ; 3 ^ ^
Malazie
town Quarter
Karye
Village
çıfthk
Farm
Aşiret
Tribe
Cemaat
Community
Muvazzaf dan
redifedahil
olduğu
sene
Year ol
transfer
to first
reserve
M ustafhiz
silkine
dahil
olduğu
sene
Year ol
joining
militia
ita-i
hizmetle
ifirac
oldugu
sene
Year of
discharge
fromduty
of service
Bad-et-tahnr olan Vukuat
E ventsafter registration
Varidat
Additions
Tenzilat
Subtractions
Addtions
MaluHyyeti
cihetiyle
Numara-i Doğan veahar mahalden Aded-i Numara-i Vefat edenlerinve
j• ;nf,-*5nlri&nlprin ihrac Aded-i gelenlerintarih-i dettee-i umum OlVSr-l Sria'c(Jluciııcıııı Melhuzat
olduğu deftet-i umum veladet vevürudlari yevmiye 1 yevmiye tatih-t vefat vehareketlen
n-i-- n4Hnnth anH ripnarture
Remarks
sene yevmiye Dates ol birth and Daily General Datesot oeaın anu usyouun.
Yeaı of Daily General
daily
arrival of thosecoming register daily of thosedying or moving to
disability
discharge
register
number
number fromother places number number other places
1285
1868'69
Velali
death
3Şubat 89
3February 1289(1872)
1 1 Veladeti
birth
2Şubat 89
2r-ebıuary 1289(1872)
1 2 Damado/mus.
Becameson-in-law
2Şubat 89
2February 1269(1872)
MerkumHalil Derekan/e»
olupburayadamad
ulmağlaserh venidı
T ne atoıementıoned Halil
ısIramDeıekay village
and was married here
39
A p p e n d i x B. 3. b. Samp l e D a i l y E v ent s Regi st er
<>>:
/ —" \
4.
f i
m *
\ . ^
\ *
I Ï
S A V V \ -«•
- i *
Y: ' V.
^ 1
V
\
4.
f i
' M
- i *
Y: ' V.
^ 1
V
i !
i - 1 i .
1 ~
1
i
, i \
w..'
m T
. . i » -ı
\
. . . . . . i . - i w..'
. . .. .^..^ .
• i ; :
\ i
: ! : L\ u
\
*
! 1 j i i i
i ; !
i i 1 «s
; :
i !
; j
i : i
! i !
11
; j ;
i
!
1 1
I I
1 i
! ¡ :
1 1
1 !
i ! ! !
İ l 1 :
1
j
i
1 i
1 1 Al
YEVMIYYE-I VUKVAT-I NÜFUS
DAILY POPULATION EVENTS
Sahife Liva-i
aded Siroz
1 District
Page of Siroz
Number
1
Şehir, Tevellüdeden vegelenlerin Gelenlerlegiden vevefat Gelenlerin nereden Eskal
Tarih-i kasaba sene-i veladet vecedid edenlerin atiyknumaravegeldiği vegiden Boy levn
Umumi yevmiyye vekarye numaravehaneleri haneleri nereyegittiği vegözdür
General Date of City, (New) birthsand birth Families and old number of Placeof origin of Marks:
number theday town, and dates of new arrivalsand their thedeceased, the {new] thosearriving and_ height,
village arrivalsnew numbers and families and the departed destination of complexion,
- the departed eyes coior
Sene-i veladet Numara Hane Numara Hane
Birth year Number Household Number Household
1 2Şubat 1289 Petriq 1289 6 1
2February kasabasında 187273
1872 Emirler
mahallesi
Quarter of
Emirler in
thetown of
Petriç
3Şubat 1289 keza
3February same
1872
1255
1839.40
Timurhisar kazasından
fromTimurhisar township
elagözlü
brown eyes
uzun boylu
tall
beyazbenizli
whitecomplexion
3Şubat 1289 keza 1285
3February same 186869
1872
40
A p p en d i x B. 3. b. Samp l e D a i l y E v ent s Regi st er ( co n t i n u ed )
Kaza-i
Petric,
Township
of Petriç
Müslim
Muslim
Gayr-i Muslim
Non-Muslim
Sifat-i
Askeriyyesi
Nev~i
Vukuat
Esami
Names
Vukuat-i niitus vemakuledelatir ve
umumanaklolunmustui
Theregister ang general register
Melhuzal
Remarks
Zam tenzil
hAA Q ı Thtrart
Zam Tenzil
Add Subtract
Military
status
Type
ot event
wherethepopulation events were
noted
AÛG ûUUUOlj l
Keler Neler
Number ot Number ot
persons persons
Neler Neler
Number ot Number of
persons persons
Delter Umum
Register General
1
mevlud
birth
Abdurrezzakveleö-ıAlı
Abdurrezzak. sonot Ali
1 6
1
redil sene
reserveyear
1285
1868/69
vandal
arrival
Çooar? oğluHalil veled-i
Mehmed
Çobanoğlu Halil, son of
Mehmed
Sıtoz sancağı kazalaıindan
Timurhisar kazasındaDere
karyesinden mekumHalil bu
mahalleninikinci hanesinde
mukayyedKatıpoglu Yusula
damadolmuştur
Theatoremenlioned Halil fromthe
villageof Derekoy. Timurhisar
township. Siroz district, became
theson-in-law of Katipoğlu
Yusut. registered in thesecond
household ot this ouaner
1
velat
death
Şenloglu Mehmed
veied-t Ali
ISentoîu Mehmed. son ol
Alı
2 10
41
A p p e n d i x B.3.C. Samp l e S u mma r y Regi st er
* \ \
V
[
1 i
İCMAL
SUMMARY
Vilayet-i Selanik Liva-i Siroz
Provinceof Salónica Oistrict of Siroz
lcmal-i Millet-i
umum Millet-i Millet-i Millet-i Millet-i Yehud
nüfus Hane Islam Rum Bulgar Ermeni vesaire
Summary Household Muslim Greek Bulgarian Armenian Jewish and
ot genera community communıty community community other
population communities
Nefer Nefer Nefer Neler Nefer Nefer Neler
7.500 2,500 5.000 250 2,000 100 150
2 000 2 00 00 0 00
7,502 2,500 5,002 250 2,000 100 150
01 00 01 00 00 00 00
7,501 2.500 5.001 250 2,000 too 150
42
ap p en d i x B. 3. c. Samp l e S u mma r y Regi st er ( co n t i n u ed )
Kaza-/ Peine
Township ot Petrig
Islamdan sıfat-i askenyyeyi haiz olanlar
Muslimsqualifyingfor military service
SiniN
askeriye
tiaiz
oianiarin
icmali
Summary (ol
classifications)
of those
qualified
for military
service
Dahil-i
esnan-i
askeri
Those in
military
service
Kura
isabet
Those selected
by lottery
Redif
First
reserve
İhtiyat
Second
reserve
Mustehfaz
Local
militia
lia-yi
hizimetle
ihraç
Discharged on
completion of
service
Malutiyetiyle
irhac
Released
(fromobligation)
of service on
account of
disability
Bsami-i kura ve
kasabat
Names of towns and
Melhuzat
Remarks
Neter Neter Neter Neter Neter Nefer Neter Neter villages
3.250 500 500 750 750 500 500 250 Petriqkasabasi
Town of Petrç
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Ber musib-i yevmiyye-i
vukuat zam
Daily eventsaddition as
required
An ibttda-i Kanun-i evvel ila
gaye-i Subat ba-itibar 3
mah
Fromthebeginning of
December to theend of
February. 3months
3.250
0
3.250
500
0
500
500
0
500
750
0
750
750
0
750
500
0
500
500
0
500
150
0
250
Be/ mucıb-i yevmıyye-ı
vukuat tenzil
Daily events subtraction as
required
Mevcuti Hagaye-1Şubat
Total at end ol February
keza
same
43
A p p e n d i x B. 4. D i r ect or s of t he O t t o ma n St at i st i cal O f f i ce, 1892- 1916 ( R. 1308- 1332)
Year
Rumi , Miladi
or or
Hicri Mali A. D
General Director Assistant to the
of Statistics General Director
1310 1308 1892 Nuri Bey
1311 1309 1393 Fethi Bey
1312 1310 1894 Fethi Bey
1313 1311 1895 Fethi Franko Bey
1314 1312 1896 Fethi Franko Bey
1315 1313 1897 Migirdiç Sinabyan Efendi
1316 1314 1898 Migirdiç Sinabyan Efendi Mehmet Behiç Bey
1317 1315 1899 Migirdiç Sinabyan Efendi Mehmet Behiç Bey
1318 1316 1900 Migirdiç Sinabyan Efendi Mehmet Behiç Bey
1319 1317 1091 Migirdiç Sinabyan Efendi Mehmet Behiç Bey
1320 1318 1902 Migirdiç Sinabyan Efendi Mehmet Behiç Bey
1321 1319 1903 Rober Efendi Mehmet Behiç Bey
1322 1320 1904 Rober Efendi Mehmet Behiç Bey
1323 1321 1905 Rober Efendi Mehmet Behiç Bey
1324 1322 1906 Rober Efendi Mehmet Behiç Bey
1325 1323 1907 Rober Efendi Mehmet Behiç Bey
1326 1324 1908 Mehmet Behiç Bey
Mehmet Behiç Bey
1327 1325 1909 Mehmet Behiç Bey
1328 : 1326 1910 Mehmet Behiç Bey
1329 1327 1911 Mehmet Behiç Bey
1330 1328 1912 Mehmet Behiç Bey
1331 1329 1913 Mehmet Behiç Bey
1332 1330 1914 Mehmet Behiç Bey
1333 1331 1915
Mehmet Behiç Bey
1334 1332 1915
Source: Salnamesof H. 1310-1334(1892/ 93—1915/ 16).
Notes: It should be noted that for fifteen out of the twenty-threeyears for which
preciseinformation isavailable, thedirector was a non-Muslim, and for eleven of those
years, hewas foreignalso. Fethi Bey apparently wasJewish. Migirdig Sinabyan Efendi
was an Armenian who had served as assistant director of trade from 1892 until he
assumed thestatistics post in1897 and whoafter 1902 returned to thetrade ministry
as assistant minister (thestatistical officewas placed under thejurisdiction of thetrade
ministry in 1910). Rober (Robert) Efendi was apparently an American.
It is interestingto observetheeffort madeby theseofficialstodisseminateinforma-
tion about statistics. Mehmet BehiçBey, whoserved first as assistant director and then
as general director and cameto be a good statistician in his own right, produced
several works. Oneof his publications giving demographic, economic, financial, and
other data for the Ottoman state in 1310 (1894) begins with a general introduction
discussing the meaning and importanceof statistics; see IUKTY 9075, YevmiyeKalibi
Mehmet BehiqTarafindan TanzimOlunan Istatistik Defteri.
44
3 T H E R E L I G I O U S A N D E T H N I C D I S T R I B U T I O N
O F T H E O T T O M A N P O P U L A T I O N :
A N O V E R V I E W ,
I ntr oducti on
Unti l the census of 1881/ 82, despi te occasi onal al l usi ons
to ethni c groups (as i n the 1831 census), Ottoman offi ci al
statistics cl assi fi ed the popul ati on onl y accordi ng to rel i -
gi ous af f i l i ati on—except for a f ew ethni c categori es i n-
cl uded i n some of the provi nci al sahinmes, chi efl y after 1868.
Despi te the absence of any actual count of ethni c groups,
Eur opeans d i v i d ed and subdi vi ded t he' non- M u sl i m
popul ati on, chi efl y the Chri sti ans, i n accordance wi t h thei r
nati onal i nterests and subjecti ve preferences. H owever , aft-
er 1868 provi nci al yearbooks (vilayet salnamcleri), al though
i ssued somewhat i rregul arl y, began to pr ovi de, al ong wi t h
general popul ati on stati sti cs for the i ndi vi dual provi nces,
sol i d data on the ethni c composi ti on of Chri sti an groups.
Thi s new source of demogr aphi c i nf or mati on was used
properl y onl y by the seri ous and i mparti al European schol -
ars and statesmen; the others conti nued to rel y on f aul t y—
often whol l y f i cti ti ous—data. Thus, for obvi ous reasons,
the popul ati on fi gures presented bv those who i gnored
Ottoman stati sti cs vari ed greatl y f r om the fi gures gi ven by
the mor e consci enti ous r epor ter s. For exampl e, E. G.
Ravenstei n, despi te hi s outspoken svmpathv for the Chri s-
ti ans, used stati sti cs f r om several sources, some of whi ch
rel i ed on Ottoman data, to show that the Musl i ms i n the
Bal kans (excl udi ng Bosni a) consti tuted about 43 percent of
(he total popul ati on;1 F. Bi anconi , usi ng sources of i n-
f ormati on that are hi ghl y suspect and fi gures that were
apparentl y i magi nary, pl aced the Musl i m popul ati on at a
mere 16 percent.2 The report prepared bv H ei nr i ch Ki epert
for the use of Russi an del egates at the I stanbul conference
i n 1876 rel i ed mai nl y on Sl avi c sources and on Bi anconi 's
false stati sti cs and overesti mated the Slavic popul ati on to
the detri ment of al l other gr oups.3 A mong the thi rtv-three
1. "Di stri buti on of the Population in the Part of Europe Overrun
bv Turks," The Geographical Magazine 3 (1876): 260.
2. Ethnographic el statistique de la Tunpiie d'Europe ct de la Grece
(Paris, 1877), pp. 50 ff.
3. See Das Aiisland, no. 20 (20 May 1878): 393-116. It was com-
mon practice for "authori ti es" on Ottoman popul ati on si mpl y to
copy, wi thout regard for the authenticity or accuracy of the i n-
sources deal i ng wi t h the ethni c and rel i gi ous di str i buti on of
the Ottoman popul ati on i n the Bal kans there is astoundi ng
vari ati on. The fi gures gi ven f or the pr opor ti on of Bul gar-
i ans i n the European provi nces range f r om 24 to 39 percent;
of Greeks, f r om 9 to 16 percent; of Turks, f r om 11 to 24
percent; and so on, despi te consi derabl e agreement about
the total size (10 to 14 mi l l i on) of the Ottoman popul ati oni n
the Bal kans. Tabl e 3.1, whi ch compares the fi gures gi ven by
Ravenstei n and by Ki epert and Bi anconi , shows the effect
of the use of bi ased and purposel y false i nf or mati on about
the size of the Musl i m popul ati on i n the Bal kans.
Sources of i nf or mati on about the ethni c and rel i gi ous di s-
tr i buti on of the Ottoman popul ati on i n the A si an provi nces
are fewer than for the Bal kans. They are general l y i n agree-
ment that Musl i ms consti tuted an over whel mi ng majori ty
i n A si a, al though there is some di sagreement as to the exact
rati o of Musl i ms to Chri sti ans, especi al l y i n areas subject to
pol i ti cal cl ai ms.''
The pr obl em of nati onal i ty i n the Ottoman state acqui red
a new di mensi on after 1878 as the new i ndependent or
autonomous states i n the Bal kans—Serbi a, Bul gari a, Mon-
tenegro, Romani a, and Greece—sought to acqui rei addi ti on-
al terri tori es, to whi ch they cl ai med to have hi stori cal
ri ghts. These states had emerged despi te the Musl i m pre-
ponderance i n areas such as Dobruca and the sancaks of
eastern Bul gari a. Other Chri sti an groups, for exampl e, the
A r meni ans, encouraged by the success of the Bal kan
Chri sti ans i n achi evi ng statehood, sought thei r own i nde-
pendence, agai n i gnor i ng the wi shes of the over whel mi ng
Musl i m maj ori ty. Some Musl i ms—e.g., the K ur ds (who i n-
habi ted more or less the same areas as those cl ai med bv the
A rmeni ans), the A l bani ans i n the Bal kans, and the Arabs i n
Syri a—began also to advance demands for admi ni strati ve
autonomy. The ri si ng feel i ng of nati onal consci ousness
formation, the figures of other "authori ti es," and i ri s interesting to
see in this article what in general were the sources that Kiepert
drew upon and, especially, the manner in whi ch he treated Bianco-
ni as a great authority on the Ottoman popul ati on.
4. See Justin McCarthy, Muslims and Minorities: The Population of
Anatolia at the End oi the Empire (New York: New York University
Press, 1983).
45
46 O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
TH E REL I GI OU S A N D E T H N I C DI ST RI BU T I ON OF T H E O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON 47
Table 3.1. Ethni c Di str i buti on of the Ottoman Popul ati on
i n the Bal kans, 18/ 6-18/ S
According to Ravenstein
Total Population Muslims
Number % Number
Turks (Tatars) V. 388.000 17 1,388.000 39
Circassians i 144.000 2 144.000 4
Arabs 3.000 — 3.000 —
Greeks 1.120.000 14 38.000 1
Albanians 1.031.000 13 723.000 20
Romanians 200.000 2 — —
Bulgarians 2.861,000 35 790.000 22
Serbians 1.114.000 13 442.000 12
Russians 10,000 — — —
Armenians 100,000 1 — —
Jews 72,000 1 — —
Gypsies 104.000 1 52,000 1
Foreigners 60.000 1 5,000 —
Total 8,207,000 100 3,585.000 100
According to Sianconi and Kiepert
Muslims Number Christians Number
Turks and Tatars 750.000 Pure Greeks 3.000,000
Circassians 200,000 Greeks-Albanians 630,000
Bosnians 150,000 Greeks-Wallachs 70,000
Pomaks 140,000 Bulgarians (Orthodox) 3,000.000
Albanians and Greeks 170,000 Bulgarians (Catholic) 100,000
Total 1,410,000
Albanians (Orthodox) 290.000
Total 1,410,000
Albanians (Catholic) 80,000
Croatians (in Bosnia) 75,000
Herzegovinians 140,000
Serbians (in Bosnia) 550,000
Armenians 110.000
Vlahs (Romanians) 90,000
Total 8,135,000
Sources: E. G. Ravenstein, "Distribution of the Population in the Part of Europe
Overrun by Turks," TheGeographical Magazine3 (October 1876): 260: F. Bianconi,
Ethnographieet statistiquedelaTurguied'Europeet delaGrèce(Paris. 1877), pp. 50
ff.: Heinrich Kiepert, DasAusland, no. 20 (20 May 1878): 393-416.
among Chri sti ans and Musl i ms after 1878 stemmed essen-
ti al l y f r om ethni c and l i ngui sti c attachments. Each ethni c
gr oup, consci ousl y or not, became i nterested i n i ts own
numeri cal strength.
Three major areas—Macedoni a, eastern A natol i a, and, to
a somewhat lesser extent, Thrace and western A natol i a—
became the battl eground of confl i cti ng nati onal ambi ti ons.
Popul ati on stati sti cs were the fi rst weapons i n the battl e
that was l ater carri ed f or war d wi t h guns and bul l ets. The
popul ati on stati sti cs war pr oduced a mass of i nf or mati on
not onl y about the size of vari ous ethni c-rel i gi ous groups
but also about the soci al , economi c, and cul tural si tuati on
of the Ottoman Empi re i n general . A f ter 1878 the Euro-
peans' i nterest i n the Ottoman popul ati on sl ackened con-
si derabl y, as the chi ef sti mul us of thi s i nterest, that is, the
questi on of the fate of the Bal kan Chri sti an popul ati on, had
been removed by the Berl i n treaty: the "Eastern Questi on"
had al ways been essenti al l y a "Chr i sti an Popul ati on Ques-
t i on. " Wi th the excepti on of Felix Kani tz's studi es and a f ew
others, the vol ume and qual i ty of European wor ks on Otto-
man popul ati on after 1878 is scarcelv comparabl e wi t h that
publ i shed just pri or to the Berl i n Congress.3 The defi ci ency
i n European-produced fi gures was f ul l v compensated for
bv the i mpr ovement i n the qual i ty and coverage of the
Ottomans' own stati sti cs after 1881 and bv the fi el d reports
of Bri ti sh consul ar agents and speci al mi l i tary personnel
who vi si ted each area and compi l ed vol umi nous data. The
Bri ti sh remai ned i nterested i n popul ati on fi gures for the
provi nces of eastern A natol i a where A r meni ans cl ai med to
be a l arge por ti on of the popul ati on because of thei r respon-
si bi l i ty for reforms there.
I n thi s chapter I survey the Greek, Bul gari an, A r meni an,
and Musl i m popul ati ons of both Europe and Asi a, em-
pl oyi ng stati sti cs f r om Ottoman offi ci al sources—many un-
publ i shed unti l now—and f r om the speci al Bri ti sh reports
on Ottoman popul ati on.6
The Greeks
The Hel l enes i n the Ottoman state enjoyed, unti l the
Greek upri si ng of 1821, a pri vi l eged posi ti on unsurpassed
by any other ethni c gr oup—i ncl udi ng the Tur ks, whose
cl ai ms to nati onal supremacy had l ong si nce been sub-
merged by Musl i m uni versal i sm and the Ottoman- Musl i m
i nternati onal i sm pr omoted by the sul tan. Because of thei r
hi stori cal connecti on wi t h the Patri archate, the Greeks
came to represent, and to speak on behal f of, the enti re
Orthodox Chr i stendom i n Europe and A si a. The Or thodox
Patri archate, shi el ded by Ottoman mi ght, enjoyed power
and presti ge to a degree unk nown even dur i ng the heyday
of Byzanti um. A s l ate as the 1840s the Ottoman govern-
ment sti l l referred to al l the Chri sti an Or thodox i n the real m
as Rum, or Romans. A s an ethni c gr oup, the Greeks were
the fi rst to be gi ven posi ti ons wi t hi n the hi gh Ottoman
bureaucracy wi thout havi ng to convert to I sl am, fi rst as
i nterpreters and then, f r om 1711 to 1821, as rul ers (known
as phanari ots) of Wal l achi a and Mol davi a. The Greeks were
also the fi rst to embrace the European capi tal i st system,
and they became its mai n proponents and benefi ci ari es.
The rise of a Greek merchant el i te i n the Ottoman state,
and its vi tal rol e i n the emergence of a secul ar f or m of
hel l eni sm (whi ch came i nto confl i ct sharpl y wi t h the I stan-
bul Patri archate's rel i gi ous dr eam of a Byzanti ne nati onal
revi val ), resul ted f r om economi c forces generated by the
expandi ng Eur opean capi tal i sm. Both the Engl i sh and
French, who had di scovered the cul tural roots of the West
i n the anci ent ci vi l i zati on of Greece, were i nterested i n the
economi c rol e whi ch an i ndependent Greece coul d pl av i n
di stri buti ng to the East goods manuf actured by thei r i ndus-
5. A good source was the Österreichische Monatsschrift für den
Orient, whi ch continued to publ i sh articles on Ottoman popula-
ti on, many wri tten by pre-1878 authors such as Hugo Kutschern
(see his "Geographisch-ethnographische Ubersi cht," Österreichis-
che Monatsschrift 8 [1882]: 149-52).
6. For bibliographical references, see my "Popul ati on Move-
ments i n the Ottoman State i n the Nineteenth Century: A n Out-
l i ne," in Contributions i ! I'Histoire Econotuique et Sociale de l'Empire
Ottoman, Col l ecti on Turci ca, vol . 3, ed. J ean-Louis Bacque-
Gramont and Paul Dumont (I stanbul, Paris, London, 1983).
tri es. The western i nf atuati on wi t h anci ent Greece thus
sprang not onl y f r om hi stori cal romanti ci sm but also f r om
strong economi c consi derati ons. A s the benefi ci ari es of thi s
combi nati on of hi stori cal , nati onal , and economi c forces,
and ai ded by a pri vi l eged posi ti on i n the Ottoman hi er-
archy, the Greeks were abl e to create a fast-expandi ng mi d-
dle class whi ch, i n tur n, caused an i ncrease i n the size of
the Greek-speaki ng popul ati on and of groups that i den-
ti fi ed wi t h the Greek Patri archate, regardl ess of thei r ethni c
ori gi ns.
Before the mi ddl e of the ei ghteenth century the Greek
popul ati on of A natol i a apparentl y was rather i nsi gni fi cant
i n size. I n 1830 the popul ati on of I zmi r was esti mated to
have consi sted of 80,000 Turks and 20,000 Greeks; howev-
er, i n 1860 there were 75,000 Greeks to 41,000 Turks (Mus-
l i ms). Because of the favorabl e condi ti ons created by the
edicts of 1839 and 1856, the Chri sti an popul ati on of the
Aegean I sl ands had begun to i ncrease r api dl y. Unabl e to
fi nd empl oyment, many mi gr ated to western A natol i a and
settl ed there. A Bri ti sh consul ar agent esti mated i n 1880
that the number of these mi grants was as hi gh as 200,000
over a peri od of not qui te twenty years.
The Greek i mmi gr ants were f avored by economi c condi -
ti ons. They were not subject to conscri pti on or vari ous
other heavy obl i gati ons. Whi l e the M usl i m, har d pressed
by economi c di ffi cul ti es, kept hi s f ami l y smal l by every
possi bl e means, i ncl udi ng aborti on and, i n some cases, i n-
f anti ci de, the Greeks, free of mi l i tar y obl i gati ons and
payi ng i nsi gni fi cant taxes i n pr opor ti on to thei r i ncomes,
coul d af f ord to rai se l arge fami l i es. A ccor di ng to a Bri ti sh
consul ar r epor t, ever ywher e i n wester n A natol i a the
Greeks repl aced the Turks i n the f ol l owi ng manner:
A Greek arri ves i n a M usl i m vi l l age and commences l i fe
as a smal l tradesman. H e gradual l y grows ri ch whi l st
the peasants become poor; eventual l y he is j oi ned by
fri ends or rel ati ves and the pover ty of the peasant
i ncreases, unti l a successi on of bad harvests forces them
to part wi t h thei r l ands and move f urther i nl and.
A mongst the weal thy Mosl ems the process is much the
same . . . i n nearl y every t own Mosl ems are now7 to be
f ound, i n a state of pover ty, who a f ew years ago were
comparati vel y weal thy men/
The i nf l ux of Greek col oni sts was not conf i ned to
seashore towns such as A yval i k (whi ch i n a matter of thi r ty
years had become a major Greek cul tural and i ndustri al
center i nhabi ted by 40,000 peopl e, and dotted wi t h hospi -
tals and school s and har bor i ng 2,000 shi ps); the Greeks also
settl ed i n the i nter i or towns such as Mani sa, A kşehi r,
A vdi n and many other places benef i ti ng f r om the Greek-
managed economi c boom. I n the nor ther n part of Asi a
Mi nor , Greeks f r om the i nteri or moved to the seaports of
Trabzon and Gi resun to create i n these ci ti es a smal l econo-
mi c r evol uti on based on free enterpri se and forei gn trade.
The di spl acement of Musl i ms by Greek mi grants changed
the ethni c composi ti on of enti re towns and vi l l ages i n a few
years' ti me i n a process whi ch i nvol ved no predetermi ned
7. HCAP 100 44 (1881), pp. 389-90 (Wilson to Goschen).
pl an of col oni zati on (al though such a scheme di d eventual -
l y take shape) but merel y the expl oi tati on of economi c
oppor tuni ty. I n towns near I zmi r the pr opor ti on of Mus-
l i ms decreased consi derabl y. For exampl e, i n a peri od of
ni neteen years f r om 1305 to 1326 (1887-1908), the Musl i ms
went f r om 19.1 percent of the popul ati on of Çeşme to onl y
16 percent; f r om 20.6 to 12.4 percent i n Url a; and f r om 64.5
to 58.6 per cent i n Seferi hi sar. Thi s patter n pr evai l ed
thr oughout most of the kaza. Dur i ng the same ni neteen-
year peri od and i n the same area, the pr opor ti on of the
Tur ki sh popul ati on is al so shown to have decreased: i n
Çeşme, from-12 to 10.9 percent; i n Url a, f r om 34.9 to 24.7
percent; and i n Seferi hi sar, f r om 82.1 to 74 percent.8
Meanwhi l e, ri ch Greeks sent thei r chi l dr en for educati on
to hi gher i nsti tuti ons of l earni ng f r om whi ch
these young men returned as doctors, merchants, or
school masters to sti mul ate others by thei r exampl e.
They have an ardent l ove and yearni ng for l i berty, a
deep-seated i ntol erance of f orei gn rul e, and, i f the
present movement conti nues for another f i f ty years, a
pol i ti cal questi on of the hi ghest i nterest and i mportance
wi l l arise for sol uti on.9
I ndeed, some thi r ty- f i ve years l ater the success of the Greek
mi gr ati on i nto A natol i a cul mi nated i n i nvasi on by A thens
and the bl oody Turko-Greek War of 1919-1922.
The Greek popul ati on of the Ottoman state i n the peri od
f r om 1860 to 1870 was esti mated at about 1 mi l l i on i n
Europe (Greece proper excepted) and about 1 mi l l i on also
i n A natol i a; the fi gure for Europe was obvi ousl y somewhat
l ow. The opposi te was true for the pr e- Ber l i n Congress
stati sti cs desi gned to show that Greeks f or med a l arge part
of the Ottoman popul ati on of Thrace, Macedoni a, and east-
ern Rumel i a, al l schedul ed for i ncl usi on i n Bul gari a. The
publ i cati on Gobi was abl e, thr ough many sensati onal arti -
cles, to convi nce the Bri ti sh that the Greeks were about to
suffer a great i njusti ce. The i nf l ated stati sti cs submi tted to
the Bri ti sh to show the size of the Greek popul ati on as
compared wi t h that of other rel i gi ous-nati onal groups i n
the European domai ns of the Ottoman state are reproduced
i n Tabl e 3.2.1 0
A . Synvet conducted a survey of the Greek popul ati on
based partl y on the Greek communi ty regi sters but mostl y
on the popul ati on stati sti cs accumul ated by the svl l ogues.
Svnvet di d not trust the communi ty regi sters because they
gave onl y the number of houses and the number of marri ed
peopl e and because, i n addi ti on, there were manv peopl e
who avoi ded such regi strati on i n order not to pav taxes to
the ecclesiasts. The svl l ogues were ostensi bl y l i terary and
8. See Tuncer Baykara, "XI X Yuzyi l da Urla Yarimadasinda
Nüfus Hareketl eri ," i n Social and Economic History of Turken
1071-1910, ed. O. Okyar and Hal i l I nalcik (Ankara, 1980), p. 283.
9. HCAP 100 44 (1881), p. 287 (Wilson to Goschen); for a more
detailed view of this process, see mv An Inquiry into the Social
Foundations of Nationalism in the Ottoman State: Trow. Social Estates to
Classes, fromMillets to Xations, Research Monograph no. 39, Center
of I nternational Studies, Princeton University (Princeton, 1973).
10. FO 78 2784.
48
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
Table 3.2. Creek Popul ati on i n European Turkey, 1878
Thr2ce(including Istanbul. Macedonia (Salónica.
chiefly Edirne vilayet) Drama. Serres. Monastin
Greeks 743.900
705.500
Bulgarians 315.520 140.500
Muslims , 558.300 349.000
Others i 223.000 100,000
Foreigners 132,000 35.000
Total 1,972,720 1.330,000
Source' FO 782784.
sci enti fi c organi zati ons desi gned to pr omote educati on
among the Greeks; they were supported by rich Greek mer-
chants, i ncl udi ng such pr omi nent Ottoman fi nanci ers as
Chri staki Efendi , Zographos, and G. Zar i f i . A ctual l y they
were pol i ti cal -l i terary organi zati ons ai med at awakeni ng a
nati onal consci ousness among Greeks and at pr ovi di ng
support for the Patri archate's endeavor to hel l eni ze the
Bul gari ans, Serbs, Romani ans, and other Or thodox Chri s-
ti ans. Synvet, whose stati sti cs dr ew sharp rebuttal , gave
the total number of Greeks i n the enti re Ottoman real m as
over 4 mi l l i on; see Tabl e 3. 3. u
Tabl e 3.3. Greek Popul ati on i n the Ottoman State i n 1878
(A ccordi ng to Synvet)
Thrace
728.747
Macedonia
587,860
Epirus 617.892
Tessaly 247,776
Other European areas 70,000
Aegean Islands 724,000
Asia 1,188,094
Syria 125.000
Greek Catholics 35.000
Total
4,324,369
Source: A. Synvet, Les Grecs del'Empireottoman (Paris, 1878), p. 8
However , H . Synge, a mi l i tar y offi cer sent especi al l y by
the Bri ti sh embassy i n I stanbul to f i nd out the exact number
of the Macedoni an popul ati on, stated i n a prel i mi nary re-
port that the total Greek mal e popul ati on of Sel ani k, Man-
asti r, Serez, and Drama amounted i n 1878 to onl y 166,964,
as agajnst 116,024 Bul gari ans, 50,152 Vl ahs (Romani ans),'
and 25,043 A l bani ans (who al so recogni zed the Greek Pa-
tri archate i n I stanbul ). A total of 67,042 Bul gari ans had
al ready opted for the new establ i shed (1870) Bul gari an Ex-
archate. (Soon many other Bul gari ans were to shi ft thei r
rel i gi ous and al so nati onal al l egi ance to the Exarchate,
church affi l i ati on and nati onal i ty havi ng come to coi nci de.)
Thus, accordi ng to Synge, the total number of Chri sti ans
(mal es) l i vi ng i n Macedoni a was 425,225, as agai nst 310,441
Musl i ms and 28,122 J ews.1 2
As usual , there was not much attenti on pai d to the Mus-
l i ms, al though Synge reported that the popul ati on of Dra-
ma consi sted of 112,487 persons, of whom 88,620 were
Turks and the rest were Greeks and Bul gari ans. A ctual l y
U. See Les Crees de I'Empire ottoman (Paris, 1878) p 8
12. See FO 424/ 99, p. 226.
the Bri ti sh vi ce-consul Stani sl as Recchi ol i had al readv re-
ported that i n 1878 the Drama sancak had a popul ati on of
314,747 (mal es and femal es), of whom 270,998 were Mus-
l i ms (249,165 of these bei ng ethni c Turks) and onl v 43,549
Chr i sti ans.1 3
The Ottoman census of 1881:82-1893 gave the fi rst trul y
comprehensi ve account of the Greek popul ati on sti l l l i vi ng
i n the Ottoman state. I t showed, fi rst, that Svnvet's statis-
tics were wr ong. I t also showed that the Greek popul ati on
was spread thr oughout the Ottoman domai ns, i ts heavi est
concentrati ons bei ng i n the vilayets of Yanya, the Aegean
I sl ands, Edi rne, Sel ani k, Manasti r, Trabzon, and I stanbul .
The total Greek popul ati on, consi sti ng of 1,234,550 males
and 1,097,641 femal es, was 2,332,191. (A nother total fi gure
of 2,666,628 was obtai ned by r oundi ng off the total for
femal es and addi ng 8 percent for error.) Later the Ottoman
offi ci al popul ati on fi gures for 1895 showed that the Greek
popul ati on had risen to 2,377,343 (unadj usted). Fi nal l y, the
census fi gures for 1914, after Yanya (J ani na), Epi r, Macedo-
ni a, Thrace, and the I sl ands were l ost to Serbi a and Greece
(1912-1913) and A l bani a had become i ndependent, show
that the Greeks sti l l number ed 1,729,657 (unadj usted
fi gures), or r oughl y about 9 percent of the total popul ati on
of the Ot t oman state. A t that ti me most of the Greek'
popul ati on (that i s, over 50 percent) was concentrated i n
the vilayets of Edi rne, A y d i n (I zmi r ), Trabzon, Cani k (Sam-
sun), Karesi , and I stanbul , whi ch were the most prosper-
ous and commerci al l y acti ve provi nces (see the stati sti cal
appendi ces, 1.8 and 14).
The f i nal page i n the book of Turki sh- Greek pol i ti cal rela¬
ti ons i nvol vi ng issues rel ated to popul ati on was wr i tten i n
1926—that i s, after the Greek i nvasi on of A natol i a was re-'-
pel l ed i n the bl oody war of 1919-1922. There was an ex-
change of popul ati on, the Greeks of A natol i a bei ng ex-
changed for the Turks of that part of Macedoni a whi ch
became par t of Greece (Sal oni ca) and of eastern Thrace; the
Greeks i nhabi ti ng I stanbul and the Musl i ms of western
Thrace were not i ncl uded i n thi s exchange.
The Bul gari ans
A Sl avi c-speaki ng peopl e wi t h Turani c roots, the Bul gar-
i ans i nhabi ted chi efl y a quadrangl e of terri tory sandwi ched
between the Danube and the Bal kan Mountai ns and, as
wel l , the southern sl opes of those mountai ns, whi ch ex-
tended southwar d to Thrace and to Macedoni a, the ethnic-
character of the l atter bei ng di sputed by Serbi ans and
Gr eeks.1 4 Thus the Ottoman Danube provi nce contai ned a
13. FO 78/ 2787(Recchioli to Barker, 21 A pri l 1887).
14. The literature on the Bulgarians duri ng the Ottoman era is
too rich to be cited i n detail. For bibliographical references, see
Nikola V. Mi khov, Naseleniento na Turtsii i Bulgarii prez XVI1I-XIX
v., 5 vols. (Sofia, 1915-1968); Peter Sugar, Southeastern Europe Under
Ottoman Rule, 1354-1804 (Seattle; Uni versi ty of Washington Press,
1977); and my revi ew i n' American Historical Review 84 (1979):
798-80; see also Stanley Lane Poole, The Peopleof Turkey, vol . I
(London, 1878), and Daniel Panzac, "La popul ati on de i'Empire
T H E REL I GI OUS A N D E T H N I C DI ST RI BU T I ON OF T H E O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON
49
r u t ,stanti al part of the Bul gari an-speaki ng popul ati on. A
L „ e number of Bul gari ans i n the Rhodope Mountai ns had
a aep ' e d I s ! a m i n t h e f i f t e e n t h a n d si xteenth centuri es but
a
o n t i nued to speak thei r nati ve tongue. K nown as Pomaks
("Hel pers"), they were regarded by the Ottomans as part of
t r i e Musl i m gr oup; but l ater, after Bul gari a became i nde-
pendent and acqui red most of the areas i nhabi ted by the
Pomaks, they were consi dered "Bul gar i ans" and subjected
to a massi ve process of "nati onal r ehabi l i tati on," that i s,
Bul gari zati on—at ti mes Chr i sti ani zati on—and thei r M usl i m
names were changed to Chri sti an names. (Thi s process sti l l
conti nues and has been extended to the Turki sh-speaki ng
Musl i ms.) A har d- wor ki ng and f rugal peopl e wi t h strong
group l oyal ti es, the Bul gari ans l i ved mostl y i n agri cul tural
communi ti es but al so engaged i n trade and crafts i n the
towns. A gr oup of cattl e merchants ( known as jelcp) had
been acti ve as earl }' as the si xteenth century i n suppl yi ng
meat and dai ry products to the markets i n I stanbul .
Begi nni ng i n the second hal f of the ei ghteenth century,
the Bul gari an communi ti es under went a pr of ound i nternal
economi c and demogr aphi c r ev ol u t i on; and i n the
ni neteenth century the Bul gari an mi ddl e classes, benefi t-
ti ng f r om thei r pr oxi mi ty to the Ottoman capi tal and f r om
the reforms i ntr oduced by the Ottoman government (these
i ncl ude a vari ety of measures concerni ng l and tenure), de-
vel oped r api dl y and acqui red consi derabl e economi c pow-
er, whi l e the peasants secured, di rectl y and i ndi rectl y, con-
trol of much of the l and. 1 5 The progressi ve measures i ntr o-
duced by Mi that Paşa i n the Danube provi nce dur i ng the
second hal f of the ni neteenth century i ncreased agri cul tural
producti on and i mpr oved admi ni str ati on, whi l e massi ve
government mi l i tar y expendi ture i n the area added to i ts
prosperi ty. Thi s f ur ther sti mul ated the mi gr ati on of Bul ga-
rians f r om mountai nous areas, fi rst i nto the val l eys (a pr o-
cess that had begun earl i er i n the Rhodopes, havi ng been
caused i ni ti al l y by the K i rj al i revol ts) and then i nto the
towns. Thus, dur i ng the ni neteenth century some secti ons
of the Bul gari an popul ati on were transf ormed, becomi ng
urban and devel opi ng a merchant el i te whi ch became acti ve
i n I stanbul and even i n Russi a, as wel l as i n the Danubi an
ports i n Romani a. Meanwhi l e, i n the countrysi de there
emerged a nati ve petty l andl or d class (someti mes referred
to as Çorbaci) consi sti ng of communal l eaders and notabl es
who bought up much of the l and hel d by M usl i m peasants
and l andl ords. By the 1870s the Bul gari ans had a wel l -
r ounded mi ddl e class of merchants and producers who di d
not rel v sol el y on the exchange of goods and a l i ttl e manu-
facturi ng, as di d most of the Greeks i n A natol i a, but chi efl y
on the pr oducti on and exchange of thei r own products.
Moreover, much of thi s fast-devel opi ng Bul gari an mi ddl e
class l i ved on l ands whi ch they had i nhabi ted conti nuousl y
and to whi ch they had hi stori cal cl ai ms.
ottoman et de ses marges du XV" au XI X siècle: Bibliographie
(1941-1980) et bilan provisoire,". Revue de l'Occident musulman et de
la Méditerranée 31 (1981): 119-37.
15 See Slavka Draganova, Materials on the Danube Province [m
Bulgarian] (Sofia, 1980).
A gai n di f f er i ng f r om the Greeks, who, after a peri od of
f ri endshi p wi t h the Czar, had opted for the patronage of
the Bri ti sh, the Bul gari ans f r om the begi nni ng pi nned thei r
hopes on Russi a. The Pan-Sl avi c movement ori gi nati ng i n
Moscow f ound ready adher ents among the Bul gar i an
nati onal i st i ntel l i gentsi a, many of whom had been edu-
cated i n Moscow and other Russi an ci ti es—often as the
reci pi ents of speci al f el l owshi ps establ i shed by the Russi an
Pan-Sl avi sts. The nati onal movement, whi ch at fi rst had a
l i mi ted f ol l owi ng i n Bul gari a, came to sudden f r ui ti on i n
1877/ 78 after Russi a, wi thout real cause, decl ared war on
the Ottoman gover nment and the czari st armi es swept
across the Bal kans, stoppi ng at the gates of I stanbul . Dur -
i ng thi s march Russi an sol di ers and Bul gari an bands ki l l ed
outr i ght some 200,000 to 300,000 Musl i ms and uprooted
more than a mi l l i on who were l i vi ng i n an area stretchi ng
al l the way f r om the Danube to I stanbul . The upr ooti ng of
the Musl i ms f r om the Danube and Edi rne provi nces i n
1877/ 78is descri bed i n the gri mmest detai l i n the reports of
the Bri ti sh consul ar agents stati oned i n Phi l i ppopol i s, Rus-
çuk, Varna, Burgas, Edi rne, etc. These reports are avai l abl e
i n the Bri ti sh Publ i c Records.Of f i ce.1 6 (See also Chapter 4.)
Wi th the si gni ng of the Berl i n treaty i n 1878, whi ch oc-
curred after the di spl acement of a substanti al part of the
Musl i m popul ati on, the Bul gari ans were offi ci al l y recog-
ni zed as havi ng numeri cal superi ori ty i n the autonomous
Bul gari an pr i nci pal i ty and i n eastern Rumel i a (the l atter
was annexed i n 1885 i n outr i ght vi ol ati on of the treaty).
Peopl e speaki ng a di al ect of Bul gari an remai ned under
Ottoman rul e i n Macedoni a after 1878 and subsequentl y
became the subject of di sputes between Bul gari a, Serbi a
(Yugosl avi a after 1918), Greece, and the Ottomans. The
Ottomans ceased to be a party to the di spute i n 1913, hav-
i ng been defeated i n the Bal kan War and rel i nqui shed au-
thori ty over Macedoni a and most of Thrace.
The stati sti cal hi story of the Bul gari ans is a rather pecul -
i ar one, as the Ottoman gover nment regarded them as part
of the Or thodox millet and di d not cl assi fy them as a sepa-
rate ethni c gr oup unti l the second hal f of the ni neteenth
century (al though the census of 1831 occasi onal l y refers to
them by thei r ethni c name). Thi s was despi te the fact that
travel ers i n the Bal kans i n the previ ous centuri es had re-
peatedl y referred to the Bul gari ans as a separate nati onal -
i ty. A f ter the church of Ohr i da, consi dered to be the symbol
of Bul gari an i denti ty, was cl osed i n 1767 (l argel y thr ough
the efforts of the Or thodox Patri archate i n I stanbul ), the
Bul gari ans became subject to i ntensi ve hel l eni zati on efforts
by the Greek school s and churches. The hel l eni zati on pro-
cess came to a standsti l l after the Bul gari an communi ty i n
I stanbul , l ed by merchants and wi t h the approval of the
sul tan, i ni ti ated i n the 1850s a movement for a nati onal
church. The movement cul mi nated i n the establ i shment of
a Bul gari an Exarchate i n 1870. Hencef orth, the Bul gari an
communi ti es were free to choose the Exarchate or to remai n
wi t h the Greek Patri archate, maki ng i n effect a pol i ti cal
decl arati on of Bul gari an or Greek nati onal i ty. Most of the
16. See FO 78 and 242, correspondence for 1S77-1879.
50 O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
Tabl e 3.4. Macedoni an Popul ati on (A ccord i ng to Vari ous
Nati onal Stati sti cs)
Bulgarian Seroian Greek Statistics
EthnicGroups Statistics Statistics (excluding Kosova)
Turks(includingmany
non-Turkish Muslims) ? 499,204 231.400 634.017
Bulgarians 1.181,336 57,600 332.162
Greeks 228,700 201.140 652.797
Albanians 128,711 165.600 notindicated
Vlahs (Romanians) 80,767 69.665 25,101
Serbs 700 2.048.320 not indicated
Jews 67,840 64.645 53.147
Gypsies 54,557 28,730 8.911
Others 16.407 3.500 18.685
Total 2,258.222 2:870.600 1,724.820
Source: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Enquêtedans les Balkans
(Paris: Centre Européen delaDotationCarnegie. Edition GeorgesCreset Cie. 1914),
pp. 9-10.
Tabl e 3.5. Popul ati on of Eastern Rumel i a before and after
the War of 1877-1878
Muslims •
Christians
Before theWar After theWar
Turks 210.000to 220.000 80,000to 90,000
Pomaks 20,000to 25,000 20,000to 24.000
Tatars 5.000to 10.000 5.000to 8.000
Circassians 6,000to 10,000
Gypsies 24.000to 25.000 15.000to 16.000
Jews 8,000to 9,000 7.000 to 8.000
Bulgarian Catholics 8.000to 9,000 8,000to 9.000
Bulgarian Exarchists 380,000to 400.000 370.000to 380.000
Greek Bulgarians 25,000to 35.000 25,000to 30.000
Greeks 25.000to 35.000 24,000to 30.000
Greek Viahs 1,000 to 2,000 1,000 to 2,000
Greek Albanians 1.000 to 2.000 1.000 to 2.000
Armenians 1,000 to 2,000 1,000 to 2,000
Source: FO 424/ 75(Drummons-Wolff to Salisbury, 26 September 1878),
Or thodox Chri sti ans i n Tuna Provi nce and close to two-
thi rds of those i n Macedoni a opted for the Exarchate. (A fter
most of the Bul gari ans had chosen to affi l i ate wi t h thei r
nati onal church, the Patri archate came to represent chi efl y
the Greeks i n the Ottoman state, whi l e an i ndependent
Greek Chur ch was establ i shed i n Greece i tsel f.)
A s one woul d expect, there was a great deal of confusi on
i n nati onal and rel i gi ous i denti f i cati on. Some Bul gari an-
speaki ng groups, especi al l y i n Thrace, remai ned wi t h the
Patri archate i n I stanbul and were regarded as "Bul gari an-
speaki ng Gr eeks," whi l e a f ew Greek-speaki ng groups
opted for the Exarchate and became "Gr eek- speaki ng
Bul gar i ans." The Romani an- speaki ng Vl ahs l argel y re-
mai ned wi t h the Patri archate and were i n good part hel l en-
i zed; those choosi ng the Exarchate were bul gari zed. There
were also a f ew Cathol i c Creeks and Bul gari ans, who were
cl assi fi ed i n accordance wi t h thei r l i ngui sti c af f i l i ati on.
Thi s conf usi on and controversy over the nati onal i ty of
the Or thodox Chri sti ans i n Macedoni a was mani fested i n
the three di f f erent sets of stati sti cs submi tted to the Carne-
gi e mi ssi on charged wi t h i nvesti gati ng the atroci ti es of the
Bal kan War of 1912-1913; these stati sti cs are reproduced i n
Tabl e 3.4.1 7
The exact number of the Bul gari an popul ati on for the
peri od f r om 1800 to 1878 probabl y wi l l never be k nown
because of the extraordi nary ci rcumstances accompanyi ng
the emergence of the Bul gari an nati on-state. Some pro-
Bul gari an sources (such as A . N . Moshni n, Vl adi mi r Te-
pl ov, and Ki epert) are too subjecti ve, thei r fi gures bei ng too
greatl y exaggerated and l acki ng sci enti fi c bases (as is recog-
ni zed today by some Bul gari an schol ars), to deserve de-
tai l ed study. K ani tz' wor k, al though very useful , does not
rest on an actual popul ati on count except i nsofar as he used
offi ci al Ottoman sources.1 8 For esti mati ng the number of
17. Carnegie Endowment for I nternational Peace, Enquête dans
les Balkans (Paris: Centre Européen de la Dotati on Carnegie, Édi-
tion Georges Crès et Cie, 1914), pp. 9-10; for the controversy over'
nationality, see my "The Memoirs of N . Batzaria: The Young Turks
and Nati onal i sm," International journal of Middle East Studies 6
(1975): 276-99.
Bul gari ans, the Ot t oman of f i ci al stati sti cs are the best
source, even t hough they do not di sti ngui sh ethni c-
nati onal groups but refer onl y to Or thodox Chri sti ans.
One may attempt to determi ne the total number of the
Bul gari ans by taki ng i nto account thei r geographi cal di s-
tr i buti on. I t is certai n that the over whel mi ngmajori ty of the
Or thodox Chri sti ans l i vi ng i n the Tuna vilayet were Bul gar-
i ans: the Sal name of 1285 (1868) pl aced the total number of
Chri sti ans (mal es) i n thi s provi nce at 610,892 and of Mus-
l i ms at 412,417. I f one excl udes Ni ş (i n whi ch a good part of
the popul ati on was Serbi an) and the approxi matel y 21,000
Greeks i n Varna, one can use thi s salname to esti mate that
the total number of mal e Bul gari ans i n Tuna Provi nce was
490,467, as opposed to 359,907 Musl i ms. (I n fact, the num-
ber of the Musl i ms is grossl y underesti mated because most
of the 200,000 to 300,000 Ci rcassi ans and Cri mean mi grants
who were settl ed al ong the Danube i n the peri od f r om 1862
to 1878 were excl uded f r om the count.) A si zabl e .Bul gari an-
speaki ng popul ati on al so l i ved i n Edi rne, especi al l y i n the
northern secti on also k nown as eastern Rumel i a; of the total
popul ati on of thi s provi nce (gi ven by A . Ri tter zur Hel l e
von Samo as 1,304,352 i n 1878), 810,294 were Chri sti ans
and 503,058 were M usl i ms. Roughl y 65 percent of the
Chri sti ans l i vi ng i n Edi rne Provi nce coul d be counted as
Bul gari ans. A n esti mate gi ven i n a Bri ti sh counsul ar report
on the popul ati on of eastern Rumel i a before and after the
war of 1877-1878 is reproduced i n Tabl e 3.5.1 9
A f ter r oundi ng off the number of mal es and adjusti ng for
error, one reaches an esti mate of about 1,800,000 as the
total number of Bul gari ans i n the Ottoman state (excl usi ve
of Macedoni a) i n 1878. The Sal name of 1295 gave the
popul ati on of the areas that became part of Bul gari a proper
18. See Donau-Bulgarien and der Balkan (Leipzig, 1875) and La
Bulgarie danubienneet le Balkan, Etudes de voyages (Paris, 1882).
19. See FO 424/ 75(Drummons-Wol ff to Salisbury, 26 September
1878). The report notes that there was great loss of life duri ng war
and that a large group'of Musl i ms fled, onl y few of whom sub-
squently returned to their homes. "Greek Al bani an" means a
Christian Orthodox Al bani an recognizing the Patriarchate in Istan-
bul .
REL I GI OUS A N D E T H N I C DI ST RI BU T I ON or T H E O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON
51
a s -j 924,638 (wi thout adj ustment). A l engthy and detai l ed
Ottoman memor andum prepared for the Berl i n Congress
u S ed the regi sters of the Bul gari an Exarchate (counti ng fi ve
people per house) and also the total fi gures gi ven by the
Russian Tepl ov to esti mate that Bul gari ans were i n the
majority i n a pr opor ti on of 2:1.60 i n the kazas of V i di n,
Tjrnovo, Ni §, and Sofi a but were i n the mi nor i ty i n Ru§cuk,
Varna, Tul ca, I sl i mi ye, and Phi l i ppopol i s;2 0 these areas (ex-
cept for Tul ca) were al l made part of Bul gari a.
Reliable i nf or mati on about the Bul gari an popul ati on was
provi ded by an offi ci al census conducted by the Bul gari an
government i tsel f i n 1888, that i s, ten years after autonomy.
The census showed that the popul ati on of Bul gari a proper
was 2,193,434—an i ncrease of 9.4 percent over the total
shown i n the 1881 census—whi l e that of eastern Rumel i a
was 960,941, for a gr and total of 3,154,375. Of these, the
Turki sh-speaki ng Musl i ms number ed 607,372; the Greeks,
58,326; and "other s," 162,453; i n addi ti on there were at
least 200,000 Bul gar i an- speaki ng M usl i ms. 2 1 Thus i t i s
shown that the total number of ethni c Bul gari ans i n Bul gar-
ia proper and eastern Rumel i a i n 1888 was approxi matel y
2,130,000. These fi gures are i n l i ne wi t h the earl i er esti -
mates based on Ottoman fi gures.
The Ottoman census of 1881/ 82-1893 put the total num-
ber o'f Bul gari ans sti l l l i vi ng i n the Ottoman state at 962,288
(fi gure adj usted). These wer e di str i buted chi efl y i n the
provi nces of Edi rne, Sel ani k, Manasti r, and Kosova. They
di d not f or m a maj or i ty i n any of these areas, bei ng out-
numbered i n each case by the combi ned total of Musl i ms
and Greeks. I n K osova the Bul gari ans were far mor e
numerous than the Greeks but def i ni tel y fewrer than the
Musl i ms, w ho wer e mostl y A l bani ans. The Chr i sti an
popul ati on of Sel ani k, Manasti r, and Kosova was offi ci al l y
descri bed as consi sti ng chi efl y of Greeks and Bul gari ans,
hut not Serbi ans; the Ottoman gover nment di d not cl assi fy
thi s popul ati on as Macedoni an, l argel y i n order not to
antagoni ze both the Greeks and the Bul gari ans.
I n sum, the total Bul gari an-speaki ng popul ati on of the Bal -
kans—both i n Bul gari a and outsi de i t—at the end of the
ni neteenth century was about 3,100,000. A s the pol i ti cal
battle for Macedoni a i ntensi f i ed, so di d the effort to i ssue
popul ati on stati sti cs exaggerated so as to be favorabl e to the
posi ti on of each of the nati onal gr oups; but the mor e
reasonabl e fi gures di d not di ffer too much f r om the Otto-
man offi ci al stati sti cs.
20. FO 424/ 70 (Musurus Paşa to Salisbury, 11 A pri l 1878; list
transmitted by Safvet Paşa).
21. See A. Ubi ci ni , "La Principauté de Bulgarie," Revue de géo-
graphie5 (1879): 86-91; and (no author), "Popul ati on of Bul gari a,"
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 55 (1892): 674-75. For the
population of Macedonia, see the excellent study by Fikret Adani r,
Die makedonischeFragc (Wiesbaden: Skiner, 1979), pp. 1-14 and
bibliography; see also Helle von Samo, Die Volkcr des osmanischen
Retches(Vienna, 1877), p. 117; S'alaheddin Bey, La Turquie l'exposi-
tion universelle de 1867,'p. V; and E. G. Ravenstein, "The Popula-
tions of Russia and Turkey," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 40
(1877): 456.
The A r meni ans
The A r meni ans i n the Ottoman state were at the head of
the millet beari ng thei r name and enjoyed a pr i vi l eged sta-
tus that was enhanced after 1821 when they began to re-
place the Greeks i n the government's opi ni on as the most
rel i abl e Chri sti an group i n the state. The soci o-economi c
devel opment of the A r meni ans i n the ni neteenth century
f ol l owed i n the mai n a course si mi l ar to that of the Greeks
and Bul gari ans, al though i t di f f ered i n scope and i ntensi ty.
The A r meni ans were general l y more tradi ti onal i n thei r so-
ci al organi zati on and cul tural outl ook, wi t h sharp di ffer-
ences between refi ned urban groups and the si mpl e rural
fol k, the merchants, and the craftsmen. A r meni ans coul d
be f ound i n al l Ottoman areas, but thei r heavi est concentra-
ti on was i n the six eastern provi nces: Er zur um, Si vas, Van,
El azi z, Di yarbeki r, and Bi tl i s. (The admi ni strati ve bound-
aries of these provi nces were establ i shed dur i ng the peri od
f rom 1864 to 1870, then changed i n 1876/ 77.) The Chri sti an
popul ati on of these six vilayets, whi ch became the subject of
pol i ti cal di spute after 1878, was l argel y, but not excl usi vel y,
A r meni an.
The stati sti cs on the Ottoman popul ati on i n A si a M i nor
pri or to 1878 are too few and too general to be of much use.
I n 1867 Sal aheddi n Bey pl aced the total number of A r me-
ni ans i n Europe at 400,000 and those i n Asi a at 2 mi l l i on (at
that date, Kars, A r dahan, and Batum provi nces had not yet
been l ost to Russi a). Ravenstei n, r el yi ng on what stati sti cs
he coul d f i nd i n 1878, esti mated the number of A r meni ans
i n Europe and Asi a to be 112,200 and 760,000, respecti vel y,
for a total Ottoman A r meni an popul ati on of 872,200. Hel l e
von Samo, on the other hand, gave the total Chri sti an
popul ati on of the Sivas, Er zur um, and Di yarbeki r vilayets i n
1874 (before they were di vi ded up i nto si x provi nces) as
601,244, of whom the majori ty must have been A r meni ans.
The scarci ty of popul ati on stati sti cs on A rmeni ans.bef ore
1878 was more than compensated for by the f l ood of i n-
f ormati on generated after the Berl i n Congress by the strug-
gle between Russia and Engl and for i nfl uence i n eastern
A natol i a. (Batum, Kars, and A r dahan, whi ch commanded
the hi ghl ands f r om whi ch a descent upon the Persi an Gul f
coul d easily be made, al ready had gone to Russi a.) The
A r meni an patri arch's stati sti cs pur por t i ng to show the
A rmeni ans as a substanti al pr opor ti on, i f not the maj ori ty,
of the popul ati on there of eastern A natol i a were soon chal -
l enged and exposed as false by Bri ti sh agents stati oned i n
the area.
The San Stefano treaty, si gned under Russi an pressure,
had i ncl uded a provi si on (art. 16) that charged the Ottoman
government wi t h the responsi bi l i ty of carryi ng out reforms
i n the strategi c area separati ng Russi a f r om the Persi an
Gul f, thus gi vi ng Russia a l egal excuse to i nterfere there.
Despi te the Engl i sh l i beral s' desi re to pr omote the auton-
omy and, eventual l y, the i ndependence of A r meni a, the
Bri ti sh government di d not push thi s cause, feel i ng that an
A r meni an government coul d not wi thstand the attacks of
the K ur ds, who were a component of the M usl i m popul a-
ti on i n the area. Consequentl y, the Bri ti sh sought to revi se
the Treaty of San Stefano to gi ve themsel ves the responsi -
; L I B R A F, 7 j
52
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON ,
büıty for the six eastern provi nces. The new treatv, si gned
after the Congress of Berl i n, i ncl uded a provi si on (art. 61)
cal l i ng for ref orm i n the A r meni an- i nhabi ted provi nces.
Meanwhi l e, the Bri ti sh i nduced the sul tan to promi se to
carry out unspeci fi ed reforms, whi ch were to be agreed
upon at a l ater date, and they themsel ves promi sed to
oppose by arms f uture encroachments of Russia upon Otto-
man terri tory. I n exchange for her promi se of protecti on,
Bri tai n recei ved the i sl and of Cyprus; hence the Ottoman-
Bri ti sh agreement on the reforms i n eastern A natol i a is
cal l ed the Cyprus Conventi on. As a resul t of these man-
i pul ati ons, the Bri ti sh f ound themsel ves bur dened wi t h the
responsi bi l i ty of seei ng that the desi red changes were car-
ri ed out—a responsi bi l i ty that was seen as necessary. The
di smantl i ng of the Ottoman terri tori es i n Europe was proof
that Pal merston's pol i cy, i ni ti ated i n 1841, of mai ntai ni ng
Ottoman terri tori al i ntegri ty agai nst Russi an expansi on had
fai l ed. Engl and fel t that she had to assume, di rectl y or bv
proxy, control of the areas most vi tal to her strategi c i n-
terest. Thi s vi ew became over t'pol i cy after Beaconsfi el d's
government fel l i n A pr i l of 188Ü and the l i beral s, headed bv
the seventy-year-ol d Gl adstone—the swor n enemy of the
Tur ks—took over; and soon after the new gover nment
came to power George Granvi l l e, the forei gn secretary, be-
gan to press for executi on of the condi ti ons of the Treaty of
Berl i n.
George Goschen was sent to I stanbul to repl ace H .
L ayard (unjustl y consi dered a Turkophi l e) as ambassador.
Soon after ar r i vi ng i n the Ottoman capi tal on 28 M ay 1880,
Goschen set out to secure enforcement of the clause man-
dati ng reforms i n the eastern provi nces. A s the enforce-
ment of the reforms depended fi rst and foremost upon
accurate i nf or mati on about demographi c and ethnographi c
condi ti ons i n eastern A natol i a, A mbassador Goschen be-
gan by aski ng several of the very capabl e Bri ti sh mi l i tary
men (now consul s) stati oned i n the eastern provi nces to
come to I stanbul to di scuss i n person "the rel ati ve numer i -
cal proporti ons of the di f f erent popul ati ons i nhabi ti ng Asi a
Mi nor , and avai l abl e means for testi ng the stati sti cs whi ch
have been put i n by vari ous per sons. "2 2 Those summoned
to the capi tal i ncl uded L i eutenant Col onel C. VV. Wi l son
and Maj or H enr y Trotter. A mbassador Goschen reported
that "Col onel Wi l son and Maj or Trotter are cl osel y exami n-
i ng the fi gures gi ven by A bedi ne Pasha and by the A r me-
ni an Patri arch respecti vel y by the ai d of such data as thev
have col l ected at vari ous t i mes. "2 3
Major H enr y Trotter was uni quel y val uabl e to the Bri ti sh
government's effort to secure reasonabl e popul ati on esti -
mates. He enjoyed the hi ghest confi dence of the govern-
ment both as i ts representati ve and as a stati sti ci an. I t was
he who had been assi gned to obtai n rel i abl e fi gures about
the Bul gari an, Greek, and M usl i m popul ati ons of Thrace
and Macedoni a. I n J ul y of 1879 he was named Consul of
K urdi stan, whi ch i ncl uded the vilayets of Er zur um, Di yar-
beki r, H ar put, Muş, and Van—the area cl ai med by the
22. HCAP 100/ 44(1881). p. 61 (Goschen to Granville, 3 Septem-
ber 1880).
23. I bi d.
A r meni ans. Tr otter was to take an acti ve part i n i m-
pl ementi ng the reforms there and, as an anti ci pated di v-
i dend thereof, securi ng the f ri endshi p of the A rmeni ans for
Bri tai n. Thus, i n a di spatch to the Mar qui s of Sal i sbury, he
advocated changi ng the ti tl e of hi s own offi ce to "Consul ate
of Tur ki sh A rmeni a- and K ur di st an" as a concessi on to
A r meni an senti ment. H owever , on the questi on of popul a-
ti on, Trotter rejected A r meni an cl ai ms:
I cannot however admi t the accuracy of the stati sti cs
shown i n the i ncl osure whi ch are the same, I
understand, as those submi tted to the Congress of
Berl i n. Wi thout enteri ng i nto detai l s, I may state that,
, accordi ng to offi ci al statements the rel ati ve number of
mal e Chri sti ans and Mosl ems i n the provi nces of
Er zur oum and Van are as f ol l ows: Er zur oum; Mosl ems
197,768, non-Mosl ems 55,043, Van; Mosl ems 126,208,
non-Mosl ems 97,555 (i ncl udi ng at least 20,000
Nestori ans), whi l e M r . Tayl or, for many years Consul i n
these provi nces, esti mated the total popul ati on of the
vi l ayets now under my j ur i sdi cti on as f ol l ows, vi z., i n
the vi l ayets of Er zur oum, Van, Di arbeki r and K har put:
Turks 442,500
K ur ds 848,000
Ki zzi l bas
200,000
Mosl ems
Chri sti ans 649,000
To the fi rst, or offi ci al Tur ki sh esti mates [for Van and
Er zur um] I have good reason to suppose that an
addi ti on of about 40 per cent, to the number of
Chri sti ans woul d gi ve a resul t approxi matel y the
t r ut h. 2 4
A l though the chi ef responsi bi l i ty for the preparati on of
rel i abl e popul ati on esti mates fel l upon Trotter and Col onel
Wi l son, many other Bri ti sh offi ci al s also l ent thei r efforts to
the attempt to col l ect al l of the avai l abl e popul ati on data;
among these were Consul Tayl or, Captai n Emi l i us Cl ayton
i n Van, and L i eutenant Chermsi de, who was attached to
the Ref orm Commi ssi on but stati oned i n Si vas. I t is to the
credi t of these offi ci al s that they sought to do a careful and
i mparti al job and were of f ended by devi ces empl oyed by
some i nterested parti es to bi as the stati sti cs i n a gross man-
ner. They were constantl y cri ti cal of the A r meni an Patri arch
Nerces, who suppl i ed fi gures mani pul ated so as to maxi -
mi ze the number of Chri sti ans whi l e mi ni mi zi ng the num-
ber of Musl i ms. Trotter al so depl ored the atti tude of the
commi ttee f or med by the representati ves of the bi g powers
to supervi se enforcement of the reforms. Thi s commi ttee
i nsi sted that the census proposed by the Ottoman govern-
ment (the census of 1881/ 82) shoul d count onl y the settled
popul at i on, that i s, the A r meni ans and "Osmanl i s"
(Turks), whi l e the "nomadi c K ur di sh el ement that l i ves in
the mountai ns and descends i nto the pl ai ns i nhabi ted by
Chri sti ans onl y i n order to create di sturbances, shoul d not
be i ncl uded i n the census by whi ch the maj ori ty of the
i nhabi tants of each vi l l age wi l l be deter mi ned." " Howev-
er, i n the same breath i n whi ch i t advocated the excl usi on of
nomadi c K ur ds f r om the scope of the i ntended reforms, the
24. FO 424/ 86, p. 109.
25. HCAP 100/ 44(1881), p. 144.
E REL I GI OUS A N D E T H N I C DI ST RI BU T I ON OF T H E O T T O M A N
jttee urged that the ref orms "shoul d i n common Jus-
P OP U L A T I ON 53
com
tire
b e extended to the numer ous N estor i ans" (i nhabi tants
n ) l e central and southern parts of the area), al though
, 0 f these Nestori ans al so were nomads. 2 6 Thi s parti -
a t t i t u d e appeared to be such a flagrant vi ol ati on of the
ciples of fai rness that Maj or Trotter fel t cal l ed upon to
p r 'jnt out to A mbassador Goschen that the effort to l ay
^ess on A r meni an cl ai ms mi ght "propagate the false no-
5
n that Her Majesty's gover nment is onl y i nterested i n the
velfare of the Chri sti an subjects of the Porte to the excl u-
sion of the M usl i ms. "
2 /
Trotter and Wi l son, who apparentl y were trai ned m sta-
tistics, cartography, and economi cs, tri ed to devi se the best
possible met hod' f or r eachi ng rel i abl e esti mates of the
popul ati on i n eastern A natol i a. The method they adopted
produced the reasonabl e esti mates desi red, but at the same
{•me i t el uci dates the probl ems i nvol ved i n the taki ng of a
census i n the Ottoman state and is wor t h exami ni ng i n
some detai l . They used a comparati ve anal ysi s of al l the
popul ati on i nf or mati on avai l abl e. Thei r sources for thi s i n-
formati on were, fi rst, the A r meni an patri arch and bi shops;
second, Ottoman offi ci al s and publ i shed yearbooks; thi r d,
vari ous i ndi v i dual esti mates; and, f i nal l y, thei r o w n
observations f r om vi si ts to al l the major communi ti es, wi t h
whi ch they had al ready f ami l i ari zed themsel ves. The com-
prehensi ve report eventual l y prepared f r om thi s i nf or ma-
tion is probabl y the best of i ts k i nd.
The fi gures submi tted by the A r meni an patri arch were
regul arl y chal l enged. Cl ayton wr ote to A mbassador Go-
schen i n I stanbul that the patri arch had i ndi cated that the
popul ati on of Van consi sted of 252,500 A r meni ans and
150,000 Musl i ms, whi l e other A r meni an sources i n V an i t-
self suppl i ed a l i st showi ng that the actual numbers of
Armeni ans and Musl i ms were 138,559 and 109,640, respec-
ti vel y. H e added that
al though these tabl es come f r om an A r meni an source,
the pr opor ti on of Mussul mans to A r meni ans is
consi derabl y l arger than that gi ven by the A r meni an
Patri arch . '. . . The number of A r meni ans i n these
tables is pr etty fai rl y reckoned, but I am i ncl i ned to
bel i eve that the vi l l age K ur ds are somewhat
underesti mated, and I feel pretty sure that the ashi ret
[tri bal -nomadi c] K ur ds are consi derabl y so.2 S
A major controversy arose over the fi gures submi tted to the
Berl i n Congress, i n hi s memor andum addressed to the
Congress (subsequentl y used extensi vel y by vari ous wr i t-
ers) Patri arch Nerces pl aced the number of A r meni ans i n
Er zur um, Van (Muş and Si i rt i ncl uded), Si vas, H ar put,
Di yarbeki r, and Hal ep at 780,000 and the number of Syri ans
(i .e., A ssyri ans, or Syri acs) and Greeks at 251,000 and
.25,000, respecti vel y, for a total of 1,056,800 Chri sti ans. The
total number of Musl i ms i n these areas, accordi ng to the
patri arch, amounted to a mere 770,000, of w hom onl y
320,000 were Turks, the rest bei ng K ur ds, Ki zi l baş, and
Türkmen; of course, the last two groups were also ethni cal -
26. I bi d., p. 145.
27. I bi d., p. 162.
28. I bi d., p. 158.
l y Tur ks. 2 " The patri arch gave the popul ati on of A dana as
consi sti ng of onl y 86,000 M usl i ms, as agai nst 134,000
Chri sti ans; on the other hand, Captai n Casper, the f ormer
Bri ti sh vi ce-counsul i n A dana, number ed the Musl i ms at
327,980 and the Chri sti ans at 33,780.30
The Bri ti sh offi cers i n charge of popul ati on stati sti cs were
so upset by these i nconsi stenci es that they persuaded
A mbassador Goschen to ask the A r meni an patri arch to ex-
pl ai n hi s method of cal cul ati on, and the patri arch then had
to change hi s ori gi nal fi gures. I t was poi nted out that for
Sivas Chri sti ans l i vi ng i n areas outsi de the admi ni strati ve
borders of the provi nce had been counted but that Musl i ms
i n some areas wi t hi n the vilayet had not; f ur ther mor e, the
fi gures di d not i ncl ude K ur ds and Ci rcassi ans, but l i sted as
Musl i ms onl y the Tur ks. 3 1 I n expl anati on Nerces wr ote that
he "had i n vi ew onl y the A r meni an part of the vi l ayet such
as the [ci ty] of Si vas, Di vr i t and i ts envi r ons" and stated
that he had omi tted "al l the sandjaks of sudest whi ch are
not part of A r meni a, for exampl e Tokat. . . ." *~I n the case
of Sivas the patri arch compl etel y reversed hi msel f, showi ng
the actual number of i nhabi tants of that provi nce to be
605,065, of whom onl y 199,245 were A r meni ans, the. rest
M usl i ms. 3 3 I t is i nteresti ng to note that Wi l son rejected
even the revi sed fi gures f r om the patri arch, because stati s-
tics suppl i ed by the A r meni an bi shop of Sivas i ndi cated
that the total number of Chri sti ans there, i ncl usi ve of the
Greeks, was onl y 201,245, whereas the Musl i ms number ed
694,431, excl udi ng refugees and i mmi gr ants, who were
probabl y more than 80,000.34 The Bri ti sh questi oned al so
the fi gures suppl i ed by the A r meni an Cathol i c patri arch,
A ntoi ne Pi erre I X Hassoun of Ci l i ci a, because he i nf l ated
the number of the Cathol i cs to the detr i ment of others.
The Bri ti sh offi cers' second source of i nf or mati on was the
popul ati on fi gures i n the Ottoman offi ci al publ i cati ons.
Chermsi de f ound the government stati sti cs "most vague
and unsati sfactory as are al l those i n the possessi on of the
Turki sh government . . . as, however, the conscri pti on l i st
and an i mpor tant tax are dependent on them, those i n the
possessi on of the government are the best."3 " Trotter, who
seemed to have devel oped a keen i nsi ght i nto the Ottoman
popul ati on matters (al though he was very cri ti cal of the
Ottoman admi ni strati ve record), i ndi cated that the offi ci al
l i sts were compi l ed f r om the records exi sti ng i n the vari ous
l ocal governments, "f r om whi ch, for the Musl i ms, the l i sts
of men who are l i abl e to conscri pti on are dr awn up, and l or
Chri sti ans, the numbers for whom the mi l i tary exempti on
has to be p ai d . " 3 6 He accepted the fact that i n some areas
29. It is interesting to note that up unti l as late as 1912 the
Armeni an Patriarchate listed the Kizilbas, the Zazas, and the
Tchareklis as groups belonging to "other rel i gi ons," although thev
all were Musl i m.
30. HCAP 100 44, p. 158.
31. I bi d., p. 94 (Chermside to Goschen, 9 August 1880).
32. I bi d., p. 171 (Nerces to Goschen, 10 September 1880); see
also i bi d., pp. 389-90 (Wilson to Goschen, 23 August 18S0).
33. I bi d., p. 172 (Nerces to Goschen).
34. I bi d., p. 98 (Wilson to Goschen, 22 September 1880).
35. i bi d., p. 94 (Chermside to Goschen, 9 August 1880),
36. I bi d., p. 123 (Trotter to Goschen. 7 September 1880).
54
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
both Musl i ms and Chri sti ans fai l ed to report thei r exact
numbers i n order to avoi d conscri pti on and taxes, and tor
such areas consi dered that the popul ati on fi gures had to be
rai sed bv 20 or 25 percent to account for the unregi stered.
I n some di stri cts, however, the lists are very much more
careful l y compi l ed than others; i n the comparati vel y
settl ed di stri cts, such as the sanjaks of K ar put, Erzerum,
Bai burt, I bel i eve the offi ci al lists to be comparati vel y
accurate . . . i n di stri cts whi ch are i n a chroni c state of
rebel l i on and semi -i ndependence, the stati sti cs are
much less rel i abl e.3 '
The rebel l i ous areas happened to be those i nhabi ted pri nci -
pal l y by Musl i ms—nomadi c K urds and Türkmen—but also
bv Chri sti an \ estori ans.
I ndi vi dual esti mates were a thi r d source of i nf or mati on,
but the Bri ti sh offi cers were careful to accept fi gures onl y
f r om persons whom they knew to have sound knowl edge
of the area and its peopl e and consi dered to be otherwi se
tr ustwor thy. Thei r f our th sourcewas thei r own knowl edge,
whi ch was i nti mate and probabl y qui te rel i abl e, of the area,
its popul ati on, i ts customs, and, apparentl y, i ts l anguages.
The net resul t of thi s arduous team effort, unparal l el ed i n
the stati sti cal hi story of the Ottoman state, was a series of
compr ehensi ve and detai l ed comparati ve tabl es of the
popul ati on i n eastern A natol i a (reproduced i n thei r enti rety
wi t h onl y a few edi tori al changes i n the stati sti cal appen-
di ces, I I .1). The number of non- Musl i ms (mostl y A r me-
ni ans) i n the vilayets of Er zur um, Van, Bi tl i s, Di yarbeki r,
and H ar put was gi ven as about 567,000 and the number of
Musl i ms as about 1,488,000, excl udi ng nomads, refugees,
and i mmi grants. (I f the l ast gr oup had been i ncl uded, the
total Musl i m popul ati on woul d have come to nearl y 3 mi l -
l i on.) A l though sti l l understati ng the number of Musl i ms,
these statistics provi de fai rl y accurate i nf or mati on about the
pr opor ti on of non- Musl i ms i n eastern A natol i a at the ti me.
The controversy over the size of the A r meni an popul a-
ti on conti nued, carri ed f or war d and strengthened by the
ri si ng ti de of nati onal i sm. A new compari son, compi l ed by
the Bri ti sh i n 1896, gave esti mates of the M usl i m and non-
M usl i m popul ati on i n the six eastern A natol i an provi nces
i n 1890 and 1896. A ccor di ng to the l ater of the two esti mates
(made by the Contr ol Commi ssi on), there were 697,598
non- Musl i ms i n the area and over 2.75 mi l l i on Musl i ms (see
the stati sti cal appendi ces, I I .6).
A speci al Ottoman gover nment sur vey conducted i n
about 1897, not previ ousl y publ i shed, i ndi cates that the
total popul ati on of the area had ri sen by that year to
3,179,000, of w h o m about 2.5 mi l l i on wer e M usl i ms,
566,267 were A r meni ans, and the rest were other nati onal i -
ties (see the stati sti cal appendi ces, I I .3). The Ottoman cen-
sus of 1881/ 82-1893 had gi ven the number of A r meni ans i n
these provi nces to be about 540,000, whi l e showi ng the
Musl i ms to be 2,159,000 (rounded-of f fi gures were used for
femal es). The rel ati ve change i n the popul ati on rati o,
shown i n both Bri ti sh and Ottoman esti mates, was caused
by the i mmi gr ati on of Musl i ms, the settl ement of nomadi c
37. I bi d.
Table 3.6. A r meni an Popul ati on of the Ottoman Empi re,
18S2 (A r meni an Patri archate Fi gures)
Contested Viiayets Asia Europe
Van 400.000 Adana(Cilicia) 280,000 Istanbul and
Bitlis 250.000 Aleppo 100.000 vicinity 135.000
Diyarbekir 150.000 Trabzon 120.000 Edirne 50.000
Erzurum 280,000 Bursa 60.000 Other areas 10.000
Mamuretüiaziz 270,000 Aydin (Izmir) 50.000
Total 195.000
Sivas 280,000 Ankara. Konya.
195.000
Total 1,630,000
& Kastamonu 120,000
Syria. Musul.
Baghdad,
Beyrut. &
Basra 40.000
İzmit [sancak) 65.000
Total 835.000
GRANO TOTAL 2.660.000
Source: Marcel Léart [Kirkor Zohrap], La Question arménienneà talumièredes
documents (Paris: A Challamel, 1913), pp. 50-59.
tri bes, and the emi grati on of some A r meni ans and Greeks
to Russia and to other parts of A natol i a.
Ottoman offi ci al stati sti cs i ssued after 1881/ 82 had so i m-
proved i n consi stency and rel i abi l i ty that the Bri ti sh came to
rel y on them and they were accepted by most of the for-
ei gners wi t h onl y mi nor reservati ons.3 8 H owever , despi te
over whel mi ng i mpar ti al opi ni on i n suppor t of the meri t of
the Ottoman offi ci al stati sti cs, other subjecti ve and utterl y
false i nf or mati on concerni ng the A r meni an popul ati on con-
ti nued to be publ i shed and republ i shed as vari ous "ex-
perts" conti nued to use such data. Tabl e 3.6 reproduces the
fi gures suppl i ed by the A r meni an patri arch as these were
i ssued agai n as late as 1913 by an often-ci ted source.3 9
Excessive attenti on was pai d to the size of the Chri sti an,
and especi al l y the A r meni an, popul ati on i n the six east
A natol i an provi nces desi gnated by the Berl i n treaty as re-
f or m areas and as the terri tory of an i ndependent A rmeni a,
whi l e the fact that many more A r meni ans were l i vi ng i n
other Ottoman provi nces was i gnored. The census of 1881/
82-1893 showed that there were 1,076,908 (fi gures rounded
for femal es) A r meni ans l i vi ng i n Ottoman l ands and that
areas such as A nkar a and Trabzon had l arge popul ati ons of
A rmeni ans. Stati sti cs for l ater years i ndi cate that the A r me-
ni an popul ati on under went consi derabl e gr owth and that
by 1914 thei r total number had reached 1,165,088, despi te
the fact that a si zabl e por ti on had ei ther mi grated to Russia
or had been detached f r om the Ottoman state al ong wi th
the terri tori es l ost to other countri es i n the peri od f r om 1897
to 1913. A much- quoted Ger man publ i cati on that used Vi tal
Cui net's rather puzzl i ng stati sti cal wor k as a basis put the
number of A r meni ans i n the six east A natol i an provi nces i n
38. I n 1890, for example, the British reported that the population
of the six provinces consisted of 1,233,402 Musl i ms and 566,297
non-Musl i ms, whi l e the Porte's own statistics gave the number of
Muslims as 1,432,075 and of non-Musl i ms as 512,372; see HCAP
96/ 49(1890), p. 38 (White to Salisbury, 26 May 1890).
39. Marcel Léart [Ki rkor Zohrap], La Question arménienne à la lu-
mière des documents (Paris: A Challamel, 1913), pp. 50-59.
T H E REL I GI OU S A N D E T H N I C DI ST RI BU T I ON OF T H E O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON
55
1896 at 651,134.4" I f the fai rl y l arge total of A r meni an i n-
habi tants i n the provi nces of Trabzon, Hal ep, and A dana
(i ncl udi ng Kayseri , Ki r§ehi r, and Yozgat) had been added
to that for the east A natol i an vilayets, then the grand total
for the ten provi nces that contai ned the bul k of the A r me-
ni an popul ati on woul d have amounted to about 939,000.
The Musl i m popul ati on of the same ten -vilayets number ed,
by some conservati ve esti mates, over 5 mi l l i on.
The M usl i ms
The Ottoman offi ci al popul ati on records di d not di vi de
the Musl i ms accordi ng to thei r ethni c or l i ngui sti c affi l i a-
ti on. A l though the Chri sti ans began to be di vi ded i nto
ethni c groups under the pressure of vari ous nati onal i st
cl ai ms based upon numer i cal super i or i ty, the ethno-
l i ngui sti c categori es devi sed by the Ottoman offi ci al s sti l l
conf ormed cl osel y to the confessi onal di vi si ons that had
emerged after the di si ntegrati on of the classical millet sys-
tem. The Ottoman state sought to remai n, f or mal l y at least,
a Musl i m state, unti l i ts f i nal di si ntegr ati on—whi ch, para-
doxi cal l y enough, was accel erated by the ri se of ethno-
l i ngui sti c nati onal i sm among i ts M usl i m subjects.
Western students of the Ottoman popul ati on, whi l e
aware of ethni c and l i ngui sti c di vi si ons among the Mus-
l i ms, general l y di d not make any seri ous effort to ascerti an
the exact number of each gr oup. M any westerners, l i ke the
Ottoman gover nment i tsel f, regarded I sl am al most as a
nati onal i ty and therefore were ready to pl ace al l the Mus-
l i ms i n one category. Of ten they wer e l abel ed si mpl y
"T ur ks, " for " M u sl i m" and " T u r k " had become synony-
mous. On the other hand, whenever i t appeared expedi ent,
the Europeans woul d subdi vi de the M usl i m popul ati on
i nto smal l er ethni c or l i ngui sti c facti ons so that i t mi ght be
asserted that the Musl i ms di d not consti tute a si ngl e major-
i ty gr oup i n di sputed areas. The general tendency of the
West Europeans, and especi al l y of the Bal kan Chri sti an
nati onal i sts, was, as we have poi nted out, to mi ni mi ze the
number of Musl i ms as far as possi bl e i n order to strengthen
thei r own cl ai ms of nati onal i nterest and terri tori al ri ghts.
A f ter acqui ri ng power , many of these governments (e.g.,
Serbia and Bul gari a) ci ted thei r own bi ased stati sti cs as jus-
ti fi cati on for dr i vi ng out al l or al most al l of thei r M usl i m
subjects.
Esti mates i n some ei ghteen sources show that the Mus-
l i ms consti tuted about 35 per cent of the total Bal kan
popul ati on dur i ng most of the fi rst hal f of the ni neteenth
centurv, whi l e i n the second hal f of the century the pr opor -
ti on grew to at least 43 percent. Thi s i ncrease i n M usl i m
popul ati on apparentl y was caused by a sl i ght i ncrease i n
the bi r th rate, coupl ed wi t h the major movement of Cr i -
mean and Caucasi an Musl i ms i nto vari ous European pr ov-
40. See Dr. A. Petermann'sMitteilungen aus Justus Petcrke's geo-
grapliischcr Anstall 24 (3878): 8; and Cuinet's La Turquie d'Asie, 4
vols. (Paris, 1890-1894). Cuinet failed to list his sources and di d not
indicate why his figures differed from those of the Ottoman gov-
ernment; however, the differences were mi nor.
i nces. The total number of such mi grants i n the peri od f r om
1853 to 1878 reached an esti mated 700,000 to 800,000,
changi ng the popul ati on bal ance i n the Bal kans i n the favor
of the Musl i ms. Dur i ng the last quarter of the centurv,
however, Musl i ms f r om the Bal kans, i ncl udi ng practi cal l y
al l of the Ci rcassi ans, began emi grati ng to A natol i a, thus
setti ng i n moti on a process of accul turati on, assi mi l ati on,
and i ntegr ati on w i t h f ar - r eachi ng soci al and pol i ti cal
effects.
The total number of M u sl i m i mmi gr ant s f r om the
Cri mea, the Caucasus, ari d the Bal kans who had settl ed i n
A natol i a (and to some extent i n Syri a and I raq) bv 1908 was
about 5 mi l l i on. A n Ottoman offi ci al esti mate gi ves the total
of i mmi gr ants i n the Ottoman terri tori es i n the ni neteen
years between 1877 and 1896 as 1,015,015.41 The Ottoman
government deri ved i nf or mati on about i mmi gr ants f r om
speci al regi sters of i mmi gr ati on, but a substanti al number
of mi grants who went di rectl y to vi l l ages and towns where
thei r rel ati ves were al ready l i vi ng or who settl ed wi thout
bei ng regi stered were overl ooked i n the offi ci al counts.
That the Ottoman government's esti mates were l ow can be
seen f r om a qui ck compari son wi t h other fi gures. Offi ci al
Bul gari an stati sti cs, for exampl e, show that i n 1893 a total of
11,460 emi grants f r om that countr y al one went to T ur key; 4 2
the semi -offi ci al Ottoman stati sti cs gi ve the total number of
i mmi grants who entered the countr y i n that same vear as
onl y 18,437, al though at thi s ti me there was major i mmi gr a-
ti on not onl y f r om Bul gari a but al so f r om the Caucausus,
Crete, and Bosni a.4 3 I ndeed, a vari ety of other provi nci al
statistics show that i n 1897 at least 65,000 peopl e f r om Bul -
gari a, western Rumel i a, Russi a, Greece, Bosni a, Romani a,
Central A si a, and other unspeci f i ed pl aces entered the
Ottoman Empi re. Other stati sti cs show that i n the peri od
f r om 1880 to 1900 a total of 239,335 Musl i ms emi grated f r om
Bul gari a to the Ottoman state.
The numbers of Musl i ms i n Ottoman terri tory mounted
conti nuousl y upwar d i n such a way as to transf orm the
empi re i nto a pr edomi nantl y M usl i m state after 1878. Bv
1880 the A natol i an popul ati on was al ready 80 percent Mus-
l i m, and thi s percentage i ncreased steadi l y thereafter.
Obvi ousl y, any esti mate of the exact numeri cal size of var-
i ous Musl i m ethni c and l i ngui sti c groups can be onl y tenta-
ti ve unti l more detai l ed studi es on mi gr ati on and settl e-
ment are compl eted. A s the Ottoman stati sti cs do not di -
vi de the M usl i m popul ati on i nto ethni c and l i ngui sti c
groups, a researcher can onl y rel y on the yardsti ck of geo-
graphi cal di str i buti on for hi s esti mates. That yardsti ck is a
fai rl y rel i abl e one; for al though i n both the Bal kans and the
Mi ddl e East the M usl i m ethni c groups l i ved partl y i nter-
41. I UKTY 9184, Mi ni stry of Trade and Construction, General
Directorate of Statistics, Dcvlet-i Aliye-i Osmaniuvenin Bmiiçvfiztvttic
SenesineMnhsus lstatistik-i Ummniyyesi (I stanbul, 1316 | 1K98J).
42. Chief Statistical Office, Statistique de l'émigration de la princi-
pauté dans les pays étrangers de 1S93 à 1902 (Sofia, 1906); see also K.
G. Popoff, "La di mi nuti onde la popul ati on turque de la principa-
uté de Bulgarie," Journal de la société de statistique de Paris 46 (1905):
347.
43. See 1UKTV 9184, Dcvlc!-i Aliye-i Osmamuyewn.
56
mi xed, most had thei r own speci al di stri cts and regi ons of
concentrati on.
The l argest M usl i m gr oup i n the Bal kans was the Turks
proper, whi ch consi sted of the remanents of Turki c mi -
grants who had fi rst come i nto the terri tory as earl y as the
si xth century. The major Tur ki sh settl ement i n the Bal kans
occurred i n the Sel juki and Ottoman peri ods i n the thi r-
teenth thr ough the si xteenth centuri es. The maj ori ty of the
Bal kan Turks were Sunni Musl i ms, except for the Kizilbaş,
of Del i orman and nor ther n Dobruca (many f r om the l atter
area bei ng fol l owers of Baba I shak, a soci al rebel ). One
gr oup, the Gagauz, were Chri sti ans; they were Sel juki
Turks who settl ed i n the Bal kans i n the thi rteenth century
and converted to the Or thodox rel i gi on but mai ntai ned
thei r Tur ki sh l anguage. They i nhabi ted eastern Bul gari a
and were cl assi fi ed by the Ottomans as Chri sti ans; the
Bul gari ans cl ai med i ncorrectl y that they were onl y l i ngui sti -
cal l y Tur ki f i ed and cl assi fi ed them as Bul gari ans'The Mus-
l i m Turks were concentrated i n the provi nces of the Edi rne,
Tuna, Sel ani k, Yanya, and part of 'Manasti r.
The Kosova and I şkodra vilayets were i nhabi ted l argel y
by A l bani an Musl i ms, k nown also as Ski petars and A r na-
vut, who were di vi ded i nto vari ous groups accordi ng to
regi on, di al ect, and tri be.' The Boşnak, that i s, the Serbo-
Croati an-speaki ng Musl i ms, i nhabi ted al most excl usi vel y
Bosni a and Herzegovi na. These terri tori es were occupi ed
by A ustri a i n 1878, and parts of them were ceded to M on-
tenegro, whi l e the sancak of Novi bazar was pl aced under a
j oi nt Ottoman- A ustr i an admi ni strati on (resul ti ng i n a l arge
emi grati on f r om Bosni a to the Ottoman state). The Bul gar-
i an-speaki ng Musl i ms, that is, the Pomaks, i nhabi ted thei r
ori gi nal home i n the Rhodope Mountai ns i n the vilayets of
Edi rne and Sel ani k. The Caucasus Musl i ms, k nown as Ci r-
cassians, were onl y temporari l y settl ed i n the Bal kans be-
tween 1862 and 1878 and need not be consi dered among
the nati ve groups. The Cri means, the mai n M usl i m gr oup of
Turki c ori gi n sti l l speaki ng a di al ect very close to Tur ki sh,
were settl ed i n Dobruca and parts of eastern and nor ther n
Bul gari a. The average di str i buti on of Musl i ms i n the Euro-
pean provi nces i n the per i od f r om 1864 to 1877, accordi ng
to fi gures gi ven by several of the most rel i abl e sources, is
shown i n Tabl e 3.7.4 4
I t is rel ati vel y easy to determi ne the ethno-l i ngui sti c clas-
si fi cati on of the M usl i m popul ati on i n N or t h A f ri ca, Egypt,
the A r abi an peni nsul a, and the southern parts of Syri a and
I raq, for i n these areas an A rabi c-speaki ng M usl i m popul a-
ti on prevai l ed. H owever , the terri tory i n the nor ther n part
of Syri a and the hi ghl ands of I raq, whi ch became the pl ace
of encounter f or A r abi c, Tur ki c, Persi an, and K ur di sh
tri bes, was a checkerboard of var yi ng l anguages and soci al
44. I have relied on the calculation made by Engin Akarl i , "Otto-
man Population in Europe i n the 19th Century; Its Territorial, Ra-
cial, and Religious Composi ti on" (M.A . thesis, Uni versi ty of
Wisconsin-Madison, 1970), p. 82; see also Ernest Dottai n, "La Tur-
quie d'Europe d'après le Traité de Berl i n," Revue de géographie 3
(1878): 152; and McCarthy, Muslims and Minorities. (For Ottoman
ligures, see Appendi x 1.)
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
Tabl e 3.7. Musl i ms i n European Provi nces, 1860-1878
A. By EthicGroup
EthnicGroup Vilayets Number 'O
Turks, asmall number of Istanbul 342.200 57
Crimeans. Çerkeş. Edirne 597.100 39
Pomaks, and Albanians Tuna 945,600 45
Sofia 154.200 23
Selanik 264,800 49
Yanya 430.500 36
Albaniansand Turks Manastir (Kosova) 860,600 56
(small groups only) Işkodra 141,100 47
Bosnians Bosniaand Herzegovina 520,000 40
Turks Crete 48,400
Islands 80.000 50
Total
4.384,500 44.6
B. 8y Ethnic Total*
Turks 2,000,000
Albanians 1,300,000
Bosnians 600.000
Circassians 400,000
Others 84.500
Total 4,384,500
Source:EnginAkarli, "Ottoman Population in Europein the19th Century; Its Territo-
rial, Racial, and Religious Composition" (M.A. thesis, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 1970), p. 82.
'Approximate totals.
organi zati ons. Thi s checkerboard became more compl ex as
Ci rcassi ans and other M usl i m i mmi gr ants were settl ed
ar ound Bei rut, al ong the Hejaz rai l road, i n the A l eppo and
Baghdad areas, and al ong the Syri an seaboard.4 5 I n that
area ther e wer e non- or t hodox gr oups (that i s, non-
Sunni s—someti mes not consi dered good Musl i ms), such as
the approxi matel y 150,000 Druzes who i nhabi ted the Leba-
non, the 200,000 Nusai ri s (A l awi tes) who l i ved al ong the
Syri an seaboard, and the 150,000 Yezi di s (fi reworshi pers)
f ound chi efl y i n the nor ther n parts of A l eppo and M osul . 4 6
The ethno-l i ngui sti c composi ti on of the M usl i m popul a-
ti on i n A natol i a needs a l engthy and detai l ed study, whi ch I
hope to compl ete i n the near f utur e. I l i mi t mysel f here to a
f ew general observati ons i ntended to thr ow some i nterpre-
ti ve l i ght upon the stati sti cal materi al presented i n the
appendi ces. A natol i a had been rel ati vel y homogeneous, at
least i n the i nteri or, unti l dur i ng the ni neteenth century,
but i t came to pr esent an extr emel y compl ex ethno-
l i ngui sti c pi cture after the M usl i m i mmi gr ati on took pl ace.
The pl ai ns of the enti re area, stretchi ng f r om the sea of
Marmara to Er zur um i n the east and to the A dana- A yi ntap
regi on i n the south, were ori gi nal l y i nhabi ted by Turks;
unti l the mi ddl e of the ni neteenth century onl y a few smal l
45. See my "The Status of Musl i ms under European Rule: The
Eviction of the Circassians from the Caucasus and Their Settlement
in Syri a," journal of Muslim Minorities 1 (1980).
46. The Ottoman government, i n its dri ve to register the entire
population, found that the Yezidis agreed to register onl y if their
nationality was specified as "yezi di ." The government accepted
this demand lest the Yezidis become subject to conversion bv some
Christian missionary groups and cause trouble.
THE REL I GI OU S A N D E T H N I C DI ST RI BU T I ON OF T H L O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON
57
groups of non- Tur ki sh Musl i ms coul d be f ound there. The
si tuati on i n the mountai nous areas was somewhat more
compl ex, but there al so the nomadi c groups were pr edomi -
nantl y of Tur ki sh stock. There wer e soci al di fferences
among the Tur ks, stemmi ng f r om thei r di f f er i ng occupa-
tions and settl ement patterns, and thi s i nduced many Euro-
peans to cl assi fy the sedentary' f ol k, rural and ur ban, as
"Osmanl i " or "real Tur ks, " whi l e the nomadi c and semi -
nomadi c groups, such as the Türkmen, Yörük, Zeybek,
Çetni, Tahtaci , Kı zı l baş (Shi i tes), etc., were pl aced i n di f f er-
ent ethni c categori es, the fact that they were of the same
l i ngui sti c gr oup bei ng enti rel y i gnor ed.
The eastern part of A natol i a harbored, i n addi ti on to
Turks, Sunni and Shi i te K ur ds both sedentary and nomad-
ic. The K ur ds were di vi ded i nto t wo groups—the smal l er
Zaza and the l arger K i r manj i —and also i nto a Sunni major-
i ty and a Shi i te mi nor i ty; the l atter was descended probabl y
from the Tur ki sh Ki zi l baş tri bes that had rebel l ed agai nst
the Ottoman gover nment i n the si xteenth century and
sought refuge i n the domai ns of the K ur di sh l ords, wher e
they acqui red the l anguage of thei r protectors. The Shi i te
K urds' rel i gi ous bel i efs were i denti cal wi t h those of the
Shiite Türkmen. The Zaza and K i r manj i l anguages were not
wr i tten; consequentl y, the K ur di sh el i tes often used Per-
sian as thei r l anguage of wr i tten communi cati on, and many
K urdi sh tri bes, especi al l y the Shi i tes, therefore consi dered
themsel ves Persi an. The total Ottoman K ur di sh popul a-
ti on, esti mated to be about 1.5 mi l l i on i n the 1880s, a good
part of whi ch was nomadi c or pastoral , l i ved i n the area
compri si ng what is now southeast Tur key, I raq, and part of
Syri a. There were l arge groups of ethni c Tur ks, both seden-
tary' and nomadi c, l i vi ng i n these areas, i ncl udi ng the hi gh-
l ands of Der si m, H ar put, and Di yarbeki r. A s earl y as the
1880s a smal l gr oup of K ur di sh l eaders regarded these areas
as thei r f utur e nati onal homel and, whi ch they tri ed to se-
cure agai nst the cl ai ms of other nati onal i ti es—parti cul arl y
agai nst the A r meni ans, who regarded most of the same
area as the terri tory of a f uture i ndependent A r meni a. A s
the i mmi gr ati ons of the years 1862-1900 i ncreased the size
of the Tur ki sh popul ati on i n A natol i a, the pr opor ti on of non-
Turki sh el ements, both Chri sti an and M usl i m, decreased
accordi ngl y.
I n the second hal f of the ni neteenth century' the nor th-
eastern part of A natol i a under went massi ve ethni c change.
The overl and i mmi gr ati on of vari ous Caucasi an groups af-
ter 1853 began the process; and after 1878, when the nor th-
ern provi nces of A r dahan, Batum, and Kars were ceded to
Russia, Daghi stani s, Çeçen, Georgi ans, Lazes, and many
other M usl i m groups, some of Tur ki sh or i gi n but mostl y of
Caucasi an stock, came to settl e i n eastern A natol i a. Mean-
whi l e l arge groups of M usl i m i mmi gr ants f r om the Bal kans,
consi sti ng mai nl y of ethni c Turks f r om Bul gari a and eastern
Rumel i a and of Ci rcassi ans, were settl ed thr oughout west-
ern, central , and southern A natol i a wherever there was
avai l abl e l and. Later, non- Tur ki sh Musl i ms such as Bos-
ni ans, Pomaksl and, i n lesser number s, A l bani ans also
came to settl e i n A natol i a, thei r heavi est concentrati ons
bei ng i n the west. A f ter the occupati on of Crete by Greece,
the M usl i ms there, mai nl y Tur ks but al so some l arge
groups of Greek-speaki ng Musl i ms, emi grated and settl ed
al ong the souther n shores of A natol i a. I n addi ti on the
i mmi gr ati on total was steadi l y augmented by the constant
i nf l ux of Cr i mean Musl i ms, who had begun to settl e i n very
smal l numbers i n central and western A natol i a as earl y as
the fi fteenth century.
The demogr aphi c str uctur e of A natol i a was f ur ther
changed thr ough the settl ement, both vol untar y and i n-
vol untar y, of nomadi c tri bes. I ndeed, thr oughout the
ni neteenth century the Ottoman gover nment succeeded i n
settl i ng l arge numbers of K ur di sh, Tur ki sh, and A r ab tri bes
i n A natol i a (northern I raq bei ng unsui tabl e for agri cul ture).
These settl ed tri bes were al most excl usi vel y M usl i m, and
the maj ori ty were Tur ki sh.
Thus the pol i ti cal events that tr i gger ed the M usl i m
emi grati on f r om the Caucasus and the Bal kans compl eted
both the I sl ami zati on and the Tur ki f i cati onof A natol i a. The
two processes were i n fact compl ementary and were rooted
i n the Ottoman cul ture, i denti ty, and spi ri t; thei r cul mi na-
ti on was the synthesi s embodi ed i n the Tur ki sh nati on.
I ndeed, the T ur ki sh nati onal consci ousness, al though
sti rred partl y by a sense of ethni c i denti ty, was rai sed mai n-
l y by the power f ul forces embodi ed i n the Ottoman pol i ti cal
and'ci vi c cul ture. The Ottoman state had created á strong
cul tural uni ty among vari ous M usl i m ethni c groups subject
to i ts i nfl uence i n the areas admi ni stered di rectl y and i nten-
si vel y by the central author i ty—that i s, Rumi l i and A nato-
l i a. Thus, the assi mi l ati on of the non- Tur ki sh M usl i m i mmi -
grants i nto the Tur ki sh maj ori ty was not tr ul y "assi mi l a-
t i on" i n the ordi nary sense of the wor d: rather, i t was a
mel di ng of al l the vari ous I sl ami c- Ottoman communi ti es,
i ncl udi ng the Turks, i nto a new f or m of pol i ti cal and social
organi zati on—the nati onal state. Under thi s new f or m of
pol i ti cal or gani zati on, the var i ous gr oups wer e abl e to
mai ntai n thei r i nheri ted soci o-cul tural characteri sti cs but
wer e pr ovi ded wi t h a new nati onal i denti ty and were
assured of f utur e survi val . To paraphrase Karl Deutsch, a
nati on is f or med when the ol d f orms of associ ati on di si nte-
grate and peopl e are compel l ed to i ntegrate i nto newer and
l arger soci al uni ts wi t h a new pol i ti cal and soci al ori entati on
and a new col l ecti ve i denti ty. Mi gr ati on and settl ement
pl ayed a major rol e i n creati ng a l arge gr oup of peopl e wi th
si mi l ar backgrounds, out of whi ch the archi tects of the
emergi ng Tur ki sh nati onal state dr ew the necessary man-
power to oppose the conti nuous onsl aughts of Europe f r om
1897 to 1922 and, eventual l y, to af f i r m the i denti ty of thei r
new nati on.
The contenti on that mi gr ati on speeded up the-Tsl ami za-
ti on and Turki f i cati on of A natol i a is supported by stati sti cal
evi dence. A summar y publ i shed by the Ottoman govern-
ment shows that the Ottoman popul ati on i ncreased f rom
19.8 mi l l i on i n 1875 to 24.5 mi l l i on i n 1885 and to 27.2 mi l -
l i on i n 1895 (see the stati sti cal appendi ces, 1.14). Thi s
popul ati on i ncrease (about 40 percent i n twenty years) was
due chi efl y to i mmi gr ati on and the settl ement of tri bes and
was augmented onl y sl i ghtl y by an i ncrease i n the bi r th rate
(seemi ngl y onl v about 1 percent annual l y). Hel l e von Samo
T H E REL I GI OU S A N D E T H N I C DI ST RI BU T I ON OF T H E O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON
59
58
i ndi cated on the basis of data f r om the provi nci al salnames
that i n 1874 the A si an provi nces (Arabi a excepted) had a
popul ati on of 10.3 mi l l i on Musl i ms and 2.8 mi l l i on non-
Musl i ms, chi efl y Creeks and A rmeni ans, or a total of about
14 mi l l i on peopl e—a fi gure accepted by most observers as
correct.4' I n 1885, that is, el even vears after the major wave
of i mmi gr ati on f rom the Bal kans had been absorbed, the
number of Musl i ms i n A natol i a had i ncreased to over 15
mi l l i on, despi te the loss (i n 1878) of northeastern A natol i a
to Russia. Dur i ng thi s peri od the number of Chri sti ans i n-
creased onl y sl i ghtl y.
The pattern of gr owth of the Musl i m popul ati on, both i n
numbers and i n pr opor ti on, conti nued after 1885 but wi th-
out showi ng the l arge i ncreases pr evi ousl y r ecor ded;
mi grati on, though steady, had dwi ndl ed consi derabl y. I n
fact, the stati sti cs showed the overal l Ottoman popul ati on
to have i ncreased by onl y a rel ati vel y smal l number i n the
peri od f r om 1885 to 1914. There was doubtl ess a real sl ow-
down i n gr owth at that ti me due to a vari ety of causes,
i ncl udi ng losses i n the war wi t h Greece i n 1897 and the
Bal kan War of 1912-1913; but al so, because bi r th and death
regi strati ons were not sati sfactori l y carri ed out some of the
decrease i n the rate of . gr owt h was apparent rather than
actual .
The rel ati ve sl owi ng of the rate of popul ati on gr owth di d
not retard the i sl ami zati on and Turki f i cati on of A natol i a;
thi s process gai ned new momentum wi t h the mass i m-
mi gr ati on of most of the r emai ni ng ethni c Turks f r om the
Bal kans as a consequence of the war of 1912-1913. Hal f a
century of persecuti on and mi streatment of Musl i ms by
Russia and the newl y establ i shed states of the Bal kans f i nal -
l y forced al most al l of them to seek new homes and a new
pol i ti cal exi stence i n A natol i a—a search that ul ti matel y re-
sul ted i n the emergence of moder n Turkey.
Soci al Condi ti ons
Many of the tables i n Secti on I V of the stati sti cal appen-
dices at the end of thi s book contai n stati sti cs that are i n fact
soci al i ndi cators descr i bi ng the Ot t oman state's soci o-
economi c posi ti on at the end of the ni neteenth century.
They are taken f r om materi al i n the l i brary of the Uni versi ty
of I stanbul , the secti on on Tur ki sh manuscr i pts.4 8 A seal
mark on one of the i nteri or pages (p. 229) bears the name of
that Mehmet Behic who was assi stant di rector and, l ater,
di rector of the Ottoman Stati sti cal Di rectorate (see Chapter
2 and A ppendi x B.4). A ppar entl y thi s stati sti cal book was
the resul t of a j oi nt effort carri ed out under the supervi si on
of the hi ghest authori ti es i n the stati sti cal offi ce; however,
there is no i ndi cati on of the method used i n compi l i ng the
fi gures, and one must have reservati ons about accepti ng at
face val ue some of the i nf or mati on when one does not
47. Die Viilker des osnianischen Reiclws, pp. 68, 117; see also Dot-
tain, "La Turquie d'Europe," 209-16.
48. See I UKTY, 9184 and 365, Dev!et-i Aliye-i Osmaniyyenm.
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
know i ts backgr ound. 4 " Neverthel ess, these stati sti cs,
whatever thei r degree of accuracy, do present a pi cture of
Ottoman state qui te di f f erent f r om the di smal portrai t of the
"si ck man" offered by many European wr i ter s. Recent
documentary research on the Ottoman economy bv a num-
ber of young schol ars has i ndi cated that i n the peri od f rom
1870 to 1900 agri cul tural pr oducti on i ncreased, rai l roads
made the tr anspor tati on of commodi ti es to the markets
easier and more effi ci ent, educati onal faci l i ti es expanded,
the publ i c debt was stabi l i zed, and the Ottoman society
devel oped a new pol i ti cal and soci al awareness. Thus the
offi ci al Ottoman stati sti cs probabl y pai nt a reasonabl e l i ke-
ness of the true ci rcumstances i n the Ottoman state.
There is no questi on that the settl ement of i mmi grants
had br ought new agri cul tural l ands i nto cul ti vati on and
i ncreased f arm pr oducti on. Moreover, the mi grati on was
accompani ed by a transfer of capi tal and ski l l s, for a con-
si derabl e number of the i mmi gr ants bel onged to wel l -to-do
groups (l andl ords, hi gh offi ci al s, ulema) i n thei r countri es of
or i gi n. One can therefore state that the demographi c trans-
f ormati on of the Ottoman state i n the second hal f of the
ni neteenth century was accompani ed by economi c gr owth
and soci al changes as wel l as by pol i ti cal mobi l i zati on.
The stati sti cs rel ati ng to l i teracy (I V. 15) gi ve rates that
appear, and probabl y are, rather hi gh. The reason for this
can be f o^nd, at least i n part, i n the structure of the Otto-
man educati onal system. The system consi sted i n the
second hal f of the ni neteenth century of both government-
fi nanced and control l ed "moder n" school s and tradi ti onal
cl assrooms suppor ted by vakifs (pi ous f oundati ons). The
l atter were essenti al l y rel i gi ous school s and coul d be f ound
even i n vi l l ages; they taught chi l dr en how to read and
wr i te, and a person gr aduati ng f r om one of these schools
coul d be cal l ed l i terate. I t is true that the moder n school s,
towards whi ch the gover nment offi ci al s showed a strong
bi as, tended to repl ace the ol d, but the tradi ti onal rel i gi ous
school s sti l l sur vi ved i n l arge numbers and produced thei r
own graduates for a l ong peri od of ti me. On the other
hand, after the acceptance of the L ati n scri pt i n Turkey i n
1928 there was a tendency to consi der "l i terate" and to
regi ster as such onl y the peopl e who coul d read the Lati n
scri pt. Thus the questi on of the l i teracy rate must be ex-
pl ored wi t h due consi derati on for the speci fi c educati onal
condi ti ons and the pr evai l i ng def i ni ti on of a "l i terate" per-
son i n the Ottoman state at a gi ven ti me. I n any case, the
stati sti cs on the vol ume of pr oducti on and the pri ce of some
agri cul tural commodi ti es (I V. 18-23) suggest the existence
of the type of soci o-economi c devel opment that woul d ex-
pl ai n the pol i ti cal devel opment of the twenti eth century,
i ncl udi ng the r evol uti on of the Y oung Turks i n 1908.
The two l i sts of professi ons and professi onal s gi ven i n
49. The material has been used i n part by some other scholars;
see Vedat Eldem, Osmanli imparatorluğunun iktisadı Şartlari Hakkında
Bir Tetkik (Ankara, 1970), and Stanford J. and Ezel Kural Shaw,
History of the Ottoman Empire,and Modern Turkey, vol . 2 (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1977).
t h e statistical appendi ces (I V.9 and 10) are of consi derabl e
significance. The fi rst l i st, descri bi ng the occupati onal scene
i ,i I stanbul i n 1878/ 79, i l l umi nates the mode of l i fe and so-
cial habi ts, as wel l as the economi c structure, of the tradi -
tional soci ety: a detai l ed anal ysi s of these professi ons
should i ndi cate the l evel of sophi sti cati on i n taste and l i vi ng
reached by the Ottoman soci ety as wel l as reveal i ng the
structure of i ts compl ex crafts or gani zati on.3 " The second
list, i ssued barel y twenty years l ater, al though more gener-
al and wi der i n scope, i ndi cates above al l the rapi d prol i f -
eration of new professi ons and occupati ons and the di s-
appearance, or at least the f adi ng away to i nsi gni fi cance, of
the tradi ti onal professi ons. A l t hough many tradi ti onal pro-
fessions sur vi ved, they became rel ati vel y uni mpor tant and
unpopul ar, the professi ons associ ated wi t h the "moder n"
order bei ng more presti gi ous.
The professi ons associ ated wi t h the new order were i n-
ti matel y rel ated to the market-ori ented, capi tal -i ntensi ve,
western-styl e enterpri ses and corporati ons that had begun
to control the Ottoman economy. A good many of these
enterpri ses were the subsi di ari es of l arge European f i rms or
the di stri butors of goods manuf actur ed by European i ndus-
50. See Pretextat Lecomte, les Arts et metiers de la Turquie et de
VOrient (Paris, 1902).
tri es. Li sted are a l arge number of bank empl oyees (there
was onl v one smal l Ottoman- owned bank—the Ziraat Ban¬
kasi, or A gr i cul tur al Bank) and secretari es, i ndi cati ng that
the admi ni strati on of capi tal and of busi ness had gai ned
pri ori ty over man}- other professi ons. Thi s mi ght be seen as
an i ndi cator of strong economi c devel opment, but that vi ew
is not supported by other evi dence. For exampl e, the total
number of factory workers was onl y 186,000—less than the
total number of vari ous categori es of servants, mai ds, and
secretaries. The Ottoman economy had become i n fact a
dependent "servi ce" economy whose devel opi ng "mod-
er n" l aver served as i ntermedi ary between the pr oducti ve
sector—that i s, the tradi ti onal i nfrastructure resti ng on agri -
cul ture—and the top l avcr of benefi ci ari es of the new order,
consi sti ng of the representati ves of European capi tal (there
were l arge numbers of forei gn ci ti zens i n I stanbul ) and of a
rapi dl y gr owi ng nati ve mi ddl e class.
I n sum, these soci al stati sti cs, besi des pr ovi di ng factual
i nf or mati on, suggest the exi stence of forces that shaped the
ul ti mate desti ny of the Ottoman Empi re. They offer new
i nsi ght i nto—i n fact, a pr of oundl y new vi sta of —the Otto-
man soci ety and i ts i nternal dynami cs. The students of
Ottoman hi story may better understand the rise and down-
fal l of thi s pol i ti cal enti ty i f they can approach i ts study wi t h
some detai l ed factual knowl edge about i ts soci ety.
P O P U L A T I O N M O V E M E N T S I N T H E O T T O M A N S T A T E
I N T H E N I N E T E E N T H C E N T U R Y
I ntr oducti on
A ny study of the Ottoman popul ati on i n the ni neteenth
and twenti eth centuri es—even of such questi ons as age,
f ami l y size, and ferti l i ty, and bi r th and death rates that are
consi dered purel y demographi c—i s bound to be i ncom-
pl ete wi thout a study'al so of emi grati on and, especi al l y,
i mmi gr ati on. The structure of Ottoman soci ety under went
enormous soci al , ethni c, rel i gi ous, and l i ngui sti c change
dur i ng the years i n whi ch mi l l i ons of peopl e moved f r om
Europe to the A si an terri tori es of the Ottoman Empi re and
f r om Asi a to Europe. Every facet of Ottoman demogr aphy
was affected by these vast mi grati ons; hence i t is essenti al
that they be thor oughl y consi dered i n popul ati on studi es of
the empi re dur i ng i ts last seventy-fi ve years of exi stence.
The ni neteenth century wi tnessed the gradual di si ntegra-
ti on of the Ottoman Empi re and the emergence of i nde-
pendent or autonomous states i n the Bal kans that cl ai med
statehood and nati onal terri tory on the basis of often ex-
aggerated cl ai ms of hi stori cal grandeur. The shapers of
these new Bal kan enti ti es envi saged thei r "nati ons" as
homogeneous i n rel i gi on, ethni ci ty, and l anguage—a vi -
si on that was enti rel y fal se. Neverthel ess, i n the earl y
phase of nati on f or mati on the Bal kans adopted the centu-
ri es-ol d vi ew (whi ch was the vi ew hel d by the Ottoman
state) that r el i gi ous ti es wer e pr i mar y bonds, str ong
enough to hol d the communi ty together and confer upon i t
a cul ture and an i denti ty. The l eaders stressed the Chri sti an
i denti ty and rel i gi ous/ cul tural pecul i ari ti es, not onl y i n
order to strengthen the cohesi on of thei r fol l owers, but also
i n order to di fferenti ate them f r om the r ul i ng author i ty de-
fi ned as Tur ki sh or Musl i m, two terms that came to be
regarded as synonymous. Thus, despi te the exi stence of a
vari ety of other forces, Chri sti ani ty became the f oundati on
of nati onhood i n the Bal kans; and si nce the maj ori ty of
Ottoman Chri sti ans i n Europe bel onged to the Or thodox
church, spoke Sl avi c l anguages (the Vl ahs, or Romani ans,
and the A l bani ans were the excepti ons), and rel i ed on Rus-
sia to f urther their, goal of i ndependence, thei r nati onal i sm
often expressed the conservati ve, rel i gi on-ori ented pol i ti cal
vi ews of the Russi an pan-Sl avi sts rather than those of the
l i beral West, whi ch onl y l ater became a model for reform.
The i mpact of these devel opments on the character of the
Bal kan popul ati on was predi ctabl e. The l eaders of the
nati onal movements, al though i mbued wi t h fervent rel i -
gi ous-ethni c nati onal i sm, were not unaware that the terri -
tori es they def i ned as thei r f uture nati ons were i nhabi ted
by vari ous peopl es, among whom the Musl i ms, or i n some
cases other Chri sti an groups, f or med ei ther the majori ty or
a strong mi nor i ty. Consequentl y, even before i ndepend-
ence was achi eved, some of the l eaders of these nati onal i st
movements, such as the Bul gari an George Rakowski , had
made pl ans for br i ngi ng about the desi red cul tural and
ethni c homogenei ty by sol vi ng the "pr obl em" of the Turk-
i sh popul ati on. The sol uti on cal l ed for the eradi cati on or
forced exi l e to A natol i a of al l "T ur ks, " that i s, Musl i ms,
despi te the fact that among t hem wer e many Sl avi c-
speaki ng groups. The Bal kan Musl i ms were about to suffer
the same fate as had been i nf l i cted on thei r corel i gi oni sts i n
Si ci l y and Spai n centuri es earl i er.
I t is apparent, therefore, that popul ati on movements i n
the Ottoman state i n the ni neteenth century are rel ated to
ethni c and cul tural factors. I n fact, most of the studi es made
of the Ottoman popul ati on dur i ng thi s per i od were cal l ed
"ethnogr aphi c" studi es. Thi s was an apt ti tl e, as demo-
graphi c change—that i s, the repl acement of one ethni c
gr oup by another, the congregati on of peopl es of the same
ethno-rel i gi ous and l i ngui sti c gr oup wi t hi n the same terri -
tory and the adopti on of measures necessary to increase the
bi r th rate and l ower the death rate of the chosen gr oup—
was affected by ethno- pol i ti cal consi derati ons. I ndeed,
even "pur e" demographi c devel opments such as bi rth and
death rates, and "soci al " events such as economi c di f-
ferenti ati on and the ri se of certai n soci al classes i n the Otto-
man state, can cl earl y be l i nked to cul tur al and ethni c
causes. For exampl e, the rel ati ve decl i ne i n the number of
the Tur ki sh and M usl i m popul ati on i n the Bal kans and
A natol i a at the end of the ei ghteenth and the begi nni ng of
the ni neteenth century may be attri buted to, i n addi ti on to
natural cal ami ti es and epi demi cs, the fact that the Ottoman
army was made up chi efl y of Turks: the l ong wars wi th
Russi a between 1768 and 1829 thus caused wi despread
60
POPUL A TI ON M O V E M E N T S I N T H E O T T O M A N STA TE
mortal i ty among M usl i m mal es of reproducti ve age. Mean-
whi l e, the non- M usl i ms i ncreased i n number s and de-
vel oped i nto a prosperous mi ddl e class. Thei r communi ti es
remai ned wel l i ntegrated; they adopted a moder n educa-
ti onal system and heal th servi ces, and they enjoyed the
assistance of Chr i sti an mi ssi onari es and the suppor t of
European power s.
I n sum, then, the study of popul ati on movements i n the
Ottoman state i n the ni neteenth century must adopt con-
cepts and uti l i ze a methodol ogy capabl e of taki ng i nto
account not onl y demogr aphi c condi ti ons but al so the
cul tural , rel i gi ous, and ethni c envi r onment that generated,
and determi ned the course of, demographi c change. I t is
not my i ntenti on to deny the i mportance of economi c fac-
tors i n demographi c change but, rather, to emphasi ze that
under certai n condi ti ons some non-economi c factors must
be gi ven thei r due credi t for i ncreasi ng the scope of eco-
nomi c i nfl uence or for creati ng thei r own spheres of i nterac-
ti on. Cul tur al , rel i gi ous, and pol i ti cal factors pl ayed a l arge
part i n the demographi c changes i n the Ottoman state i n
the ni neteenth centur y. Thus concepts devel oped i n
Europe shoul d be appl i ed wi t h extreme cauti on to the
study of Ottoman popul ati on movements i n general and of
mi gr ati on i n parti cul ar. The bul k of the western l i terature
on hi stori cal demogr aphy deal s mostl y wi t h f erti l i ty and
mortal i ty rates, f ami l y si ze, and other si mi l ar topi cs;1 the
r el ati onshi p between pol i ti cs and ethno- demogr aphi c
change is not much menti oned, al though some efforts i n
thi s di recti on have been made.2 The newl y devel opi ng fi el d
of pol i ti cal demogr aphy, whi ch has been def i ned as the
1. The literature i n this field is extensive; therefore, i n this refer-
ence1 list onl y a few major works and bibliographies. See Daedalus
97, no. 2 (1968), and F. F. Mendels, "Recent Research i n European
Hi stori cal Demography," American Historical Review 75 (1970):
1065-75. A n excellent, and probably the most extensive, source on
historical demography is the Annales dedémographie historique, pub-
lished by the Centre National de la RechercheScientifique i n Paris;
this series, published since 1964, has nine volumes. See also ]. J.
Spengler and Otis D. Duncan, eds., DemographicAnalyses (Glencoe,
111.: Free Press, 1956); Davi d M . Heer, ed., Readings on Population
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J .: Prentice-Hall, 1967); Charles B. Nam, ed.,
Population and Society; A Textbook of Readings (Boston: Houghton
Mi ffl i n, 1968); Roger Moi s, introduction à la démographie historique:
Les milesd'Europe du XIV au XVlil siècle, 3 vols. (Louvai n: Publica-
tions Universitaires de Louvai n, Editions J. Ducul ot, S.A. Gem-
bloux, 1954-1956); and Jean-Pierre Poussou, "Les Mouvements mi -
gratoires en France . . . approches pour une synthèse," Annales de
démographie historique (Paris: Sirey, 1971).
2. Davi d Landes poi nted out that most of the genera] books on
the history of Europe, and even of worl d ci vi l i zati on, wri tten be-
fore the Second Worl d War (and many others wri tten after) give
little or no space to popul ati on problems; see "The Treatment of
Population i n Hi story Textbooks," i n D. V. Glass and Roger Revell,
eds., Population and Social Change(New York: Crane Russak, 19/ 2),
pp. 23-45- For some efforts to assess the role of demography i n
history, see T. H . Hol l i ngsworth, Historical Demography (Ithaca:
Cornel l 'Uni versi ty Press, 1969). and E. A. Wri gl ey, Population and
History (London:"Wi edenfel d and Nicolson, 1969). The work of
Louis Henry also contains useful insights.
61
"study of the i nteracti on between demographi c vari abl es,"
deals pr i mar i l y wi th the governmental popul ati on pol i ci es
or wi t h the effect of popul ati on gr owth on government
pol i ci es.3
I n vi ew of thi s, i t is i mperati ve that the nature and the
scope of popul ati on movements i n the Ottoman state be
def i ned i n accordance wi t h the forces that engendered
them and condi ti oned thei r devel opment. Mi grati ons con-
sti tuted the bul k of these popul ati on movements. The
mi grati ons affecti ng the Ottoman empi re were pr edomi -
nantl y i mmi gr ati ons, al though there was also some out-
war d movement, chi efl y of Syri ans emi grati ng to the A mer -
icas and of Greeks and A r meni ans who went to Russi an
terri tory. I n addi ti on there was a movement of mountai n
and desert tri bes i nto the ferti l e areas of A natol i a, Syri a,
and I raq. These popul ati on movements, especi al l y the i m-
mi grati ons, drasti cal l y al tered the ethni c, rel i gi ous, and so-
ci al composi ti on of the Bal kans, A natol i a, and porti ons of
the A rabi c-speaki ng countri es. I n thi s chapter I present
onl y an outl i ne of some of the mi grati ons that so pr of ound-
l y affected the Ottoman soci ety; an extensi ve and detai l ed
study of thi s topi c must be reserved for another vol ume.'1
Ottoman I mmi gr ati on. Pol i cy
The Ottoman state was faced at the begi nni ng of the
ni neteenth century wi t h the pr obl em of scarci ty of popul a-
ti on. Large areas'of ferti l e l and remai ned uncul ti vated, both
because of the di sarray i n the l and tenure system and be-
cause of pol i ti cal -mi l i tary pol i cy; meanwhi l e the demand
for f oodstuf f s and raw materi al s was i ncreasi ng apace.
These demands came mostl y f r om abroad, f r om the rapi dl y
i ndustri al i zi ng countri es of western Europe, and had been
sti mul ated greatl y by the Cri mean War (1853-1856). I n fact,
f reedom of trade! notabl y f reedom to purchase agri cul tural
commodi ti es f r om Ottoman terri tori es, had been an i mpor -
tant condi ti on i n peace treati es si gned wi t h A ustri a and
Russia since 1718. The Treaty of Edi rne i n 1829 had freed
Wal l achi a and Mol davi a f r om the obl i gati on to sell the Porte
some of thei r agri cul tural produce, f orci ng the Porte to
3. See Richard L. Cl i nton and R. Kenneth Godwi n, Research in
the Politics of Population (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1972)
and Political Sciencein Population Studies (Lexi ngton, Mass.: Lexing-
ton Books, 1972).
4. For general reference to mi grati on, see]. J. Mangalam, Hraui i
Migration: A GuidetoMigration Literature in English. 1955-2962 (Lex-
i ngton: University of Kentucky Press, 1968); I . A. Jackson, ed.,
Migration (Cambri dge: Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press, 1969);
Cl i fford J. Jansen, ed., Readings in the Sociologyof Migration (Oxford:
Pergamon Press, 1970), Hans-Joachim Hoffman Nowotny, Migra-
tion: Ein Beitrag zu einer soziologischen Erklärung (Stuttgart: Enke,
1970); and Richard Startup, "Sociology of Mi grati on," The Sociolo-
gical Quarterly 12 (1971) 177-90. See also Justin McCarthy, "The
Musl i m Population of Anatolia, 1878 to 1927" (Ph.D. diss., Uni -
versity of California at Los Angeles, 1978) and "Age, Family and
Mi grati on i n Nineteenth-Century Black Sea Provinces of the Otto-
man Empi re," International Journal of Middle East Studies 10 (1979):
309-23.
62 O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830-1914
POPU L A TI ON M O V E M E N T S I N T H E O T T O M A N STA TE 63
make up the del i ci encv i n grai n producti on bv br i ngi ng
vi r gi n l ands under cul ti vati on.
The Ottoman government came to bel i eve that a l arge
popul ati on was the pre-condi ti on for economi c devel op-
ment as wel l as for a strong defense agai nst outsi de ene-
mi es. The gover nment sought to remedy the economi c
stagnati on and to. i ncrease revenues bv fi rst revi tal i zi ng
agri cul ture. Reports submi tted bv agri cul tural experts—i n-
cl udi ng I on l onescu-Brad, a Romani an consi dered to be an
expert on l and tenure—averred that Ottoman agri cul ture
coul d be i mpr oved and state revenues i ncreased substan-
ti al l y onl y i f addi ti onal l and was br ought under cul ti vati on,
a recommendati on dependent upon there bei ng enough
trai ned manpower for agri cul ture. The popul ati on pol i cy
adopted by the Ottoman gover nment shortl y after 1856 was
desi gned to meet thi s need.3 On 9 Mar ch 1857 (5 Cema-
zi yül ahı r 1272) the hi gh counci l of Tanzi mat i ssued a decree
on mi gr ati on and settl ement that was sancti oned also by
the sul tan.6 I t decl ared that mi grati on i nto the Ottoman
state was open to anyone who was wi l l i ng to gi ve hi s al l e-
gi ance to the sul tan, to become hi s subject, and to respect
the country's l aws. I t sti pul ated f urther that settl ers woul d
be protected agai nst any i nf r i ngement of thei r rel i gi ous
observances and woul d enjoy rel i gi ous f reedom l i ke al l
other classes of the empi re's subjects (art. 3). I f the l ocal i ty
i n whi ch the mi grants establ i shed themsel ves di d not have
chapel s or churches for thei r rites, they coul d request and
obtai n f r om the i mper i al gover nment permi ssi on to bui l d
the chapel s they needed. The gover nment promi sed to gi ve
the settl ers, wi t hout any charge, the best arabl e l ands
owned by the treasury and to exempt them f r om al l taxes
and mi l i tar y servi ce for six years, i f they settl ed i n Rumel i a,
or for twel ve years, i f they settl ed i n Asi a (arts. 4-6). The
mi grants coul d not sel l thi s l and for twenty years, and
those who deci ded to l eave the country woul d have to re-
tur n the l and to the government. Each f ami l y desi ri ng to
settle i n Ottoman domai ns was asked to compi l e a l i st of the
names and professi ons of i ts members and to i ndi cate the
capi tal or weal th i t possessed; the l i st was to be submi tted
to the Ottoman gover nment thr ough i ts l egati ons and con-
sul ates abroad. A mi ni mum f ami l y capi tal of 60 mecidiye
(about 1,350 francs) was requi red for i mmi gr ati on (art. 13).
The settl ement decree was transl ated and publ i shed i n
the major European journal s so that a l arge number of peo-
pl e woul d become acquai nted wi t h the Ottoman i mmi gr a-
ti on pol i cy. Gover nment representati ves abroad recei ved
numer ous i nqui ri es al most i mmedi atel y, and had to ask the
gover nment for detai l s and preci se i nstructi ons. A l i Paşa,
the f orei gn mi ni ster, i n a l etter of 9 December 1857 to the
5. A porti on of the fol l owi ng material on Ottomani mmi grati on
policies has appeared in my article, "Ottoman i mmi grati on Policies
and Settlement in Palestine," i n Settler Regimes in Africa and the Arab
World, ed. I brahi mAbu-Lughod and Bahu Abu-Laban (Wilmette,
111.: Medina University Press I nternational, 1974), pp. 52-72.
6. FM (Id) 127. See also Stanford J. and Ezel Shaw History of the
Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol . 2 (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1977).
Ottoman ambassadors, mi ni sters, and consul s i n L ondon,
Pari s, Vi enna, St. Petersburg, M adr i d, The Hague, Berl i n,
Brussels, Tur i n, Napl es, L i vor no, and Cor f u, advi sed them
that some measures sti l l had to be taken before the decree
coul d be i mpl emented. Neverthel ess, he i nsi sted that the
government was f i r m i n i ts deci si on to i mpl ement its ori gi -
nal decree.'
European response to the decree was over whel mi ng. I n-
qui ri es and appl i cati ons came f r om every part of the conti -
nent—f r om as far to the northeast as Prussi a and to the
northwest as I rel and and f r om al l poi nts south. Al exandre
Baggi o of Tur i n asked for a concessi on of l and i n A l bani a,
havi ng establ i shed a company and even acqui red a shi p to
carry the agri cul tural commodi ti es pr oduced on hi s l and to
European markets.8 He was offered l and near Si l i stre on
the Danube, but the project fai l ed to materi al i ze because he
di d not have suffi ci ent capi tal . A number of fami l i es from
Tuscany showed i nter est i n mi gr at i ng and asked for
i nf or mati on. 9 Phi l i pp Ol konski f r om L odz asked about
mi gr ati on to Pal esti ne, havi ng heard that the "emper or " of
Tur key of f ered l and and travel expenses to those who
wanted to settle i n that countr y. 1 0 The Compte d'Hauss-
vi l l e, presi dent of the Commi ttee for the Protecti on of the
Al sace-Lorrai ners, i nqui r ed about l and on whi ch to estab-
l i sh French col oni es i n the Ottoman state si mi l ar to the
Ger man col oni es f ounded i n J affa and "Cai pha";1 1 the
Commi ttee had al ready establ i shed col oni es i n A l geri a,
havi ng been encouraged to do so by A zi z Paşa, the gov-
ernor of Cypr us. Dor mann Gaspari ni , who submi tted of-
fi ci al papers to prove hi s status as a ci ti zen of the canton of
St. Gal l e, as an offi cer i n the Swi ss ar my, and as a former
member of the penal court, al so showed i nterest i n mi grat-
i ng to Ottoman terri tory: he expressed the vi ew that Turkey-
was a ri ch country that di d not have good cul ti vators of
l and, and he guaranteed the mi gr ati on of 2,000 Swi ss; but
he asked that the ter m of the pr ohi bi ti on agai nst sel l i ng the
l and be shortened. H e proposed vari ous schemes of settle-
ment to be adopted, dependi ng upon whether he had gov-
ernment support or not . 1 2 Thomas Lames, Bri ti sh consul in
Larnaca, Cypr us, demanded some 130,000 doniims of l and
on the i sl and for the settl ement of 300 I ri sh f ami l i es;1 3 his
death put an end to these pl ans, however , despi te his
brother's i nsi stence on taki ng over the pr oj ect.1 4
Some of those who i nqui r ed about settl ement i n Ottoman
7. FM (Id) 127.
8. FM (Id) 177, 17 November 1859.
9. I bi d., 14 A pri l 1857.
10. FM (Id) 587, 60786/ 214.
11. FM (Id) 177, 4 June 1876.
12. FM (Id) 177, 10059/ 99, 4 February 1864.
13. FM (I d) 177, 2283, 23 March 1859. Accordi ng to an official
pronouncement of the hi gh council of Tanzimat, a dönüm consisted
of 1,600 archines, and each archineconsisted of 7square centimeters;
thus adönüm amounted to 1,200 square meters and was 200 square
meters larger than a hectare. Others give the size of the dönüm (or
dulum) as one-third of an acre. I n Turkey today the official size is
one-tenth of a hectare. (The equivalent usually given is 919 square
meters.)
14. FM (Id) 177, 6885/ 36.
domai ns envi si oned l arge-scal e mi gr ati on. A gr oup of 2,000
fami l i es of Ger man or i gi n l i vi ng i n Bessarabia i nf or med the
Ottoman consul ate i n Odessa that they desi red to settl e i n
Turkey; moreover, i f thei r demands were recei ved favor-
abl y, more than 18,000 fami l i es, and possi bl y hal f of the
German col oni es l ocated i n southern Russi a, woul d come
to the Ottoman state.1 3
The news about Ottoman l and grants aroused i nterest
even across the ocean i n A mer i ca. J. Oxf or d Smi th, the
Ottoman consul i n N ew Y ork, asked i n several l etters for
i nf ormati on about the l i beral i mmi gr ati onpol i cy of the gov-
ernment, about whi ch he had read noti ces i n the European
Times. He wr ote that there were "many i ndustri ous, steady
men who woul d l i ke to take up thei r resi dence i n that l and,
especi al l y Syri a and Pal esti ne, i f they can obtai n l and and
be protected i n the cul ti vati on of i t . . . the cul ti vati on of
cotton is one pri nci pal object i n vi ew. " Smi th also i nqui r ed
"whether persons of col our who are nati ves of thi s countr y
or others are i ncl uded i n these condi ti ons. " Fuat Paşa
stated i n repl y that, as far as bl acks were concerned, they
woul d have the same ri ghts as anyone else, as "the i mper i al
gover nment does not r ecogni ze any di f f er ence of
col or. . . . " 1 6
A ppl i cati ons for permi ssi on to settl e i n certai n parts of
the empi re were less freel y granted. For exampl e, i n 1869 a
number of fami l i es f r om the i sl and of Mal ta asked permi s-
si on to settl e at T r i pol i i n N or t h A f r i ca and possi bl y
el sewhere.1 7 Thi s request, l i ke others of i ts ki nd concerni ng
settl ement i n N or t h A f ri ca and Pal esti ne, di d not recei ve a
favorabl e answer, i t bei ng feared that such mi gr ati ons
woul d al ter the ethni c and rel i gi ous structure of the area.
The government's pol i cy on i mmi gr ati on to Syri a, parti cu-
l arl y the area of Pal esti ne, had been f or mul ated two and
one-hal f years earl i er (1886) when Ottoman offi ci al s re-
ported f r om J erusal em that a gr oup of about f or ty A mer i can
fami l i es (there is no i nf or mati on about thei r rel i gi ous or
ethni c affi l i ati on) had l anded i n Jaffa wi t h the express i nten-
ti on of f or mi ng a col ony and settl i ng permanentl y i n Pales-
ti ne. The offi ci al s asked for i nstructi ons f r om the govern-
ment, whi ch, after recei vi ng addi ti onal i nf or mati on f r om
the governor of J erusal em, rejected the settl ement peti ti on
because the purpose of thi s mi gr ati on was "evi dentl y to
col oni ze a part of the Empi re and become owner s of i ts
soi l . "1 8 The Ottoman gover nment reasoned that i f thi s i ni -
ti al settl ement were to be f ol l owed by addi ti onal mi grati ons
of i ts ki nd, the soi l and agri cul ture of one of the most i m-
portant provi nces woul d pass to forei gners—a devel op-
ment that woul d be detr i mental to the nati ve popul ati on.
Syri a, i ncl udi ng Pal esti ne, was open to settl ement by
Ottoman subjects, however . Thus, when N or t h A f r i ca,
especi al l y the di stri ct of Tr i pol i , was hi t by dr ought and
15. FM (Id) 177, 2384/ 19, 2 March 1872.
16. The communications wi th Smith are i n FM (Id) 177, 2097and
are dated, respectively, 17 August and. 7 December 1858, and 2
Februarv 1859.
17. FM (Id) 24971796, 9 June 1869.
18. FM (Id) 1804]'8, 28 November 1866.
fami ne i n 1871 and 1872, a substanti al number of fami l i es
were tr anspor ted fi rst to I zmi r and then to Damascus,
ei ther for the dur ati on of the f ami ne or per manentl y.
A ppar entl y the use of I zmi r as a cl eari ng poi nt caused con-
si derabl e di f f i cul t}'; i n response to a memo f r om the Tr i pol i
governor, the grand vi zi er gave i nstructi ons for the mi -
grants to be transported di rectl y to and possi bl y settl ed i n
the vilayet of Syr i a.1 9
The l i beral i mmi gr ati on pol i cy of the Ottoman govern-
ment was eventual l y restri cted, but not before some l arge
groups, pri nci pal l y J ews and Bul gari ans, had managed to
i mmi grate and settl e i n vari ous parts of the empi re. I t is
i nteresti ng to note that the decree of 1857 di d not excite
i mmedi ate i nterest i n mi gr ati on among the J ews of Europe.
Thi s is especi al l y si gni fi cant i n vi ew of the fact that as earl y
as 1839, at the ti me of the establ i shment of the Bri ti sh con-
sul ate i n J erusal em (whi ch was the fi rst European repre-
sentati on i n the H ol y Ci ty), the Bri ti sh began maki ng stre-
nuous efforts to sti mul ate J ewi sh settl ement i n Pal esti ne.
A f ter war ds, however, and notabl y after 1882 when the pre-
secuti on of J ews by the czari st gover nment i ntensi f i ed, the
Ottoman government w&s subjected to demands hot onl y
f r om the J ews of Russia but al so f r om those f r om as far
away as Central Asi a and Y emen for permi ssi on to settl e i n
Pal esti ne. A f ter the f ormal emergence of pol i ti cal "Zi oni sm
i n 1897, the Ottoman government, whi l e sti l l al l owi ng i ndi -
vi dual s to i mmi grate, forbade mass J ewi sh mi gr ati on to and
settl ement i n Pal esti ne. The pr ohi bi ti on was f or mal i zed i n a
l etter si gned by the pr i me mi ni ster i n 1906.20
The Bul gar i an M i gr ati on
The government adopted a protecti ve pol i cy towar d al l
Slavs and Chri sti ans attempti ng to get away f r om Russi an
rul e by mi gr ati ng to Ottoman l ands. The Ol d Bel i evers, or
L i povans, who l eft Russi a i n opposi ti on to Peter the Great's
reforms, settl ed i n Dobruca i n the l ocal i ti es of J uri l ofca,
Slava, and Tul ça, and al ong the nor ther n branch of the
Danube (the K i l i a) i n the t o w n of P er i pr ava and
el sewhere.2 1 H owever , after Dobruca was ceded to Roma-
19. FM (Id) 587, 3242012, 11 May 1872.
20. For a general view of Jewish mi grati on, see my "Ottoman
I mmi grati on Policies." A good but incomplete collection of British
consular reports on the "Jewish questi on," i ncl udi ng the issue of
migration to Palestine, may be found i n A. M . Hyamson, The Brit-
ish Consulatein Jerusalem: 1838-1914, 2 vols. (London: Published for
the Society by E. Goldston, L td., 1939-41). See also Israel Marga-
l i th, Le Baron de Rothschild el la colonisation juive en Palestine (Paris:
Libraire M . Riviere, 1957); A. C. Eren, Türkiye 'de Göç ve Göçmen
Meseleleri (istanbul, 1966) pp. 50, 90-115; and Nevi l l e ]. Mandel ,
"Ottoman Practice as Regards Jewish Settlement in Palestine,
1881-1908," Middle Eastern Studies 11, no. 1 (1975): 33-46.
21. Some still live there, now under Romanian or Soviet rule. I n
a recent visit to Jurilofca, a thri vi ng communi ty inhabited by over
3,000Ol d Believers, I was told bv one of the communal leaders the
historv of the settlement as transmitted orally from generation to
generation. He said that the communi ty had obtained the permis-
64
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
nia i n 1878 several hundr ed L i povans l eft thei r vi l l ages to
joi n thei r co-rel i gi oni sts l i vi ng i n Turkev proper, i ndeed, a
di spatch f r om the Ottoman forei gn mi ni str y to Bucharest
ordered its representati ve there to per mi t 200 fami l i es of
L i povans and Nemol i aks to mi grate to T ur key. 2 2 Those
who settl ed i n western Tur key ar ound Lake Manyas con-
ti nued thei r ol d l i fe, al though after the establ i shment of the
republ i c most of them returned to thei r nati ve l and or mi -
grated to the Uni ted States, chi efl y because the men faced
di ffi cul ti es i n f i ndi ng marri ageabl e gi rl s of thei r own rel i -
gi on and l anguage.
A mong other Slavs who mi grated and settl ed i n the Otto-
man state there were many Pol i sh pol i ti cal l eaders and thei r
fol l owers who had been i nvol ved i n the upri si ngs of 1848.23
Some of these converted to I sl am, changed thei r names,
and pl ayed i mpor tant parts i n the pol i ti cal , mi l i tar y, and
cul tural l i fe of Turkey. For exampl e, M ahmud Cel al etti n
Paşa (Constanti ne Boznecky), whose wr i ti ngs and servi ce
to the sul tan i n the l atter's rel ati ons wi t h Europe were i m-
portant i n the process of moder ni zati on, was a converted
Pol e; hi s gr andson, N az i m H i k met Ran, became the
greatest l efti st poet of Turkey. A Pol i sh ar my was f or med i n
Turkey dur i ng the Cr i mean War, and Pol i sh offi cers and
regul ars f ought al ongsi de the Sl avi c-speaki ng Musl i ms of
the Rhodope Mountai ns i n the 1877-1878 war agai nst Rus-
si an and Bul gari an troops.
There was also an i mmi gr ati on of Magyars, mostl y rev-
ol uti onari es l ed by Koschutz.
The l i beral pol i cy towards Sl avi c i mmi gr ati on was pur -
sued for some ti me i n the second hal f of the ni neteenth
century, especi al l y after i t became i mper ati ve to adopt
measures l i kel y to sti mul ate demographi c gr owth. A s earl y
as the end of 1856 and the begi nni ng of 1857 an i ssue arose
concerni ng the settl ement of sol di ers f r om the second reg-
i ment of Cossacks, l eft over f r om the 1853-1856 war wi t h
Russi a, who di d not want to r etur n to Russi a. They were
per mi tted to settle i n the European provi nces of Sel ani k,
Ti rhal a, and Yanya and i n Bursa i n Asi a after they agreed to
become Ottoman subjects and to submi t to the empi re's
l aws. Most of these Cossacks were farmers and f ar m wor k-
ers, and many f ound i mmedi ate empl oyment on the farms
of the Gr and Vi zi er Reşi t Paşa i n the provi nce of Ti rhal a.
sion to settle and to fish i n Lake Razelm from the "Sultan of Tur-
key" i n the eighteenth century, and that the settlers had developed
fishing into a major i ndustry. I nterestingly enough, the leader still
referred to various points around the communi ty by their Turki sh
names, but he pronounced them i n accordance wi th Slavic
phonetics.
22. FM (I d) 587, 56477, 10 November 1879.
23. See Adam Lewak, Dzieji emigracji polskiej w Turcji (1831-1878)
(Warsaw, 1935). Three Turki sh sources on Slavic mi grati on are
Mehmet Eroz, "Türkiyede islav Muhaci rl eri ve Kazaklar Etrafında
Bazı Kaynakl ar," and F. Z. Findikoğlu, "Türkiyede Slav Muhacir-
l eri " and "Türkiyeden Rusya ve Amerikaya Göç Eden islav Muha-
ci rl eri ," i n Sosyoloji Konferanstan (istanbul, 1964), pp. 121-36, 1-30,
and 56-92, respectively; see also Findikoğlu, "Türkiyede islav
Muhacirlerine Dai r," İktisat Dergisi (J anuary-March 1966): 39-55'.
They travel ed on a shi p cal l ed the Tahrir-i Bahnt to Salonica,
and f rom there went over l and. 2 4 There is no i nf ormati on
concerni ng the fate of these Cossacks who establ i shed
themsel ves i n what is today nor ther n Greece. I t is known,
however, that some of these sol di ers who had settl ed i n the
vi l l ages of Mai nos (i ts Tur ki sh name was Eski kazakl ar, or
Ol d Cossacks) moved back to Russi a after 1910, al though at
least twenty-seven fami l i es stayed on. 2 3
The l argest wave of Sl avi c mi gr ati on i nto the Ottoman
l ands i n the ni neteenth century was the Bul gari an i mmi -
grati on. These i mmi gr ants were part of a l arger conti ngent
of f ormer Ottoman subjects who had emi grated to Russia
earl i er i n the century to repl ace the outgoi ng Tatars and
Ci rcassi ans. A ccor di ng to one document, about 12,000
Bul gari ans were settl ed i n Cri mea on the l and l eft vacant by
the Tatars (who were movi ng i n the opposi te di recti on to-
wards southern Bessarabia, Dobruca, Bul gari a, and Asi a
M i nor ) . 2 6 Several thousand of these Bul gari ans came ori gi -
nal l y f r om the vi l l ages of Bela, Reanovi ç, K ri vobara, Metko-
vi ç, Tatarmahal l e, Bayr aktar mahal l e, Skoma, Medovi ç,
Barovi ç, Bel apol e, Vi si l ovi ç, H ut l om, and Bastoi n i n thé
di stri ct of L orn, or the provi nce of V i di n i n western Bul gari a.
By 1861/ 62 they had become di ssati sfi ed wi t h thei r l i fe i n
Russia and expressed the desi re to r etur n to the Ottoman
state. I n a l ong l etter (i n Bul gari an) addressed to the sul tan,
they cl ai med that they, "bei ng for the most part i l l i terate
persons wi thout educati on, were i l l advi sed by mal i ci ous
peopl e who knowi ng thei r attachment to thei r forefathers'
rel i gi on decei ved them to bel i eve that a l onger stay i n Tur-
key woul d make them l ose thei r fathers' f ai th"; conse-
quentl y, they asked the sul tan now to "al l ow us to enter
our own hearths, and thus depart f r om thi s strange l and
[Russi a], where we f i nd oursel ves despi te oursel ves wi th-
out a gui de l i ke a l ost sheep . . . , and [thus] regai n the
l ost happi ness. " 2 7 A series of other l etters i n the same vei n,
f ul l of prai se for the sul tan and cri ti cal of the Russi ans and
the methods they had used to i nduce emi grati on, i ndi cate a
rather general desi re among Bul gari ans to r etur n to thei r
ori gi nal homes i n Ottoman l ands. (Reproducti ons of some
of these l etters are i ncl uded as A ppendi x C f ol l owi ng thi s
chapter).
One may bel i eve that the Bul gari ans' expressi on of a de-
sire to r etur n to thei r nati ve vi l l ages was part of a pl anned
nati onal i st upri si ng i n Bul gari a and that the representati ves
who si gned the l etters were i n tr uth agents wor ki ng hand
i n hand wi t h the Russi ans. The fact that the Russi an au-
24. FM (I d) 177, 6 November 1856.
25. I bi d., correspondence of 1910-1913.
26. FM (I d) 177, 736; this document states that onl y 6,000Bulgar-
ians eventually remained i n Crimea, the rest havi ng died of "nos-
talgia and mi sery."
27. FM (Id) 177, 11 October 1861; the letter was signed by the
migrants' representatives, Diadoghieutsza, Di mi tri I lieff, Ignat Bra-
lieff, Hristo I lieff, Ml odi n Tzvetkoff, and Di mi tri Christoff. Other
villages mentioned as the migrants' places of ori gi n i n Bulgaria
were Golovitza, Polovitza, Verba, Vertok, Turtzi na, Makrice, Vuet-
cek, and Ostrokapci.
POPUL A TI ON M O V E M E N T S I N THE O T T O M A N STA TE
65
•horities di d not oppose, but actual l y suppor ted, the repa-
triation of the Bul gari ans tends to sustai n such a vi ew.
However, the i mpressi on deri ved f r om readi ng these l et-
ters—the fact that they were wr i t t en i n Bul gari an and
addressed di rectl y to the sultan i n l i ne wi t h the tradi ti onal
peti ti oni ng procedure used by subjects i n addressi ng thei r
grievances to the sul tan- i s that these Bul gari ans had a
genuine desi re not based on any ul teri or pol i ti cal moti ve to
return to thei r nati ve l and. Furthermore, the l etters si mpl y
¿0 not sound parti cul arl y nati onal i sti c; i ndeed, none of the
documents rel ated to mi grati on pr i or to 1870 i ndi cates the
presence of strong nati onal i st feel i ngs among rank-and-f i l e
Chri sti ans, al though they do contai n some evi dence of rel i -
gious di fferences and, occasionally, some vague al l usi ons
to "danger ous" persons—possi bl y i ntel l ectual s and Rus-
sian agents—di ssemi nati ng nati onal i st i deas.
The sul tan r api dl y acceded to the Bul gari ans' request for
repatri ati on. Fi ve shi ps (the Alma, the Plodd, the Calliope,
the Alexandre and the Ajios Gherasimov) were chartered by
the Porte and soon docked i n the ports of Feodosi a (Kaffa)
and Eupatori a, f r om whi ch the Bul gari ans embarked. Even-
tual l y they al l were l anded i n Sul i na, a smal l por t on the
mi ddl e branch of the Danube at i ts j uncti on wi t h the Bl ack
Sea. Other shi ps, si xteen vessels al together, were chartered
to transport about 7,500 other Bul gari ans to nor ther n Do-
bruca and to Bul gari a proper. The Ottoman consul ate i n
Odessa gave the f ol l owi ng i nf or mati on on the number of
Bul gari ans mi gr ati ng f rom his ar ea:2 8
Mi grants sent to Gal atz 430
Mi grants embarked for repatri ati on under
the Consul ate's care:
Men 2 8 3 3
Women 2 7 9 4
Mal e chi l dren (less than 10 yrs. ol d) 979
Femal e chi l dren (less than 10 yrs. ol d) 972
Chi l dr en bor n dur i ng mi grati on 122
Peopl e dead dur i ng mi grati on 1820
Peopl e l eft i n vi l l ages 5 0 0
Most of these Bul gari ans went back to thei r nati ve vi l l ages
i n V i di n, whi l e some seem to have been establ i shed i n
northern Dobruca.
I t is appropri ate to concl ude thi s secti on wi t h a quotati on
f r om a l etter, publ i shed i n the Morning Post of 18 October
1876, whi ch gi ves i n a nutshel l the story of the Bul gari an
mi grati on. The wr i ter , Mr . C. A . DeCrespi gny, was a gen-
tl eman who resi ded for some years i n an offi ci al capaci ty at
Gal atz, and he narrates the hi story f r om hi s own personal
knowl edge.
Russia havi ng beaten the Ci rcassi ans out of Ci rcassi a
(hundreds of w hom I saw par adi ng the streets of
Constanti nopl e, whi ther they had flown), was desi rous
of i nduci ng the Bul gari ans to emi grate to Ci rcassi a to
take thei r pl ace, i n order to br i ng about a uni on of
feel i ng and senti ment between the émi grés thus to be
28. See FM (I d) 177, communications nos. 834 and 856 of 16 and
21 June and of 30 June and 12 July 1862.
settl ed i n Ci rcassi a and thei r rel ati ves l eft behi nd, by
whi ch means they hoped to Russi ani se the feel i ngs of
the Bul gari ans i n thei r f avour. The Russi an agent for
thi s purpose was Baron Of f enbur g, the then Russi an
Consul at Gal atz, a man agai nst whom no one coul d say
a wor d, as he was a most pol i shed gentl eman and a
most di sti ngui shed offi ci al . He was afterwards made
Consul -General at Bucharest, and is now Russi a's
representati ve i n Persi a. The i nducements for the
Bul gari ans to emi grate were, that when they arri ved i n
Circassia (where they were taken free of expence), the
head of each f ami l y shoul d be granted a certai n sum of
roubl es (about 51.), so many arcres [si c] of gr ound, and,
I bel i eve, a cow. Some thousands of Bul gari ans came
down the Danube i n "schl eppes," or barges, to Gal atz,
where I was stati oned; they came dressed i n thei r
sheepski n cl othi ng, packed l i ke sheep, unwashed,
unshaven, and di r ty, and they l i ved, wor ked, and sl ept
i n thei r cl othes for weeks at a ti me. They br ought wi t h
them smal l -pox, to whi ch I was mysel f a vi cti m, for,
al though they were put i nto quaranti ne and not al l owed
to l and on the t own si de of the ri ver, the disease spread
thr oughout the t own, several funeral s taki ng pl ace dai l y
for a month or two. A t Gal atz they were transhi pped
i nto two steamers bel ongi ng to Messrs M or t on and Bel l ,
of Constanti nopl e, each maki ng several tri ps, across the
Bl ack Sea—the Bl arney bei ng the name of one of them;
the name of the other I forget. The bi l l s of heal th and
other papers to these vessels were i ssued by me, so that
I speak f r om personal knowl edge. When these
emi grants arri ved i n Theodosi a they were marched i nto
the i nteri or, no money, l and, or cow suppl i ed them,
and they were expected to take the pl ace of the
Ci rcassi an serfs. Bei ng desti tute, they appeal ed to the
Engl i sh consul ar body and to the Tur ki sh government,
who, thr ough the i nstrumental i ty of the late L or d
Dal l i ng (then Sir H enr y Bul wer ), Her Majesty's
A mbassador at the Porte, sent vessels to carry them
away; afterwards they were taken to Varna, wher e
thousands of them di ed f r om disease and desti tuti on.
Thi s is a pretty good proof of Russi a's sol i ci tude for the
Bul gari an Chri sti ans, and yet these poor si mpl e- mi ned
[si c] bei ngs are sti l l l ed to bel i eve that Russi a is now
wi l l i ng to be thei r benefactor.
The M usl i m Mi gr ati ons: The Cr i mean
and Ci rcassi an I mmi gr ati on
The mi gr ati on of the Cri means, or the Tatars, out of thei r
homel and was probabl y the fi rst M usl i m mi gr ati on i nto the
Ottoman state. I t began shortl y after Cri mea was i ncorpo-
rated i nto Russi a. I t is esti mated that approxi matel y 80,000
Tatars l eft Cri mea i n the year 1783/ 84 al one and settl ed i n
Bessarabia and Dobruca and, eventual l y, i n A natol i a. (The
publ i shed fi gures on mi gr ati on f r om Cri mea do not usual l y
i ncl ude the mi grants f r om the area nor th of the Perkop
[Orkapi ] i sthmus.) The mi gr ati on i ntensi fi ed after the Tur-
co-Russi an War of 1812, and conti nued unti l major f i ghti ng
was resumed i n 1853. I n addi ti on, l arge groups of Musl i ns
f rom f urther nor th and f r om areas i n eastern Russi a, such
as Kazan, Or enbur g, Ufa, and nor ther n K uban, mi grated
66 O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
and settl ed i n the Ottoman state thr oughout the ni neteenth
century (a subject not thus far studi ed).2 9
The earl i est Cri mean mi grati ons were often the'resul t of
i ndi vi dual deci si ons to move; or some were the conse-
quence of a Russi an-Ottoman agreement, such as the one
i n 1803. There is l i ttl e evi dence that the Russi ans pl anned
dur i ng thi s earl y peri od to force al l the Tatars out of thei r
ancestral homes, despi te the hosti l e, anti - Musl i matti tude
of some governors. Forci bl e evi cti on became state pol i cy
onl y after 1856 when the Russi an offi ci al atti tude towards
i ts mi nori ti es took on a di scr i mi nator y bent. (The con-
ti nuous persecuti on of the Cri mean Musl i ms cul mi nated
fi nal l y i n 1944 i n the total upr ooti ngof the Tatar popul ati on;
about 300,000 peopl e were expel l ed to Si beri a, where more
than hal f di ed. ) 3 0 Dur i ng and after the Cr i mean War, the
Russi ans began to suspect the Tatars of di sl oyal ty and the
Tatars began to fear Russi fi cati on as wel l as forci bl e resettl e-
ment i n other areas.31 By 1860 some 100,000 addi ti onal "tax-
able persons" and some 46,000 to 50,000 N ogai Tatars had
emi grated, despi te bei ng forced to pay heavy taxes and
passport dues. These were settl ed mostl y i n Dobruca. I n
the per i od f r om 1861 to 1864 the Cri mean mi gr ati on f urther
i ntensi f i ed; one source gi ves the total of emi grants as
227,627, i ncl udi ng 101,605 women and 126,002 men. 3 2 The
mi grati on conti nued unti l the end of the century, but i n a
more l i mi t ed way af ter I smai l Gaspi r al i , the Cr i mean
nati onal i st educator and publ i sher of the Tercüman, urged
hi s compatri ots to stay on i n thei r nati ve places and raise
thei r cul tural and economi c standards. The total number of
Tatars who mi grated to Ottoman terri tori es between 1783
and 1922 was probabl y about 1,800,000.
I n 1877 and 1878 a l arge number of Tatars l eft Dobruca
and Bul gari a and settl ed i n A natol i a. Some settl ed di rectl y
i n the A natol i an countrysi de; others settl ed i n l arge cities
such as I stanbul and I zmi r or i n smal l er towns such as
i zmi t, Bandi rma, i negöl , and Eski şehi r. I n the area between
Eski şehi r and A nkar a there sti l l are a substanti al number of
vi l l ages i nhabi ted by Tatars; and i n Eski şehi r i tsel f, a ci ty of
about 200,000 i n 1970 and a major commerci al center i n
central A natol i a, they make up a hi gh percentage of the
29. See Turk Ansiklopedisi, s. v. "göç" [mi grati on]. See also James
Barker, Turkey in Europe, 2d ed. (London, 1877), and Ahmet Özen-
başli, Çarlık Hükümetinde Kirim Faciası, Yalıud Tatar Hicretleri (Sim-
feropol, 1925).For new material that leads to an upward revision of
the figures on Crimean emi grati on, see my article i n International
Journal of Turkish Studies 3, no. 1 (1983).
30. See Al an W. Fisher, The Crimean Tatars (Stanford: Hoover
I nsti tuti on Press, 1978), and "The Crimean Tatars, the USSR, and
Turkey," i n Soviet Asian Ethnic Frontier, ed. W. O. McCagg, Jr., and
Brian D. Silver (New York: Pergamon Press, 1979), pp. 1-23.
31. See A. F. Soysal, Z. Dziejon Krymu (Warsaw, 1938), and also
V. K. Kendaraki, Universal'noe opisanie Kryma, vol . 3 (Moscow,
1875), chap. 8.
32. See Feyzi Gozaydi n, Kirim Türklerinin Yerleşme ve Göçmeleri,
(istanbul, 1948), p. 84; a somewhat lower figure is gi ven by Marc
Pinson in "Russian Policy and Emigration of the Crimean Tartars
to the Ottoman Empire, 1854-1862," Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştirma-
ları Dergisi 1 (1972): 47. See also n. 29.
popul ati on. Stati sti cs on the total popul ati on of Cri mean
ori gi n i n present-day Tur key are not avai l abl e, for most of
the Tatars became f ul l y assi mi l ated. They had close cul tur-
al , r el i gi ous, and l i ngui sti c af f i ni ti es to the A natol i an
Turks. (I n fact, the ter m "Tatar " is used mai nl y bv Rus-
si ans, the Cri means of ten ref erri ng to themsel ves as "Cr i -
mean Tur ks.") Furthermore, many Musl i ms ori gi nal l y f rom
A natol i a, where thei r cul ture had devel oped under the i n-
fl uence of the Sel juki and Ottoman Tur ks, had settl ed i n the
Cri mea, especi al l y al ong the l i toral , whi l e i t was part of the
empi r e. Var i ous esti mates pl ace the pr esent Tur ki sh
popul ati on of Tatar extracti on at somewhere between 1 and
3 mi l l i on. However , onl y approxi matel y 200,000 peopl e,
mostl y i n the vi l l ages, conti nue to speak the Cri mean di -
alect, whi ch is very close to A natol i an Tur ki sh.
The forced mass mi gr ati on of the Ci rcassi ans f rom the
Caucasus i nto the Ottoman domai n, begi nni ng i n 1862/ 63,
was a major popul ati on movement that radi cal l y affected
the soci al , ethni c, and rel i gi ous composi ti on of the Otto-
man state. The event attracted wor l d- wi de attenti on be-
cause of i ts magni tude and because of the coerci ve means
used by the Russi ans to achi eve i t; the l i terature on thi s
mi grati on is therefore r i ch. 3 3 I t shoul d be noted there were
a number of Turki sh-speaki ng gr oups i nhabi ti ng the Cau-
casus regi on as wel l , al though most of the sources do not
di fferenti ate between Ci rcassi an and Tur ki sh tri bes.
The Ci rcassi ans were one of the major, and ol dest, of the
non- Tur ki sh groups i nhabi ti ng the regi on al ong the Black
Sea and i n the A psher on Peni nsul a on the western coast of
the Caspi an Sea. Organi zed i n tri bes wi t h soci al structures
rangi ng f r om rigidly di f f erenti ated strata of pri nces, nobl es,
free peasants, and serfs to tr ul y democrati c organi zati ons
under chosen l eaders, the Ci rcassi ans had not i n the
ni neteenth century devel oped a common nati onal pol i ti cal
i denti ty. Fr om the si xteenth century onwar ds some major
Ci rcassi an groups, such as the Kabardi ni ans and A bkha-
zi ans, accepted I sl am, l argel y because of the preachi ng of
the N ogai mullets f r om the nor th who had the tacit backi ng
of Ottoman admi ni strators i n A napa. Eventual l y, the Mus-
33. Extensive i nformati on on Circassia may be found i n the Islam
Ansiklopedisi, s.v. "Kaukas," "Müri d," "Çerkeş," "Abaza," and
"Dağı stan," and i n the Encyclopedia of Islam, under the same subject
heads; see also John F. Baddeley, The Russian Conquest of the Cau-
casus (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1908). On population
specifically, see A. P. Berzhe, "Vyselenie Gortsev s. Kaukaza,"
Ruskaia Starına (January-February 1882); HCAP for 1860-1878; V.
Mi norsky, "Transcaucasia," Journal Asiatique 217 (1930); and E. G.
Ravenstein, "The Populations of Russia and Turkey," Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society40 (1877). The Caucasian Review, published in
Muni ch, also has a series of excellent articles and bibliographical
references on the Circassians. The fullest and best-documented
account i n English, al though covering a restricted period of time, is
Marc Pinson, "Demographic Warfare: A n Aspect of Ottoman and
Russian Policy, 1854-1866" (Ph.D. diss., Harvard Uni versi ty,
1970). My own extensive research on the Circassian migrations
from the Caucasus and the Balkans to Anatolia from 1850 to 1914
wi l l be included in another study under preparation.
POPUL A TI ON M O V E M E N T S I N TH E O T T O M A N STA TE 67
l i m Ci rcassi ans came to regard the sul tan as the Cal i ph, that
¡5, the supreme temporal l eader i n charge of the M usl i m
communi ty. The l ong (1830-1859) f undamental i st- mur i di st
revol t of Shei k Shami l agai nst Russi an occupati on, wi t h the
egal i tari an soci al phi l osophy that underl ay i t, pl ayed a ma-
jor rol e i n the creati on of a common i denti ty for the Ci rcas-
sians and other Musl i ms i n northeastern Caucasi a and i n
mobi l i zi ng them ar ound i t.
The Russi ans occupi ed the khanates of Baku and K uba i n
1796, gai ned Eri van, N ahci van, and Tal i sh i n 1828 thr ough
the Treaty of Ti i rkmencay si gned wi t h I r an, and f i nal l y won
A napa and Poti i n 1829 i n the Treaty of A dr i anopl e si gned
wi th the Porte. H owever , the M usl i m str onghol d i n the
mountai ns successful l y resi sted the Russi ans, and Ci rcassi a
remai ned unconquered unti l the capture of Shei k Shami l i n
1859 broke the back of the resi stance. The Russi ans then
advanced al ong the coast of A napa to Novorossi ysk and
down to Sukumkal e. By 1862 Ci rcassi a was occupi ed; and
by 1865 the major resi stance i n the mountai ns al so was put
down, al though sporadi c f i ghti ng agai nst the Russi ans con-
ti nued to the end of the decade.
The Russi ans occupi ed Ci rcassi a for the good mi l i tar y
and strategi c reasons of the defense and securi ty of the
Caucasus, f r eedom of trade and navi gati on on the Bl ack
Sea, and the need for safe rai l way communi cati on between
the Black and Caspi an seas and Persi a. I n addi ti on, howev-
er, strong i deol ogi cal and cul tural consi derati ons der i vi ng
f rom Russi a's messi ani c sel f-i mage spurred the conquest
and expul si on of the Ci rcassi ans f r om thei r l ands. Russi a
cl ai med to possess a superi or Or thodox Chri sti an cul ture,
and she regarded I sl am as the i nf eri or cul tural system of a
peopl e she had defeated and was r ul i ng wi t h an i r on hand.
The Ci rcassi ans and thei r tri bal organi zati on were l ooked
upon as "pr i mi t i ve. " Russi a sought to "ci vi l i ze" them by
settl i ng them on the swampy pl ai ns nor th of the K uban
(and gi vi ng thei r l ands to the Cossacks), by subjecti ng them
to taxes and mi l i tar y servi ce, and by converti ng them to
Chri sti ani ty. When the Ci rcassi ans refused to accept thi s
program and conti nued to f i ght the Russi an i nvaders, they
were si mpl y forced to mi grate.
Dur i ng the earl y 1850s some Ci rcassi ans mi grated vol un-
tari l y on thei r own i ni ti ati ve or were peaceful l y persuaded
to move. Dur i ng the Cri mean War the emi grati on became a
mass movement that reached a peak i n the three-year
peri od f r om 1862 to 1865 and l i ngered on i nto the 1920s,
wi t h sporadi c peri ods of i ntensi fi cati on i n 1877-1878 and
agai n f r om 1890 to 1908.
There was no f ormal agreement between the Russi ans
and the Porte concerni ng the mi gr ati on of Musl i ms f r om
Cri mea and the Caucasus i n 1856; the onl y agreement at
that ti me was apparentl y a speci al "under standi ng" con-
cerni ng the mi gr ati on of some tr i bes.3 4 H owever , a f ormal
i mmi gr ati on agreement seems to have been si gned not too
34. See the telegram sent from the Ottoman foreign mi ni stry to
the embassy i n Si. Petersburg i n 1880 after the extent of the migra-
tion became an issue i n contenti on. FM (I d) 687, 60852/ 216, 21
December 1880.
much l ater. A s earl y as 1859 the Russi an gover nment con-
tacted the Tur ki sh authori ti es about accepti ng a number of
the Ci rcassi ans; i n 1860 L ori s Mel i kov was negoti ati ng the
i ssue on behal f of the czari sl gover nment. A ccor di ng to
Russi an esti mates, the total number of i mmi gr ants to Tur-
key woul d not be more than 40,000 to 50,000. The Ottoman
government debated the i ssue and deci ded that i t coul d not
refuse hospi tal i ty to the Ci rcassi ans who wanted to settl e i n
i ts domai ns i n order to escape the pressure of Russi an
troops; the sul tan fel t that hi s basic duty as cal i ph was to
extend hospi tal i ty and protecti on to al l hi s subjects who
had mai ntai ned al l egi ance to hi m even after occupati on by
a forei gn power . 3 3 Moreover, the government expected that
the mi grants woul d hel p to ease the manpower shortage,
and i t hoped to empl oy them i n the constructi on of roads,
and i n the cul ti vati onof cotton, and especi al l y, i n the ar my.
I n anti ci pati on of the admi ni strati ve probl ems that woul d
be created by the i mmi gr ati on, the gover nment establ i shed
i n 1860 (7 Cemazi yül ahi r 1276) the General M i gr ati on
A dmi ni str ati ve Commi ssi on Udare-i Umumiyye-i Muhacirim
Komisyonu) under Haf i z Paşa, the governor of Trabzon, to
di rect al l matters rel ated to mi gr at i on. 3 6 The Ottoman gov-
ernment regarded i ts agreement wi t h Russi a as a l i mi ted
one; i t expected that onl y the 40,000 to 50,000 Ci rcassi ans
menti oned by the Russi ans woul d be mi gr ati ng, and i t
hoped to br i ng them i nto the countr y i n an orderl y and
gradual f ashi on. H owever , by 1862 the Cossack troops
were movi ng towards the sources of the K uban, and i n 1863
they advanced i nto the Ci rcassi an mountai neers' stron-
ghol ds, f orci ng the poorl y armed Ci rcassi ans to fl ee to-
wards the sea or i n some cases, southwar ds over l and. The
mi grati on became a mass exodus. Russi an sources i ndi cate
that the total number of Ci rcassi ans mi gr ati ngi n 1858, 1859,
1862, and i n the summer of 1863 came to 80,000, whi l e i n
the spri ng of 1864 al one the number went up to nearl y
400,000.37 Departures f r om vari ous Russi an ports i n the
wi nter and spri ng of 1864, accordi ng to one source,,reached
the f ol l owi ng fi gures: ' 8
Taman 27,337
A napa 16,452
Novorosi ne 61,995
Toupasse 63,449
Sotcha 46,754
A dl er , Hoso 20,731
On Turki sh shi ps 20,350
257,068
Marc Pi nson states that the total number of peopl e emi grat-
i ng f r om eastern Ci rcassi a al one i n thi s per i od amounted to
522,000.39
35. See FM (Id) 177, 6513 139, 8 and 21 December 1862.
36. For the text of the order establishing the commission, see
Eren, Türkiye 'deGöç ve Göçmen Meseleleri, pp. 55-56, 96-113.
37. FM (İd) 175, 23 September and 3 October 1864; the report is
translated from the Russian press.
38. I bi d.
39. "Demographic Warfare," p. 122.
68 O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
The fi gures avai l abl e i n offi ci al stati sti cs usual l y refer onl y
to those who embarked at ports, excl udi ng those who mi -
grated overl and southwards or westwards on horseback or
i n wagons and those who embarked i l l egal l y on scores of
pri vatel v owned smal l boats. The Danube provi nce al one is
reported to have recei ved sl i ghtl y over 40,000 fami l i es—a
quarter of a mi l l i on Ci rcassi ans—duri ng thi s peri od. I t was
clear that the Russi ans, who had al ready begun di str i buti ng
the Ci rcassi ans' l and to the Cossacks, had deci ded to up-
root al l the tri bes that refused thei r "ci vi l i zi ng" mi ssi on and
resi sted enrol l i ng i n the Russi an ar my. For exampl e, the
Bri ti sh consul i n Sukumkal e reported that the U bi kh and
Fi ghett tri bes were fast embar ki ng for Trabzon because "af-
ter thei r l and havi ng been l ai d waste by fi re and swor d,
emi grati on to Tur key is the onl y al ternati ve al l owed to
those mountai neers who refuse to transfer themsel ves to
the K uban steppes and contr i bute per i odi cal l y to the
mi l i t i a. "4 0
There are i ndi cati ons that the mi gr ati on began to acqui re
the features of a smal l Russi an- Ottoman exchange of
popul ati on, wi t h both Musl i ms and Chri sti ans mi gr ati ng to
areas wher e thei r co-rel i gi oni sts appeared to be i n the
majori ty. I n fact, i t was an exchange popul ati on of the sort
that eventual l y became a method for settl i ng nati onal di s-
putes. I ndeed, accordi ng to a report f r om the Ottoman con-
sul i n Kerch, Count Sumarkof f , who was the hatman of the
K uban Cossacks and the governor of Caucasi a, had agreed
to al l ow al l Chri sti ans of Tr abzon to mi grate and settl e i n
Russia, and the Russi an consul i n Trabzon reported that
600 Chri sti an fami l i es were ready to mi grate and settl e i n
the Caucasus.4 1 A l r eady many Greek Chr i sti an fami l i es
f r om A natol i a had arri ved i n Cri mea wi t h the i ntenti on of
settl i ng there; they used certi fi cates i ssued by thei r l ocal
pri ests and l egal i zed by the Russi an consul as travel docu-
ments. H owever , as i n the case of the Bul gari ans previ ousl y
ment i oned, a number of the Greek mi gr ant f ami l i es
changed thei r mi nds and deci ded to r etur n to Tur key; some
i n fact r etur ned i l l egal l y to Si nop. I n 1869 the Greeks
addressed a l etter to the sul tan aski ng for permi ssi on and
assistance for thei r r etur n to Tur key. Eventual l y the Otto-
man consul ates i n Cri mea were al l ocated 12,000 rubl es to
pay for the transportati on of Greek fami l i es f r om Cri mea
back to Samsun.4 2
The war of 1877-1878, consi dered to be the cl i max of
Russia's pan-Sl avi st, rel i gi ousl y moti vated pol i cy towards
40. HCAP 63/ 32 (1864), "Papers Respecting the Settlement of
Circassian Emigrants i n Turkey," presented to the House of Com-
mons on 6 June 1864; the paper includes fifteen reports by British
consuls i n the Caucasus area, the report quoted being dated 13
A pri l 1864.
41. FM (Id) 587, 233/ 78, 12 and 24 A pri l 1867. The transportation
of immigrants had become a lucrative business; as early as A pri l
1863 the Russians had published a notice to shipowners i n Kerch
that 200,000Circassians woul d have to be carried to Samsun wi thi n
the next four years.
42. FM (I d)'l 77, 76/ 6, 13 and 25 July 1869, and 113/ 3719, 29 May
1869.
the Ottoman state, gave new moment um to Ci rcassi an
mi grati on. The Ottoman gover nment had drafted i nto the
ar mv 18,000 young Ci rcassi ans who had l anded i n Trabzon,
and, after the war broke out, another 3,000 Circassians
f rom the same ci ty vol untar i l y j oi ned the Ottoman armv to
fi ght the Russi ans. K undukov, a Ci rcassi an general com-
mandi ng six caval ry battal i ons composed of Ci rcassi ans,
fought on the Ottoman eastern f ront, whi l e some of the
remai ni ng tri bes i n Ci rcassi a and A bkhazi a prepared to re-
bel . T wo Ci rcassi an conti ngents l anded at A dl er and
Gudauti and were j oi ned there by l ocal i nsurgents. A fter
defeati ng the Ottoman forces, the Russi ans, i n part i n reac-
ti on to the Ci rcassi ans' acti ons dur i ng the war, tur ned thei r
wr ath once more upon the Ci rcassi ans and A bkhazi nas re-
mai ni ng i n thei r ori gi nal homes. A new wave of mi grati on
ensued, as the Ci rcassi ans f r om the Caucasus once more
l anded i n Trabzon, Samsun, Si nop or Dobruca, and Bul gar-
ia (Kostenje, Varna, Burgas) to be embarked on shi ps for
transportati on to A natol i a and Syri a. (I n addi ti on, the Ci r-
cassians previ ousl y settl ed i n the Bal kans, where they had
caused great unrest and been the source of compl ai nts f rom
the nati ve Musl i ms and Chri sti ans, moved to A natol i a and
Syri a.)
A t thi s ti me the Russi ans began i nsi sti ng that thei r mi gra-
ti on agreement wi t h the Ottoman gover nment was a gener-
al one coveri ng the enti re M usl i m popul ati on of the Cau-
casus. I t is not clear whether another agreement had been
si gned after 1860; but i n any case, the Ottomans averred
that thei r agreement concerned onl y a l i mi ted number of
Ci rcassi an tri bes and, apparentl y, some Turki sh-speaki ng
groups i n Daghi stan and other regi ons of the Caucasus.43
(I t is i nteresti ng that i n 1861, when the Russi ans seemed to
be stemmi ng the f l ow of mi grants, the sul tan had asked
that restri cti ons on mi gr ati on be l i f ted.)
The esti mates of the number s i nvol ved i n the Ci rcassi an
mi gr ati on range f r om 700,000 to over 1 mi l l i on. Ubi ci ni ,
who was cl osel y f ami l i ar wi t h the demographi c si tuati on i n
the Ottoman state, esti mated that i n 1864—-that is, before
the fi rst exodus was compl eted—the total number of Ci r-
cassians i n the Ottoman domai ns came to about 700,000
and that, despi te hi gh mor tal i ty, thei r number had reached
1 mi l l i on by 1866. Bi anconi cl ai ms that by the end of 1876
there were 600,000 Ci rcassi ans settl ed i n the Bal kans al one.
Other sources put the total number of mi gr ati ng Circas-
sians at up to 1,200,000 soul s.4 4 Berzhe, who conducted his
study based on Russi an sources, says that 493,194 peopl e
l eft Russi a's Bl ack Sea ports i n the 1858-1866 peri od; he
does not gi ve the number of Ci rcassi ans who l eft Russia
after 1866 or esti mate the number of those who travel ed by
l and r outes.4 5 The si ze of the post-1878 wave of i mmi gra-
43. FM (I d) 587, 60852/ 216, 21 December 1880.
44. See figures reproduced i n Ni kol a V. Mi khov, Naselenientoml
Turtsii i Butgani prez XVUI-XIX v., vol . 2 (Sofia, 1915), p. 47, and
vol . 4 (Sofia, 1924), p. 265; see also A. Ubicini and Pavet de Cour-
teille, Etat présent de l'Empire ottoman (Paris, 1876).
45. "Vyselenie Gortsev S. Kaukaza."
J , O P I J L A T I ON M O V E M E N T S I N T H E O T T O M A N STA TE
fable 4.1- Refugees f r om Russi an L ands i n Samsun i n 1880
Settled in
Samsun or Sent on to Died
Landed at . Janlk Angoraor at
Samsun Sandjak Sivas Samsun
Circassian-Abkazians (trom
theCaucasus) 12,116 4.668 7,028 420
Circassianstrom Rumelia 6.252 964 4,838 450
Tatars (Caucasus) 14,824 881 13,472 471
Georgians (Caucasus) 1,594 25 1,535 34
Turksof Batum 91 91
Total 34,877 6,538 26,964 1,375
Source: FM (S) 122. report by C. W. Wilson. 23 January 1880.
tion may be extrapol ated f r om the fi gures i n Tabl e 4.1,
taken f r om a report gi vi ng the number of refugees i n Sam-
sun i n 1880.46
Several poi nts affecti ng the val i di ty of these esti mates
shoul d be menti oned. Fi rst, the Ottoman state al ready had
a number of Ci rcassi an settl ements before the Russi an ex-
odus began i n 1860. Second, the fi gures i ncl uded some
non-Ci rcassi ans al so. T hi r d, as al ready menti oned, the sta-
tistics usual l y do not i ncl ude many of the mi grants who
came overl and or entered the countr y wi thout bei ng reg-
i stered. I n 1865, for exampl e, 2,000 Chechenes came to Kars
wi t h thei r horses and cattl e, usi ng l and r outes and
appar entl y w i t h o u t bei ng r egi st er ed; 60,000 mor e
Chechenes were expected to arri ve by the same routes and
to be sent south to the provi nces of Muş and Di yar beki r . 4 7
Fourth, the fi gures usual l y omi t those who di ed on board
ship or who travel ed on thei r own. Travel was di sorgan-
i zed. A number of weal thy Ci rcassi ans chartered shi ps and
l anded i n I stanbul or at ports on the Bl ack Sea wi thout
checki ng i n wi t h any offi ci al s. Peopl e who had shi ps trans-
ported mi grants across the Bl ack Sea for a fare of about f our
dol l ars a person, often l andi ng them at obscure ports; but
many of these craft were l ost at sea. (Eventual l y, the trans-
portati on of the Ci rcassi ans was entrusted to dul y reg-
i stered Ottoman, French, Bri ti sh, and Russi an shi ps.) Fi f th,
a l arge number of mi grants f r om Caucasi a, possi bl y about
20 percent of the total , di ed of mal nutr i ti on and di sease. I t
was reported that i n 1864-1865 the death rate i n Samsun
was 120 to 150 persons a day; and i n Trabzon, a major entry
poi nt, the total number of deaths at the end of 1865 was
53,000.48
46. FM (S) 122, report by C. W. Wi l son, 23 January 1880.
47. Sew York Times, 24 September 1865.
48. HCAP 63'32 (1864), "Papers Respecting the Settlement of
Circassians." The European newspapers of the period contained
ample i nformati on on the subject, and Europe was outraged by the
situation. I n England an attempt was made to form an aid com-
mittee; but the projected "assistance"—actually a l oan—di d not
materialize because the Ottoman government refused to guarantee
repayment or the payment of any interest on the loan; see i bi d.,
report of 23 May 1864. Eventually a Comite I nternationale de
Secours Aux Refugies des Provinces de l'Empire Ottoman was
formed, mostly on the initiative of the French and a few English
residing i n I stanbul . The committee occasionally indicated the
69
Taki ng i nto account al l the qual i f yi ng factors, i t seems
reasonabl e to esti mate that approxi matel y 2 mi l l i on Cauca-
sians, mostl y Ci rcassi ans, l eft Russi a i n the per i od f r om
1859 to 1879 "but that onl y about 1,500,000 actual l y survi ved
and were settl ed on Ottoman domai ns. Fr om 1881 unti l
1914 there was a f urther emi grati on f r om Russi a of approx-
i matel y hal f a mi l l i on more Ci rcassi ans, al ong wi t h a l arge
number of Musl i ms f r om Kazan and the Ural s.
The pr obl em of where to settl e the Causasi an refugees
was a major one and gave ri se to consi derabl e debate wi t h-
i n the Ottoman government. One undated report advi ses
the government to settl e the Ci rcassi ans i n southern Tur -
key, al ong the Euphrates i n the Bi reci k and Rakka areas,
and to use them to devel op a moder n agri cul tural system
there to transf orm A l exandretta on the Medi terranean i nto
"a true natural sea outl et for Tur key whi ch woul d make
Odessa less i mpor tant i f not obl i terate i t . " 4 9 The report
suggests that the col oni sts, i f organi zed i n speci al uni ts,
coul d become a barri er agai nst the predatory tri bes f r om the
south, such as the A neze and Shamars, and mi ght force the
nomadi c tri bes to settl e, thus assuri ng the safety of the
enti re Baghdad pr ovi nce. '
H owever , the Ottoman gover nment was prevented f r om
settl i ng the Ci rcassi ans wherever i t thought sui tabl e. The
Russi an gover nment made i t cl ear that the Ci rcassi ans
shoul d be settl ed "at a consi derabl e di stance f r om our f r on-
ti ers and i n al l cases not closer than the l i ne Erzi ncan,
Tokat, A masya, and Samsun. "3 0 The Russi ans i nsi sted that
the Ci rcassi ans be establ i shed i n Syri a and i n the i nteri or of
Asi a Mi nor , where some 3,000 to 4,000 fami l i es had been
settl ed earl i er. Meanwhi l e the Bri ti sh, expressi ng the vi ew-
poi nt of the Greek government, objected to the pl anned
settl ement of 8,000 Ci rcassi an fami l i es i n Thessal y; they
wi shed to preserve the l and for Greek i nhabi tants and to
avoi d "di sor der and demor al i zati on. "3 1
A bout hal f of the Caucasi an refugees, those Ci rcassi ans
and A bkhazi ans who arri ved i n the per i od f r om 1863 to
1865, were settl ed fi rst i n nor ther n and central Dobruca
ar ound Tul ça, Babadağ, and Boğazköy (Çernavoda), and
Kostenje and then i n the south ar ound Varna and al ong the
Danube i n Rusçuk (Russe), Ni copol i s, V i di n, Si l i stre, Şumu
(Kol arovgrad), and as far west as the area ar ound Ni ş and
Sofia (some 12,000 fami l i es were settl ed i n the last area
al one). Other s wer e settl ed i n Macedoni a and Thrace
ar ound Sal oni ca, Serez, and L ari ssa.3 2 I n A si a, the mi grants
number of refugees at a particular place; i n 1879 it stated that there
were 80,000 i n I stanbul alone.
49. FM (Id) 175; the report is signed Fuat A mi n.
50. FM (I d) 175, 7 May 1874.
51. FM (I d) 176, 16 February 1874.
52. FM (Id) 177, 367 17, 27 June 1867; for a detailed account of
the settlement of the Circassians, see Marc Pinson, "Ottoman Col-
onization of the Circassians i n Rumi l i after the Crimean War,"
Etudes balkaniques, no. 3 (1972): 71-85; see also my "The Status of
Mulsims under European Rule: The Eviction of the Circassians
from the Caucasus and Their Settlement i n Syri a," journal of Mus-
limMinorities 2 (1980).
70
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
were settl ed i n the provi nces of Dı yarbeki r, Mar di n, A l ep-
po, and Damascus and, i n Asi a Mi nor proper, i n Er zur um,
Sivas, Çorum, Çanki ri , A dapazari , Bursa, and Eski şehi r.3 3
A number of Ci rcassi ans went di rectl v to Pal esti ni an ports.
The Russi an consul took note of 365 Ci rcassi ans that i n 1883
arri ved on an Ottoman boat at Jaffa and agreed that they
coul d be settl ed al ong the J ordan ri ver, but not on sites
l i kel y to be vi si ted by pi l gri ms to the H ol v Pl aces.34
The Ottoman Forei gn Mi ni str y A rchi ves contai n a series
of other communi cati ons concerni ng the mi gr ati on of Mus-
l i ms f r om Russi a, for i n the peri od f r om 1895 to 1908 l arge
groups of Ci rcassi ans were gi ven permi ssi on by Russia to
l eave: i n 1895, for exampl e, 1,000 fami l i es f r om the K uban
area, f r om the vi l l ages of Vol ny, Konakasi , K our gokau,
Ur up, and K aramursi ne, l anded i n I zmi t and were sent bv
trai n to A nkar a; i n 1899 three groups f r om Tamara and Ufa,
composed of 395,353, and 790 fami l i es, respecti vel y, ap-
pl i ed for permi ssi on and went to Rostov to embark on shi ps
for Tur key; i n 1906 some 233 fami l i es bel ongi ng to the
K ubarti tri be of U y u m and 372 fami l i es f r om K upanski emi -
grated and settl ed i n A dana provi nce; and i n 1909 fami l i es
f r om the vi l l ages of Ci vci vl i and Vagori i n the governorshi p
of El i sabethpol , 135 i n al l , were al so settl ed i n A dana. 5 5
I n sum, the esti mate that at least hal f a mi l l i on peopl e
were i nvol ved i n the Caucasi an i mmi gr ati on of 1881-1914 is
a hi ghl y reasonabl e one.
The M i gr at i on of the Bal kan M usl i ms
The ethni c composi ti on and total number of Musl i ms i n-
habi ti ng the Rumi l i (or Rumel i a—that i s, the European
provi nces of the Ottoman state, excl udi ng the capi tal ) i n the
ni neteenth century has been the subject of consi derabl e
debate. A s poi nted out, the European sources vary con-
si derabl y on the questi on of the number of Musl i ms versus
non- Musl i ms. There is less di sagreement as to the ethni c
or i gi n of the Musl i ms, who of ten were al l l abel ed "T ur ks. "
The bul k of the Musl i ms i n Dobruca, i n the eastern, central ,
and southern part of present-day Bul gari a, and i n Thrace
and Macedoni a were, i n fact, ethni c T ur ks. 3 6 The Bul gari an
and Bosni an Musl i ms, k nown as the Pomaks and Boşnaks,
respecti vel y, spoke Sl avi c and i nhabi ted the Rhodope
Mountai ns and Bosni a and Her zegovi na. The A l bani an
Musl i ms were settl ed on ancestral l ands i n A l bani a and
53. See reports of the Mi grati on Commissions; see also Mi khov,
Naseleniento na Turtsii, vols. 1-4, passim.
54. FM (Id) 176, 18 October 1883.
55. FM (I d) 268, 13282/ 81, 66695/ 181, and 1830/ 090.
56. For background i nformati on concerning Turki sh settlement
i n Rumi l i , see Tayyi b Gökbilgin, Rumeli'de Yörükler, Tatarlar ve
Evlad-i Fatihan (istanbul, 1957); Cengiz Orhonl u, Osmanlı İmparator-
luğunda Aşiretleri İskan Teşebgüsü (istanbul, 1963); and Ö. L. Barkan,
"Osmanl i imparatorluğunda Bir I skan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu
Olarak Sürgünl er," İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 13
(1951-1952) and 15 (1952-1954).
western Macedoni a. Gr oups of M usl i m Turks and Greek-
speaki ng Musl i ms were f ound also i n Epi r and Thessal y
and on Crete and the Duodecanese I sl ands, where they
were general l y, but not al ways, i n the mi nor i ty.
A ccordi ng to the Ottoman census of 1831, the Musl i m
popul ati on of Rumi l i (i ncl udi ngSi l i stre) number ed 549,228,
or 37.5 percent of the total , and the Chri sti ans, 867,844 or
59.3 percent; there was al so a smal l percentage of other
groups. However , the fi gures arri ved at by thi s census were
i ncompl ete and conservati ve. A mi Boué and Davi d Ur-
quhart, the best-i nf ormed observers of thi s earl y peri od,
esti mated the M usl i m popul ati on of Rumi l i to be about 4.5
mi l l i on out of a total of about 15 mi l l i on; thei r total s i n-
cl uded Wal l achi a and Mol davi a, whi ch had about 2 mi l l i on
i nhabi tants but al most no Musl i ms. The Ottoman census of
1844 gi ves the percentage of Musl i ms i n Rumi l i as 29.4,
thei r number as about 4.5 mi l l i on—agai n, an underesti ma-
ti on; of thi s popul ati on, onl y about 1.6 mi l l i on were esti -
mated to be ethni c Tur ks, the rest bei ng A l bani ans and
Slavs. Popul ati on fi gures i ssued f r om 1864 to 1877 showed
the popul ati on of Rumi l i as var yi ng between 8.4 and 10.5
mi l l i on, excl udi ng Mol davi a, Wal l achi a, Serbi a, and M on-
tenegro, whi ch contai ned about 6 mi l l i on peopl e. The per-
centage of Musl i ms gi ven for thi s l ater per i od vari es accord-
i ng to the sources: fi ve sources i ndi cate that Musl i ms con-
sti tuted 30 percent of the popul ati on, whi l e fi fteen sources
gi ve 43 percent; general l y the hi gher percentage is sup-
ported by the more rel i abl e observers. The Turks were sai d
to be about 18 to 20 percent of the total M usl i m popul ati on
i n Eur ope. "
The percentage of the M usl i m popul ati on i n the Rumi l i
i ncreased substanti al l y after 1860. There is no questi on but
that thi s i ncrease resul ted f r om the i mmi gr ati on of the
Tatars and Ci rcassi ans. The i mmi gr ati on not onl y made up
for the heavy losses suffered i n the vari ous wars f ought
since 1812 but also i ncreased the pr opor ti on of Musl i ms i n
the area. H owever , after the San Stefano and Berl i n treati es
of 1878 there was a general decrease i n the M usl i m popul a-
ti on because of the terri tori al and pol i ti cal changes that end-
ed Ottoman rul e over l arge areas of Europe. Tabl es 4.2, 4.3,
and 4.4, whi ch are based on the cal cul ati ons of Engi n A kar l i
and on the anal ysi s of stati sti cal data f r om European works
and Ottoman yearbooks, gi ve a general pi cture of the
ethno-rel i gi ous demographi c composi ti on of the Ottoman
popul ati on i n the ni neteenth century ( wi th al l owance made
for loss of terri tory i n Europe).
The Russi ans' wars wi t h the Ottomans and the treaties
that formal i zed the di smember ment of the empi re were the
cul mi nati on of an eastern type of nati onal i st devel opment
that had been nur tur ed by soci o-cul tural condi ti ons pecul -
i ar to the Ottoman state. The Or thodox Chri sti ans' dri ve
towar d nati onal i sm was fed emoti onal l y by Russia's mes-
57. See Engin Akarl i , "Ottoman Population i n Europe i n the
19th Century; Its Territorial, Racial, and Religious Composi ti on"
(M.A. thesis, University of Wi sconsi n-Madi son, 1970), esp. pp. 39
and 79-83. It should be kept in mi nd that Akarl i 's figures are taken
almost exclusively from western sources.
POPUL A TI ON M O V E M E N T S I N T H E O T T O M A N STA TE
71
sianic appeal to thei r sense of rel i gi ous i denti ty and sol i dar-
ity and i ntel l ectual l y by western i deas of the Enl i ghtenment
and, l ater, of l i beral i sm. The pr i mi ti ve capi tal i st system i n-
i roduced i nto the Ottoman state thr ough the i ntermedi ary
of the non- Musl i m mi ddl e classes pr ovi ded the economi c
basis of thei r nati onal i sm; mor eover , Russi a, Engl and,
France, and A ustr i a forced the Porte to adopt economi c and
pol i ti cal measures that served, as wel l as thei r own i n-
terests, the i nterests of the Ottoman Chri sti an popul ati on.
The i deol ogi cal pr oduct of thi s amal gam of hi stori cal and
modern forces operati ng among ethni c groups whi ch di d
not yet possess an advanced l i ngui sti c homogenei ty, a
nati onal consci ousness, or a wel l - def i ned terri tori al base
was f undamental l y di f f erent f r om the nati onal i sm that be-
came the f oundati on of statehood i n western Europe. Bal -
kan nati onal i sm was based on ethno-l i ngui sti c gr oup con-
sciousness nur tur ed by the i dea of an Or thodox Chri sti an
revi val and a subsequent upr i si ng agai nst the I sl ami c order
represented by the Tur ks. The i deol ogi cal gap between
Musl i m and Or thodox Chri sti an groups was deepened by
economi c, soci al , and educati onal di fferences. The Chri s-
ti ans, l ed by a prosperous merchant class, craftsmen, and
rural l eaders, and by a radi cal i zed nati onal i st i ntel l i gentsi a,
confronted a pol i ti cal l y domi nant M usl i m el i te, composed
of bureaucrats, l andowner s, and cl ergy, and a rel ati vel y
poor and uneducated peasantry. The more advanced of the
Chri sti an el i tes l ooked wi t h envy to a devel oped western
Europe and bl amed the Musl i ms (Turks) and thei r soci o-
cul tural system for Bal kan under devel opment. The mere
thought that the Or thodox Chri sti ans had been r ul ed for
centuri es by thi s "pr i mi ti ve Asi ati c nati on" i ncreased the
nati onal i sts' f ur y. Eventual l y they came to regard any M us-
l i m presence i n the terri tory as an obstacl e to nati onal f ul l f i l -
ment.
Behi nd the anti - Musl i mfervor of the Bal kan nati onal i sts
there were, of course, some defi ni te practi cal consi dera-
ti ons. The M usl i ms consti tuted ei ther the maj ori ty or a
power f ul mi nor i ty i n most of the l ands envi saged as nati on-
al terri tory by the vari ous Chri sti an nati onal i sts. Moreover,
a substanti aí part of the cul ti vabl e l ands was i n the hands of
the M usl i m l andl ords or was hel d by the vakifs. I t was clear
that the successful establ i shment of nati onal states de-
pended on the l i qui dati on of the M usl i m el ement or, at
least, on the r educti on of the Musl i ms to the status of a
pol i ti cal l y and economi cal l y harml ess mi nor i ty. The fi rst
step i n the effort to achi eve thi s goal was the previ ousl y
di scussed presentati on of the false popul ati on stati sti cs at
the I stanbul conference i n 1876.
The war of 1877-1878 pr ovi ded the oppor tuni ty for a
compl ete sol uti on to the ethno-rel i gi ous pr obl em. The Rus-
si an armi es that crossed the Danube and moved f r om Rus-
çuk (Russe) southeastward across the Bal kans i nto eastern
Rumel i a mounted i ndi scri mi nate attacks agai nst the ci vi l i an
Musl i m, chi efl y Tur ki sh, popul ati on wi t h the i ntenti on of
dr i vi ng them away f r om the terri tory that was to become
Bul gari a. The Serbi ans di d l i kewi se i n nor ther n Macedoni a
ar ound the t own of Ni ş. The fate of the Musl i ms i n the
Bal kans is a topi c i gnored by most schol ars, al though they
condemn i n the harshest possi bl e terms Musl i m or Tur ki sh
excesses."" The Bri ti sh consul s stati oned i n Rusçuk, Phi l i p-
popol i s, Varna, Burgas, and other l ocal i ti es were f ul l y
aware of the i l l -treatment accorded M usl i m ci vi l i ans, and
they sent thei r reports to the embassy i n I stanbul , whi ch i n
tur n transmi tted them to L ondon. These reports of the Bri t-
i sh consul ar agents show the reasons for, as wel l as the
manner of, the Russi an and the Bul gari an recasti ng of the
ethno-demographi c structure of Rumi l i .
The Bri ti sh ambassador i n I stanbul reported that the i dea
of the expul si on of al l the Musl i ms f r om the Bul gari an pr i n-
ci pal i ty, ori gi nal l y put f or th by the Russi an pl eni potenti ary
dur i ng the armi sti ce tal ks i n Edi rne earl y i n 1878 but osten-
si bl y wi t hd r awn under wester n pressure, conti nued to
preoccupy the Russi ans:
[Before] l ong the whol e M ohammedan popul ati on wi l l ,
by di rect or i ndi rect means by dr i ven out of i t. . . . The
object i n vi ew has been the aggrandi sement of the Sl av
race, and the f or mati on of a Sl ave [sic] State, whi ch,
endowed wi t h Russi an i nsti tuti ons, and pl aced under
Russi an supervi si on, is to be absol utel y dependent
upon Russi a, i f i t does not speedi l y become vi r tual l y a
Russi an Provi nce. The Sl av communi ti es now under the
domi ni on of A ustr i a, together wi t h Bosni a and Servi a,
wi l l probabl y be absorbed ul ti matel y i nto thi s vast Sl av
nati onal i ty, and the Russi an Empi r e may then i ncl ude
the whol e of Eastern Europe. . . . L eavi ng out of vi ew
the i njusti ce of pl aci ng l arge and i mpor tant Mussul man
and Greek popul ati ons under the rul e of the Bul gari ans,
I may be per mi tted to poi nt out i ts i mpol i cy. I t is not
probabl e that the Turks wi l l ever attempt, wi t h any
prospect of success, to resume thei r ol d domi ni on i n
Roumel i a. But the Greeks are not l i kel y to renounce the
heredi tary cl ai ms that they are convi nced they possess
to Macedoni a. . . . The Russi an and Bul gari an
authori ti es and agents are accused, both by Turks and
Greeks, of br i ngi ng, i n many i nstances, a f ew
Bul gari ans to towns and vi l l ages i n whi ch there were
previ ousl y none, gi vi ng them muni ci pal offi ces, and
then decl ari ng the place to be Bul gari an, and :
consequentl y to be i ncl uded wi t hi n the new
Pri nci pal i ty.
58. The centennial of the Ottoman-Russian War and of the Ber-
l i n Congress of 1878, celebrated wi th considerable pomp i n the
West and i n southeastern Europe, was used as a convenient
podi um by official representatives (and by scholars as well) of the
Balkan countries to denounce the "Turki sh atrocities," maki ng no
menti on meanwhile of the hundreds of thousands of Musl i ms
killed or forced to flee their ancestral homes. Several "experts" on
Balkan history, when confronted wi th the evidence of this treat-
ment of the Musl i ms, expressed utter surprise. Yet considerable
i nf ormati on on these events is avai l abl e i n the HCA P for
1877-1885, especially i n the British consular reports, and inTurki sh
archives. See my "The Social and Political Foundations of National-
ism i n South East Europe after 1878: A Rei nterpretati on," in Dor
Berliner Kongress von 1S7S, ed. Ralph Mel vi l l e and Hans-Jurgen
Schroder (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1982), pp. 385-410; and see
also Bilal Şimşir, Rumeli 'den Göçler, Belgeler, Vol . 2, Bir Geçiş Y,lı
1S79 (Ankara, 1970). pp. 254-55, and Vedat Eldem, Osmanlı İmptna-
torluğumın İktisadı Şartları Hakkında Bir Tetkik (Ankara, 1970).
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
Tabl e 4.2. Rel i gi ous Structure of the Ottoman Popul ati on i n Europe 1820-1900
(i n thousands)
1820s 1340s 1870s 1890s
Religious Group Number Number % Number % Number %
Greek Orthodox
Bulgarian
Catholics
Others
6.225
405
61.0
4.0
9.145
620
59 0
4.0
5,106
406
30
50.3
4.0
0 3
3.137 49.5
Total Christians 6.630 65 0 9.765 63.0 5,542 54.6 3,137 49.5
Jews/ Others 305 3.0 140 0.9 244 2.4 190 3.0
Total Non-Muslims 6.935 68.0 9.905 63.9 5.786 57.0 3.327 52.5
Muslims
GRAND TOTAL
3,265
10,200
32.0
100.0
5.595
15,500
36.1
100 0
4,364
10.150
43.0
100.0
3,010
6,337
47.5
100.0
Source:Compiled fromEuropean and Ottoman yearbook statisticsand fromEngin Akarli, "Ottoman Population inEuropein
the 19th Century; its Territorial, Racial, and Religious Composition" (M.A. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1970).
Table 4.3. Summar y of Rel i gi ous Structure of the Ottoman
Europe Asia Total
Total %of Total %of Total %of
Years Population Muslims ' Population Muslims Population Muslims
1820s 10,200 32.0 11,100 80-90 21,300 59.6
1840s 15,500 36.1 —
1870s 10,150 43.0 16,500 80-90 26,650 68.0
1890s 6,337 47.5 16,000 87.5 22,337 76.2
Source: See Table4.2. (Variations in figures are dueto lossesof territory.)
A ccor di ng to the Prel i mi nari es of Peace, the
Mussul mans may conti nue to resi de i n the Bul gari an
Pri nci pal i ty and i n the di stri cts ceded to Servi a and
Montenegr o. Shoul d those who have emi grated not
r etur n, they may retai n thei r l ands and other i mmovabl e
property upon certai n condi ti ons whi ch are to be
f ul f i l l ed wi t hi n two years, upon pai n of confi scati on.
A l though the demand fi rst put f or war d by Count
I gnati ew for the expul si on of the Mahommedan
popul ati on was wi t hdr awn, yet there can be l i ttl e doubt
that the ori gi nal desi gn of Russi a to remove the
Mussul mans al together f r om Bul gari a wi l l be carri ed out
by i ndi rect, i f not by vi ol ent, means. J udgi ng f r om what
took pl ace i n Servi a after she was consti tuted a
semi -i ndependent State, no arrangement made wi t h
Mussul mans wi l l be respected. Means wi l l be f ound to
dri ve them, i n the course of ti me, f r om thei r homes, and
to compel them to sacri fi ce the l ands and property that
may have remai ned to them.
A l t hough the Russi an authori ti es now pretend that
the Mussul man fugi ti ves may r etur n to thei r homes,
they refuse to guarantee them protecti on agai nst the
Bul gari ans, except i n some of the pri nci pal towns.
Wi thout such protecti on the Mussul mans woul d not
venture to go back, and I am i nf or med that the Porte
woul d not per mi t them to do so. I t is di f f i cul t to say
how many of them wi l l have peri shed f r om Bul gari an
massacres, f r om exposure dur i ng thei r f l i ght before the
i nvadi ng Russi an armi es, and f r om di sease, before order
and tranqui l l i ty are restored. I have heard the number
pl aced even as hi gh as 200,000! I n any case the
Mussul man popul ati on wi l l be greatl y r educed.5 9
A mbassador L ayard also descri bed the manner i n whi ch
the Musl i ms were treated dur i ng the i ni ti al stages of the
war:
When the Russi ans crossed the Bal kans last summer
and, di sarmi ng the Mussul mans w hom they had
i nduced to submi t by promi ses of justi ce and protecti on,
had handed over thei r weapons to the Bul gari ans, a
scene of i ndi scri mi nate sl aughter and devastati on
ensued, such as had not been k nown si nce the most
barbarous ti mes. The whol e of the countr y i nvaded by
the Russi ans was l ai d waste, and the towns and vi l l ages
sacked and destroyed; the ferti l e val l ey of the Tundj a,
one of the fai rest and most prosperous regi ons i n
Europe, was devastated; the Mahommedan i nhabi tants
of the i nvaded di stri cts, who were unabl e to save
themsel ves by f l i ght, were outraged and massacred, and
even the J ews, who under Tur ki sh rul e had enjoyed
rel i gi ous f reedom and ci vi l equal i ty, shared the same
fate. . . . I t has been asserted by those who woul d
pal l i ate the conduct of the Russi ans, that they took no
part i n the "atroci ti es" commi tted by the Bul gari ans,
and cannot, therefore, be hel d responsi bl e for them. But
such is not the case, as the offi ci al reports that I have
f or war ded to your L or dshi p prove. They were Russi an
offi cers who empl oyed the Bul gari an pol i ce at
Phi l i ppopol i s to carry off Mussul man women and gi rl s
to be the vi cti ms of thei r l usts. Cossacks have
accompani ed and assi sted Bul gari ans i n the destructi on
of Musul man vi l l ages, and i n the massacre of the
fugi ti ves f r om them. The Russi an authori ti es have
sancti oned and encouraged the destructi on of Tur ki sh
property i n al l the towns and vi l l ages they have
occupi ed, to the very gates of the capi tal . They have
59. FO 424/ 68, pp. 272-79(Layard to Derby, 13 March 1878); see
also my "The Social and Economic Transformation of I stanbul in
the Nineteenth Century" i n Istanbul à la-jonction des cultures balkani-
ques, méditerranéennes, slaves et orientales aux XVI-XIX siècles
(Bucharest, 1977), pp. 395—436.
POPUL A TI ON M O V E M E N T S I N T H E O T T O M A N ST A T E
73
Tabl e 4.4. Raci al -Ethni e Structure of the Ottoman Popul ati on i n Europe, 1820-1900
(i n thousands)
Ethnic Group
1820s 1840s 1870s 1890s
Ethnic Group Number % Number % Number % Number °K
Bulgars 615 6.0 3,000 19.2 3,451 34.0 — —
Other Slavs 1,325 13.0 3.200 20 7 1.523 15.0 — —
Total Slavs 1,940 19.0 6,200 39.9 4.974 49 0 1,648 26.0
Turks (Tatars —
Circassians) 2,755 27.0 2,120 13.7 1.827 18 0 1.844 29.1
Greeks 2,960 29.0 1,000 6.4 1.218 12 0 ' 1,217 19.2
Albanians 815 8.0 1,500 9.9 1,218 • 12.0 1,248 19.7
Romanians 1,225 12.0 4,000 25.7 304 3.0 — —
Jews, Armenians,
Gypsies, & Others 505 5.0 650 4.4 609 6.0 380 6.0
GRAND TOTAL 10,200 100.0 15,500 100.0 10,150 100.0 6,337 100 0
Source: See Table 4.2.
defi l ed the mosques, and tur ned them to vi l e uses; they
have desecrated the Mussul man graves, broken up the
tombstones, and tur ned the cemeteri es i nto publ i c
gardens and pl aces of amusement, compel l i ng the
unf ortunate Mussul mans themsel ves to do the wor k.
Musl i ms were dr i ven out by di rect threats to thei r l i fe and
property, as reported by the Bri ti sh A cti ng Consul E. Cal -
vert f r om Edi r ne. Cal vert, i nteresti ngl y enough, cannot
help compar i ng the treatment of the Turks i n 1878 wi t h the
events that l ed to the Tur ki sh "atroci ti es" agai nst the Bul -
gari an i nsurgents i n 1876:
I , who assuredl y have at no ti me been backwar d i n
denounci ng Tur ki sh pr ovi nci al mi sr ul e, may be bel i eved
when I state that the evi l state of thi ngs now prevai l i ng
is of an i ncomparabl y more wi despread, harsh, and
barbarous type than that to whi ch i t is mani festl y
i ntended as a set-off. I speak, of course, of the nor mal
Tur ki sh regi me, to whi ch al one a compari son can f ai rl y
appl y. I f the horrors enacted i n M ay 1876 be i nsi sted
upon, i t shoul d be remembered, i n the fi rst pl ace, that
they were the resul t of exasperati on and pani c
engendered by reports of dastardl y and uni magi nabl e
cruel ti es perpetrated by the Bul gari an i nsurgents upon
i noffensi ve persons, and the real i ty of whi ch pecul i ar
class of cruel ti es, i n the subsequent i nstance of the
tragedy i n the Bal kans above Muf l i s, i n the K yzanl i k
di stri ct, have been attested by several Engl i sh doctors
who exami ned the bodi es of the vi cti ms. A gai n, the
atroci ti es commi tted on the Mussul man i nhabi tants of
the same di stri ct of K yzanl i k, who, so far f r om havi ng
offered any provocati on, had stood by the Bul gari ans
and preserved them f r om mol estati on dur i ng the fi rst
troubl es; and the del i berate and parti al l y successful
attempt to extermi nate the adul t mal e Tur ki sh
popul ati on of that di stri ct by whol esal e and
col d-bl ooded executi ons, must be hel d as, at least, a
counterbal ance to the massacres of Bul gari ans i n the
Tatar-Bazardji k di stri ct, wher e there was admi ttedl y
provocati on.
I n the N or t h Bal kan di stri cts, to my own knowl edge,
60. FO 424 72, p. 27 (Layard to Salisbury, 24 June 1878).
and, I have been tol d, i n those south of the Bal kans
al so, and agai n at the present ti me i n the Rhodope, as
l atel y reported by me, the excesses commi tted by
Mussul mans have been l i mi ted to of f endi ng Chri sti an
vi l l ages. The Chri sti ans under Russo-Bul gari an rul e, on
the other hand, vent thei r hatred i ndi scri mi natel y on
the whol e Mussul man popul ati on, wi t h the avowed
object of br i ngi ng about i ts expul si on f r om the countr y.
L eavi ng asi de, however, as regards the Tur ks,
excepti onal events ari si ng f r om excepti onal causes, and
taki ng the or di nar y state of the countr y as a basi s of
compari son, I may say that wher e i nstances of robbery
and assassi nati on of i ndi vi dual Chri sti ans occurred
under Tur ki sh rul e, whol e Mussul man vi l l ages are now
l i abl e to that treatment; and whereas the Tur ki sh
authori ti es had at least the grace to profess a desi re to
af f ord redress, Russi an rul e i n Tur key does not make
even that concessi on to publ i c opi ni on.
I nstances of outrages by Turks on Chri sti an femal es
were i n ordi nary ti mes of far less frequent occurrence
than appears to be commonl y bel i eved at home. W'hen a
si ngl e case of the sort happened i t woul d set a whol e
provi nce i n commoti on. Si nce the Russi an occupati on, i t
is hardl y too much to say that the Bul gari ans i n the r ur al
di stri cts' outrage at thei r wi l l Tur ki sh women and gi rl s
by the score.
The materi al wel l -bei ng of the,Bul gari an peasant
under Tur ki sh rul e has become an admi tted fact, and
the nati onal as wel l as i ndi vi dual spi ri t of hospi tal i ty of
the Tur k is proverbi al . N ow that the Bul gari ans have the
upper hand, thei r chi ef ai m and end (and i n thi s, I
regret to say, they are joi ned by no smal l part of the
Greek rural 'popul ati on) is utterl y to r ui n the Tur k and
to eject hi m f r om hi s home i n Europe. By depr i vi ng the
Mussul man peasantry of thei r onl y means of
i ndependent subsi stence, namel y, thei r l i ve stock, and
by str i ppi ng them of al l thei r money and personal
property, i t is evi dentl y i ntended to force them to
di spose of or to abandon thei r useless fi el ds, and to
reduce those Turks who may remai n i n the country to
the condi ti on of fi el d-l abourers, a state of l i fe hi ther to
unk nown to al l but a smal l fracti on of the popul ati on. 6 1
61. FO 424 74, p. 329 (Calvert to Layard, 16 September 1878).
74 O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
POPUL A TI ON M O V E M E N T S I N T H E O T T O M A N STA TE 75
R. Reade, one oi the Bri ti sh consul ar aides stati oned i n the
Bal kans, reported that si mi l ar occurrences took place i n
Varna, a port ci ty i n eastern Bul gari a, even after the f ormal
si gni ng of the Treaty of Berl i n i n J ul y 1878.
From the foregoi ng as wel l as other conduct of the
Russi ans and Bul gars i t appears to be very evi dent that
thei r real object is to r i d the country of al l Mussel mans,
and so clear is thi s that whi l st I was l eavi ng Rustchuck a
fel l ow travel l er of mi ne was conf i denti al l y i nf or med i n a
whi sper by the Russi an Col onel i n charge of the stati on
that al l the troops had just recei ved orders to be on the
"qui vi ve" the General havi ng reason to suspect a ri si ng
of the Mussel mans agai nst the Russi ans—notwi thstand-
i ng they wel l knew that there is not a si ngl e ar med
Mussel man i n thei r part of the provi nce. Thi s was tol d
to my f el l ow travel l er but as he sai d, i t was i ntended for
me—i t was also to serve as an excuse for the di sar mi ng
of the Mussl emans.
I t is also very clear that the Russi ans and Bul gars are
doi ng thei r utmost on thi s subject and wi t h the greatest
speed possi bl e before the arri val here of the Commi ttee,
subject of arti cl e 6 of the Berl i n Treaty, feari ng no doubt
and i t is to be hoped wi t h reason, that thi s Commi ssi on
wi l l put a stop to thei r present outrageous conduct
towards the Mussel mans.6 2
That the treatment i nf l i cted upon Musl i ms was general
and that the l and pr obl em pl ayed a major rol e i n the rel a-
ti ons between Musl i ms and non- Musl i ms are shown by the
report of Consul G. F. Goul d. I n the report he attri buted the
mass exodus of the Musl i ms f r om Ni ş (thei r number fel l
f r om 8,300 i n 1876 to 300 i n 1879) to emi gr ati on pr ovoked by
offi ci al mi sconduct—i ncl udi ng arbi trary arrests, fl oggi ngs,
and robberi es—on the part of l ocal admi ni strators; by the
destructi on of the homes of Tur ki sh resi dents; and by the
more or less vol untar y departure of weal thy Tur ks to places
of safety across the border wher e they coul d wai t for i m-
pr ovement i n the si tuati on. Referri ng to hi s tal ks wi t h spe-
ci al commi ssi ons l ooki ng i nto the l and pr obl em Goul d
wrote:
From what I have heard i n these conversati ons, and
f r om other sources, I bel i eve these Commi ssi ons have
col l ected an enor mous mass of evi dence on the agrari an
questi on; but the evi dence is al most excl usi vel y on the
si de of the Chri sti ans, and abounds i n grave
i mputati ons on the i ncepti on of the ti tl es of the Tur ki sh
l andl ords, f r aud, forgery, and force bei ng freel y al l eged
agai nst them or thei r predecessors i n ti tl e. There i s, i n
some i nstances no doubt, some tr uth i n these
al l egati ons; but i t seems obvi ous, that evi dence so
col l ected f r om persons i nterested, and not subjected to
cross exami nati on, is not of a hi ghl y val uabl e character.
The members of these Commi ssi ons l ay great stress on
the fact of the Tur ks havi ng bur nt the towns and
vi l l ages i n the Ti mok Val l ey i n 1876, and seem to regard
those sad events as suffi ci ent j usti f i cati on for
confi scati ng Tur ki sh pr oper ty. . . . These vi ews as to
confi scati on are not pecul i ar to the members of these
Commi ssi ons, but are common to al l Servi an offi ci al s
wi t h whom I have come i n contact.
62. FO 78/ 2795, p. 60 (Reade to Layard, 30 July 1878).
The number of tchi fl i ks (manors) i n thi s
nei ghbourhood whi ch are i n possessi on of Servi ans,
and cl ai med by Tur ks, may be esti mated at f r om S0-10Ü.
The rel ati ve rights between the owners and the
occupi ers of the soi l vary consi derabl y. I n some cases
the peasants have enjoyed ri ghts equal to those of
copyhol ders of i nheri tance; i n others thei r tenure seems
to have been of a precari ous, undef i ned, and most
unsati sfactory character. The Servi an Gover nment
i ntends to br i ng before the Skuptchi na a proposal to
commute the ri ghts of the Tur ki sh l andl ords for an
annual rent-charge or for a capi tal sum pavabl e wi t h
i nterest by equal i nstal ments extendi ng over a peri od of
f r om ten to twenty- f i veyears. The Turks appear to be
favourabl e to the pri nci pl e of thi s scheme, though the
peasants seem to hope for a sweepi ng measure more or
less confi scati ng i n i ts nature. . . . The Servi an Courts
of l aw may be sai d to be enti rel y cl osed to Turks and
J ews (except as defendants). Many have come to me to
compl ai n that they are dr i ven away f r om the
Court-house and cannot obtai n redress for wr ongs
agai nst person or pr oper ty. 6 3
The Bal kan nati onal i sm of the ni neteenth century de-
manded the eradi cati on of every cul tural , educati onal , or
economi c i nsti tuti on associ ated wi t h Ottoman- Musl i mrul e.
The mosques were targets for destructi on, as is evi dent
f r om a series of reports by the Bri ti sh consul s. A fi el d i n-
specti on of thi rty-three mosques i n Phi l i ppopol i s showed
that onl y one was usabl e, whi l e the rest had been destroyed
or taken over for hay storage, arms depots, and the l i ke;
and the same was true i n N i ş. 6 4
That the vakifs, wi t h thei r l and, were subject to expropri a-
ti on is cl earl y shown by the peti ti on addressed to the Bri ti sh
embassy by M ahmud N edi m Bey, a caretaker {mütevelli) of
a vakif. Even maki ng al l owance f or the pl ai nti f f ' s self-
i nterest, the compl ai nt is wor t h quoti ng for the i nsi ght i t
gi ves i nto the handl i ng of vakif pr oper ty:
N'est-i l pas encore une al l égati on di amétral ement
opposée à l 'équi té et à la justi ce ai nsi qu'aux
di sposi ti ons du Trai te de prétendre que les terrai ns de la
nature susmenti onée ne peuvent pas être des
Fondati ons Pieuses? N'est-i l pas étonnant que les
terrai ns si tués dans la Roumél i e-Ori ental e pui ssent être
des Fondati ons Pieuses et que ceux qui sont si tués dans
la Bul gari e ne pui ssent pas l 'être?
A - t- on oubl i é qu'à l 'époque ou la Bul gari e étai t encore
sous la domi nati on du Gouver nement Ottoman,
certai ns terrai ns dont on peut à pei ne fai re le tour
pendant douze heures, et qui avai ent été affectés
comme Fondati ons Pi euses, au Monastère de Ki l a,
f urent dotes des mêmes prérogati ves qui étai ent
accordées aux Fondati ons Pieuses en questi on? N'est-i l
pas vrai qu'à la même époque ont été octroyés des
Fi rmans constatant que ces terrai ns du susdi t monastère
sont reconnus comme Fondati ons Pieuses
excepti onnel l es? A - t- on vu à cette époque, et même
63. FO 429/ 90, pp. 114-17 (Gould to Salisbury, 8 September
1879).
64. See FO 424.76, pp. 308-9, enc. 2 and 4 (Mahi r to Abro, 7 and
10 November 1978.
après la consti tuti on de la Pri nci pauté exercer une
i mmi xti on quel conque par rapport à ces terrai ns? N on!
on les avai t au contrai re reconnus comme Fondati ons
Pieuses, en respectant l 'usage adopté ai nsi que tout ce
qui devai t être respecté ab antiquo en ce qui concernai t
ces terrai ns.
C'est donc dans le but d'anéanti r les Fondati ons
Pieuses desti nées aux Musul mans, que les
Commi ssai res Bul gares prétendent, contrai rement aux
pri nci pes généraux du dr oi t i nternati onal que les
terrai ns ne peuvent pas être des Fondati ons Pi euses.6 5
The consequences of the events of 1877-1878 f or the
ethno-demographi c composi ti on of the Bal kan peni nsul a
and the Ottoman state were far reachi ng. A ppr oxi matel y
250,000 to 300,000 Musl i ms, mostl y ethni c Tur ks, were
ki l l ed, and about 1.5 mi l l i on were forced to take refuge i n
the Ottoman domai ns. The Bul gari an-speaki ng Musl i ms
(Pomaks) l i vi ng i n the Rhodope Mountai ns, rose agai nst
the advanci ng Russi ans and kept them at bay for several
months. Thei r i nsurrecti on was put down, l argel y at the
urgi ng of the sul tan, who wanted to concl ude a peace wi t h
the Russi ans. The A l bani ans deci ded, i n a meeti ng k nown
as the League of Pr i zr i n, to take up arms and f i ght any
force whi ch mi ght occupy thei r terri tory. The M usl i m Bos-
nians and Herzegovi ni ans, ai ded onl y par tl y by the l ocal
pan-Sl avi st Serbi ans, f ought a thr ee- month battl e agai nst
the A ustr o- H ungar i an forces that, i n accordance wi t h a pr o-
vi si on of the Berl i n Treaty, had occupi ed thei r countr y.
Soon after these events most of the Pomaks, A l bani ans,
and Bosni ans, feel i ng i nsecure under the new regi mes or
wanti ng to l i ve among thei r own co-rel i gi oni sts, moved to
Ottoman domai ns. A l arge number of Musl i ms f r om nor th-
ern Dobruca, whi ch was l eft to Romani a, di d the same. I n
the sancak of Fi l i be (Phi l i ppopol i s), for exampl e, the number
of Turks dr opped f r om 300,000 i n 1875 to 15,000 i n 1878.
Thi s exodus f r om Bul gari a, Romani a, Greece, Serbi a, and
Montenegro conti nued after 1879, al though at a sl ower
pace. Bul gari an stati sti cs i ndi cate that between 1893 and
1902—that i s, dur i ng ten years of peace—72,524 peopl e
emi grated f r om Bul gari a, of w hom 70,603 (35,418 mal es and
35,185 femal es) went to T ur key. 6 6
The emi grati on f r om the Bal kan countri es began to i n-
crease agai n i n 1908-1909 and reached i ts peak dur i ng the
Bal kan War of 1913. A t thi s ti me Macedoni a and Thrace,
i nhabi ted by approxi matel y 1.5 mi l l i on Musl i ms, were l ost
to Greece, Serbi a, and Bul gari a. The exodus conti nued dur -
i ng the Fi rst Wor l d War, cul mi nati ngi n an offi ci al exchange
of popul ati on between Tur key and Greece (1924-1926).
There were mi grati ons i n the 1930s al so, these encouraged
by the Tur ki sh gover nment. Fi nal l y, a l arge conti ngent of
152,000 Tur ks f r om Bul gari a was forced to emi grate i n
1951-1952.
65. See FO 424/ 61, p. 47 (Lacelles to Earl Granville, 22 December
18S4).
66. Bulgarian Chief Statistical Office. Statistique de I'emigration de
la principaute dans les pays etrangers de 1S93 a 1902 (Sofia, 1906).
Concl usi on: The Soci o-Economi c and
Pol i ti cal I mpact of M i gr ati on
The popul ati on movement i n the ni neteenth century
changed the character of the Ottoman state and i ndi rectl y
pr epar ed the gr ound for the emergence of a seri es of
nati onal states, i ncl udi ng moder n Turkey. The M usl i m mi -
grati on i nto the Ottoman terri tori es and the subsequent
sl ow but steady rise of the rati o of Musl i ms wi t hi n the
overal l Ottoman popul ati on had a pr of ound i mpact upon
A bdul hami d I I , maki ng hi mdetermi ned to adopt an I sl ami c
pol i cy. The moti ves for adopti on of thi s pol i cy were practi -
cal rather than i deol ogi cal . I t was obvi ous f r om 1878 on-
wards that the government woul d cater to the i deol ogi cal
and cul tural aspi rati ons of the M usl i m popul ati on, whi ch
had attai ned an over whel mi ng maj or i ty. I sl am and the
Ottoman tradi ti onal pol i ti cal cul ture became, hencef orth,
the l i nk uni t i ng the l i ngui sti cal l y and ethni cal l y heter-
ogeneous popul at i on of Tur ks, Ci rcassi ans, Bosni ans,
Pomaks, A rabs, and others, now forced to l i ve together,
i nto a new f or m of pol i ti cal associ ati on.
The transf ormati on was both soci al and cul tur al . For ex-
ampl e, whi l e settl ed temporari l y i n the Bal kans, the Ci rcas-
sians had not changed thei r ol d habi ts. Some groups who
consi dered themsel ves warri ors began attacki ng the vi l -
lages of the Bul gari ans and other establ i shed agri cul tural
groups, and the Ottoman gover nment had to use troops to
quel l these rai ds. H owever , after 1878 the Ci rcassi ans
adapted to the new soci al and economi c envi r onment i n
A natol i a. A l arge gr oup settl ed i n the wooded, moun-
tai nous area between A dapazar i , H endek, and Bol u i n
western A natol i a, resumed the tradi ti onal occupati on of
cattl e rai si ng, and became suppl i ers of meat and dai r y
products to the nei ghbori ng towns and ci ti es. Others were
settl ed i n, or dri f ted i nto, towns and ci ti es and, searchi ng
for hi gher status, used the avai l abl e educati onal faci l i ti es
and the mi l i tar y channel s to achi eve good soci al posi ti ons.
The Ci rcassi ans had preserved thei r tri bal f or m of organ-
i zati on and l oyal ty dur i ng the earl y stages of mi gr ati on,
but, f ol l owi ng i ts tradi ti onal pol i cy, the Ottoman govern-
ment tri ed to l i mi t the author i ty of the tri bal l eaders as
much as possi bl e by separati ng them f r om thei r ki n. Ö. L .
Barkan has poi nted out that as earl y as the f i f teenth and
si xteenth centuri es the Ottoman gover nment persi stentl y
tri ed to prevent tri bal chi efs and communal l eaders f r om
establ i shi ng maj or i ty author i ty over thei r gr oups. Such
l eaders were often forced, or i nduced thr ough generous
pav, to settle away f r om thei r own gr oups i n other regi ons
or towns. The government pur sued thi s pol i cy wi t h even
greater vi gor i n the ni neteenth century. Thus, uprooted
f rom thei r nati ve pl aces, depr i ved of thei r tradi ti onal tri bal
l eaders, and f ragmented i nto smal l groups for settl ement,
the Ci rcassi ans i ntegrated themsel ves r api dl y i nto the l arge
soci o-pol i ti cal uni t, that i s, i nto a Musl i m- Tur ki sh nati on
f ormed under the Ottoman aegi s. The l i ngui sti c di fferences
between Ci rcassi ans, ethni c Turks i n A natol i a, and other
refugees who had settl ed i n A natol i a were superseded by
common rel i gi ous and pol i ti cal ties as al l of them were
76
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
amal gamated i nto a si ngl e pol i ti cal and cul tural enti ty. I n
1960, for exampl e, the Ci rcassi an-speaki ng popul ati on of
Turkey number ed onl y 147,000.
The economi c and soci al i mpact of the mi grants f r om
Cri mea was si gni fi cant al so. These peopl e spoke a di al ect
ver y cl ose to the A nat ol i an T ur k i sh and had wel l -
establ i shed tradi ti ons of author i ty and hi erarchy. I n thei r
ori gi nal homes the Cr i mean popul ati on was di vi ded soci al -
l y i nto a smal l gr oup of nobl es and l arger groups of traders
and farmers who i nhabi ted the ferti l e area al ong the nor th-
eastern shore. The Tatars l i vi ng al ong the shore, or the
yaliboyu, as they cal l ed i t, were i nvol ved i n trade and cul ti -
vated f rui t trees, whi l e the peasants l i vi ng on the ari d l ands
i n the i nteri or and on the steppe nor th of the Perekop
rai sed a vari ety of dr y- l and crops. The K i rj i s, the i nterme-
di ari es who bought wool , butter, honey, and other com-
modi ti es i n the i nteri or and transported them to Kaffa and
Taman for shi pment el sewhere, and the soapmakers were
other major occupati onal groups i n the di versi f i ed Cri mean
soci ety.
A t the ti me of thei r mi gr ati on some Cr i mean notabl es
and merchants were abl e to sel l thei r pr oper ty; thus they
br ought wi t h them to A natol i a consi derabl e capi tal , often i n
the f or m of gol d, as wel l as thei r tr adi ng ski l l s. These i mmi -
grants occupi ed an i mpor tant part i n the smal l but gr owi ng
class of merchants and entrepreneurs who emerged as an
i mpor tant segment of a M usl i m mi ddl e class dur i ng the
second hal f of the ni neteenth century. Cr i mean busi ness-
men establ i shed prosperous tr adi ng enterpri ses i n I stanbul ,
I zmi r , Bal i kesi r, Bursa, A nkar a, K onya, Eski şehi r, and
other areas i n whi ch they were settl ed. Even today some of
the major busi ness enterpri ses i n these towns, especi al l y i n
Eski şehi r, bel ong to the descendants of Cr i mean mi grants.
Cri means f r om the pl ai ns settl ed i n the steppe areas i n
central A natol i a and became wheat cul ti vators. I t is general -
l y recogni zed that wheat cul ti vati on i n A natol i a—i n the
tri angl e between Eski şehi r, A nkar a, and K onya that is the
"wheat basket" of Tur key—devel oped l argel y after the Cr i -
means settl ed i n that area. Eski şehi r owes i ts rise as a com-
merci al center to the trade generated by wheat cul ti vati on.
Other Cri means settl ed i n the A egean regi on, wher e they
rai sed f r ui t, grapes, and other cash crops.
The economi c i mpact of the mi grants f r om the Bal kans
was somewhat di f f erent. A mong these peopl e were l and-
l ords, reti red offi ci al s, and a vari ety of other upper-cl ass
Musl i ms. (The Musl i ms who remai ned i n the Bal kans were
thus depr i ved of l eader shi p, and thi s was one of the
reasons for the qui ck di spersal of the Tur ki sh communi ti es
l eft under forei gn rul e.) The ri ch Musl i ms i n the Bal kans
tri ed to sel l thei r l and and other pr oper ty before they emi -
grated, and of ten di d so, but at very l ow pri ces; some
brought the proceeds, someti mes i n the f or m of usabl e
goods, wi t h them to A natol i a. K. J. J i ri cek, an author i ty on
Bul gari a, reports that f r om 1879 to 1883 the total val ue of
sales of l and i n eastern Rumel i a, made i n conf or mi ty wi t h
certai n i nternati onal agreements between Bul gari a and the
Ottoman state, was 108 mi l l i on kuruş, of whi ch 72 mi l l i on
came f r om the sale of l and by Turks to Bul gari ans, despi te
the fact that the sale pri ces were very l ow. I n Stara Zagora
l and val ued at 50.5 mi l l i on kuruş changed hands, 40 mi l l i on
kuruş' wor th of thi s bei ng sol d by M usl i ms. 6 ' Thus, Bal kan
refugees who bel onged to the upper classes often brought
wi t h them suffi ci ent capi tal at least to start busi nesses of
thei r own, and these became part of the nucl eus for the
new social transf ormati on.
The fate of the rank-and-f i l e Bal kan mi grants was di ffer-
ent f r om that of those comi ng f r om Ci rcassi a and Cri mea.
Some were empl oyed as wor ker s by the compani es bui l d-
i ng the A natol i an rai l roads. Others were settl ed, wi thout
program or pattern, i n a vari ety of pl aces i n A.natol i a. M uch
of the best l and had al ready been di str i buted; but some
Bal kan mi grants were f ortunate enough to be settl ed i n
ferti l e areas, such the l ands ar ound Bursa, Bal i kesi r, Ban-
dı rma, and the A egean coast, and they qui ckl y became
prosperous, whi l e others, settl ed on the ari d l ands i n cen-
tral A natol i a and the east, were i mpai r ed by disease and
mal nutr i ti on. I n some cases mi grants i ntr oduced new crops
such as potatoes, and new methods of cul ti vati on as wel l ,
and thi s had a benefi ci al effect upon the agri cul ture of A na-
tol i a as a whol e.
I t may be sai d that, i n general , the mi grants hel ped
sti mul ate economi c acti vi ty i n the Ottoman state. For exam-
pl e, accordi ng to two of the best avai l abl e accounts of the
economi c hi stor y of the Ot t oman state, pr oducti on i n
general , and agri cul tural pr oducti on i n parti cul ar, rose be-
tween 1885 and 1912.68 Pri ces were stabl e, gol d reserves
i ncreased, and i nvestment i ntensi f i ed. A n entrepreneuri al
class emerged. The records of the Chamber of Trade, estab-
l i shed i n 1880 i n I stanbul , show that i n that ci ty, as wel l as
el sewhere i n the countr y, a gr oup of Tur ki sh Musl i m en-
trepreneurs arose and gr ew steadi l y i n size and prosperi ty
f r om 1880 to 1890. A number of these busi nessmen were
mi grants. A substanti al part of the ur ban gr owt h i n I stanbul
(and i n other ci ti es as wel l ) was due di rectl y to the i nf l ux of
Tur ki sh mi grants. The ri cher ones j oi ned the upper echel on
of the Ottoman hi erarchy (whi ch had been unti l then l arge-
l y non- Musl i m), whi l e the poorer ones—and these were the
over whel mi ng maj or i ty—swel l ed the ranks of the mai nl y
Musl i m and Tur ki sh ur ban l ower classes.
The soci o-cul tural i mpact of the mi gr ati on was equal l y
i mportant. The mi gr ati ng gr oups i ncl uded men f r om wel l -
educated, rich fami l i es, some of them descendants of the
nobi l i ty who had for centuri es occupi ed l eadershi p posi^
ti ons i n the European terri tori es. They br ought wi th them
not onl y a more advanced l evel of educati on and a sense of
nobi l i ty and class, but strong anti -Russi an feel i ngs and a
bur ni ng desi re to recapture thei r l ost l ands. Thi s was trans-
67. K. J. Jiricek, Cesty po Bulharska [Travels i n Bulgaria] (Prague,
1888), cited i n Doreen Warri ner, ed., Contrasts in Emerging Societies:
Readings in the Social and Economic History of South-Eastern Europe in
the Nineteenth Century, select, and trans. G. F. Cushi ng et al. (Lon-
don: University of London, Athl one Press, 1965), pp. 244-45. For
background, see also John R. Lampe and Marvi n R. Jackson, Balkan
Economic History, 1550-1950: FromImperial Borderlands to Developing
Nations (Bl oomi ngton: I ndi ana University Press, 1982).
68. See Donal d Quataert, "Commerci al i zati on of Agriculturein
Ottoman Turkey, 1800-1914," International journal of Turkish Studies
1, no. 2 (1980): 38-55; and Eldem, Osmanli imparatorluğunun iktisadi.
POPU L A TI ON M O V E M E N T S I N T H E O T T O M A N ST A T E
77
lated eventual l y i nto speci al i deol ogi es and a dri ve for sta-
t u = and posi ti on i n the new soci ety.
The Ottoman archi ves contai n communi cati ons f r om ri ch
a n d nobl e M usl i m fami l i es sti l l i n Russi a- the czar.st gov-
ernment was somewhat f r i endl y to them because i t hoped
t 0 use them to control thei r respecti ve communi ti es and
tr i bes- expr essi ng a desi re to move out of Russi a and settl e
i n Turkey. I n 1868, for exampl e, the f ami l y of Gazı Mehmet
Efendi who was cl osel y rel ated to Shei k Shami l , asked the
Ottoman gover nment to faci l i tate i ts mi gr ati on to Tur key.
A mong i mpor tant fami l i es of the Caucasus who mi grated
to Turkey were those of Sul uk Bey of the Kabartay tri be,
Tani s Bev L ekataoğl u, El haj Shei k A l i , Mol l a A l , Ef endi ,
Haji I sl am Ef endi , Rustem Bey, El hoja Ağa Bey, Kazak M i r -
za El haj Her av, A bdul Rezai , M ughan Hasan Bey, and
mânv others. (Efendi and Bey are ti tl es denoti ng hi gh soci al
posi ti on.) Some of these fami l i es educated thei r chi l dr en m
i stanbul ; others sent thei r chi l dr en to Moscow', Vi enna,
Pans and el sewhere for school i ng. M any of these wel l -
educated of f spr i ng of mi grants l ater occupi ed l eadi ng posi -
ti ons i n Ottoman uni versi ti es and other i nsti tuti ons and m
its i ntel l ectual l i fe. _
H usevi n A hunzade, Y usuf A kçura, A hmet A gaogl u, and
many others who became cl osel y i denti f i ed wi t h the rise of
Turki sh nati onal i sm and moder ni sm were mi grants or sons
of mi grants. The same can be sai d of the l eaders of Y oung
Tur ks and the Republ i cans: M ehmet M ur at (Mi zancı )
whose f ami l y was f r om Daghi stan, pl ayed a f undamental
rol e i n the Y oung Tur k movement at the t ur n of the century
(1895-1910); Enver Paşa was the grandson of a mi gr ant
f rom Russi a; the fi rst Presi dent of Tur key, K emal Atatürk,
wa< bor n i n Sal oni ca; the mother of i smet i nönü, Tur key s
second presi dent, was an i mmi gr ant; and both parents of
Cel al Bavar the thi r d presi dent, were f r om Bul gari a. A
detai l ed study of the rol e pl ayed by these fami l i es i n the
devel opment of I sl ami sm and then of nati onal i sm and I an-
Tur ani sm, woul d be a major contr i buti on to the under-
standi ng of the i deol ogi cal and cul tural currents i n the
Ottoman state.
The mi gr ati on of the ethni c Turks f r om the Bal kans ga\ e
the Tur ki sh el ement, al ready i n a maj ori ty i n A natol i a, the
over whel mi ng numeri cal superi ori ty that al l owed i t to i m-
press i ts own l i ngui sti c and cul tural mar k on other i ncom-
i ng - r oups. By the end of the ni neteenth century the re-
mai ni ng Ottoman provi nces i n A natol i a and i n Rumi l i had
an i ntegral , di sti nctl y Tur ki sh character, except for some
i sol ated areas i n the Bal kans and eastern A natol i a.
I n sum the successful i ntegr ati on of mi gr ant ethni c
eroups i nto the Ottoman communi ty al tered f undamenta l y
the tradi ti onal soci al structure of A natol i a and prepared the
gr ound for the establ i shment of new f orms of soci al and
pol i ti cal organi zati on, i ncl udi ng a nati onal state. Thi s f un-
damental process of social and pol i ti cal transf ormati on su-
perseded al l anci ent f orms of l oyal ty and organi zati on and
made the popul ati on ready to adopt a new pol i ti cal i denti -
ty The process cul mi nated eventual l y i n the establ i shment
i n 1923 of a nati onal Tur ki sh state that was not onl y the
synthesi s of the century- l ong popul ati on movement but
was pol i ti cal l y, the most sui tabl e system for uni f yi ng the
vari ety of di fferent groups assembl ed there. The Tur ki sh
nati onal state was bor n of and f ur ther fostered the new
sense of pol i ti cal i denti ty and af f i l i ati on based upon a com-
mon hi stori cal and cul tural heri tage and upon aspi rati ons
for the f utur e.
A p p e n d i x C. L et t er s f r o m Bu l g ar i an E mi gr an t s P et i t i o n i n g t he Su l t an to A l l o w T h e m t o
R et u r n H o me to O t t o ma n L an d s f r o m R u ssi an T er r i t or i es
<7
//'YYY ' ('//Y///Y// . V Y ' Y / / Y / Y / S /A -
/i^i Y/rJY/- •
Y
. Yy/,<.7 S^*^<s*
A y , * y ^./Ys' ,,,,j,*~r<>^,*^ * y
* Sit Si / t'S'iS" ' • ' • " i - fr* Yt* *s-£'
//, tlp-Ylf 1 -fit" ***Lf<- . S
* y Q
/l &•**••> h'at fit 1* *tsfy <*s?
a / f i . e ; * <^ ' / U ~ y « *
y
9' * ^
/* e-xs-Y^* y £*^> t**'**^^ iC*sY- /lait.t.wi /i * '-y * "'
A p p en d i x C. L et t er s f r o m Bu l g ar i an E mi gr an t s ( co n t i n u ed )
Y • '
Y/ • G) • C} / ° / / ?
/tm. <• s <#A a si s) s st si ? s Soi'tru* /*sii-/j"</'*
)
.i
/
«,s/c
//r>/}' <'y/*i>/Hf<> f/Y f si //fYi* r^syssYl- . ( /'.''St «<'• '• ^»
/^t'f /m.-^/ * ft ft J r^tftsis *'• Y * r, S r / si * i / y > ' " " Y "
fit- s y , t.JLs, sz,(. <^-s YY?**.' S y y St-* ^ y & Y , ^ ' ^f<-* ^ y £^Y-
t tn ~%<Y^4~^ , <^~y/1&C^£c^y Sh-^j/£~ f S 1 ^ &
/ijl n 7 ^fl i i t n^s^f , /?0- t<-? dYi-tii St si sys v'-"' A 'Ps- - j * { s r s * **yL.?^<7
^Ys YYif' / ^ t « ' /*- t<-« tY^< t^s Ssstdts f^.f <.) '
/si YJ->• Yl /%Y YYs c^, , ^s <>r * & n/>r>i- /^L^stf^, sisfs*? sYs -ef-^lf
Stye/?^Y^f^c? Ms- 4t^t<y ^ y A.* s,^-- sy> si ; sJ^-A'^^^
^)*<~, K fxrt c /* ( / rfrssi-^s-M^s^^sd eet t.,, ...M. ft s* , s*t«s.£
?SS-<* St ff-r /ifjs*/ t^l Ss^S* ** £ * , tfi t'^Y^S^f.-i jf^)+ X<s- ,.y s 1 ^> .
£ Ze4 <*/ rfYc Y^Yis /stsisft s Y f ? st-7 ,r^J,
£f*t -c- ee-*** l a ^ ^ i M A y A * / ' si^t^^r y YLci.4 * n^r s r , sYf^^, Y^
fi~/-S- '• fl^t+, s^vt^ v y / . ^ y p ^ aY/i+Yi^ aYs„i*, t*ts 't^**-?*^^.
A p p e n d i x C. L et t er s f r o m Bu l gar i an E mi gr an t s ( con t i n u ed )
/ f n '. > f f </f ft
/la •<> <</ Hs4-y A t<> ^Y'' ^ ^¿4*' '~^
e
/ /1 "y * Y^>
A it it / fry/** ' -2yi /l t-t /' *y. ' St * t? <x<
/ J i Y y^i-y^ ' ' I ' S l' 1' f l* >' 'rf i, „J
fx/if// /lit tit , Vt*/yYY i l , * A<Z'ti/2sn^< , t/1 / <- l4 /fd/nfylt*.
ftft<* ft, /It {" tn~~yt.4+S>.
Y'l ^,¿2 yy.-rf'-' f3\ <y'> el''<*-•£• , s Sye./,y't'Q/Y-
C7)
/ .
1/ f*> * t .i s>ft / Sry?SsT
Source: FM (Id) 177.
Note: This letter in French is atranslation: thetranslator is not known, but presumably it wassomeone in theOttoman foreign ministry.
80
ap p en d i x C . L et t er s f r o m B u l g ar i an E mi g r an t s ( co n t i n u ed )
f ///./ yj. /y/fyf/Mca'tf-'f'-*. Y ^4-/^^0 'Jawfj, tytf.'/Sf-j/sty'/i / / . y
'//,//#•/?/ <5y-ye-cr-i , i/£/l>/S*-*>?t Z/*it£&, ./A-iJrX-Mt 4 ^ f e w ^
, f/y>(jc/?ryt, c/Jy?0-&t<yv
J
/ f^rt^-7z/?^<?, itf/sr/Sc /t^ry^f-'/y//^--'
. r / y x r / / ( Y ^ r m a ? ^r<%4^ ^ Jtfa zMfatuXv/;/* r// .JH^MCAM*
///>r-MU?rta '/locctAsi&r'Ke. fflrte- cu drtia>M4 .&jft& ^utjirttf a cf/t/irf&-
r. / / / / - //& 'iY,%^e.<tr CU) /{/» OMZ yiOfoviS>fr?Y&^??i!-'X. Ma //,y<-? ?rrt as.u&M
, / y & 6 a u• J^/y ieS/i/^u u -7?i)-^ed&fiQec- r^y^e-ie^ti ?oc?/}K?/i^u-
rit yyiy-f/A ^A r//fy£)t, fiMiZlY s^Xtf^i/y'ertU ,-/M„y
c/fi YS/ya-fU^ fiUi MM z a t M / x c t t a - w e ^ / ' ^ / r . ^v * - ^/ / /<ye/^y^^A
Cr /i'/ <xeu4/t if*c'iyf^rs////<'&iKiJ^^ firtwrs&Q&s
» , i I / / (
rt //•i//////-///' fiiYcft^€i, 7U ,JwJV zt&tYyfa.-, C / > y « //S/it.MU^&Y)
,K//f' cy/Ji/ ft
r
YYjiy?f-K#'-*-/'/a c'tti^ t*///?-i4 u /Yl^a/^Yo, //< <y //.c{tA
j , t //fir f / i /7'ry(3e--//s4 s-//;ar.<V s?ye-/mx/ /Ki4/? z/?^ i f. USV> Y'Z i / M J t
81
Appendix C. Letters fromBulgarian Emigrants (continued)
61
*//t>„//J &/c7&^/f^ J 'tf-jtiV -3¿2. //yz^^J s^c^f/^e^u^-^^^}
- V r - ^ i - ^ ^ M ^ ^ ^ k / ^ <Kdu4/i 9*77ct/w f J V ^/ . M ^? ^/ "
y/r/.<v j/?a r/y reset c/ff^^f^T^^ ^ ^ v , ?y^r-?;;-**-*? f '#. wilts'
/< /y///'//j/<' t't 3&/^jf?/t&4<V~?X*S ¿2^a/^Cf & Cfojt-?//oe ujiec .<
fie*, fv/'/ft/^iv/^w^vo -ftae ^jtcfjA^i^ZA!- ZM^/tdc- syy?'&>2y>!'sVf 'e-; ? rria Mf/ syity^
7f//i/'jcty ;;y4t?;rs?if'?/'Y ?y>frip6t"j 0i'Y7a/^e^wJ €Hy<K
7jfs/j*//tt ci?//if tyybiyurtex^tyeiWpM'
77
T^C/tX/X-'T/ia: fflu^^tt^a•e&nY'Zyeyicrta/, t*7c7& ^ M9-?z/fei4>'^a^uL ^J Vci^cS*
3ecQ?.^/'t ^Tf
7
/^y?*-^, Z&KikJ Ueyaa- te
/
iyy/& evrrf //Z^tf^ fr-as^^f- 7-7*0 ?y<j>~=
WCttfMm S&777/m7^ '
( \ 7'/$t/'??i/)t/ej^Y/.tft- 7-t

!
8&7, //'/• ?//rn>.*-/tgluten* J *ny • '
/
^K*?uttt*. /l.'.i,, ,?/&r/tJ < 0/n£ i yt/ty r?en/r-
? /er'Mk y'y>*
k
< 7t
'7y///f///f- /X/'/Ti
(&/ct'/t/>t><y>* yy/fr/^7Y
Source: FM (Id) 177.
82
Appendix C. Letters fromBulgarian Emigrants (continued)
, J fn fJ (V(iiv PlMliif>f\ Wf/><r,t>PuAit'ti frnrifi
Aftrj(mi)/iHI*M //na/% ilnp^ (<//>nmn% A i>f,<j^'^-
ll^Of it'A
,I MVl'h II yi^0AV(fnHfiiiUUJ i* flan/), /fif" .'enf/, ,
unfit>xv<*«/y<»> fin .^AfittMf, i"ii<r» "
l
''/'•'>/'''
yf cww* /f*ph«\ /ifjiAvnili, f,nw>wr J U : « U,,}yi<
y
Bif>niMi imn'h fray Atirinn ft hi /iptiAt. fh-'i ziyii*"
m iii.fht«\ yrrr^/ic/^i'^/np H(\ //hitm!* fin /I prrmrA-h
nTTj>o(i^Mi. TTjxxn^ fa if/iun<t\ wr\ f </f, t.'nnpnfuiXAH,
me* A nj?t!(dA!»Xt>M y pr<</'X. Hi CM'/, rinXirnxAU / / i
/(V/omTMirniin ctmasni/vii jj^tynMim /n.i jiMAAyihii
/MfYfnXMl. ^I ^kim'ill^jJ Hhl A%?fyi/i (flC% I K* Hhl ft¬
.uj&.J viYi^n-/^ ^Arptr UntuneKil* py«>Ui I dH ty* >•,
to0nfMcjkn*At4^et-£liqu/«i (trrnnHRmn. //lm</ir\ mi>-
K
\ $M?f<tKKMl y /{[/%">?>, llyynl(\ f^hJ /iWAU
lrt^j-ihpyj'*v»j3Am.*Mi y U^iryty^ Wi
Y/vtcrHHwi^tHti ttjWAfiviiut cm% Mc'Kcav^tm* *
• . Ovcainli >/ci
, 7 T
7
'/
TtinXA fl/f£A) fnri/T&J b Haw/ii"* vf*minn f
l
y'
J /x
CAA1D l^Mtll. fmfr tt*Xl —j/j>1MHrnJ >b /(yKmrBf, vrn'h
'/joHLI -AWL— MCf/fin'L yy ytftrm y tf-
lri
*,
83
Appendix C. Letters from Bulgarian Emigrants (continued)
'I mo ir
'<1-
e\mc
HcuiiiA KrHcyA'h ret /trrrfJ imvAK y/jnp(ryny'L »
rAypJ KAAC yyn 'rrtc-frfiafcnrAnnui y n l yi f A*(mryi-
y[Hftm<\ -npafVa • Om\ rncrAti(\ jjyrenm'i y/rrny
e»x* itnAKikltflpkl; jn^n t,t,t tip*ffowly>
Miyjy>y
r
'
4
^
0
^~y yJ j
i
)/
,(r
f^ • fl* f>*'t,/i
rrrtenAif rnsiyyyo r/a gCAA/narn — ?<l H<\j<\yii r7tnf)-
,\APL ci r<\ ma* -rryepn\, vyn r c n ^ > rryrn<\ m",
Ht\ Kcfl J ljiyLeXMi WiAHCm iijHC /TtfCAieyl Anej/t'J ' \
Ttf 7TPit\mriA*'i2 y (yyxrSyye U(\UH'A /(rni-yA),_
' f Ut r r r of y T*H vj)iWf>ipi» yJ ^ryyy K M -
j)6 I f 4 Hhf Pl?*£i M tA lit i t i ^Y yi p y f r >'$.'•
tttrnnmhiM IjnjiHi! (AAHAH (A ¿ 7 * " ^ V f "
fA AAt>A"f"L $fiCh ChAjkJ VyCyi'i ffriUJ lA fli/rrSO,
~7Tyi( m eA%yLt\ HLi 3tj>nrn nrrfl / y ^t u ^ma, r ^u j -
w / i w f H( Br"4" k ' , *l*'Ar(\Hrt TTJ>( rm »
2<\yy{fHi c s F y y mb - /^o UHC H ^ I *&/ JAH/-
fc\4n>i y BnAHUiij ftcA/<c Wcs&r mj)(\HrlUjc rnr
jl<% *M<\ &J l//*VA/\ (* XHSHiAAi mc8n /Hfrrrpr\
i(\Tt>mt\, /M/ A/fkr &kt, l: nn»rrit,„ i j ^j j ^. ^
sJ fAl rrri\Kt\ i](\tunmt\ ((j<\yu<*!A4n
f \ o\ m L /<<\/vfth tf(\ck >uje m f /<tyrnc nj>e\miArn\
n<\pt\\[()Aji f j y C\Hti (H^txnrni t nr\ ]r\t #1% Cfich
jre -nJ XmHH J ^t s ^c i l t ma i\ >T'c\ <?rrrfjy.l/vi i
y fl/J frrttliyy ( Mi y i * ^i H 6 i y n Bn r » Mf H i -
Mi . ' '
/ y f A >t y Brtyytnl, '/(r/fr/fmifi
84
Appendix C. Letters fromBulgarian Emigrants (continued)
Ijpiff'jyyA fi'-f e>Af'/MiT<f ,:lity,yy
nyy-MHTi j yiMiynic 'iii\iue\rr\n. lj<\f>'nt\ f\A\,4Arim L ,.y>n
/ fir»<;« ti h A t * me* o r f c t
^e^K ^T t vy v\t ft
Source' FM(Id) 177
5
T H E POPUL A T I ON A ND T H E SO C I A L A N D E C O N O MI C
T R A N SFO R MA T I O N OF I ST A NBUL :
T H E O T T O M A N MI C R O C O SM
Introduction
Dur i ng the ni neteenth century thé ci ty of I stanbul under-
went a tr ansf or mati on. Thi s tr ansf or mati on sti mul ated
f urther change i n the i nteri or of the country, and then the
ci ty i n tur n was subjected to a vari ety of new pressures
f rom the i nteri or. I stanbul was the mi cro- model of the de-
mographi c, soci al , and economi c change i n the enti re coun-
try. L i ke the Ottoman state as a whol e, i t recei ved a f l ood of
new i mmi gr ants; and i t, too, fel l under the gr owi ng i n-
fl uence of the capi tal i sm and the l i beral pol i ti cal thought of
Europe, even begi nni ng to adopt European archi tectural
styl es and patterns of ur ban organi zati on and admi ni stra-
ti on i n the course of al teri ng i tsel f under the i mpact of these
outsi de i nfl uences. The process was al l the more r api d and
compl ete because I stanbul was parti cul arl y sensi ti ve to out-
si de sti mul i . The countrysi de, protected by di stance and
l i mi ted communi cati ons, conti nued i n i ts tradi ti onal mol d.
The di chotomy between ci ty and countr y was mani fested
wi t hi n the ci ty of I stanbul i tsel f i n i ts " o l d " and "moder n"
secti ons: Pera (Beyogl u) and Gal ata, two moder n di stri cts
on the nor ther n shore of the Gol den H or n just opposi te the
part of the ol d ci ty i nhabi ted by Europeans, grew and be-
came a ki nd of col oni al repl i ca of European ci ti es, whi l e the
ol d ci ty stagnated and decayed.
The physi cal and economi c transf ormati on of I stanbul
was accompani ed by a cul tural change of cruci al i mpor -
tance. Ottoman and non- Ottoman observers seem to agree
that between 1844 and 1880 more than 50 percent of the
ci ty's popul ati on was non- Musl i m. H owever , by 1885 the
M usl i m popul ati on had ri sen to over 54 percent, and i n
1900 i t reached approxi matel y 70 percent, despi te the fact
that the gross number of non- Musl i ms had also i ncreased.
Thus, by the end of the century the col oni zati on process
was reversed, and I stanbul had become once more I sl ami c
and Tur ki sh i n character, just as i t had been f r om the
fi fteenth thr ough the earl y ni neteenth century.
The changes i n the soci o-ethni c and cul tural composi ti on
A shorter version of this chapter appeared i n Association Interna-
tionaled'Etudes du Sud-Est Européen Bulletin 12, no. 2 (1974).
of I stanbul i n the second hal f of the ni neteenth century
were the di rect consequence of the i ncreased trade and
expanded economi c oppor tuni ty that f ol l owed the Cri mean
War and the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878. The i nfl ux
of capi tal and ski l l s br ought by the i mmi gr ants f r om the
Caucasus and the Bal kans tur ned the ci ty i nto a center of
enterpri se and cul ture; new busi nesses, r un by Musl i m
(and non- Musl i m) entrepreneurs, attracted f r om the i n-
teri or poor peopl e and peasants who became a sort of city
prol etari at.
I stanbul came to pl ay a new rol e i n the ni neteenth cen-
tury, as the center of communi cati ons (the press was con-
centrated there), the gatheri ng pl ace of exi l ed provi nci al
el i te, and the economi c heart of a rapi dl y changi ng society,
as wel l as the pol i ti cal capi tal of the Ottoman state. The city
fel t soonest and i n greatest degree the effects of the forces
unl eashed by capi tal i sm and the tensi ons caused by the rise
of new soci al groups and the mi grati ons that spurred the
devel opment of ethno-nati onal consci ousness among var-
i ous communi ti es. I t al so was the fi rst to experi ence the
semi -col oni al , dependent type of capi tal i sm that replaced
the ol d, r i gi d, Ottoman stati st regi me. I ndeed, I stanbul be-
came the nerve center of the new system, servi ng as the
major di str i buti on poi nt for i mpor ted wares and attracti ng
weal th f r om the countr ysi de to be spent on consumer
goods. The establ i shment of a strong central government
based on a l arge bureaucracy and the i ntr oducti on of a
central i zed budget system had the net effect of bri ngi ng
i nto the ci ty a substanti al part of the tax revenues, to pay
the salaries of the bureaucrats who, i n tur n, often spenl
thei r money on vari ous i mpor ted i tems.
I stanbul on the Eve of Transformation:
The Socio-Economic Li fe
The ei ght eent h cent ur y d r ew to a cl ose and the
ni neteenth century began wi thout mani f esti ng any conspic-
uous symptoms to suggest that the tradi ti onal l i fe of Istan-
bul was due for drasti c change. I n fact, the exi sti ng portraits
of l i fe i n I stanbul i n the si xteenth and seventeenth centuries
86
T H E P OP U L A T I ON A N D T H E SOCI A L A N D E C O N O M I C T RA N SF ORM A T I ON OF I ST A N BU L 87
are, except for a few mi nor di fferences, portrai ts also of the
l i fe as i t sti l l was i n the ei ghteenth and the earl y ni neteenth
century. The ci ty was sti l l composed of three mai n parts:
the chi ef part was that concentrated between the defense
wal l s on the west and the shores of the Marmara Sea and
the Gol den H or n, or Hal i ç, i n the nor th, east, and south-
east; Gal ata, the ol d Genoese quarter across the Hal i ç, and
Üsküdar i n Asi a were i ts two other mai n secti ons. A num-
ber of smal l vi l l ages on ei ther si de of the Bosporus and the
Gol den H or n wer e al so part of the ci ty. The rel i gi ous
groups i nhabi ted thei r tradi ti onal quarters, not mi xi ng wi t h
each other i n thei r dai l y l i ves except i n the bazaar, where al l
di fferences seemed to di sappear. The Greeks, who enjoyed
speci al f avors, wer e l ocated mai nl y i n Fener, Samatva,
Ci bal i , and i n some of the vi l l ages al ong the Bosporus. The
A r meni ans l i ved mostl y at K umkapi and Samatva. The
J ews i nhabi ted Bal at, Hasköy (these were mostl y Karai tes),
Kasi mpaşa, and a f ew other pl aces. Gal ata was then home
to Greeks, A r meni ans, a few Europeans, and a f ew Mus-
l i ms. Pera, or Beyogl u, was the resi dence of the European
ambassadors, but i t gave l i ttl e si gn of the great i mportance
i t was to acqui re l ater. The ol d ci ty gl i ttered i n the sun i n the
f ul l majesty of i ts nearl y 400 mosques, over 100 churches,
hundr eds of l i brari es, medresses, square, tal l aqueducts,
palaces, over 300 der vi sh tekkes, and other monuments of
the past.
The dai l y l i fe of I stanbul was governed by the I stanbul
efendisi, or mayor , who per f or med admi ni strati ve duti es
and had ci vi l j ur i sdi cti on over the ci ty. The naib, hi s assist-
ant, supervi sed the suppl y of f ood and fi xed the pri ce of
foodstuffs. The whar f area between Sarayburnu and Fener,
k nown general l y as Unkapani , was the economi c heart of
the ci ty, as i t had been i n previ ous centuri es.3 A H shi ps
carryi ng grai n f r om the Bl ack Sea and the A rchi pel ago un-
l oaded thei r cargoes on thi s whar f . The naib kept a regi ster
of the quanti ty of wheat del i vered, fi xed a pri ce, and then
di stri buted i t to the bakers. I n order to prevent monopol i es
and specul ati on, the buyers were not al l owed to store grai n
for more than a f ew days, and pri vate i ndi vi dual s coul d not
bui l d granari es or warehouses to store f ood. Onl y the gov-
ernment was per mi tted to col l ect grai n i n l arge quanti ti es
and store i t for use i n ti me of need.
The quant i t y of wheat pur chased f or the capi tal
amounted, at the tur n of the century, to one mi l l i on kiles (a
kile was equal i n wei ght to about si xty pounds). The wheat
was col l ected f r om Vol o, Sal oni ca, Karaağaç, Varna, and
other places i n Dobruca and Wal l achi a. The pri ce of or di -
nary wheat pai d to the producer vari ed between three and
1. See Thomas Thornton, The Present Stateof Modern Turkey 2, 2d
ed. (London, 1809): 23-24. Some of the older Turki sh sources on
the history of I stanbul used i n this study are Asim Tarihi, Cevdet
Tarihi, and Lit tfi Tarihi; Ahmet Refik (Al tunay), Hicri On Altinci
Asirda istanbul Hayati (istanbul, 1932); Celal Esat Arseven, Eski
istanbul (istanbul, 1928); and Osman Nuri Ergin, lstanbulda imar ve
Iskan Hareketlen (istanbul, 1937). See also A l i Rıza (Bey), Bir Zaman-
lar istanbul (istanbul, n.d.) and the new edi ti on of this work, edited
bv N . A. Banoglu; and see Mehmet Hal i ! Bayri, İstanbul Folkloru, 2d
ed. (I stanbul, 1972).
four pi asters per kilc. The government woul d sel l its stored
grai n (whi ch was kept i n wooden shacks i n an area ar ound
the arsenal i n Kasi mpa§a) when the new year's shi pments
arri ved, when i t threatened to become spoi l ed, or when the
market pri ces rose hi gh enough to al l ow a handsome pr of i t.
Government prof i ts f r om the sale of one year's suppl y of
wheat amounted to 2 to 3 mi l l i on pi asters, i ndi cati ng that
the grai n was sol d at 60 to 75 percent above the pri ce pai d
on del i very i n I stanbul .
There also exi sted the possi bi l i ty of consi derabl e prof i t
for the mubayaaci, or wheat col l ector.2 The mubayaaci was
al l owed to buy f r om the producer for hi s own account one-
tenth of the amount of wheat col l ected for the government,
payi ng for hi s own share the same pri ce as the government;
but he was then al l owed to sell hi s wheat at free market
pri ces and keep the di f f er ence. The mubayaaci of ten
arranged, by br i bi ng the responsi bl e offi ci al s, to substi tute
barl ey or rye for the government wheat purchase; or he
someti mes pour ed sea water over the grai n to swel l i t and
make i t appear to be l arger i n amount. Thus he met the
quota set by the government and sti l l was abl e to keep a
good surpl us for hi msel f. Wheat sol d pri vatel y was usual l y
superi or i n qual i ty to that sol d by the gover nment.
When there was an overabundance of wheat ar r i vi ng at
the wharf , the naib l owered the pri ce and forced the bakers
to buy l arger quanti ti es than they nor mal l y di d. I n such
cases, there was a surpl us of bread, whi ch was often sol d at
l ow pri ces or gi ven free to the poor of I stanbul . When there
was a shortage of wheat (as, for exampl e, f r om 1828 to 1829
when the A l l i es cl osed the strai ts and prevented the suppl y
of I stanbul by sea) the bakers were forced to use spoi l ed
grai n or to mi x i t wi t h other i ngredi ents to produce a l ow-
qual i ty bread that sol d at hi gh pri ces. Shortages also were
caused by the fi res that f requentl y destroyed the govern-
ment storage shacks, pushi ng up the pri ce and f urther en-
ri chi ng the mubayaaci. The regul ati on of wheat sales bv the
government appeared to be less than sati sfactory.
The same method was used for the col l ecti on and di s-
tr i buti on of other f ood i tems consumed i n the capi tal . Every
year l arge numl i ers of Greek and Tur ki sh merchants hol d-
i ng f i rmans f r om the government went to the Bal kan peni n-
sul a and other f ood- pr oduci ng areas to col l ect butter,
cheese, honey, wax, tal l ow, and, especi al l y, l i vestock. The
annual col l ecti on of sheep al one amounted at the end of the
ei ghteenth century to 500,000 to 600,000 head. The fat of
upwar ds of 80,000 oxen, sheep, and goats was mel ted on
the spot i n Wal l achi a and Mol davi a and transported to the
capi tal as tal l ow. A substanti al part of these suppl i es was
col l ected for the J ani zari es and the sul tan's househol d. The
col l ectors, as expected, secured handsome prof i ts for them-
sel ves, especi al l y as the possi bi l i ti es for specul ati on i n meat
and dai r v pr oducts were even mor e favorabl e than i n
wheat.
2. It is interesting that the mubayaaci in Salonica was a descend-
ant of the famous Evrenos family that remained i n vi rtual l y abso-
lute control of the Vardar valley unti l wel l into the eighteenth
century.
88
A t thebegi nni ng of theni neteenth century thegovern-
ment faced gr owi ng di f f i cul ty i n suppl yi ng I stanbul wi th
agri cul tural commodi ti es at fi xed pri ces. I t therefore i n-
creased thei ncenti ve for thefood col l ectors by al l owi ng
them l arger margi ns of pr of i t. H owever , i t becamei n-
creasi ngl y obvi ous that changi ng ci rcumstances had made
the olci methods obsol ete. Theobvi ous al ternati ve was to
adopt asvstem that;woul d berel ati vel y free of governmen-
tal i nterference and coul d operate i n response to market
forces. Theneed for change was dramati zed when, dur i ng
the war i n1812 and later dur i ng the bl ockade of the strai ts
after the destr ucti on of theOttoman fleet at N'avari no
(1827), I stanbul suffered acute fami ne.
The suppl y probl em fi rst faced bv I stanbul at thebegi n-
ni ng of theni neteenth centurv was theconsequence of a
series of i nter-rel ated economi c and pol i ti cal factors. The
abi l i ty of thegover nment to fi x thepri ce of f ood and raw
materi al s depended oni ts abi l i ty tocontrol itsi nternal and
external trade f ul l y. Trade control i n tur n was based on the
capaci ty of theOttoman state to pursue an i ndependent
external pol i cy and toadopt theeconomi c measures most
sui tabl e to i tsown i nterests. But at theend of theei ght-
eenth and thr oughout the ni neteenth century the Ottoman
state was gradual l y depr i ved of thef r eedom to f ol l ow an
economi c pol i cy of i ts own choosi ng.
The economi c and pol i ti cal devel opments responsi bl e for
the changed si tuati on were thef ol l owi ng. Fi rst, thegr ow-
i ng European demand for f oodstuf f s and raw materi al s
f r om Ottoman l ands pushed the pri ce of l ocal commodi ti es,
especi al l y i n the Bal kans, above the pri ces pai d by the Otto-
man government. Theeffect of thi s wasfel t even i n the
i nternal Ottoman markets. Earl y i n theni neteenth century
there devel oped i n I stanbul afree commodi ti es market that
gradual l y surpassed and under mi ned the government food
col l ecti on and di str i buti on operati on. I n 1829thegovern-
ment tri ed unsuccessful l y to fi x thepri ce of coffee; and i n
1832 i ttri ed, agai n wi thout success, to set the pri ce of other
commodi ti es sol d i n I stanbul . M eanwhi l e f ood pri ces
soared. Manuf actur ed goods f r om Europe were also sol d i n
the free market and sti mul ated its devel opment.
The Ottoman response to European demands for food
and raw materi al s was di ctated bypol i ti cal as wel l as eco-
nomi c events. Thepeace treati es si gned by theOttoman
state wi t h A ustri a and Russia i n theei ghteenth centurv
expl i ci tl y envi si oned a l i beral i zati on of trade—that i s, free-
dom for these countri es to buy agri cul tural commodi ti es
f r om the Ottoman market. The Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca,
si gned i n 1774,ended the Ottoman monopol y of the Black
Sea trade and was a major economi c bl ow to thestatei n
general and to I stanbul i n par ti cul ar .3 H encef or th, the
goods f r om theBl ack Sea ports were carri ed not onl y by
Ottoman vessels but, i ncreasi ngl y, by theshi ps of Russi a
and other nati ons, shi ps whi ch di d not stop i n I stanbul . I n
fact, i n order to avoi d del ays, sei zure, and taxes, many
shi ps car r yi ng cargoes or i gi nat i ng i n Ot t oman l ands
3. SeeHenry Grenville, Observations sur l'état actuel de l'Empire
ottoman (Ann Arbor: University of Mi chi gan Press, 1956).
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830-1914
Tabl e 5.1. Miri Budget of 1776
RevenueSources Purses
Fixed (Haraç) 39.077
Various taxes 36.794
Unfixed • 14.0U
Total , . 89.885
(or 44,942.500 piasters)
Expenditures Purses
Pay of the city guards or militia of Istanbul 22,700
Pay ot the bostancis and of the people in the sultan's kitchen 700
Pay of theağas and officers of the sultan's palace 1.700
Tothe haremof the old palace 1.800
Tothe ağa and seraglio of Galata 501
Expenses of the kitchen (purses rumi) 1,800
Tothe chief of the butchers 600
Expenses of the imperial tables 600
Arbitrary assignments 1.250
Payment of all the other fortresses of the Ottoman empire 18,000
Adonation to Mecca and Medina (this had been paid annually
for centuries) 9,000
Pay of the sailors of the fleet 2,700
Provision for the fleet 800
Expenses of the admiralty 1,800
Pensions of the sultanas and of the deposed khans of the Crim 1.372
Pay of the garrison of Vldin 1,250
Pay for those of Bosnia 1,970
For maintaining recruits 472
Expenses of the iesser department, called Küçük Kalem 1,200
Payment of the Danubian guards 3,521
Expenses of maintaining the posts 1,700
Total 76,236
. (or 36,968.133 piasters)
Source: WilliamEton, A Survey of theTurkish Empire, 2d ed. (London, 1799), pp.
41-47.
changed thei r cargo certi fi cates bygoi ng toRussi an ports.4
The cargo woul d then appear onpaper tohave ori gi nated
i n Russia and the shi p coul d sai l past I stanbul wi thout any
probl ems. Even Ottoman merchants preferred not to go to
I stanbul at al l because of loss of ti me: when there was
heavy traffi c, as of ten happened i n thefal l when large
quanti ti es of f ood were del i vered to theci ty, shi ps had to
wai t for days, even weeks, tounl oad thei r cargoes, chiefly
because of the l ack of proper storage pl aces. The Treaty of
A dr i anopl e (1829), whi ch abol i shed theobl i gati on of Wal -
l achi a and Mol davi a tosel l certai n quanti ti es of f ood tothe
Porte, ended the government- sponsored system of food
col l ecti on and di str i buti on at fi xed pri ces that had been in
force si nce thel ate f i f teenth century. Theeconomy and
even thesoci al organi zati on of I stanbul was prof oundl y
affected by thesystem's demi s'e.
The enti re Ot t oman economy was suf f eri ng f r om the
strai n of competi ti on f r om thefree market economy of the
West. Yet, the Ottoman gover nment di d not seek toadjust
to therequi rements of thefree market, l argel y becauseits
o w n f i nanci al condi t i on, as expressed i n the budget,
appeared to be rel ati vel y secure, i ndeed, the Ottoman
budget for 1776, as compi l ed byWi l l i am Eton (reproduced
i n Tabl e 5.1) showed that the gover nment was then i n good
4. Thornton, Modern Turkey, p. 24.
THE P OP U L A T I ON A N D T H E SOC I A L A N D E C ON OM I C T RA N SF ORM A T I ON OF I ST A N BU L 89
financial heal th.5 The revenues and expendi tures of the miri
(public treasury—excl udi ng the pri vate treasure of the sul -
( a n , thepaşas and the vakif mosques), transl ated i nto
pounds sterl i ng, came to £4,494,250 and £3,696,813, respec-
tively, gi vi ng a surpl us of £794,437. Theharaç was a ti the
paid by non- M usl i ms. (Theçiziye—officially a head tax
rather than ati the—was often also referred to asharaç.) For
I stanbul i n 1776, haraç revenue was 2,916purses (a purse
was 500 pi asters), an i ncrease of 360 purses, or 180,000
piasters. (I f onetakes 6kuruş as theamount col l ected per
person as haraç, then the non- M usl i m popul ati on of I stan-
bul i n 1776was about 243,000 out of a total popul ati on of
about 870,000.)
Four basic factors were responsi bl e for the happy stateof
the Ottoman budget i n 1776. (1) There was a more or less
reliable non- gover nmental source of payment for hi gh gov-
ernment offi ci al s: most of these deri ved thei r i ncome f r om
vari ous real estate hol di ngs assi gned to them upon thei r
assumpti on of posi ti on, so thesal ar}' requi rements of the
budget wasrel ati vel y smal l ; (2) themi l i tar y expendi ture
was rel ati vel y l ow and was bal anced by equal and constant
revenue; (3) there was al ack of gover nment expendi ture for
heal th, soci al , educati onal , or other servi ces, these bei ng
met ei ther by the vakifs or byrel i gi ous communi ti es of var-
i ous persuasi ons; and, fi nal l y/ (4) the government was free
of forei gn debt. Eventual l y, al l these condi ti ons were to
change. Revenues had al ready begun to di mi ni sh; ti the,
customs, and haraç col l ecti ons decreased as terri tori es were
lost. Sti l l , because of i ts rel ati vel y strong mi l i tar y posi ti on,
unti l the 1820s the Ot t oman gover nment di d not feel
pressed to meet therequi rements of the market economy
wi th i tsunder l yi ng phi l osophy of economi c l i beral i sm.
The questi on of economi c phi l osophy is so i mpor tant to
the under standi ng of the soci o-economi c hi story of the
Ottoman state as tocal l for some el aborati on. The Ottoman
phi l osophy of economi cs and commerce was essenti al l y
stati st. Some Bal kan nati onal i st hi stori ans have l abel ed i t
"f eudal " and di smi ssed i t. A ctual l y, the Ottoman commer-
ci al and economi c phi l osophy, i deal l y speaki ng, rested
upon the mor al concept that al l commerci al acti vi ty, espe-
ci al l y the sale of f ood and househol d goods, shoul d not be
moti vated by the desi re for pr of i t but shoul d serve the wel l -
bei ng of soci ety; consequentl y, theaccumul ati on of the
means for extensi ve pr oducti on i n the hands of i ndi vi dual s,
as wel l as themani pul ati on of capi tal , wasf or bi dden. 6
Davi d Ur quhar t, who i n my esti mati on had the most pene-
trati ng under standi ng of the Ottoman soci o-economi c sys-
tem, stated theMusl i ms' basic objecti on toEuropean eco-
nomi c habi ts:
[They] object toour (European! pri nci pl es of fi nance
and of commerci al l egi sl ati on. Freedom of commerce
and i ndustr y, isnot, i ndeed wi t h them anobject of
5. SeeA Survey oftheTurkish Empire, 2nd ed. (London, 1799), pp.
A\ -i7. Itmust beremembered that the budget came after the war
wi th Russia was concluded i n 1774.
6. The best source for a statement of this economic phi l osophy is
a declaration i n the Moniteur ottoman of September 1832.
i ndependent i nqui r y; i t is aconsequence whi ch f l ows
f r om, and whi ch never can beseparated f r om di rect
taxati on. I donot mean f reedom of commerce but that
freedom whi ch faci l i tates the exchange of commodi ti es
wi th the vi ew of enhanci ng the val ue of l and and
pr oper ty. . . . These pri nci pl es have been preserved bv
practi ce, not sol i ci tude, but bythe absol uteness of
eastern gover nment, whi ch have al ways been too strong
to requi re todi sgui se thei r i mposts; and therefore the
evi l s of i ndi rect taxati on, f l uctuati ons, gl uts,
over-tradi ng, bankruptci es, fi cti ti ous weal th,
unwhol esome i ndustr y, excessive pri ces of the
necessaries of l i fe, pauperi sm, abl ood-stai ned code for
the puni shment of fi cti ti ous cri mes, whi ch never exi sted
i n Turkey, arearguments whi ch aMussul man is onl y
made acquai nted wi t h by vi si ti ng Eur ope/
The practi cal consequence of thi s tradi ti onal economi c
phi l osophy was evi dent i n theOttoman i nabi l i ty tothwar t
the chal l enge of a power f ul Europe; Ottoman commerci al
competi ti on was checked, credi t was not avai l abl e, and
trade stagnated. TheTur ki sh merchants di d not want to
specul ate bysel l i ng expensi ve arti cl es or rare commodi ti es
abroad but merel y wanted,to trade wi t h anyone who sol d
useful arti cl es. Money was not accumul ated and i nvested
as capi tal but was used for meeti ng thedai l y needs of the
merchant and hi s trade. Busi ness was transacted in..a man-
ner remi ni scent of barter.s Moreover, Ottoman merchants
di d not f or m extensi ve rel ati onshi ps wi t h each other; Euro-
pean merchants establ i shed associ ati ons whi ch rami f i ed
i nto every major fi el d of acti vi ty and i mbued them wi t h a
pragmati c, mercanti l i st spi ri t. On theother hand, as trade
i n the Ottoman state was geared toservi ng thei mmedi ate
needs of thepopul ati on rather than to thereal i zati on of
l ong-range fi nanci al goal s, everyone coul d engage i n i t.
I stanbul was a bazaar f r om oneend to theother, not be-
cause of l ack of government control but because of tr adi ng
habi ts and tradi ti ons.
I ndeed, bythe begi nni ng of the ni neteenth century, the
capi tal wasal ready f ul l of al l ki nds of peopl e engaged i n
some sort of peddl i ng. Thr oughout thefi rst three quarters
of the ei ghteenth century there had been aconstant i nf l ux
of country peopl e i nto I stanbul , i npart due tothe prevai l -
i ng i nsecuri ty i n therural areas and i npart because of the
begi nni ng of the devel opment of a "servi ce" sector i n the
Ottoman economy—the resul t of the sl ow trend towards a
capi tal i st system. The i nf l ux sl owed d own towards the end
of thecentury as Ottoman crafts pr oducti on and, hence,
the need for manpower began todecrease under the press-
ure of western competi ti on and as thegover nment i nsti -
tuted r i gor ous popul ati on control s: the search for un-
wanted newcomers i n I stanbul , under taken every three
years ar ound 1750, wasmade even more thor ough and,
towards the end of the century, control measures were car-
ri ed out every sixmonths. (Provi nci al governors also were
ordered toprohi bi t emi grati on f r om thei r provi nces by set-
7. Turkey anditsResources. ItsMunicipal Organization andFree
Trade(London, 1833). pp. 16-17.
8. Eton, Surivy, pp. 246-48.
T H E P OP U L A T I ON A N D T H E SOC I A L A N D E C O N O M I C T RA N SF ORM A T I ON OF I ST A N BU L
90
ti ng up roadbl ocks on the mai n hi ghways to the capi tal and
tur ni ng back those i ndi vi dual s wi thout val i d reasons for
goi ng to the ci ty. ) 9 Neverthel ess, the ci ty was on the path
to drasti c change, and such government control measures
coul d not hal t the process.
Istanbul Duri ng the Rul e of Mahmud I I (1808-1839)
The rul e of M ahmud I I , "the Ref ormer," began i n 1808 at
a ti me when the empi re was feel i ng the steady pressure of
the new economi c and soci al forces. M ahmud had been
brought to the throne by the ayan of Rusçuk, A l emdar Mus-
tafa Paşa, who became the sul tan's vi zi er and, as such, i n
1808 negoti ated and si gned wi t h the ayans the concessi on
known as the Sened-i ittifak gr anti ng them consi derabl e
autonomy i n thei r vast domai ns i n the Bal kans and A nato-
l i a. The ayans had effecti vel y chal l enged the author i ty of the
sul tan and l i mi ted i t, al though onl y temporari l y. Schol ars
who have studi ed the ayans tend to i gnore the essenti al fact
that the pr oducti on and exchange of commodi ti es i n the
terri tori es they control l ed f ol l owed l argel y the pri nci pl es of
the market economy, and many of these areas became
rather prosperous because, of thi s. These provi nces con-
ti nued to practi ce rel ati vel y free trade even after M ahmud
confi scated the l ands of the ayans, (havi ng subdued them
over the peri od f r om 1812 to 1820). He had deal t merel y
wi t h the effects, not the causes, of the pr obl em.
I n a di f f erent study I have stressed the fact that the clas-
sical Ottoman state stood on a soci o-economi c f oundati on
composed of f our soci al gr oups—the mi l i tar y, the schol ars,
the merchants, and the f ood producers, or peasants—and
on an ethno-rel i gi ous communal system consi sti ng of the
millets and the l ocal communi ti es. 1 0 The ri se of the ayans
and of vari ous agrari an, commerci al , and craftsman groups
and subgroups si gnal ed the f i nal br eakdown of the soci al
or gani zati on that had endur ed si nce the l egi sl ati on of
Mehmed I I (1451-1481). By the ni neteenth century the four
tradi ti onal soci al classes (erkani erbaa) had, i n fact, al ready
di si ntegrated or transf ormed themsel ves i nto a vari ety of
new soci al groups. H owever , at the begi nni ng of the cen-
tur y the millet system sti l l outwar dl y mai ntai ned i ts classical
shape, chi efl y because i ts sustai ni ng basi s, the communal -
rel i gi ous or gani zati on, had r emai ned mor e or less un-
changed.
The Greek, A r meni an, and, to a lesser degree, J ewi sh
millets had devel oped a class structure of thei r own. Thei r
upper strata, composed of the hi gh cl ergy, the merchant
elites resi di ng i n I stanbul and the other commerci al centers,
and the l anded gentry i n the countrysi de, showed a pr o-
f ound al l egi ance to the sul tan and the system he repre-
9. See M. Münir Aktepe, "XVI I I Asi ri n I l k Yarisinda I stanbulun
Nüfus Meselelerine Dair Bazı Vesikalar," istanbul Üniversitesi Ede-
biyat Fakültesi Dergisi 9, no. 13 (1958): 1-30.
10. See An Inquiry into the Social Foundations of Nationalism in the
Ottoman State: FromMillets to Nations, from Estates to Social Classes,
Center of I nternati onal Studies, Research Monograph no. 39
(Princeton, 1973).
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830—1914
sented. Peopl e of the l ower strata i n these millets—the new-
merchants and the craftsmen—accepted the pri nci pl es of
the European economi c system (i .e., i ts capi tal i st phi l oso-
phy) and conf ormed to some extent to i ts busi ness prac-
tices. The Serbi an and Greek merchants were the fi rst to
embrace thi s new capi tal i st phi l osophy, and thei r sym-
pathi es l ay def i ni tel y wi t h western Europe. The confl i ct
between the l ower echel on merchant-craftsmen groups and
thei r l eaders, who were part of the Ottoman bureaucrati c
system, came out i nto the open i n a rather twi sted way
begi nni ng i n 1821 and eventual l y cul mi nated, between I 860
and 1870, i n the drasti c r ef or m of the millet system. I stanbul
was the battl e arena i n whi ch the tradi ti onal millet met its
end.
The effect of the soci al changes i n the Ottoman state, i n
whi ch demographi c changes pl ayed a vi tal rol e, was deepl y
fel t i n I stanbul . The J anizary-u/ ema revol t that ended Selim
I l l 's rul e i n 1807, the counterattack by A l emdar Mustafa
Paşa that br ought M ahmud I I to the Ottoman throne i n
1808, and, f i nal l y, the upr i si ng that resul ted i n A l emdar's
death heral ded si gni fi cant soci al stri fe. A ppar entl y the l ow-
er classes i n I stanbul had pl ayed a part i n these events.
Therefore, i n 1808, soon after A l emdar 's demi se, the gov-
ernment cl osed and destroyed the bachel ors' i nns (bekar-
odalari). These i nns, f ound i n each maj or Ottoman center,
had become shel ters for new mi grants i n the ci ty, meni al
workers, petty entrepreneurs, and a vari ety of other mar-
gi nal , l ow-i ncome gr oups. They were al so centers of social
unrest and protest agai nst the establ i shed order.
Between 1807 and 1817 I stanbul experi enced massi ve
destructi on, the consequence of both soci al unrest and
acci dental fi res. The destructi on was f ol l owed by a con-
structi on boom that attracted wor ker s to the ci ty. The mai n
bui l di ng at the Por te—that i s, the offi ce of the grand
vi zi er—destroyed i n 1808, began to be rebui l t i n February of
1810. Constructi on or reconstructi on of many other pri vate
and publ i c bui l di ngs also was started dur i ng thi s peri od,
especi al l y r i ght after the occurrence of a series of fires
(al together seventy-three) that destroyed a good part of the
ci ty. (By 1845 the gover nment was offi ci al l y encouragi ng
the use of bri cks i n the constructi on of houses to make them
more resi stant to fi re.) One of the effects of the increase i n
the bui l di ng acti vi ty was confl i ct among bui l di ng entre-
preneurs. A gr oup of establ i shed bui l ders tri ed to monopo-
l i ze the constructi on wor k and the sale of materi al s so as to
secure exorbi tant prof i ts; and some i nf l uenti al vi l l agers and
some workers cl ai mi ng to be J ani zari es apparentl y forced
prospecti ve bui l ders to engage as l aborers men suppl i ed by
them at twi ce the pr evai l i ng wage, these mi ddl emen then
retai ni ng hal f of the wages earned by workers. Wages went
up so much that the gover nment f ound i t necessary to fi x
the scal e."
The changes i n the l i fe of I stanbul that began to be fel t at
the begi nni ng of the century gai ned momentum after the
11. See Islam Ansiklopedisi,, s.v. "I stanbul "; for the document
showi ng the wages, see Refik, Hicri On Altinci Asirda Istanbul
Hayati, pp. 21-25.
Greek revol t of 1821. The Greek cl ergy had al ways pl ayed
an i mpor tant rol e i n mai ntai ni ng the l oyal ty of the Or tho-
dox Chri sti ans to the sul tan. Thi s servi ce was recogni zed
and r ewar ded. (For exampl e, when the Serbi an patri arch
and hi s f ol l owers moved to H ungar y i n 1600, a Greek, K al i -
ni k, was br ought i n to head the Serbi an chur ch. Thi s
church was eventual l y abol i shed i n 1767, at the suggesti on
of the phanari ot rul ers of Wal l achi a and Mol davi a.) There-
fore, when between 1790 and 1795 the i deas of the French
Revol uti on seemed to become attracti ve to some Chri sti an
el ements, the Patri arch A nthi mos of J erusal em countered
by i ssui ng hi s Paternal Teaching (1798), i n whi ch the sul tan
was descri bed as a gi ft sent by God for the good of the
Orthodox Chri sti ans.
I t woul d be total l y wr ong to assume that the Greeks'
atti tude stemmed f r om mere oppor tuni sm or sheer sub-
servi ence to the Porte. I t came rather f r om the fact that the
Greek millet, thr ough i ts representati ve the patri arch, had a
basi c consti tuti onal pl ace i n the Ottoman system. The
Greek revol t of 1821, especi al l y the acti on of Y psi l anti , who
was supported by the Russi ans, was consi dered i n I stanbul
an act of utmost betrayal on the part of the patri arch and
was a deadl y bl ow to the enti re millet system and to the
tr adi ti onal bal ance establ i shed among r el i gi ous- ethni c
groups. The Or thodox patri archate i n I stanbul began to
lose its power —ar r i vi ng f i nal l y at the i nsi gni fi cant posi ti on
i t hol ds today; for the revol t had separated the rel i gi ous
head f r om i ts body: i t had cut the Patri archate off f r om
Or thodox Chri sti ans i n Greece and el sewhere, al l owi ng
each gr oup to f ol l ow i ts own pol i ti cal desti ny. Fi nal l y, i t put
an effecti ve end to the pri vi l eged posi ti on whi ch the Greeks
had enjoyed. (Later, especi al l y after 1856, the Greeks, wi t h
the support of the Bri ti sh, acqui red a l eadi ng posi ti on i n the
trade of I stanbul .)
The soci o-pol i ti cal repercussi ons of the Greek revol t were
deepl y fel t i n I stanbul . The patri arch, al though personal l y
i nnocent of rebel l i ous deeds, was hanged because, as head
of the communi ty, he was hel d responsi bl e for the acts of
hi s flock. The chi ef dr agoman (i nterpreter), Constanti ne
Mor uzzi , who had i ntenti onal l y omi tted one i ncr i mi nati ng
paragraph whi l e transl ati ng a secret l etter, was di smi ssed
f r om hi s posi ti on (as was hi s successor after onl y a short
peri od of servi ce). The post of dr agoman, reserved for a
Greek si nce the mi d-seventeenth century, was occupi ed
henceforth bv a T ur k . 1 2 Greek sai l ors i n the Ottoman navy
were no l onger trusted; consequentl y, the government, aft-
er an unsuccessful effort to draft boatmen on the Bosporus
i nto the navy, hi r ed Genoese and other i dl e men i n Gal ata
for the navy. Moreover, bei ng f earf ul of a Greek upr i si ngi n
the ci ty, the Musl i ms, especi al l y youngsters k nown as ycrli
kulu, were al l owed to ar m themsel ves; some of these
attacked the Chr i sti ans and cont r i but ed to a ri se i n
robberi es and general di sorder i n the ci ty. (I t was at thi s
12. See Robert Walsh, Residenceat Constantinople during a Period
Including . . . the Greek and Turkish Revolutions, 2 vols. (London,
1S36). 1:308; Walsh was chaplain of the British embassy i n I stanbul
and served there from 1820 unti l 1834.
91
ti me that the sale of arms became a very l ucrati ve busi ness
i n I stanbul , r emai ni ng so even after the pr ohi bi ti on agai nst
beari ng arms was rei nstated i n 1839.) A l arge number of
Greeks f r om the provi nces, who had come to I stanbul to
i ncrease thei r capi tal by sel l i ng groceri es, oi l s, and butter,
were forci bl y sent back to thei r nati ve areas. Moreover, as a
precauti on agai nst spi es, check poi nts were establ i shed at
vari ous pl aces, such as K üçükçekmece and Bostanci , to
keep track of the passes (mürur tezkiresi) carri ed by the
i ncomi ng travel ers. I n addi ti on, the M usl i m character of
I stanbul began to be' str ongl y emphasi zed thr ough the
repai r of the mosques and other hol y pl aces. I n 1824 the
fortress at A ndol uhi sar began to fi re f r om seven of i ts
towers the guns announci ng the end of the fasti ng day
d u r i ng Ramadan; i n the past onl y the f or tr ess at
Rumel i hi sar had f i red i ts guns. Thus, f or al l practi cal
purposes the l ong peace between the vari ous rel i gi ous and
ethni c groups i n I stanbul was ended, al though for a l ong
ti me to come the force of custom prevented any vi ol ent
sectari an stri fe. I t is i nteresti ng to note that the decl i ne of
the Greeks after 1821 hel ped other ethni c groups to rise to
power . The A r meni ans became i ncreasi ngl y i nvol ved i n
admi ni strati on, whi l e the Bul gari an merchant communi ty
i n I stanbul gai ned i n numbers thr ough the arrivals" f r om the
countrysi de and acqui red weal th and i nfl uence.
The Rise of a New Social Cl ass: The Bureaucracy
Many countri es have been transf ormed as a consequence
of changi ng soci al and economi c rel ati ons. I n Tur key, the
social restructuri ng of the M usl i m soci ety began at the top
and was i ni ti ated by the gover nment. The pl ace wher e thi s
process started and showed i ts greatest effect was I stanbul .
The change began wi t h the gradual repl acement of the ol d
bureaucrati c order by a new and moder n one.
The abol i ti on of the J ani zari es by Sul tan Mahr hud I I i n
1826 depr i ved I stanbul of one of i ts most col orf ul , and also
most troubl esome, soci al gr oups. I n practi cal .terms, i t
meant that a l arge number of peopl e l ost the soci al status,
the rank, and the possi bi l i ty for concerted acti on that had
been pr ovi ded bv thi s quasi -mi l i tary organi zati on. Those
J ani zari es who were not executed eventual l y became smal l
entrepreneurs and servants, some i n I stanbul but many i n
smal l towns, where they fel t safer than i n the capi tal . Some
became or di nar y l aborers, seeki ng empl oyment i n the ports
or i dl i ng i n the coffee houses of Gal ata. The el i mi nati on of
the J ani zari es freed the sul tan f r om the mor bi d fear that
they mi ght depose or assassinate hi m and thus enabl ed hi m
to proceed wi t h the reorgani zati on of hi s ar my and the
bureaucracy.
A l so i n 1826 the Bektaşi rel i gi ous orders (Haci Bektaş was
the J ani zari es' patron) were fused wi t h the Nakşi bendi
orders, thus gi vi ng the l atter f urther power , and the Bektaşi
l eaders were exi l ed to A natol i a. A t the same ti me the
Freemasons' l odge was abol i shed and i ts l eaders forced to
l eave the ci t v. (The f i rst M asoni c l odge had been
establ i shed i n I stanbul i n about 1820 bv I smai l Ferruh
92
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
Etendi , who had served asOttoman ambassador i n Europe.
The l odge wasrestri cted to a smal l number of peopl e and
hel d secret meeti ngs.)
The sul tan also abol i shed thefi reman uni ts (tulumbaci),
another of the l andmar k organi zati ons of I stanbul ; but soon
afterwards, when a fi re caused extensi ve damage i n the
ci ty, heestabl i shed a[new vol untar y f i reman corps.
As the rate of transf ormati on i nI stanbul accel erated, the
gover nment under took a popul ati on survey of al l mal e
i nhabi tants of the ci ty pr oper , Üsküdar , and Gal ata.
(Cathol i cs, however, were not counted.) A ccor di ng to thi s
obvi ousl y i ncompl ete survey, whi ch probabl y i ncl uded
onl y f ami l y heads, the M usl i ms number ed 45,000; the
A rmeni ans, 30,000; and theGreeks, 20,000. Dur i ng thi s
ti me an i mpor t ant admi ni st r at i v e i nnov at i on was
i ntr oduced: the M usl i m quarters (mahalle) wer e to be
admi ni stered henceforth by a headman (muhtar) and hi s
deputy, and theChri sti an quarters by a superi ntendent
(kahya) and a muhtar. Each quarter bad i ts own imam or
pri est. These admi ni strati ve offi ci al s were gi ven aseal wi t h
whi ch tostamp offi ci al papers and were made responsi bl e
for mai ntai ni ng order i n thei r respecti ve quarters. Thelast
vesti ges of the timars were el i mi nated i n 1831.
I n abol i shi ng al l thetradi ti onal i nsti tuti ons M ahmud I I
depri ved the throne of i ts basic support: these i nsti tuti ons,
together wi t h themillet organi zati ons of the non- Musl i ms,
had i nsul ated thesul tan f r om contact wi th the popul ati on
and protected hi m agai nst di rect chal l enge. Fr om 1826
onwar ds, theref ore, the sul tan began to seek popul ar
support. I nfact, the search for backi ng for hi s f i ght agai nst
i nternal enemi es, especi al l y agai nst the sur vi vi ng ayans and
ol d mi l i tary chi efs, became acardi nal feature of Mahmud' s
pol i cy after 1829.
The consequences of thi s new pol i cy were soon evi dent
i n I stanbul . M ahmud had begun hi srei gn as a feroci ous
despot, but hemel l owed r api dl y. H edecl ared that ' f r om
now onwar ds the throne shal l not f ri ghten the peopl e any-
more but wi l l become thei r suppor ter ." 1 3 He began to
travel thr oughout the ci ty and evert the countrysi de. (Later,
dur i ng therei gns of A bdul meci d [1839-1861], A bdul azi z
[1861-1876], and A bdul hami d I I [1876-1909], thei mperi al
fayton became a common si ght on thestreets of I stanbul .)
M ahmud I I al l owed many of the Greeks who had fled the
ci ty i n 1821to r etur n to thei r homes and to repai r thei r
churches, and even offered them protecti on. Moreover, he
abol i shed theol d practi ce of sendi ng f orei gn ambassadors
to jai l i n case of war wi t h thei r respecti ve countri es. He also
ended thecustom of expecti ng each new ambassador to
offer gi fts when fi rst presented tothe Porte; thi s was done,
apparentl y at thesuggesti on of theBri ti sh ambassador,
"wi t hout objecti on, and thepr of i t as wel l as the assump-
ti on of superi ori ty were forever abandoned." 1 4
The sul tan, i n fact, went even f urther i n hi squest for
popul ari ty. He had hi s portrai t pai nted and asked to have i t
hung onoffi ce wal l s—an act that scandal i zed therel i gi ous
13. E. Englehard, LaTurqule et leTanzimat 1(Paris, 1882): 17.
14. Walsh, Residenceat Constantinople 2:297.
conservati ves. Heordered thepr i nti ng of books on anat-
omy, and, after hi s own son di ed of smal l pox, hehad al l of
his other chi l dren vacci nated by a French doctor and took
effecti ve measures agai nst thepl ague and chol era. Even-
tual l y quaranti ne bui l di ngs wer e establ i shed i n I stanbul
and other ports. Thesul tan's preoccupati on wi th publ i c
wel fare and hi s f r i endl y pol i ci es towar d Chri sti ans made
some cl ergymen, al ways eager topr omote thei r fai th, thi nk
that hemi ght convert to Chr i sti ani ty. 1 5 H owever , hi s forced
reforms di d not real l y endear M ahmud I I to ei ther Musl i ms
or Chri sti ans; towards theend of hi sl i fe hebecame very
unpopul ar, and thecountr y appeared to be mi l i tari l y and
economi cal l y weaker than i t had been at thebegi nni ng of
hi s rei gn i n 1808.
The expl anati on f or the ul t i mat e unpopul ar i t y of
M ahmud I I issi mpl e: hehad created al arge ci vi l bureaucra-
cy and a new ar my wi thout i nsti tuti ng adequate control s
over them and, especi al l y, wi t hout establ i shi ng the basis of
a new economi c order to pr ovi de adequate fi nanci al sup-
port for hi s new organi zati ons. Thebureaucracy, whi ch
was composed i ni ti al l y al most enti rel y of Musl i ms, became
a domi nant class of efendis whom nobody coul d cri ti ci ze or
questi on. They became al so the soci al symbol s of the socie-
ty's new i deal —namel y, moder ni zati on. I n theend thi s
gr oup assumed control of the gover nment, domi nati ng and
ousti ng sul tans and, f i nal l y, abol i shi ng the sul tanate.
The need for a professi onal bureaucracy was obvi ous.
The broadeni ng economi c and commerci al rel ati ons wi th
Europe aswel l as anumber of new i nternal probl ems cal l ed
for thecreati on of speci al i zed techni cal cadres. The vakifs
that had i n the past pr ovi ded soci al , educati onal , and
heal th servi ces were i nadequate to meet new needs. Conse-
quentl y, thegover nment wasforced to assume respons-
i bi l i ti es i n every fi el d of acti vi ty and toundertake todel i ver
a vari ety of techni cal servi ces to thepubl i c. Thi s requi red
the establ i shment of a bureaucracy substanti al l y di fferent
f r om thetradi ti onal Ottoman one.
The rise of anew bureaucrati c order became evi dent fi rst
i n I stanbul , where most of the offi ces were l ocated. Shortl y
after the di smi ssal of M or uz z i i n 1821, Y ahya Ef endi ,
k nown also as Bul garzade, wasappoi nted to thepost of
dr agoman to serve asboth transl ator and l anguage teacher.
He began tr ai ni ng peopl e i n theForei gn Offi ce and i n an
i nsti tuti on whi ch came to be k nown as theChamber of
Transl ati on (Tercüme Odnsi). By 1841thi s tr ai ni ng school
had a staff of thi r ty. I n thepast most Ottoman statesmen
had ri sen f r om theranks of themi l i tar y admi ni strati on;
however, begi nni ng i n the 1830s they cl i mbed topower vi a
the Chamber of Transl ati on or theForei gn Offi ce. The
famous ref ormi st pr i me mi ni sters of theni neteenth cen-
tur y, such asReşi t, A l i , Fuat, and Mi that paşas, were pr od-
15. I bi d., p. 294. After 1834 the sultan permi tted the saleof pigs
in I stanbul; i nthe past, they coul d besold on onl y one day each
year i n places unseen by Musl i ms.
16. SeeC. V.Findley, "The Foundation of the Ottoman Foreign
Mi ni str y," International journal of Middle East Studies 3 (1972):
338-416.
THE P OP U L A T I ON A N D T H E SOCI A L A N D E C ON OM I C T RA N SF ORM A T I ON OF I ST A N BU L
93
u C t s of these i nsti tuti ons.1 6 Yet, i tmust bestated that Euro-
pean l anguages, notabl y French, had been taught at some
Mi l i tary Ottoman i nsti tuti ons even before the establ i sh¬
m ent of theTransl ati on Bureau. Thesi gni fi cance of that
i nsti tuti on l ay i n thefact that i t symbol i zed the ori entati on
0 f theOttoman state towards Europe, theadopti on of a
nevv mental i ty, and theascendancy of a moder n ci vi l i an
bureaucracy.
Dur i ng thi s per i od therol e of the grand vi zi er was for a
short ti me transf ormed i nto that of apr i me mi ni ster (Başve-
kil), whi l e theReisülküttab became a forei gn mi ni ster, and
two newl y created counci l s, theDar-i Şura-i Bab-i AH and
the Meclis-i Vala-i Adliye, took over theconsul tati ve and
judi ci ary f uncti ons per f or med i n thepast by the gr and
vi zi er. Thehi gh echel ons of thetradi ti onal bureaucracy
were abol i shed, and theol d system of annual renewal of
appoi ntments was repl aced by a system under whi ch
appoi ntments and di smi ssal s conf or med wi t h the need for
personnel . Thus, by 1835 theOttoman bureaucracy had
changed so drasti cal l y as to make total l y obsol ete J oseph
Frei herr von Hammer-Purgstal l 's 1815study of theOtto-
man admi ni strati on (H ammer hi msel f acknowl edged the
rapi d change i n theOttoman bureaucracy). A r ound 1850
the Ottoman central gover nment—that i s, the divan, or pr i -
vate counci l , actual l y the moder n cabi net—consi sted of the
f ol l owi ng offi ci al s:
1. Gr and Vi zi er (presi di ng)
2. Şeyhülislam
3. Serasker (mi ni ster of war)
4. Kaptanpaşa (mi ni ster of navy)
5. Presi dent of theCounci l of State
6. Master of A r ti l l er y (also governor of al l fortresses)
7. Mi ni ster of Forei gn A f f ai rs (formerl y Reis efendi)
8. Mi ni ster of Fi nance
9. Mi ni ster of Trade and Publ i c Wor ks (1838)
10. Superi ntendent of the Treasury (mi nt chi ef)
11. Superi ntendent of the Vakifs
12. Müsteşar, or Counsel or of the Vi zi er (also Mi ni ster
of the I nteri or)
13. Mi ni ster of Pol i ce (f ormerl y the Kahyabey)
The new bureaucracy was eventual l y organi zed i nto an
upper and a l ower secti on. Theupper secti on consi sted of
fi ve major ranks, whi ch corresponded to a mi l i tary hi erar-
chy as f ol l ows: general of a di vi si on; bri gadi er general and
col onel ; l i eutenant col onel ; major, or battal i on head; and
captai n. The müşir (fi el d marshal ) was above rank. The
functi onari es who attai ned thefi rst two ranks were cal l ed
paşa, aterm har dl y used i n the previ ous centuri es. Needl ess
to sav, the paşa was aman of weal th, power, and presti ge;
he had achi eved thehi ghest r ung on thel adder of soci al
aspi rati on cl i mbed by theupcomi ng bureaucrats.
The salaries of these upper r anki ng offi ci al s were very
hi gh. M ahmud I I pl anned topay a top offi ci al as much as
100,000 kuruş per month. I nabout 1850a chi ef of servi ce
recei ved 1,000to 1,200francs salary, per month, whi l e a
si mpl e f uncti onary recei ved onl y ar ound 25 to 30 francs.
The same di fferences i n salaries prevai l ed among army per-
sonnel . (The confl i ct between the hi gh- r anki ng bureaucracy
affi l i ated wi t h thesul tan and thel ow- pai d, rank-and-f i l e
bureaucrats comi ng f r om modest soci al strata becamethe
catal yst of pol i ti cal change at theend of thecentury.) The
budget for 1855, as gi ven byUbi ci ni , shows that a substan-
ti al part of the state revenue went topay the offi ci al s of the
"moder n" bureaucracy; seeTabl e 5.2(and compare i t wi t h
Tabl e 5.1).1 7
Tabl e 5.2. Bu dget of 1855
Income (in francs) Expenditures in francs)
Haraç 9,200,000 Thesultan 17,250.000
Customs 19,760,000 Employees 44,850,900
Tithe 50,600.000 Army 69.000,000
Indirect taxes 34,000,000 Other (includes the
Real estate 46,000,000 difference) 28,152,000
Tributeof Egypt 6,900,000
Total 159,252,900
Tributeof Wallachia 460,000
159,252,900
Tributeof Moldavia 230,000
Tribute of Serbia 460,000
Total 167,610,000
Source: A. Ubicini, LaTurquieactuelle(Paris, 1855), p. 191.
The need tomeet the expenses of the new admi ni strati on
forced the sul tan toraise the taxes. Moreover, the pri ces of
stapl e i tems sol d by thestate monopol i es were i ncreased,
al though drasti c pl ans tomake more extensi ve useof state
monopol i es were l argel y abandoned f or fear of popul ar
reacti on. The i dea of abol i shi ng the 10percent tax col l ected
by therel i gi ous heads f r om theexchange or sale of pr op-
erti es and f r om cases settl ed before rel i gi ous tri bunal s was
also abandoned.
The bur geoni ng of the moder n bureaucracy made a
strong economi c and social i mpressi on onthe l i fe of I stan-
bul . The hi gh- r anki ng bureaucrats recei ved regul ar salaries
f r om thestate budget, i nstead of l i vi ng off therevenues
f r om l and ashad been the case i nthe past, and they spent
most of these salaries i n the capi tal , assumi ng the status of
a major consumi ng gr oup and payi ng cash for purchases.
The buyi ng power of the bureaucrats affected seri ousl y the
three basic sectors of theci ty's economy: f ood, cl othi ng,
and housi ng (both rental rates and pr oper ty val ues). The
effect of the l arge amount of tax revenues bei ng channel ed
f r om theprovi nces and spent as cash i n I stanbul was
refl ected i n thei ncrease of theci ty's popul ati on, i n the
prol i ferati on of f ood and cl othi ng shops of al l vari eti es, and
i n thedevel opment of what may becal l ed servi ce groups.
Hencef orth I stanbul 's economi c gr owth was based chi efl y
on trade and servi ce-rel ated acti vi ti es rather than on crafts
and pr oduct i on. M any of these servi ce occupati ons,
al though of f eri ng some empl oyment opportuni ti es, con-
tri buted l i ttl e or nothi ng to the basic economi c devel opment
of the country.
Factori es establ i shed i n I stanbul i n thefi rst hal f of the
ni neteenth centurv served chi efl y mi l i tar y needs, as the
shores of the Gol den H or n and Gal ata became dotted wi th
17. LaTurquie actuelle(Paris, 1855), p. 191.
94
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 19U
mi l i tary establ i shments, some of whi ch were verv moder n.
Wal sh wr ote i n the 1830s that the arsenal extended
f r om Gal ata al ong the harbour, for a mi l e and a hal f,
havi ng a gr and range of stores and workhouses . .
there are [ wor ki ng there] fi ve hundr ed l abourers wi t h as
many sl aves, who have been condemned for vari ous
cri mes, who are chai ned together. . . . I vi si ted the
arsenal and the dock yards at Fi eri [Pi ri ] Pasha, the
cannon- f oundr y and the depot at Tophane, and I thi nk
them more extensi ve, and apparentl y as wel l - suppl i ed
and conducted, as those at Portsmouth or Wool wi ch;
nor are they to be exceeded, 1suppose, bv anv country
i n Europe.
However , some other smal l i ndustri es had begun to be
devel oped. Sel i m Hi had establ i shed i n Üsküdar a l arge
factory for pr i nted cottons that i n 1812 operated 600 l ooms
(but onl y 41 l ooms i n 1841). Thi s factory empl oyed several
hundr ed workers ( whom Wal sh consi dered to be as expert
as the wor kmen of Manchester). A, pr i nti ng press, whi ch
occupi ed a si zabl e bui l di ng, .was l ocated i n Üsküdar al so.
Mustafa, a man of humbl e ori gi ns who became a favori te of
Sul tan M ahmud I I , establ i shed a tanni ng pl ant, wi t h advi ce
and tool s f r om abroad, at Bal tal i man. By 1827 a cotton
thread (iplikhane) pl ant was'constructed at Taşl i burun i n the
di stri ct of Eyub; mul es were used to operate i t, and i t pro-
duced 22 okka of thread dai l y. These begi nni ngs of i ndus-
tri al i zati on i n I stanbul di d not go far because of l ack of a
class of entrepreneurs, of capi tal , and, especi al l y, of tech-
ni cal l y trai ned personnel —the resul t of the restri cti ve phi -
l osophy of soci al el i ti sm.
The bureaucracy trai ned i n "moder n" school s gradual l y
devel oped an i nterest not i n the basic probl ems of i ts own
country but i n the wares and the cul ture of Europe, so the
rel ati vel y hi gh cul tural l evel of the bureaucracy mani fested
i tsel f i n the ref i nement of habi ts of consumpti on. The hi gh-
er the, i ncome and educati on, the stronger the desi re for
European goods. I stanbul became i ncreasi ngl y the reci pi ent
of a great vari ety of European i mpor ts, and i t adopted Euro-
pean-styl e shops and amusement habi ts. The ci ty was
rapi dl y changi ng i nto a new ki nd of consumpti on center.
The Ottoman popul ati on as a whol e fel t the i mpact of
these soci o-economi c changes i n I stanbul deepl y. Tr adi ng
opportuni ti es attracted l arge numbers of Turks, Greeks,
A r meni ans, Bul gari ans, and others f r om f ar-away pro-
vi nces who moved to I stanbul i n search of fortunes. Many
of these took up occupati ons as f ood sel l ers or di stri butors,
and many of these petty vendors f r om the provi nces be-
came ri ch and were abl e to establ i sh successful busi nesses.
Meanwhi l e, the markets of I stanbul had begun to change.
I n the past, these had been admi ni stered or control l ed by
sııbaşi, head of gui l ds, and ulema. Because the markets were
gr owi ng too fast to be admi ni stered by tradi ti onal means,
the gover nment took over thei r supervi si on, i ncl udi ng the
control of wei ghts and measures—a job heretofore per-
f or med by the ulema. I n 1831, the ol d offi ce of the şehremini,
18. Residenceat Constantinople 1:379.
whi ch had been i n exi stence since the conquest of the ci tv
i n 1453, was abol i shed.
I n the mi d- ni neteenth centur y caravans sti l l came to
I stanbul , br i ngi ng f r om A natol i a, Syri a, I raq, and bevond
goods of al l vari eti es and depar ti ng wi t h merchandi se for
sale i nl and on the route back.' Other merchants l oaded
goods, often of European or i gi n, on smal l boats, carri ed
them to the iikele, that i s, the smal l ports al ong the coasts of
the Mar mar a, Medi ter r anean, and Bl ack seas, and then
transported them overl and to thei r desti nati ons. I stanbul ,
however, consumed much more than i t exported; I zmi r!
Sal oni ca, and Beyrut gradual l y acqui red l eadi ng rol es as
exporti ng and exchange pl aces.
The economi c l i fe of I stanbul dur i ng the earl y vears of the
ni neteenth century revol ved mostl y ar ound the bazaar, or
bezistan. A s the century advanced, i t spi l l ed out of the
bazaar onto the si de streets, to the trade centers of the
mahalle, and to Pera and Gal ata. A r ound the mi ddl e of the
century the central bazaar of I stanbul had over a thousand
shops. The Tur ki sh merchants speci al i zed i n the sale of
hi des, furs, cl othi ng, books, perf umes, and engravi ngs; the
Greeks sol d cotton goods and wor ked as tai l ors and l eather
workers; the A r meni ans deal t i n j ewel r y, watches, and
embroi deri es; and J ews were engaged i n a vari ety of other
occupati ons. Many of the craftsmen wer e organi zed i n cor-
porati ons. The busi ness atti tudes of the bazaar merchants
vari ed greatl y. A s Ubi ci ni descri bes i t, the Tur ki sh mer-
chant woul d ask a set pri ce:
you woul d i nsi st i n vai n [but] he woul d not l ower the
pri ce even one para. I t is qui te di f f erent wi t h the
Chri sti an or J ewi sh merchants i n the bazaar. They come
down successi vel y f r om one hundr ed pi asters to si xty,
to f orty or even bel ow. The general rul e is thi s: of f er'to
the A r meni an hal f of the asked pri ce, one- thi rd to a
Greek, and one-quarter to a J ew. But i f you real l y
wanted to buy the merchandi se of the M usl i m resi gn
yoursel f to payi ng the pri ce he asked f i r st. 1 9
There was safety i n the bazaar, whi ch adhered to i ts own
way of mutual trust and confi dence. I n Gal ata and Pera—
the upcomi ng, European-type busi ness di stri cts—theft was
a common occurrence.
Outsi de the bazaar, the exchange of commodi ti es was
l argel y i n the hands of the bekar—single men, or "bache-
l or s," most of whom were not nati ve to the ci ty. The total
number of bekar i n I stanbul i n 1853, accordi ng to Ubi ci ni ,
was about 75,000. Two- f i f ths of these were Tur ks, the rest
Greeks, A r meni ans, and other nati onal i ti es. Most came
f r om the provi nces w i t h the i ntenti on of accumul ati ng
some capi tal and eventual l y r etur ni ng to thei r nati ve places
to start busi nesses. M any had no ski l l s and took any avai l -
abl e jobs. They wor ked as harnais (porters), saka (carri ers of
water i n bi g l eather bags), helvaci (makers and sel l ers of
19. La Turquie actuelle, p. 327. A description of professions may
also be found i n Théophile Gautier, Constantinople (Paris, 1883), pp.
110-12, and lists of professions are given i n Section I V of the statis-
tical appendices.
POPU L A TI ON A N D T H E SOC I A L A N D E C ON OM I C T RA N SF ORM A T I ON OF I ST A N BU L
95
,,| vA î e k c r a (candy makers and sel l ers), ciğerci (sellers of
' "' j l i ver), and i n other si mi l ar occupati ons,
because of i ts nar r ow and steep streets, whi ch were un-
jtable f or wheel ed tr anspor t, I stanbul depended for
f"n s p or tati on (as i t sti l l does i n parts) on the Immals. These
l r a ,r t e r s, number i ng about 5,000, were mostl y Tur ks or
Ceni ' ans. K nown for thei r honesty, the porters were
r R ani zed i n odas, or chambers, under a chi ef (hamalbaşı).
îh
bev stati oned themsel ves r eady f or hi r e i n Gal ata,
Tophane, or at the entrances of the bans— that i s, i n busi -
es pl aces.20 Transportati on across the water depended
largely on kayikçi (boatmen) unti l mi d- centur y, when the
modern ferryboats on the Bosporus began to operate. Many
0f the boatmen were bekar. Boati ng i n I stanbul had a rather
complex organi zati onal structure; i t was, i n fact, an i nsti tu-
tion i n i tsel f. Some boats were operated by i ndi vi dual own-
ers. However, stati oned at vari ous poi nts al ong the shores
there were vessels operated by one to three boatmen, that
Were used for publ i c transportati on. There was also another
tvpe of publ i c transport, the pazar kaik, operated by six to
eight oarsmen (there was a regul ati on concerni ng the num-
ber of oarsmen: the maxi mum was fourteen). These ferri es
were patroni zed by l arge numbers of peopl e of al l ages,
sexes, and r el i gi ons. M usl i ms, . Chr i sti ans, J ews, men,
veiled women, and chi l dren mi xed freel y whi l e travel i ng on
them.
The Turks i n I stanbul had al most excl usi ve control over
an i mportant prof essi on r equi r i ng some l earni ng—the pr o-
fession of l etter wr i t i ng. The l etter wr i ter (katip) coul d be
seen around bazaar or mosque, carryi ng wi t h hi m a smal l
table, a speci al bel t desi ned to hol d an i nk bottl e, a qui l l pen
(kalem), and a smal l kni f e. The katips wrote l etters of al l
ki nds, amul ets, and any other type of message. Some of
them were cal l i graphers who coul d wr i te i n any of the
seven types of handwr i ti ng used by the Ottoman chancery.
There were, i n addi ti on to the professi ons menti oned
above, a great vari ety of other occupati ons whi ch had been
vi tal i n the tradi ti onal system. I n the second hal f of the
ni neteenth century, however, most of these ol d professi ons
either di sappeared compl etel y or had to adjust to new con-
di ti ons and conti nue i n substanti al l y al tered f or m. For ex-
ampl e, the pl ace of the katip was eventual l y taken by the
arzuhalci, a man wi t h a typewr i ter who composed, i n ex-
change for a smal l fee, peti ti ons to vari ous authori ti es. (The
changi ng professi onal pi cture was di scussed i n Chapter 3.)
Both i n numbers and i n ethni c, soci al , and rel i gi ous com-
posi ti on, the enti re popul ati on of I stanbul , i ncl udi ng the
i nhabi tants of the suburbs, under went great change i n the
ni neteenth centur y.2 1 The gr owth of economi c oppor tuni ty,
the i ntr oducti on of transportati on faci l i ti es, and the i n-
crease i n popul ati on had combi ned to sti mul ate the gr owth
of suburban communi ti es al ong the shores of Marmara and
the Bosporus. By the mi ddl e of the century, the popul ati on
of I stanbul l i ved i n 455 t own quarters, of whi ch 318 were
20. Ubicini, Lfl Turquic actuelle, p. 332.
21. See Thornton, Modern Turkey 2:20, and Eton, Survey, pp.
41-45, 272-79.
wi thi n the ci ty i tsel f, whi l e 137 were outsi de the wal l s; the
l atter i ncl uded Kası mpaşa, Hasköy, Gal ata, Pera, Tophane,
Fı ndi kl i , Üsküdar, and Eyüb and i ts dependenci es. Of
these, Gal ata, Pera, Kasi mpaşa, and Tophane were admi n-
i stered by the voyvoda, or the grand j udge, of-Gal ata, whi l e
Eyüb and i ts dependenci es were admi ni stered by another
j udge. Unti l 1854, when a new admi ni strati ve organi zati on
was i nstal l ed, the ci ty proper was offi ci al l y under the au-
thor i ty of the grand vi zi er, the Kaptanpaşa, and the I stanbul
efendisi.
Istanbul in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century
The l i fe of I stanbul i n the second hal f of the ni neteenth
centur y appears to have been domi nat ed by Eur ope
thr ough centers establ i shed i n Gal ata and, especi al l y, Pera
(Beyoğl u). I ndeed, dur i ng thi s peri od Pera became i ncreas-
i ngl y the center of soci al i mportance i n I stanbul , symbol i z-
i ng the ascendancy of Europe over the tradi ti onal Ottoman
cul ture i n al l fi el ds of acti vi ty. Commerci al treati es w i t h
Engl and i n 1838 and 1861, the Cr i mean War i n 1853, the
Treaty of Pari s, and, especi al l y, the Edi ct of 1856 paved the
way for the rise of European i nfl uence i n the Ottoman state
and i ndi rectl y faci l i tated the soci al and economi c ri se of a
non- Musl i m mi ddl e class.
The i ni ti al Ottoman commerci al treaty wi t h Engl and i n
1838 el i mi nated a number of trade restri cti ons. Subsequent-
l y, the manuf actured goods of Engl and pour ed i nto the
Ottoman state, and i n a matter of years the M usl i m Otto-
man mi ddl e class, whi ch had consi sted of craftsmen and
smal l shopkeepers, was wi ped out. A new Greek and
A r meni an mi ddl e class, whose mai n f uncti on was to di s-
tri bute the cheaper, machi ne-made goods of Europe and to
become i n the process Europe's protégés and agents, rose
to power. The Edi ct of 1856 (the İslahat Fermani), whi l e sup-
posedl y establ i shi ng equal i ty between Musl i ms and- non-
Musl i ms, i n fact hel ped the Chri sti ans achi eve economi c
power . Fi nal l y, the commerci al treaty between the Porte
and Great Bri tai n si gned at Kanl i ca (I stanbul ) on 29 A pr i l
1861 gave the Engl i sh even more extensi ve f reedom of trade
and more pri vi l eges wi t hi n the Ottoman domai ns. I stanbul ,
as the major i mpor ti ng port, became the center of the re-
sul ti ng soci o-pol i ti cal transf ormati on.
There were also psychol ogi cal factors that predi sposed
the ci ty to ori ent i tsel f towards Europe. The Cri mean War
had pr ovi ded the occasi on for I stanbul to establ i sh contact
wi th European ci ti zens. The ci ty was host to French and
Engl i sh sol di ers and offi cers, who were recei ved there as
fri ends and al l i es f i ghti ng i n the common war agai nst the
Russi ans. I n addi ti on to the oppor tuni ty for f ri endl y en-
counters at the human l evel , the peopl e of I stanbul had the
chance to become acquai nted at fi rst hand wi t h European
ameni ti es and faci l i ti es i n sani tati on, heal th, and trans-
portati on and, as wel l , wi th a vari ety of di fferent foods and
cl othi ng. The al l i ance wi t h the West thus hel ped remove
some i nhi bi ti ons and di spel the fear felt by Musl i ms to-
wards Europe and i ts cul ture.
96
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
The ori entati on towards Europe and the trend towar d
moderni zati on were assi sted by the i ntr oducti onof a vari e-
ty of moder n i nsti tuti ons. A new educati onal system was
establ i shed and devel oped rapi dl y i n the second hal f of the
ni neteenth century. H owever , unti l wel l i nto the 1870s the
basic f uncti on of the school s remai ned the trai ni ng of per-
sonnel for gover nment servi ce rather than the educati on of
the popul ati on at l arge. Thus, educati on i n the moder n
school , a di pl oma of graduati on, and, perhaps, knowl edge
of a forei gn l anguage became the di sti ngui shi ng marks of
the new domi nant class, the bureaucracy-i ntel l i gentsi a.
A t the begi nni ng of the century, the Musl i ms i n the Otto-
man state di d not have any moder n school s, except for a
few i nsti tuti ons for mi l i tar y trai ni ng. However , by 1860
I stanbul had acqui red a number of professi onal school s.
A mong these, the Medi cal School (tıbbiye). Ci vi l Service
Tr ai ni ng School (mülkiye), Mi l i tar y Engi neeri ng School ,
Naval A cademy, Mi l i tar y Col l ege (harbiye) and the A gr i -
cul tural and Veteri nary school s deserve speci al menti on.
Most of thei r graduates j oi ned the ranks of the bureaucracy.
Dur i ng the 1880s the system was further devel oped so that
there were three l evel s: the pr i mar y l evel (sibyan and riiş-
diye), the secondary l evel (composed of the idadiye, sulta-
niye, the ci vi l and admi ni strati ve school s), and the upper
l evel (uni versi ty and speci al school s of hi gher educati on,
i ncl udi ng the prof essi onal school s). A mong the speci al
school s there was al so the French school , the Galatasaray
Sultanisi, establ i shed i n 1868 at the i nsi stence of the French,
who sought to promote thei r pol i ti cal ambi ti ons i n the Otto-
man state wi t h proper cul tur al and educati onal support.
I ni ti al l y the moder n school s were concentrated i n I stan-
bul or sur r oundi ng areas;" after 1866, and notabl y dur i ng
the rei gn of A bdul hami d I I , the moder n educati onal system
was expanded i nto the provi nces, thus pr ovi di ng a channel
for upwar d mobi l i ty for the country peopl e. Moreover, dur-
i ng the second hal f of the ni neteenth century more forei gn
school s, teachi ng I tal i an, Ger man, and French, were estab-
l i shed, and the exi sti ng ones were expanded. A t the begi n-
ni ng of the twenti eth century a total of 62,336 students i n
the Ottoman state were recorded as l earni ng French i n var-
i ous school s, many of whi ch recei ved fi nanci al hel p f r om
the French gover nment. (Paul Fesch puts the true total of
French-l earni ng pupi l s at a much hi gher fi gure)—at least
70,000: I stanbul al one had 6,668, and Beyrut had 22,695.23
The pi cture of r api dl y changi ng I stanbul cannot be com-
pl eted wi t hout ment i on of the expansi on of the com-
muni cati on and transportati on systems. The fi rst Tur ki sh
newspaper, the Takvim-i Vekai [Cal endar of Events], a sort
of bul l eti n, was publ i shed by the government i n 1831. I t
al so had a French edi ti on, i ssued every Saturday. The
newspaper had a rather unusual feature, whi ch attracted
readers and gave the press a hi gh status: the sul tan often
wrote the l eadi ng arti cl e. I ndeed, the si ght of a newspaper
carryi ng the i deas of the sul tan was an i ntel l ectual revol u-
22. Ubi ci ni , La Turquie actuelle, p. 58.
23. Constantinople aux dormers jours d'Abdul-Humid (Paris, 1907),
p. 449.
ti on i n i tsel f. The i mpact of the publ i cati on is wel l descri bed
by Wal sh:
The publ i cati on of the news of the empi re i n thi s way
soon became of uni versal attracti on. The paper made its
way to the coffeehouses, and the same Tur k that I
noti ced before dozi ng hal f -stupi f i ed wi t h coffee and
tobacco, I now saw actual l y awake wi t h a paper i n hi s
hands eagerl y spel l i ng out the news. But the most usual
mode of communi cati ng i t are the newsrooms, and a
place is taken where those who wi sh to hear i t assemble
. . . the attenti on pai d [to the newspaper reader] is very
di fferent f r om that whi ch I saw them gi ve to a
story-tel l er. There was no mi r t h or l aughter exci ted, but
al l seemed to l i sten wi t h pr of ound attenti on . . . the
rayas of the empi re soon caught the spi ri t of such a
publ i cati on, and were del i ghted wi t h the permi ssi on to
i mi tate i t . 2 4
The Takvim-i Vekai was soon f ol l owed by Ceride-i Havadis
and Terciimani Hakikat, whi ch had a combi ned ci rcul ati on of
32,000. There were also ni ne weekl i es, wi t h a combi ned
ci rcul ati on of about 10,000. The A ngl o- French dai l y press
(Moniteur oriental, Levant Herald, Eastern Express, La Turquie)
and weekl i es consi sti ng of three commerci al revi ews (as
agai nst a si ngl e one i n Tur ki sh) had a total ci rcul ati on of
about 25,000 (20,000 for the dai l i es). The Greek-l anguage
press, wi t h ni ne publ i cati ons, had a total ci rcul ati on of
17,000 to 18,000. Fi ve A r meni an dai l i es and ei ght weekl i es
had a ci rcul ati on of about 10,000. I n addi ti on there was one
paper each i n Ger man, I tal i an, and Serbi an. The J ews had
two dai l i es, one i n Spani sh (the L adi no spoken by Sephar-
di c J ews) and the other i n H ebr ew. Thus, by the end of the
ni neteenth century a substanti al part of the ci ti zenry of
I stanbul , perhaps as many as 300,000 persons, read some
sort of dai l y or weekl y publ i cati on i n one of the l anguages
spoken i n the ci ty, al though transportati on di ffi cul ti es sti l l
prevented the sendi ng of newspapers to the provi nces. The
appearance of the newspaper, as Wal sh put i t, was "by far
the most i mpor tant and extraordi nary i nnovati on . . . i t
was proof that publ i c opi ni on was even there becomi ng a
rul e of di recti on to the government.""-"'
Fi nal l y, the i mpr ovement of the transportati on system
greatl y i ntensi f i ed the communi cati on between I stanbul
and Europe and, eventual l y, between the capi tal and the
i nl and terri tori es. The steamboat shortened the travel ti me
f r om I stanbul to Marsei l l es f r om six weeks to six days. I n
the second hal f of the ni neteenth century, I stanbul was
servi ced by some twenty mar i ti me l i nes l i nki ng i t wi th al l
parts of the wor l d. The Ottoman gover nment i tsel f pur-
chased a passenger steamer and i n 1844 two shi ps, the
Mesr-i bahri and the Eser-i Hayir, bel ongi ng to the naval
forces were assi gned to carry passengers to vari ous poi nts
on the shores of the Bospor us.2 6 A f ew years l ater a conces-
24. Residence at Constantinople 2:283; see also my "The Mass
Medi a" i n Robert Ward and Dankwart A. Ruston, eds., Political
Modernization in japan and Turkey (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1964), pp. 255-82. • , ".
25. Residenceat Constantinople 2:279.
26. See IslamAnsiklopedisi, s.v. "I stanbul ."
T H E P OP U L A T I ON A N D T H E SOC I A L A N D E C ON OM I C T RA N SF ORM A T I ON OF I ST A N BU L 97
si on to carry passengers was gi ven to the Şirket-i Hayriyye, a
French-control l ed navi gati on soci ety, whi ch establ i shed a
networ k of ferryboat l i nes i n the Bosporus and the Gol den-
H or n. The rai l road f urther expanded communi cati ons for
the capi tal . A l i ne comi ng f r om Europe ended i n I stanbul i n
a newl y bui l t termi nal at Si rkeci , whi l e a l ong A si ati c l i ne
began at the massi ve bui l di ng i n Haydarpaşa on the Asi ati c
shore. (Today, both these stati ons conti nue to serve the
ci ty.) A moder n postal servi ce was i nsti tuted i n 1840, and a
huge post offi ce bui l di ng was erected i n the ol d ci ty. Even-
tual l y three postal routes to Europe vi a Marsei l l es, Tri este,
and the Danube were establ i shed; the l ast, used onl y i n the
summer, was the most expedi ti ous.
These devel opments, i ncl udi ng the moder n educati onal
system, whi ch had been copi ed f r om Europe wi thout much
concern for the nati ve cul ture or l ocal needs, al l served to
enhance the presti ge of the West. Soon I stanbul became the
fi l ter thr ough whi ch the so-cal l ed European cul tur e—di -
l uted, vul gari zed, and degenerated by i ts representati ves i n
Pera—tri ckl ed to the other areas of the Ottoman state.
I n the earl y per i od of contact wi t h Europe (i .e., unti l
about 1850) the Tur ks seemed f ul l y aware of the fact that
they had bui l t i n I stanbul an i mpressi ve ci vi l i zati on of thei r
own and had endowed the ci ty wi t h wor ks of art and uti l i -
ties whi ch were equal , i f not superi or, to thei r counterparts
i n Europe. For exampl e, European vi si tors to I stanbul were
deepl y i mpressed by the ci ty's tradi ti onal water system,
cal l ed terazi, whi ch pur i f i ed the water thr ough an i ngeni ous
use of the gravi tati onal force of the l i qui d's natural f l ow. I n
the second hal f of the ni neteenth century i nterest i n the
nati onal cul ture was repl aced by an effort to absorb Euro-
pean cul ture.
The confl i ct between tr adi ti onal i sm and moder ni ty is
wel l def i ned by the descri pti ons of the two human types
that represented the i deal of the two peri ods. Dur i ng the
fi rst hal f of the century the gentl eman of I stanbul was ex-
pected to be a rel ati vel y wel l - to- do man, the sci on of good
f ami l y, who knew A rabi c and Persi an, coul d reci te by heart
Haf i z, Ömer K hayyam, N edi m, and other poets, wr ote
poetry hi msel f, coul d speak wel l , and had del i cate, gra-
ci ous manners. Dur i ng the second hal f of the century, the
i deal ci ti zen was one who possessed a di pl oma f r om one of
the moder n professi onal school s, knew French, had a re-
spectabl e posi ti on i n the bureaucrati c hi erarchy, and di s-
pl ayed manners that often combi ned reserve and r omanti -
ci sm wi t h exaggerated pol i teness. The new istanbullu Efendi
(the term was used to desi gnate a cul ti vated, superi or man)
was pol i ti cal l y sensi ti zed and prone to engage i n l ong de-
bates i n whi ch he sought to demonstrate the worthi ness of
hi s country and cul ture. Yet, thi s "moder n" man's ties to
hi s own cul ture, despi te hi s decl arati ons to the contrary,
were weakeni ng r api dl y, and he l ooked admi r i ngl y to
Europe and began to i mi tate European manners and to
dress hi msel f i n French cl othes i n the name of progress.
The cul tural al i enati on had begun. Western cul ture, thea-
ters, l i terature,r and arts' seemetTte fasci nate the moder n
exempl ar, whi l e the anci ent treasures of hi s own ci ty l eft
hi m unmoved-, despi te the fact that i n the mi d- ni neteenth
century I stanbul possessed a great vari ety of ol d monu-
ments and i nsti tuti ons of l earni ng. A l i st of some major
cul tural i nsti tuti ons (extracted f r om vari ous sources) is i m-
pr essi ve. I n about 1850 I stanbul had mor e than 350
mosques of al l sizes, 91 Greek and A r meni an churches, 8
Cathol i c churches, 37, synagogues, 518 medreses, 37 publ i c
l i brari es, 200 hospi tal s of vari ous sizes, 100 imarcts (wel fare
centers), over 300 haman (baths), and several hundr ed ham
(i nns). (The census of 1831 provi des fi gures f or some of
these establ i shments.) Yet al l these di d not i mpress the
moder n Ottoman M usl i m i ntel l ectual . A n i nsi gni fi cant ob-
ject manuf actured i n Europe was consi dered a pri cel ess
treasure; and resi dence i n a European ci ty was l i fe's dream.
European cul ture fi rst came to I stanbul not as l earni ng
and technol ogy but i n the f or m of merchandi se sol d freel y
on ci ty streets. These goods pour ed i nto the ci ty thr ough i ts
customs house (other pr i nci pal customs houses were i n
Sal oni ca, Trabzon, and I zmi r ). The col l ecti on of customs
was f armed out to traders, who aucti oned the customs and
then i mpor ted thei r own merchandi se practi cal l y free of
duty, thus competi ng on unequal terms wi t h i ndependent
merchants, who had to pay heavy duti es. I n addi ti on, the
Ottoman tari ff structure f avored western i mpor ts but l evi ed
a heavy tax on exports. The rank-and-fi l e merchants were
demor al i zed;2 7 meanwhi l e the government's revenue was
constantl y di mi ni shi ng. The customs i n Bosni a and Herze-
govi na, sol d by aucti on to nati ve compani es, br ought
£6,776 in revenue; the next year the gover nment took over
and real i zed £23,980. Pr oper l y managed, the customs
house in I stanbul probabl y woul d have more than tr i pl ed
i ts revenue. (Eventual l y i t di d so when pl aced by the gov-
er nment under the management of K ani Paşa.)
The Ri se of Pera and the Introduction of European Shops
The second hal f of the ni neteenth century wi tnessed the
rise of Pera as the moder n European secti on of I stanbul .
A ctual l y, Pera ( wi th Gal ata) devel oped i nto an i ndependent
ci ty i n practi cal l y every respect. I ts popul at i on i n the
second hal f of the ni neteenth century consi sted l argel y of
non- Musl i ms—mostl y Greeks, A r meni ans, J ews, French,
A ustri ans, and some other nati onal i ti es. The l arge trade
houses and banks had thei r headquarters there. M oder n
shops, theaters, and a vari ety of European-styl e amuse-
ment places also were f ound there. Some of the moder n
school s and mi l i tar y i nstal l ati ons as wel l were establ i shed
i n Pera or i ts vi ci ni ty. Europeans of al l nati onal i ti es and
types, f r om power f ul di pl omats to shr ewd busi nessmen
and professi onal s, fl ocked there. Pera became the symbol
of moder ni ty, not onl y for I stanbul but also f or the enti re
real m.
Pera had acqui red a di sti nctl y European character when
establ i shed as the resi dence of the French ambassador i n
the si xteenth century, but i ts i nfl uence at that earl y ti me
was i nsi gni fi cant. The ascendancy of Pera to pol i ti cal , eco-
27. James Lewis Farley, Turkey (London, 1866), pp. 98-99.
)
98
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , J 830- 1914
nomic, and cultural prominence was thé immediate con-
sequence of the growing European influence over the Otto-,
man state.,Pera became a second Ottoman capital, manned
by Europeans and exerting a vital influence over the
empire's fate. 1
In the second half of the nineteenth century Perâ har-
bored sixteen diplomatic missions, whose heads were con-
sidered the leaders of their respective national colonies.
The language of communication in Pera was French. The
dominant cultural and political position of France i n Pera
was maintained and, in fact, increased throughout the cen-
tury despite the limited number of Frenchmen (or Franks,
as they were called in Istanbul) living there. According to
Ubicini, the French inhabitants of Pera in 1849 numbered
about 1,000; at that time the total population of the area was
28,000 to 30,000, divided among the various nationalities
other than French as follows: 6,000 Greeks, 1,000 Maltese
and Ionians, 1,600 Austrians, 1,000 Russians, and the rest
Armenians, Engl i sh, Sardinians, Tuscans, Belgians, Dutch,
Spanish, Prussians, Americans, and Persi ans.28 Although
Pera came to be considered desirable because of its Euro-
pean character, its reputation among Europeans was some-
what tarnished. Early in the century it attracted adventur-
ers and even criminals from Mediterranean shores, espe-
cially after the Duce de Boglie, the French minister of for-
eign affairs, abolished in 1833 the regulation that prohibited
the settlement in Pera of anyone who did not possess a
certificate i ssued by the Chamber of Commerce of
Marseilles.29
Initially the territorial limits of Pera were rigidly re-
stricted. Because of limited construction space, therefore, it
was hard to accommodate all the people attracted there by
economic opportunity. Thi s circumstance determined the
architectural plan of the district—tall buildings and very
narrow streets designed to use the available building space
to the utmost. As woul d be expected, rents and the cost of
dwellings soared. For example, the rent for a single room
was more than the cost of a two- or three-room suite in the
best hotel in Paris. An average house, whi ch cost about
80,000piasters with the land included, rented annually for
15,000 to 16,000 piasters, each owner being anxious to re-
cover his investment as soon as possible, lest one of the
frequent fires burn down his building. (In 1870 a fire des-
troyed 3,000 structures and caused bankruptcy among
building owners.) In Pera a pic of land (a pic was equal to 80
cm2) cost 1,000 to 1,200 piasters, whereas the same amount
of land on the outskirts cost only 15 to 20 pi asters.30 Many
Europeans who, by bribing the government officials, ac-
quired permission to build houses in the areas around Pera,
28. La Turquieactuelle, p. 439.
29. Around 1818 there was an Italian song about Pera which
attested to its ill repute: "Pera, Pera, dei scellerati i! nido." For a
rather extensive treatment, see Steven T. Rosenthal, ThePolitics of
Dependency: UrbanReformin I stanbul (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood
Press, 1980).
30. Ubicini, Lâ Turquieactuelle, p. 442cOther prices in Pera were
high also; for example, ameal cost fivetimes moretherethan in the
old city. • • * ' *
usually on the slopes descending towards Tophane, Findik-
li, and Cihangir, became rich overnight.
In the .second half of the nineteenth century Pera itself
> underwent a substantial social and economic change, being
superseded by and absorbed economically and ethnically
into Galata, to whi ch, at the same time, it transmitted it's
own pseudo-European cultural characteristics. Galata was
the fast-developing, modern business district of Istanbul.
The Greek and, to a lesser extent, Armeni an and Jewish
merchants who worked there had gained great economic
power. Benefiting from'the British efforts to establish a
strong economic foothold in the Ottoman state and Istan-
bul, the Greek merchants replaced the Franks as business
leaders while continuing to identify themselves culturally
and linguisticallywith the French (although they frequently
spoke Greek also, especially the small shopkeepers and
their workers).
The decline of the Franks as a dominant group in Pera
resulted partly from their own restrictive attitude towards
Turks and other Ottoman ethnic groups—an attitudewhi ch
prevented intensive commercial interaction. At this time
Britain was advocating extensive commercial liberalization,
and she looked upon the Greeks as the group best qualified
strategically and professionally to help establish the British
commercial hegemony in the Mediterranean and the Mi d-
dle East. Urquhart, one of the most outspoken apologists
for Britain's designs in the area, wrote that under the old
system of special trade privileges
the class called Franks has grown up. Thi s class not only
prevents communications between the Turks and
Europeans, but also perpetrates old antipathies,
misrepresents the one to the other, disqualifying
Europeans fromjudging of Turksor rayas, byinstilling
their own prejudices, and debasing Europeans in the
eyes of the Turksby our apparent identity with them. It
might be supposed that where Europeans reside there
would be the greatest intercourse with the Turks—itis
just the reverse; if you wi sh to know the natives or be on
friendly terms with them, go to a place where a Frank
population has not made Europeans objects of
contempt.31
The merchants of Galata, who played a significant role in
uprooting the Franks from their position of power, subse-
quently became the strongest supporters of French culture.
They had originally used Italian as their business language,
although practically all of them spoke Turki sh and Greek.
However, as they became rich and influential, thev aban-
doned Italian in favor of French. (In the 1870s, after the
proclamation of Italian unity, French rapidly replaced Ital-
ian as the language of all the Mediterranean seaports.) They
established their homes in Pera, working during the day in
their Galata offices and returning home in the evening' up
the steep hill that linked the two districts. Indeed, after
1850 the merchants from Galata began to buy quite expen-
sive houses in Pera and became frequent guests of the di-
plomatic missions. Their sons and daughters attended so-
31. Turkey and Its Resources, p. 208.
T H E P OP U L A T I ON A N D T H E SOCI A L A N D E C ON OM I C T RA N SF ORM A T I ON OF I ST A N BU L
99
.i a j events gi ven bv Europeans and strove to di spl ay thei r
L owl edge of European art and l i terature and to speak
F r e nch. K nowl edge of French, however defi ci ent, became
{ h e symbol of moder ni ty and di sti ncti on. A ny sel f-styl ed
teacher of French, despi te the fact that he mi ght be i gnorant
0 f grammar and phoneti cs, f ound easy empl oyment (as
evinced by the qual i ty of the French sti l l spoken i n I stan-
bul ). Pera had si x newspaper s i n var i ous l anguages.
However, as far as cul ture was concerned, Pera, the show-
case of thi ngs European, di d not real l y offer anythi ng re-
markabl e. Ubi ci ni wr ote that "i f there were not here and
there groups of Tur ki sh women i n f ront of shops sel l i ng
new French i tems, one coul d thi nk that one was i n a second
or thi rd-rate I tal i an ci ty . . . though annexed to I stanbul
this ci ty [Pera] is as di f f erent f r om i t as i t woul d be f r om
Peki ng or Cal cutta. "3 2 A t mi d- centur y Pera "r emai ned as
al i en to i deas and moral l i fe of the West as i t was twenty
years earl i er when one needed not less than six weeks to
cover the di stance between i t and Marsei l l es or Genoa: Pera
is the most i mpor tant anti -l i terary envi r onment I k now. "' -
The Europeans i n Pera nor mal l y amused themsel ves by
goi ng several ti mes a week to the theater, to di nners, and,
occasi onal l y, to bal l s to whi ch onl y the members of the
upper class wer e i nvi ted. Pera recei ved whatever i t wanted
f rom Europe, as the many mar i ti me l i nes kept i t i n constant
communi cati on wi t h the West. I t was, i n fact, a base for
European domi nati on of the Ottoman Empi re.
The gr owth of Pera and the ri se of the merchants as a
domi nant gr oup, as wel l as the pseudo-European aspect of
the di stri ct, were the consequences of several economi c,
demographi c, and cul tural factors. A s economi c i nteracti on
i ncreased and communi cati on among ethni c and rel i gi ous
groups expanded, the non- M usl i m communi ti es i n I stanbul
grew i n si ze. Those i n Pera and Gal ata who wor ked parti cu-
l arl y wi t h Europeans f ound themsel ves bei ng tor n apart by
the confl i cts between thei r eccl esi asti cal l eaders and the
heads of the newl y risen merchant, professi onal , and craft
gr oups. The busi ness gr oups had devel oped a secul ar
ori entati on and had adopted a European economi c phi l oso-
phy and concepts of nati onal i ty and rel i gi on that di f f ered
f r om the parochi al , anti -western atti tudes of thei r cl ergy.
The ol d millet system seemed to perpetuate the supremacy
of the conservati ve cl ergy and prevented the busi nessmen
and professi onal s f r om gai ni ng i n i nfl uence. Fi nal l y, i n the
1860s, the three ol d millets (Or thodox, A r meni an, and J ew-
i sh) were reorgani zed to gi ve to the l ay el ement, that i s, the
merchants and i ntel l ectual s, the mai n authori ty for the con-
duct of affai rs i n these communi ti es. 3 4 The millet ref orm
eventual l y hel ped mel d the rel i gi ouscommuni ti es i nto l arg-
32. La Turquie actuelle, p. 443
33. I bi d., p. 455.
34. Edson Lvman Clark, The Races of European Turkey. Their His-
tory. Condition and Prospects. In ThreeParts . . . (New York, 1878),
pp. 204 ff. For the most comprehensive treatment of religious
groups i n the Ottoman state, see B. Lewis and B. Braude, eds.,
Christians and ]eivs in the Ottoman Empire, 2 vol s. (New York:
Holmes & Meier, 1982). For the economic background, see Jacques
Thobi e, Intérêts et Impérialisme Français dans L'Empire Ottoman
OS95-19I4) (Pans: Publication de la Sorbonne, I mpri meri e nation-
al. 1977).
er nati onal communi ti es, consi derabl y under mi ni ng thei r
l oyal ty to the Porte and openi ng them to f urther European
i nfl uence. Thus the confl i ct between the cl ergy and the
ri si ng merchant classes of the non- Musl i m groups i n I stan-
bul ended i n vi ctory for the new economi c el i tes.3: 1 The
appearance of many new churches, cemeteri es, and school s
i n and ar ound Pera f ul l y attests the gr owth of the non-
Musl i m communi ti es. I t was at thi s peri od that the Bul gar-
i ans began to emerge as a di sti nct ethni c gr oup i n I stanbul
and, under the l eadershi p of i nf l uenti al merchants, started
pr omoti ng the i dea of a Bul gari an nati on affi l i ated wi t h the
Porte.
The non- Musl i m mercanti l e groups had to pay a pri ce for
the economi c grati fi cati on gai ned thr ough thei r af f i l i ati on
wi th European enterpri ses: Greeks and A r meni ans l i vi ng i n
Pera and Gal ata were prone to conversi on to Cathol i ci sm or
Protestanti sm as preached by French and Engl i sh mi s-
si onari es. These European Chr i sti an mi ssi onari es wer e
often an addi ti onal focus of confl i ct between the tradi ti onal -
ists and the moderni sts. A s earl y as 1827—a ti me when
Cathol i c propaganda, became i ntensi ve i n I stanbul , thanks
to French support—a gr oup of converted A r meni ans f r om
A nkar a who wer e pr osel yti zi ng among thei r k i n wer e
banned f r om the ci ty. Some of the converted A r meni ans
eventual l y reverted to thei r ol d f ai th and were thenpbl i ged
to l i ve i n K umkapi , Samatya, and Hasköy—that i s, i n thei r
tradi ti onal di stri cts rather than i n Beyoğl u, Gal ata, and on
the Bosporus wher e the pr i vi l eged classes (that i s, the
Eur opeani zed el ement, of ten conver ted Cathol i cs) had
thei r homes. 3 6 H owever , after 1850 these restri cti ons no
l onger appl i ed, as nati onal feel i ngs superseded rel i gi ous
al l egi ances.
The "moder n" l i fe i n Pera had no authenti c nati onal or
social roots. The merchant communi ti es owed,, wi t h f ew
excepti ons, thei r economi c and soci al status to the French,
Engl i sh, Ger man, and other European power s they served,
and they coul d be "nati onal "—acti vel y pro-Greek or pr o-
Bul gar i an— onl y to the extent per mi tted by the European
powers and tol erated by the Ottoman gover nment. The
soci al pyr ami d refl ected the dependency on Europe. A t the
top were the di pl omati cmi ssi ons and thei r vast personnel ,
i ncl udi ng dragomans (who f or med a speci al class) and mes-
sengers ""( tos) , mi ssi on offi ci al s, and servants. The di -
pl omati c mi ssi ons were sustai ned by thei r respecti ve com-
muni ti es, whose members had European ci ti zenshi p by
bi r th or bv "opt i on" (that i s, thr ough the acqui si ti on of the
special iVraf gr anti ng the protecti on of a western state). The
second hi ghest social gr oup was composed of the new eco-
nomi c el i tes—bankers, merchants, and shopkeepers and
thei r fami l i es and rel ati ves, al l of whom constantl y strove to
ri se ever hi gher i n status by becomi ng i nvol ved i n new
commerci al ventures and by adopti ng the l anguage of thei r
European di pl omati cpatrons. Physi ci ans, accountants, l an-
guage teachers, and other professi onal s f or med the thi r d
social stratumof Pera, whi l e the f our th consi sted of vari ous
l ow- echel on empl oyees, servants, and meni al workers;
35. See mv Social Foundations of Nationalism, pp. 88 ff.
36. Refik, Hicri On Altıncı Asırda Istanbul Hayatı, pp. 31-33
100 O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
there was al so a gr oup of M usl i m Turks, associates of some
Europeans, who had begun to favor the "moder n" l i fe of
Pera.
The soci o-economi c l i fe of I stanbul i n the second hal f of
the ni neteenth century was not very di f f erent f r om that of
many other l arge ci ti es i n A si a, A f ri ca, and South A meri ca
that have served as i ntermedi ari es between the power f ul
i ndustri al countri es of the West and thei r own i mpover-
i shed countrysi des. The ci ty became, i n fact, a semi -col oni al
post for the exchange of goods. Paul Fesch, who knew
I stanbul i nti matel y and f ought to restore French i nfl uence
there, poi nted out that towards the end of the ni neteenth
century I stanbul possessed no heavy i ndustr y. I ts most i m-
portant manufactures were of ti l es and cement bri cks, fezz-
es, l eather goods, ci garette cases, pottery, sui tcases, rosa-
ries, cl othi ng, nai l s made f r om scrap i ron, and the l i ke.
Most of these enterpri ses bel onged to Engl i shmen, or
French or Swi ss; onl y a f ew were owned by the Ottoman
gover nment or by nati ve i nhabi tants. Forei gn f i rms chose
not to manuf acture thei r products i n I stanbul , on the pre-
text that the ci ty l acked qual i f i ed workers. Fesch wr ote:
Constanti nopl e is actual l y a l arge market pl ace, a bazaar
. . . and above ever ythi ng else a por t of transi t. Fr om
Constanti nopl e departs for the West a very l arge part of
the si l k, wi nes, dr y f rui ts . . . oi l s, mi neral ore, grai ns,
f l our, hi des of al l ki nds pr oduced by European and
Asi ati c Tur key and the i sl ands of the A rchi pel ago. I t is
also i n Constanti nopl e that arri ve a substanti al part of
goods suppl i ed by Europe to Tur key such as ready
cl othi ng, fl ours, al cohol i c beverages . . . gl oves,
haberdashery, candl es, soap, petr ol eum, medi ci ne,
wood and steel products, machi nes and tool s.3 7
N o matter how smal l the market, forei gn f i r ms sti l l man-
aged to make a pr of i t, as i ndi cated by thei r i nsi stence upon
stayi ng i n the ci ty; for exampl e, al l the chi ef manufacturers
of sewi ng machi nes, such as Si nger (A meri can), Gretzner,
Cl emens, Meul l er, Kochl er, Pfaff, K noch (al l German), and
Or osdi Bach (French), had representati ves i n I stanbul ,
al though the total number of sewi ng machi nes i n the ci ty
was barel y 10,000 at the end of the century. Other types of
i mpor ted goods had l arger markets. I stanbul possessed at
least three el egant shops sel l i ng nothi ng but hats to mod-
er n- mi nded, ri ch customers. The ci ty i mpor ted annual l y,
mostl y f r om France, 1,300,000 bags of flour and 600,000
pai rs of rubber shoes (galoche); i n 1897 when I tal y was able
to capture some of the markets hel d by Engl and and sol d
5,000 tons of cotton goods i n I stanbul , the total i mpor t was
at least 11,000 tons. (Some of these European goods were
di stri buted i n the i nteri or towns.)
I t is understandabl e that the popul ati on of I stanbul , hop-
i ng to make up i n appearance what i t l acked i n economi c
substance, pai d speci al attenti on to l uxur i ous cl othi ng.
Fesch wr ote:
To be wel l -dressed is the ambi ti on of both sexes;
ever ythi ng else falls on the second l evel and i n order to
own beauti f ul dresses, the i nhabi tants of I stanbul woul d
37. Constantinople aux derniers jours d'Abdul Hamid, p. 515.
undertake al l sacri fi ces. The French fashi on [desi gners]
are qui te numer ous i n Pera; thev gui de thei r ri ch
customers i n the sel ecti on and appreci ati on of new
fashi ons. Wi thout them, our [French] products, often
copi ed and def or med . . . woul d hardl y appear i n thi s
capi tal i n thei r true shape. . . .- The L evanti nes who are
so el egant must also have good shoes. They woul d bl ush
i f they were to wear those vul gar shoes whi ch many men
of thei r rank i n France are sati sfi ed to wear . . . to have
el egant shoes there is need for good l eather. Thi s
expl ai ns the reasons for whi ch raw materi a! of hi gh
qual i ty is used and the great favor enjoyed bv the hi des
and l eather i mpor ted f r om France and f i ni shed i n
Constanti nopl e. Our countr y coul d i n fact i ncrease
further i ts sale and woul d enl arge its outl ets if i t adopted
the chrome tanni ng.3 *
The di chotomy i n the l i fe of I stanbul dur i ng the second
hal f of the ni neteenth century shows cl earl y i n the contrast
between the shops of Pera and those i n the ol d secti on of
I stanbul . The commerci al l i fe of the ol d ci ty was sti l l cen-
tered i n the bazaar and was conducted i n the same spi ri t as
i n years past (except that the col orf ul sl ave market was
cl osed qui etl y i n 1846). The shops had no di spl ay wi ndows
or any other features desi gned to attract customers. Goods
were not attracti vel y presented, and the merchants, espe-
ci al l y the Musl i ms, made no ef f ort to pr omote thei r mer-
chandi se. The bazaars had begun to speci al i ze i n the sel l i ng
of cheaper goods at l ow pri ces to the poor of I stanbul ; but
they also conti nued to manuf acture tradi ti onal cl othi ng and
home f urni shi ngs sti l l used by a great part of the Musl i m
popul ati on. The merchants i n the bazaar i ncl uded Turks,
A rmeni ans, J ews, and a few Greeks. H enr y Oti s Dwi ght,
though he showed some rel i gi ous bi as, presented a rather
good pi cture of the contrasti ng economi c establ i shments of
Pera and the ol d ci ty. He wr ote:
Greater contrast can har dl y be i magi ned than is f ound
between the European busi ness houses of Gal ata, on the
one hand, wi t h thei r commodi ous comf ort; thei r desks,
chai rs, wr i ti ng machi nes, file-cases and other
paraphernal i a of a pr ompt and accurate busi ness system,
and on the other hand the cramped quarters of nati ve
merchants. For the l atter have the onl y r oomy thi ng
about the pl ace, the ar m chai r for the head of the
f i r m. . . . I n the European part of the ci ty there is
spaci ousness and thoughtf ul pr ovi si on of conveni ences
based on the assurance that the customer wi l l pay for
them. I n the Asi ati c di stri cts of Stambol is contrasti ng
narrowness of l i mi ted expectati on. . . . But to adopt as a
rul e a busi ness system of whi ch the pri nci pl eis frugal
sel f-deni al i n personal expenses coupl ed wi t h l avi sh
expendi tures i n busi ness, woul d over thr ow the
phi l osophy of the whol e l i fe [of the M usl i ms!. 3 9
Musl i ms who had suffi ci ent i ncome and the necessary
psychol ogi cal - cul tur al di sposi ti on al so patr oni zed the
38. I bi d., p. 520.
39. Constantinopleand its Problems (New York, 1901), pp. 171-172.
See also Donal d Quataert, Social Disintegration and Popular Resis-
tancein theOttoman Empire, 1881-1908: Reactions to European Econom-
ic Penetration (New York: New York University Press, 1983).
TH E P OP U L A T I ON A N D T H E SOC I A L A N D E C ON OM I C T RA N SF ORM A T I ON OF I ST A N BU L
101
shops i n Pera. A substanti al number of these were mem-
bers of the new r ul i ng class of bureaucrats, a gr oup that
vV as steadi l y i ncreasi ng i n number , as each graduate of a
modern school sought, and eventual l y f ound, empl oyment
wi t h the gov er nment . 4 0 M ost of the upper - r ank i ng
bureaucrats l i ved outsi de the ci ty, usual l y i n one of the new
di stri cts nor th of Pera and i n l ocal i ti es al ong the Bosporus,
and a substanti al number of them bought cl othi ng and
other ameni ti es at shops i n Pera and Gal ata, general l y
shoppi ng there on Thur sday, whi ch as earl y as 1830 had
been decl ared a rest day. These hi gh- r anki ng bureaucrats
recei ved i ncome f r om the col l ecti on of taxes (the govern-
ment, faced wi t h r api d decl i ne i n the val ue of the Tur ki sh
currency and l ower state revenues, and havi ng made an
unsuccessful ef f ort to adopt a central i zed tax system,
farmed out the tax col l ecti on to i ndi vi dual si n 1845), whi ch
they often suppl emented thr ough the l ucrati ve, though i l -
l i ci t, practi ce of gr anti ng concessi ons. (Even Reşi d Paşa, the
premi er associ ated wi t h the reforms i n 1838, was accused of
havi ng taken money f r om a ri ch A r meni an f ami l y that oper-
ated the customs houses i n I stanbul and on the Asi ati c
shores.) A f ter 1856 the Ottoman bureaucrats coul d fre-
quentl y be seen mi xi ng wi t h Europeans as wel l as wi t h the
non- Musl i m merchants and i ntel l ectual s of Pera; Sul tan
A bdul meci d hi msel f attended a bal l gi ven by the French
ambassador. I n due ti me the f avored places for amuse-
ment, shoppi ng, and, eventual l y, resi dence of aspi ri ng)
moderni st Musl i ms became Pera and i ts sur r oundi ng di s-
tri cts.
I t is obvi ous that Pera and Gal ata and the di stri cts estab-
l i shed nor th of them had devel oped a new mode of ur ban
l i fe that di f f ered stri ki ngl y i n practi cal l y al l customs and
habi ts f r om l i fe i n the ol d ci ty. The concept of moder n
urban l i vi ng was one of, above al l , materi al comf ort deri ved
f rom an i ncrease i n i ncome, and Pera and i ts adj oi ni ng
areas thus came to symbol i ze not merel y moder ni ty but
also weal th and hi gh soci al status. Avrupa hayati—a Euro-
pean way of l i fe—became the aspi rati on of the new genera-
ti on of Musl i ms, many of w hom were sti l l l i vi ng i n the ol d
ci ty. "Success" meant to them the abi l i ty to buy a house
and adopt the way of l i fe pr evai l i ng i n the moder n par i of
I stanbul .
Other major i nsti tuti onal factors affected the structure
and composi ti on of I stanbul 's ol d and new di stri cts. A s
earl y as 1845 Sul tan A bdul meci d had made an effort to
create a counci l of notabl es, conveni ng several dozen pr o-
vi nci al di gni tari es i n I stanbul to advi se about ref orms.
Sl i ghtl y more than twenty- f i ve years l ater a consti tuti on
was adopted and a parl i ament, whi ch conducted i ts busi -
ness i n a bui l di ng i n the ol d di stri ct, was convened. The
parl i amentary experi ment of 1876-1878 was uni quel y i m-
40. See Ubi ci ni , La Turquic actuelle, p. 236. Meanwhi l e, the num-
ber of the ulenia, who constituted the bul k of the traditional elite,
had begun to dwi ndl e rapi dl y, al though i n mi d-century the num-
ber of softa(students in religious-schools) was still estimated to be
around 22,000 to 25,000.
portant to the l i fe of I stanbul : i t symbol i zed the transfer of
some of the sul tan's absol ute pol i ti cal authori ty to the ri si ng
mi ddl e classes i n the countrysi de, and i t gave at least i m-
pl i ci t recogni ti on to the fact that the ci ty was r api dl y l osi ng
i ts central posi ti on and bei ng forced to share its weal th and
power wi t h the devel opi ng towns and provi nces of the
i nteri or. The Vi l ayet L aw of 1864 had al ready created new
admi ni strati ve structures i n the countrysi de; the l aw was
revi sed i n 1867 and 1871 to create muni ci pal i ti es thr ough-
out the countr y.'
The economi c gr owth'of I stanbul l ed to the establ i shment
of the I stanbul Chamber of Commerce (Istanbul Ticaret Oda-
sı) to represent the merchant communi ty. The fi rst Associ a-
ti on of Trade (Cemiyet-i Ticariyye) had been establ i shed i n
1870. T wo years l ater, on 16 J anuary 1882, the Chamber of
Commerce, whi ch had a member shi p of 250, was offi ci al l y
establ i shed; on 27 February 1888 the name was changed to
Chamber of Trade, A gr i cul tur e, and I ndustr y; and f i nal l y,
on 31 May 1910, i t became the Chamber of Trade and I n-
dustry (Ticaret ve Sanayi Odasi). Other changes occurred
l ater.4 1
Dur i ng the ni neteenth-century the physi cal appearance
of the ci ty was very much al tered thr ough the addi ti on of
pr i vate and publ i c wor ks such as ar chi ve bui l di ngs,
bri dges, and ferryboats. Sul tan M ahmud I I , i n fact", asked
hi s German advi sor, Mol tke, to dr aw a devel opment pl an.
A f ter 1865 street cars, gas storage tanks, r unni ng water, an
under gr ound trai n, docks, and a vari ety of other faci l i ti es
were added. N ew mosque constructi on decl i ned greatl y,
but the sul tans erected at l east three huge, l uxur i ous
pal aces. Furthermore, dur i ng the same per i od two bri dges
were bui l t between I stanbul and Gal ata. The bri dges, be-
sides endi ng the centuri es-ol d use of boats and maki ng
communi cati on easier and more conveni ent, f urther en-
hanced the i mportance of Pera and Gal ata and the newl y
establ i shed di stri cts nor th of t hem. 4 2 (A l i st of major publ i c
and pri vate wor ks constructed and new i nsti tuti ons estab-
l i shed i n I stanbul dur i ng the ni neteenth century is i ncl uded
as A ppendi x D f ol l owi ng thi s chapter.)
The process of the physi cal transf ormati on of I stanbul
was refl ected i n the progressi ve emergence of i ts muni ci pal
gover nment. The central i zed admi ni strati on for markets
was created dur i ng M ahmud I Ps rul e. A şehremaneti i n
charge of markets (si mi l ar to the French prefect de ville) was
i nstal l ed i n 1854; and i n that same year a Ci ty Pl an Commi s-
si on (Intizam-i Şehir Komisyonu) was created to report on the
European muni ci pal system and propose measures for
moder ni zati on. These were desi gned l argel y to sol ve the
probl ems caused by the gr owth of Pera.4 1 The European
popul ati on l i vi ng i n Pera demanded paved streets, street
l i ghti ng, and other faci l i ti es si mi l ar to those f ound i n the
West. The commi ssi on, whi ch i ncl uded many' Frenchmen,
41. See Istanbul Yıllığı (1967), pp. 511-12.
42. For additional i nformati on see Doğan Kuban, "l stanbul un
Tarihi Yapi si ," Mimarlık 70, no. 5 (1970): 26-48.
43. Osman Nuri Ergin, Mecelle-i Umut-u Belediye(I stanbul, 1922).
102 O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
agreed torecommend the i ntr oducti on of anumber of uti l i -
ties, and therecommendati ons were approved bv the Tan-
zi mat H i gh Counci l . However , theproposed uti l i ti es were
for Pera and Gal ata onl v. Eventual l y, thi s area was recog-
ni zed as a separate admi ni strati ve uni t and became the
si xth di stri ct (daire) tó be admi ni ster ed bv a counci l of
twel ve members pl us a chai rman.
I n 1868a muni ci pal code of regul ati ons was adopted,
appl yi ng the admi ni str ati ve or gani zati on i ntr oduced i n
Pera-Galata to theother fourteen di stri cts of theci tv. Bv
1876/ 77 the number of ci ty di stri cts had i ncreased f r om
fourteen to twenty, theresul t of thei nf l ux of mi grants. I n
1882 themuni ci pal i ty of I stanbul was reorgani zed i nto ten
di stri cts that i ncl uded the enti re ol d ci ty and adjacent areas
such as Beyazi d, Fati h, Cerrahpaşa, Beşi ktaş, Yeni köy,
Gal ata-Pera, Büvükdere, Kanl i ca, Üsküdar, and Kadi köv.
The new ci ty admi ni str ati on consi sted of an appoi nted
counci l toassist the ci ty admi ni strator and adi rector {miidir)
for each di stri ct. Thi s system remai ned unchanged unti l
1908.
Fi nal l y, i n 1912I stanbul was made a si ngl e muni ci pal i ty
wi t h ni ne major di stri ct branches. Theşehremaneti (that is,
the muni ci pal admi ni str ati on headed by the şehremini) con-
si sted of ni ne di rectorates, or mihiirh/ets, correspondi ng to
the ni ne kazas, whi ch were the f ol l owi ng: Beyazi d and Fati h
i n the ol d ci ty, and Gal ata (i ncl udi ng Pera), Yeni köy, A na-
dol u-Hi sar, Üsküdar, Kadi köy, the I sl ands, and Baki rköy.4 4
The f unci ton of each miidiriyet was to pr ovi de muni ci pal
servi ces, tocol l ect revenue, and f ul l y admi ni ster i ts respec-
ti ve branch. General muni ci pal duti es were per f or med by
the Offi ce of Techni cal A f f ai rs (Heyet-i fenniyye miidiriyeti)
the Offi ce of Sani tary A f f ai rs (Heyet-i sihhiyye miidiriyeti),
and the Of f i ce of Economi c A f f ai r s (Umur-u iktisadiyye
miidiriyeti). A dmi ni str ati ve functi ons were di scharged by
the Offi ce of the General I nspector (Müfettiş-i umumilik), the
Offi ce of Correspondence and Regi strati on (Heyet-i tahrir-
iyye miidiriyeti), theOffi ce of A ccounts (Heyet-i hesabiyye
miidiriyeti), and the Of f i ce of Di rector of L egal A f f ai r s
(Umur-u hukukiyye miidiriyeti).
The pol i ce i nI stanbul evol ved i n a speci al way. 4 3 Police
ref orm was i nsti tuted under A l i and Fuad paşas, and anew-
corps was f or med wi t h the f ol l owi ng personnel , who func-
ti oned chi efl y i n I stanbul : (1) Kavasse, who wor ked i n the
capi tal and were attached to embassi es and other forei gn
offi ces; (2) Seymen, who per f or med pol i ce duti es i n the ci ty
i tsel f; and (3) Zaptiye, or foot pol i ce, who f uncti oned under
the di stri ct admi ni str ati on. A t thebegi nni ng of the twen-
44. From 1896 to 1898 the muni ci pal districts were Şehzadebaşi,
Fatih, and Cerrahpaşa i n the ol d city, and Pera, Beşiktaş, Yeniköy,
and Büyükdere (the last three along the'Bosporus). Üsküdar was
not i ncl uded.
45. On the ful l organization of police, seeClarence R. Johnson,
Constantinople Today (New York: Macmi l l an, 1922), pp. 107-13, and
Walter Behrnauer, "Sur lesi nsti tuti ons depolice chez lesárabes,
les persians, e les tures," [ournal asiatique, ser. 5, vol . 16(1860):
114-190; see also Rpderic H . Davi dson, Reform in theOttoman
Empire, 1856-1876 (Princeton: Princeton Uni versi ty Press, 1963),
pp. 159-60.
ti eth centur y, after several or gani zati onal changes, al l
pol i ce duti es i n I stanbul came to be supervi sed bv the
General Police Di rectorate, whi ch wasresponsi bl e not to
the head of themuni ci pal i ty' but to themi ni ster of the i n-
teri or. I stanbul wasdi vi ded i nto pol i ce di stri cts, each of
whi ch had its own central pol i ce stati on and was headed by
a chi ef of pol i ce (Merkez Memuru). On the Asi ati c side there
were sixchi ef di stri cts and stati ons, whereas on theEuro-
pean si de there were twenty- thr ee. 4 6
On 22J ul y 1909 (r. 1325) I stanbul was reorgani zed i nto a
vilayet (provi nce) and attached to thecentral government.
The Popul ati on of I stanbul
The economi c, soci al , and physi cal tr ansf or mati on of
I stanbul di scussed i n theprecedi ng secti ons was effected
thr ough aconti nuous movement of peopl e f r om the coun-
trysi de tothe capi tal and f r om di stri ct todi stri ct wi thi n the
ci ty. The transf ormati on of I stanbul went hand i n hand
wi th gr owth i n i ts size and changes i nthe ethni c, cul tural ,
and rel i gi ous composi ti on of i ts popul ati on. Thetwo de-
vel opments wer e i nti matel y i nter r el ated. Demogr aphi c
change i nI stanbul can bestudi ed easi l y, thanks to at least
six censuses taken i nthe ni neteenth century i n 1246, 1254,
1260, 1273, 1298, and 1301(a . d . 1830, 1838, 1844, 1856,
1882, and 1885)—al though detai l ed summari es of onl y fi ve
of these have been l ocated. Before di scussi ng these popul a-
ti on fi gures for theci ty, i t is essenti al to defi ne thei r geo-
graphi cal scope. Most of the earl y censuses refer to the capi -
tal as "Dersaadet veBi l ad-i Sel ase," theter m taki ng i n the
mai n ci ty and thethree "bor oughs"—Eyub, Gal ata, and
Üsküdur onthe A si an si de of Bosporus—and occasi onal l y
i ncl udi ng some of thesmal l er vi l l ages al ong the Bosporus
and theSea of M ar mar a. 4 7 A f ter 1882thenew quarters,
such as Osmanbey, Şi şl i , Bomonti , Maçka, and others to
the nor th and nor thwest of Pera, whi ch became (and sti l l
are) some of the most fashi onabl e di stri cts of the ci ty were
i ncl uded i n the census. The l ater censuses also i ncl uded the
new di stri cts that sprang up al ong theMar mar a and the
Bosporus and beyond the ol d ci ty wal l s towards the west.
A s previ ousl y noted, much of the popul ati on gr owth of
I stanbul resul ted si mpl y f r om theexpansi on of trade. The
ordi nary opportuni ti es of the capi tal ci ty had f or centuri es
dr awn the ambi ti ous f r om the countrysi de, and these occa-
si onal l y made fortunes, of ten bywor ki ng for the palace or
for state di gni tari es. H owever , i n theni neteenth century
46. I n thecountry at large there were thesüvari (mounted
police), charged wi th public safety and mai l protection, and the
bekçi (rural police), each of whom were stationed along roads 6to
10 km apart to safeguard transportation. Thesuvari coul d, and
often di d in caseof need, assume duties in cities. The entire police
force was supervised by the müfettiş (detectives). SeeStanley Lane
Poole, The Peopleof Turkey (London, 1878), 1:270.
47. For anearly city pl an, seeJoseph, Freiherr von Hammer-
Purgstall, Constantinoplis u'nd der Bophorus (Pesth, 1822; reprint ed.
Osnabruck: Biblio Verlag, 1967). Theplan is by F. Kauffer, who
also produced the 1882 Guide deConstantinople.
T H E P OP U L A T I ON A N D T H E SOC I A L A N D E C ON OM I C T RA N SF ORM A T I ON OF I ST A N BU L 303
Table 5.3 Popul ati on of I stanbul , 1794-1916:
Vari ous Esti mates
Area
City 300 km2
Greater city 3,600 km2
Year Population
1794 426,000
1829 359,089
1864-75 490,000-796,000
1877 606,000-722.098
(100,000-200,000,
including the
vilayet of Istanbul)
1884 895,000
1896-97 1,116,946
1901 1,159,000
1914-16 1,600,000
Source: Compiled fromfigures in European works and Ottoman sources.
the attracti ons of thi s ur ban center i ncreased i mmeasur-
abl y, as the scope of economi c acti vi ty broadened and
chances for achi evi ng upwar d soci al mobi l i ty outsi de the
tradi ti onal patterns were created. Tens of thousands of
young menf r om theprovi nces—especi al l y Greeks and
other non- Musl i ms—pour ed i nto the ci ty to f or m the sort of
servi ce gr oup common to every thr i vi ng por t ci ty of the
Thi r d Wor l d. That these newcomers, who were nearl y al l
si ngl e men (bekar), were easi l y able to f i nd empl oyment,
wor ki ng di rectl y for Europeans and engagi ng i n i ndepend-
ent occupati ons as bakers, mi l l ers, gardeners, and the l i ke,
as wel l as f i l l i ng theranks of theoccasi onal l aborers and
peddl ers, is evi dence of thescope of theeconomi c boom
and the gr owi ng need for manpower . These Chri sti an new-
comers, i t is i nteresti ng to note, began wear i ng a speci al
hat, thekepele, that i s, theEuropean-styl e br i mmed hat,
i nstead of the l ocal l y made f ur hat. The European hat came
to show both soci al status and rel i gi ous af f i l i ati on; for
Chri sti an af f i l i ati on had acqui red speci al presti ge wi t h the
increase i n European i nfl uence, and the kepele i denti f i ed i ts
wearer as a Chri sti an i nI stanbul to wor k.
Ottoman offi ci al correspondence i ndi cates that there was
a consi derabl e i nf l ux of non- Musl i ms i nto thecapi tal i m-
medi atel y after the compl eti on of the census of 1844; thus,
one year l ater offi ci al s were compl ai ni ng that al arge num-
ber of peopl e f ound i nthe ci ty were not l i sted i nthe regi s-
ters for non- Musl i ms (reaya defteri) and therefore di d not
pay theçiziye. (Offi ci al s of the Greek and A r meni an Patri -
archates also reported on the presence of unregi stered new-
comers.) The Porte was, of course, anxi ous toregi ster these
newcomers and l evy thehead tax, and these peopl e were,
i n fact, eventual l y subject toregi strati on: subsequent cen-
suses of I stanbul i ndi cated i n a speci al col umn those who
were bekars or taşralı ("f r om the count r y") . 4 8 I n 1857, out of
a total of 238,234 mal es counted i n I stanbul , 24,119qual i fi ed
as bekar. By 1894the pol i ce authori ti es i n I stanbul had been
48. SeeBA (1)/ (MN)T177 of 21 Zilhicce 1260 (1 January 1845).
Tabl e 5.4. Popul ati on of I stanbul : Summar y
of Census Fi gures
Number of Persons
Census
Year
Number
of
Families
City
Residents
Bekars
(Temporary
Residents) Totai Remarks
1844
1857
46,931
48,693
137,945
144,115
75,748
94,119
213.693
238,234
Males only
Males only
Women Men Total
1882
1885
161,431
364,751
219,945
508,814
381,376
873,565
{
384,910 Muslims
359,412 Non-Muslims
129,243 Foreigners
Source: Summarized fromfigures in the statistical appendices, III.2, 3, 4.
gi ven stri ct orders totur n away these peddl ers and season-
al workers, some of whom came f r om as far away as Trab¬
zon.
H owever , themajor cause for theexpl osi on of popul a-
ti on i nI stanbul was theal ready-descri bed i mmi gr ati on of
Musl i ms f r om the Caucasus and the Bal kans f r om 1862 on.
Large numbers of Caucasi an Musl i ms arri ved i n theOtto-
man state i n the peri od f r om 1862 to1908, and thei r l eaders,
chi eftai ns, and ulema, together wi t h thei r fami l i es, settl ed i n
I stanbul . A l so, dur i ng and after the Russo-Ottoman War of
1877-1878, when theM usl i m peopl es of the northeastern
Bal kans and Macedoni a and Dobruca were dr i ven out,
many refugees settl ed i nI stanbul .
Vari ous fi gures f r om offi ci al and pri vate sources for the
popul ati on of I stanbul i nthe ni neteenth century aregi ven
i n Tabl e 5.3.4 9 For theperi od 1865-1878, there were esti -
mates of the ci ty's popul ati on asl ow as 304,000 and as hi gh
as 2 mi l l i on. Ubi ci ni gave thepopul ati on as 891,000^—a
fi gure that certai nl y isvery hi gh and probabl y i ncl uded the
hi nterl ands on both sides of the Bosporus and counted men
i n thear my and forei gners.
Tabl e 5.4summari zes theexi sti ng offi ci al census fi gures
for 1844, 1857, 1882,and 1885(gi ven i n detai l i n thestati s-
ti cal appendi ces, I I I .2, 3, 4).
The gross di fference between thefi gures for 1882 and
1885 istraceabl e toseveral techni cal fai l i ngs that caused the
fi gure of 1882to be onl y a parti al resul t: fi rst, the Esnaf
Tezkerelcri Kalemi was charged al so wi t h col l ecti ng speci al
fees f r om merchants, and i ts census duti es were i gnored or
not pr oper l y f ul f i l l ed; second, i t appears f r om a com-
muni cati on between the pal ace and the premi er's offi ce that
49. The figures are derived from Eton, Karal, Reclus, Yakshity,
Bore, Ravenstein, Ubi ci ni , Walsh, Urquhart, and others, and some
are based on Ottoman sources. One reason for the variation isthat
early censuses generally included onl y the ol d city, whereas later
ones included the suburbs that eventually became part of the city.
The 1829 figureincluded Galata and Uskudar and isfrom acensus
taken wi th the aimof i nsti tuti ng bread rati oni ng. At that time some
4,000 bekars were sent back totheir places of ori gi n.
50. Letters onTurkey, trans. Ladv Easthope (London, 1856; re-
pri nt ed., New York: Arno Press, 1973), p. 24.
104
Tabl e 5.5. Tot al Popul at i on of I st anbul , 1897
Area Population
City ol Istanbul (theoldcity. Pera. andvillages alongthe Bosporus) 875.565
Üsküdar 105.690
Kadıköy , 32.211
Total ' 1.013.466
Greater Istanbul
Islands (four islands intheseaof Marmara, including Büyük Ada.
or Pnnkipo) 10,503
Gebze(atown along theAsiatic shoreof Marmara) 19,250
Kartal (atownalongtheAsiatic shoreof Marmara) 18,300
Beykoz (alongtheAsiatic shoreof the Bosporus) 9,494
Şile (atownon theBlack Seacoast of theAsiatic shore) 19.750
Kanlica(along theAsiatic shoreot the Bosporus) 25,183
City of Istanbul 1,013.466
Total 1,115,946
Source: Annuaire oriental du commerce, de l'industrie et de l'administration et de la
magistrature (1896), pp. 71-72.
the ori gi nal i ntent was to conduct a census just of non-
i Musl i ms, i t bei ng deci ded onl y at the last mi nute to count
the Musl i ms al so, so proper preparati ons were not made;
fi nal l y, thesum of 400,000 kuruş al l ocated by thegovern-
ment for the payment of census takers seemed i nsuffi ci ent
to meet thei r needs.3 1 Thus thecensus of 1882, al though
very useful for i ndi cati ng the type of dwel l i ngs i n whi ch the
ci ty resi dents l i ved, aswel l asthe admi ni strati ve di vi si on of
the ci ty, must beconsi dered i ncompl ete. The fi gures gi ven
for 1885, on the other hand, are based on a compl ete
census.3 2 A f ter 1882theci ty popul ati on conti nued to i n-
crease. A vari ety of gover nment sources i ndi cate that the
number of i mmi grants went f r om 30,000 i n 1880 to 200,000
i n 1906. Thus, by 1896/ 97, accordi ng to arel i abl e source, the
popul ati on of greater I stanbul had reached 1,115,946, wi t h
the ci ty pr oper havi ng 875,565 r esi dents (or 162,950
houses), Üsküdar, 105,690; and Kadi köy, 32,211.5 3 Tabl e
5.5 shows the general popul ati on pi cture i n 1896/ 97. Tabl e
5.6 shows the ethni c and rel i gi ous di str i buti on of I stanbul 's
popul ati on and i tsenvi rons i n 1897.54
51. SeeBA (I)/ (D)/ 65848, memorandum of 22Zilhicce 1297 (26
October 1880); for more extensive i nformati on on thecensus of
1882, see I UKTY 8949/ b, dated 11Teşrinevvel 1298(23October
1882).
52. Thememorandum expl ai ni ng the census of 1885is i n BA
(I)/ (D)/ 75538, dated 28Ramazan 1302 (11 July 1885).
53. SeeAnnunire oriental du commerce, de l'industrie et de I'adminis-
tration et delamagistrature (1896), pp. 71-72; this source is to be
found i n the archives of the muni ci pal library i n I stanbul.
54. The census of 1897 does not provi dea di stri buti onof popula-
tion according toethnic ori gi n. I compiled this list from various
official sources. Vedat Eldem claimed, based on the same lists, that
the total popul ati on of I stanbul i n 1896 was 1,181,000, but he over-
estimated thenumber of Turks byalmost 20,000 and underesti-
mated theSerbian and, especially, theBulgarian popul ati on by
about 13,000; seeOsmanli imparatorluğunun iktisadi Şartiari Hakkinda
Bir Tetkik (Ankara, 1970), p. 52.
O T T O M A N P OP U L A T I ON , 1830- 1914
Tabl e 5.6. Ethni c Di str i buti on of I stanbul Popul ati on, 1897
Ethnic Group Number
Turks 597.000
Albanians 10.000
Kurds 5.000
Greeks 236.000
Armenians 162.000
Jews 47.000
Serbians 1.000
Christian Arabs 1.000
Total 1.059,000
Source: Compiled fromfigures given in Section III of the statistical appendices
That thepopul ati on of I stanbul i n 1885and thereafter
consi sted mostl y of newcomers, that i s, i mmi grants and
bekars, is f ul l y demonstrated by thefi gures i nTabl e 5.7.3 3
Statistics on theoccupati ons of theresi dents of theci ty
that show thedi str i buti on of thevari ous rel i gi ous-ethni c
groups i n gover nment and nongover nment servi ce are
gi ven i n Tabl e 5.8.3 6
The concl usi ons expressed i nthi s chapter are supported
by thestati sti cs. These show, fi rst, that thepopul ati on of
I stanbul doubl ed i n less than a century and, second, that
the ethni c and rel i gi ous character of theci ty was changed
drasti cal l y by thei nf l ux of l arge numbers of Musl i ms. Be-
fore theend of theni neteenth century theMusl i ms had
reached an absol ute numeri cal superi ori ty; and the increase
i n thei r maj ori ty conti nued unabated i nto the twenti eth
centur y.5 7 By 1885al most 60percent of the ci ty's resi dents
had been bor n el sewhere, and ten years l ater thepropor-
ti on of non-nati ves was even greater.
The stati sti cs show as wel l the i ncreased urbani zati on of
the capi tal and the cul tural and soci al changes taki ng place
there. Occupati onal data show a di versi fi cati on of profes-
si ons and an ethno-rel i gi ous real i gnment: Musl i ms were
heavi l y represented i n thebureaucracy, whi l e the number
of non- Musl i ms empl oyed i ntrade and i ndustr y—that is,
the hi ghl y r emuner ati ve wester n- type occupati ons—ex-
ceeded that of theMusl i ms by al most 50percent, despi te
the fact that the Musl i ms were more numerous by far. Thi s
was evi dence of the supremacy achi eved byEuropean eco-
nomi c i nterests wi t h thei r bi as towards non- Musl i ms.
The economi c changes that caused therel i gi ous, ethni c,
and soci al confl i ct whi ch beset the enti re Ottoman statei n
the ni neteenth century are easi l y observabl e i n the statistics
for I stanbul . That ci ty was ami r r or of al l of those changes
that cul mi nated i n the pol i ti cal transf ormati on of the enti re
real m.
55. See Stanford J. Shaw, "The Population of I stanbul i n the
Nineteenth Century," Tarih Dergisi 32(1979): 411.
56. I bi d., p. 412.'
57. See my TheCecekondu: Rural Migration andUrbanization in
Turkey (New York: Cambridge Uni versi ty Press, 1976).
T H E P OP U L A T I ON A N D TH E SOCI A L A N D E C ON OM I C T RA N SF ORM A T I ON OF I ST A N BU L
Table 5.7. Popul ati on of I stanbul i n1885: Nati ves and Newcomers
105
Those Born in Istanbul • Those Born Outside of Istanbul
Male Female Male . Female
Religious Group Total No. % No % Total No. % No
Muslim 143.586 55,300 27.5 88,286 48.1 241,324 146,039 72.5 95,285 51.9
Greek Orthodox 68.764 23,292 25.4 45,472 74.6 83.977 68,512 75.6 15.465 25.4
Armenian Orthodox 78.679 24,995 27.7 53,684 81.7 70.911 58,875 71.2 12.036 18.3
Bulgarian 46 22 5.5 24 60.0 4,331 3,955 99 5 376 94.0
Catholic 3,722 1.533 47.8 2,189 27.7 2.720 1,676 52.2 1.044 32.3
Jewish 42.363 21,029 93.9 21,334 97.1 1,998 1,365 61.0 633 29.0
Protestant 225 118 24.2 107 32.3 594 370 75.8 224 57.7
Latin 609 261 48.5 348 62.9 473 267 51.5 206 37.1
Total 337.994 126.550 211,444 406,328 281,059 125.269
Source: Stanford J Shaw. "The Population of Istanbul in the Nineteenth Century," Tarih Dergisi 32 (March 1979): 411
Table 5.8. Occupati ons of I stanbul Resi dents, 1885
Commerce. Trade, Industry State Service
% Of % of % of
Totals in % of Totals in % of Total in
Religious Group Population8 Occupations Number Population Occupation Number Population Occupation
Muslim 201,339 49.40 51,073 25.4 38.32 22,984 11.4 95 34
Greek Orthodox 91,804 22.52 33,866 368 25.41 348 4 1.44
Armenian Orthodox 83,870 20.58 35,979 43.0 26.99 490 .6 2.05
Bulgarian 3,977 .98 3,238 81.4 2.43 1 .03 005
Catholic 3,209 .79 1,783 55.5 1.34 150 4.7 62
Jewish 22,394 5.49 6,984 31.1 5.24 99 .4 .41
Protestant 488 .12 123 25.3 .09 3 .6 .01
Latin 528 .13 251 47.5 .19 28 53 .12
Total 407,609 133,297 24,103
Source: Stanford J. Shaw, "The Population of Istanbul Inthe Nineteenth Century," p. 412
1 Number of male residents only.
Palaces and Mnsoues Public Works and Institutions
REI GN OF MAHMUO II (1 808- 1 839)
Kağitnane Palace(1808) Beyazidfiretower (wooden) (1808)
Nusretiye (Tophane) Mosque Medical andsurgery schools (182/)
(1821) First steamboat (Üsküdar) (1828)
Selimiye barracks finished (1829)
Regular postal service established (1832)
Military Academy founded (1834)
WoodbridgebetweenUnkapanandAzapkapi
(Galata) built (1836)
ABDUL MECIO (1 839- 1 861 )
Dolmabahce Palace (wooden) Start of university building (1845)
finished (1853) Bridgebetween Eminönü andGalata (ı84b)
Night duty establishedfor doctors (1845)
Treasury anddocument archives (1846)
Şirket-ı Hayriyye NavigationCompany (1850)
ScienceAcademy (Encümen-I Oaniş) (1851)
Bridgebuilt in 1836enlarged(1853)
Haliç NavigationCompany (1857)
Pangalti (Harbiye) Military Academy
• (completed ?)
StateArchives building (completed ?)
ABDULAZI Z (1 861- 1 876)
ValideMosque(1867-76) Tunnel company (1868)
Ortaköy Çiragan Palace Streetcar company (1869)
(1867-76) Teacher's collegefor girls (1870)
Ottoman University (Darülfünun-u Osmani)
(1870-71)
MaritimeAdministration (1872)
Haydarpaşa-lzmlt and Istanbul-Edirne-Filibe
railroads opened (1873)
Gasdepot at Dolmabahce (1874)
Istanbul water company (1875)
Military barracks at MecidiyekSy
Ruşdiye military schools at Fatih, KocaMustafa
Paşa, Üsküdar, Sogukçeşme
ABDULHAMID II (1 876- 1 909)
Yildiz Palace Bosporus gas depots (1879)
HamidiyeMosque Yedikulegas company (1886)
Üsküdar andKadıköy Water Company (1866)
Kadikoy gascompany (1890)
Istanbul docks (1890)
Haydarpaşa docks (1898)
Museumof Antiquity
Finearts school (Oarülbedai)
Newpostal andtelegraph building
Land registration office
Note- The information in this table has been collected from a variety of sources.
Dates vary in the sources, as some refer to the time the decision to build was made,
while others indicate the beginning or the end of actual construction.
ST A T I ST I C A L A PPEN D I C ES
SE C T I O N I
G E N E R A L O T T O M A N POPUL A T I ON ST A T I ST I C S
FR O M C EN SUSES, REG I ST ERS, A N D Y E A R BO O K S
Notes: I t shoul d be kept i n mi nd that theboundari es of
the admi ni strati vedi stri cts l i sted i n thecensus reports and
other stati sti cs i n thi s secti on wer e constantl y bei ng
changed i nmi nor , and someti mes major, ways. Compari -
sons shoul d be made wi t h cauti on, therefore.
The fi gures i n theOttoman offi ci al stati sti cs arenot cor-
rected i n accordance wi t h theprocedure outl i ned i nChap-
ter 1, al though they have been systemati zed and mi nor
correcti ons made. Thus thetotal s gi ven i n census lists up to
1881/ 82 donot i ncl ude femal es, and no percentage-of-error
addi ti ons have been made i n any l i st.
The terms tradi ti onal l y appl i ed toci ti zens of thevari ous
rel i gi ous persuasi ons i n the Ottoman Empi r e acqui red
di fferent meani ngs and new census categori es were added
as ethni c-nati onal feel i ng burgeoned i n theni neteenth cen-
tur y. Theterm "Gr eeks" (Rum) ori gi nal l y encompassed al l
Or thodox Chri sti ans; however, dur i ng theni neteenth cen-
tur y i t acqui red a nar r ower meani ng, and those who re-
tai ned thei r al l egi ance to theI stanbul patri archate and to
other Greek nati onal churches (e.g., theChur ch of Greece,
the Chur ch of Cypr us) came to be ter med "Or thodox
Greeks." The Or thodox chur ch was br oken upi nto vari ous
nati onal churches (Bul gari an, Serbi an, Romani an), whi ch
conti nued to usethe Or thodox ri tes (al l of Byzanti ne ori gi n)
but were gi ven thei r ow n col umns i n l ater censuses. By the
end of theni neteenth century "Gr eek" had come to mean
si mpl y "Greek-speaki ng peopl es." Theter m "A r meni ans"
(Gregori ans) ori gi nal l y wasused todesi gnate members of
the A r meni an Or t hodox chur ch; l ater, as some ethni c
A r meni ans accepted other f ai ths, the ter ms "Cathol i c
A r meni ans" and "Protestant A r meni ans" werei ntroduced.
(Some Nestori ans j oi ned theA r meni an Or thodox church
and were termed "A r meni an Nestori ans.") "L ati ns" were
ol d European Cathol i cs, but the term carri ed also some
connotati on of "L ati n- speaker s" (i .e., persons speaki ng
European l anguages). "Roman Cathol i cs" were those who
were outr i ght Cathol i cs di rectl y affi l i ated wi t h theVati can
(as opposed to those whose churches merel y accepted the
authori ty of Rome).
1.1 The Ottoman Population in Certain Districts of Rumili (Rumelia) and AnatoI ia,J j31
Oensui District Muslims Reayaa Gypsies' Jews Armenians Total
E U R O P E '
RUMELİ EYALET
Çatalca (N)e
Silivri
Midye
Terkos
Çekmeceıkebır
Çekmeceısagır
Tiirkeşçıttiığı
Reaya (6kazas)
Tekturdağl
Inecik
Malkara
Gelibolu
Şarköy
Bergos
Çorlu
Ereğli
Babayiatik
Havas Mahmutpaşa
Hayrabolu
Evreşe
Inoz
Keşan
Çisriergene
İpsala
Edirne (town) '
Ada (N)
Çûke (N)
Üsküdar and
Manastır (N)_
Edirne (kaza')
Üsküdar (N)
Manastır (N)
Çdke (N)
Ada (N)
Tırfelli (village)
Jewsand Armenians
(6 localities)
Çisn Muştala Paşa
Çirmen
Çirpan
Ahlçelebi
Akçakizanllk
Zağraiatık
Dimetoka
Ferecık
Meğri
Gumülcine
Yenıceikerasu
Uzuncaabat Hasköy
Sultanyeri
Drama
Cığlacik and
San Şaban
Tırnova
Hutallç (N)
Torluk (N)
Sahra (Nl
Filibe
Tatarpazarı
(Pazarcık)
ihtaman
Sofya
Şehırköy
Pravışte
Bereketlu
Kavala
Beı-Kofca
Cuma Pazarı
Ear, Bucak
Çarşamba
Semce
Tıkveş
Petnç
Census District Muslims Reaya3 Gypsies* Jews Armenians Total
EUROPE c
RUMELİ EYALET, continued
848 2,592 3,440 Radovışte 3.504 4.907 8,411
887 887 Nevrekop 8.539 8,620 739 17.898
127 127 Menlik 918 4,182 260 5.360
794 794 Timurhisar 3.229 6 611 494 10.334
464 464 Zihne 2.867 10.017 642 13,526
403 403 Siroz (Sarai) 4,459 16.596 1,761 248 23.064
29
12,924
29
12,924
Selanik (Salomka)
Yenice! Vardar
12.368'
6.811
21.669
4.766
511 5.667 40.215
11.577
3.773 .7.727 57 11,557 Vodine 3,996 3.883 7.879
812 836 24 1.672 Karaferiye 1.680 11.052 12,732
1.511 4,010 64 5,585 Ağustos 151 737 888
4.1.79 6,613 10,792 Perzinek 215 4,436 4,651
962 7.752 8.714 Iznebol 131 5,152 151 5,434
1,860 3.154 32 51 5,097 Ustrumca 3.674 5.344 546 9,564
971 1.938 ' 45 73 3,027 Toyran 4.631 3.076; 334 8,041
177 554 24 755 Karadağ 2.722 1.452 108 4,282
542 1.253 1,795 Avrathisar 3,176 6.949 332 10,457
684 896 1.580 Dupnlçe 3,528 11.642 15.170
2 203 1.051 3.254 Radomir 789 7.211 8,000
666 956 39 1,661 Ivraca 1,463 14.282 262 16.007
274 2,327 62 2,663 Kratova. Ivraniye. and
850 4,557 72 5.479 Palangai Eğridere 4,749 21.068 627 26,444
1,929 8,886 10.815 Vidin, Akçar,
955 1,512 2.467 Karalom. and
8.313 6,747
2,422
3.048
750 1.541 1,443 18,794
2,422
3.048
Belgratçik
Çunarka. Godgoskaca,
and Esterlik (N)
Köprülü
6,695
4,767
24,846
22,954
12,718
1,289
420
390
32.830
24.374
17.875
6700 6.700 Perlepe 3,683 14,489 450 18.622
10.174 10,042 20.216 Samakov 816 11,973 111 94 12.994
1.836 5.593 7,429 Köstendi! 3,032 14,070 232 145 17,479
497 4,747 5.244 Behişte 3,202 2,176 89 5,467
1,990 1.755 3,745 Kesrlye 3.313 16.124 335 19.772
1,090 2,792 3,882 Persepe 568 2.162 2,730
181 181 Manastir
Florina
6,723
5,596
24,550
5,253
705
365
1.163 33,141
11,214
2,051 1,755 3,806 Istrova 1.658 1,176 57 2,891
914 1.329 2,243 Hotpeşte 2,081 3,630 43 5,754
1,910
938
1.262
4.619
3,172
5.557
Nasliç
Iştip
2.693
6.920
5,748
9.826
275 8,716
16,746
6,080 4.107 10,187 Koçana 3,374 6.112 9,486
7,195 8,097 748 16.040 Kumanova 2,276 10,819 13.095
5,586 12,782 18,368
TOTAL. RUMELİ
7,525 10.852 18,377
EYALET 337,001 686,991 25 126 9,955 2.099 1061.172
2,385 3.473 5.858
337,001
692 833 1,525
30,517 5.339 1.712 37,568
SILISTRE EYALET
7,582
9.941
2.540
10,118
1.273
633
11,395
20.692
Niğbolu Sancak
Selvı 7,734~ 7.734
7,582
9.941
2.540
10,118
1.273
633
11,395
20.692
Izladı 2,580 2.580
6.251 51 89 6.391
Izladı 2,580
545
8,618 3.077 1.007 12.702
Etripolu 545 545
8,618 3.077 1.007 12.702
Lofça 12,404 12.404
4,986 131 54 5,171
Plevne 6.031 6.031
3.051
131 54
3.051
Rahova 1.835 1.835
7,543
5.108
2,678
10.920
7,543
5.108
2.678
58,588
Sıpre (Çire)
Niğbolu
235
3.893 8,598 1.190
235
13.681
7,543
5.108
2,678
10.920 44.959' 2 021 344« 344
7,543
5.108
2.678
58,588
Zıştoy
Rusçuk (Russe)
3.897
16,165
5.760
7.196
629
1.437
10,286
24.798
7,543
5.108
2,678
10.920 44.959' 2 021 344« 344
7,543
5.108
2.678
58,588
Yanbolu 1,942 1.507 3,449
14,083" 3.653 21.124
Nevahiı Yanbolu 1.444 1.237 2.681
3.269
408
14,083" 3.653 119 21.124
Nevahiı Yanbolu 1.444 1.237
8,037
3.269
408 1.501 83 1,992
Zağraicedıt 3.292 4.745 8,037
4,161 39,692 886 44.739
Yenlceı Kızılağaç
499 1.502 2.001
4,161 39,692
379
44.739
and Hatunil 499 1.502 2.001
1,341 27,643 379 29,363
Niş
Prızren
1.862" 18.378° 575 178 20.993
4.718 2,596 259 7,573
Niş
Prızren 9.486 2.867 366 12.721
967 170 1,137
Yehud 2.766 2.479 44 5.291
1,514 102
382
1,616
Tırguvişte
Gude
2,404 2.323 3 4.730
1,125 13.549 382 15.056
Tırguvişte
Gude 7.574 100 7.674
3,733 916 4,649
Usküp 9.660 11.700 900 22.260
1 482 1.294 2,776
Kalkandelen 11.766 8.043 472 20.281
2.350 1717 4.067
Krçova 2.286 5 154 88 7.526
682 2.260 2.942
Krçova
— —
4.454 6.104 10,558 TotaL Niğbolu
3 893 3.869 7 762 Sancak 110.304 81.489 5.804 178 0 197.775
109
1.1. The Ottoman Population inRumili and Anatolia, 1831(continued)
Census DiSU.ct Muslims Reaya3 Gypses3 Jews Armenians Tolai
E U R O P E 1
SMJSTRE EVAtET. c nt.ni.ed
Sılıstre Sancak
Varna 3.427 - 1 573 167 5.167
Isakçı (Isacceaı 553 605 39 1.197
Mineye 694 15 37 746
Balçık anı!
Kuvar.na 1.766 ; 630 125 2.521
Kartala -vıllag-e1 ! 52 52
Maçın 991 821 25 1.837
Köstence 1,417 386 41 1,844
Hırsova 1.391 986 21 2,398
Tulça 472 592 19 1,083
Kannabad 5.065 1.454 358 6,877
Babadağ!" 1.171 1 661 38 2.920
Doskasrı 1,114 596 273 1.983
Aydos 5.790 845 449 7.084
Yenipazar 3.482 948 300 4.730
Pravadı 4.530 1.465 231 6.226
Umurlakıh 1,140 146 1.286
Kozluca 1,840 1.163 146 3.149
Pazarcık 3.515 761 287 4.563
Çardak 2.308 300 223 2.831
Tolai. Sılıstre
Sancak 40,666 14,853 2,975 0 0 56.494
TOTAL. SILISTRE
EYALET 150,970 96,342 8,779 178 0 256.269
TOTAL. EUROPE 487,971 783,333 33 905 10,133 2,099 1,317.441
ANATOLI A'
ANADOLUEYALET
Kütahya Sancak
Kütahya (town) 7.305 7,305
Kütahya (Nj 3.303 3,303
Emrüdlli (N) 1.766 1,766
Örencik (N) 3,602 3,602
Giray (N) 2,550 2,550
Tavşanlı 5,358 5,358
Gümüş (N) 3.758 3,758
Altuntaş (N) 3.491 3,491
Uşak 23.752 23,752
Niyaz (N) 3,413 3.413
Kula 8.462 8.462
Eşme 2,062 2,062
Sirke 1,191 1,191
Küre 750 750
Inay 998 998
Silindi 981 981
ûamşmentîuyukeöir
(Keteş) 4.988 4,988
Çal 10,376 10,376
Emet 8,470 8,470
Simav 8.655 8.655
Dağardi 1,853 1.853
Gediz and Şaphane 19,557 19.557
Şeyhli (Şehlu) 6.107 6,107
Tazkıri (Şehlu) 2,261 2.261
Kenliler (Şehlu) 604 604
Soma (Şehlu) 922 922
Balkan (Şehlu) : 3.450 3,450
Yöruks 7.693 7.693
Gypsies 168 168
Total. Kütahya
Sancak 147,678' 0 168 0 0 147,846
110
Census District Muslims Reaya3 Gypsies5 Jews Armenians Total
ANATOLI A
ANDOLU EYALET cent need
Hudavendıgar Sancak
Bursa ttown) 10.532 2,159 627 2.800 16.118
Bursa (villages) 6.327 2,382 8.709
Inegol 5.319. 1.498 6.817
Yenişehir 3.718 701 4.419
Lelke 2.618 231 2.849
Goipazar: 4.641 1 237 5.928
TaraKli 1.998 1.998
Tobralı Köynek 6.702 1.132 7.834
Karamiha! 3.306 3.306
Karanisar Nail 3,290 3.290
Gümüşabad 468 468
Nalllhan and
Kuzupazarı 2,243 333 2.576
Beypazari 6,196 6,196
Küüük Mihalıççı 5.425 5.425
Gunyuzü 2,852 2.852
Seferihisar 6,290 6.290
Sogüt 3.840 3,840
Yarhısar 1.298 1.298
Pazarcık 1.063 1.063
Domaniç 2.512 2.512
Harmancık 3.270 3.270
Gemlik 2,999 2.999
Mudanya 1,496 1.496
Mihaliç 6,588 6.58a
Soma and Kirkağaç 12.403 12.403
Gönen 2,410 2,410
Gökçedağ 989 989
Kepsut 4,263 4,263
Kirmasti 2,874 2.874
Aydincik 1.604 1,604
Ayvacik 5,482 5,482
Bergama 3,452 3,452
Nevahii 8ergama 4.122 4,122
llicaı Bergama 1.917 1,917
Atranos 4.972 4,972
Cebelicedid (N) 2.281 2,281
Kete 4,192 4.192
Cebetıatik (N) 2,319 2,319
Bayramiç 1.795 1,795
Kozak 1.004 1.004
Tribes 4,838 4,838
Total, Hüdavendıgsr
Sancak 155.908 9.723 0 627 2.800 169.058
skişehir Sancak
Eskişehir (town) 6.754 122 6,876
Seyidgazi 2.250 2,250
Karacaşehir 3.725 575 4,300
Bilecik 5,489 3,266 8,755
İnönü 2,450 2,450
Karanisar 13,346 1,080 14,426
Sandıklı 8,089 8,089
Şuhud 2.975 2.975
Sancakli 2.761 2,761
Karamık 669 669
Çap 1,776 1.776
Çöle 226 226
Bolvadin 4,123 4,123
Han Cadcende 3,692 3.692
Padcende 4,267 4,267
Total, Eskişehir
Sancak 62,592 5.043 0 0 0 67,635
Ankara Sancak
Ankara (town) 6,338 6,338
Ayaş (45)s 7.042 7,042
Murtazaabat (49) 1.360 1,860
Sutla (N) (67) 3,384 3.384
Arapsun (39) 4,506 4,506
Haymanateyn 1,42) 2,597 2.597
Şorba (62) 4,387 4,387
Çubukabat (90) 5,385 5.385
Yoruks (ot Ankaraj 757 757
Yabanabad (95) 8.542 8 542
Bala (N) (49) 5,027 5.027
Reaya and Jews 7,188 136 7.324
Total. Ankara
Sancak 49.825 7.188 O 136 0 57,149
1.1 The Ottoman Population inRumili and Anatolia, 1831(continued)
r.CTSUSDısincı Muslims Reaya3 Gypsies* Jews Armenians Total Census District Muslims Reaya3 Gypsies' Jews Armenians Total
ANATOLI A ANATOLI A
(UvDDLUEYALET, conlınued ANDOLU EYALET, continued
Çankırı (Kengırı) Sancak AydmSancak
Çankiri 12.203 12,203 Güzelhisar 11,252 1.044 370 64 12.730
Kalecik 5.557 5.557 Tire 11.178 787 162 15 12,142
Koçtıısar 3.744 3.744 Bayindır 7,275 1.017 73 8,365
Keskin 2.939 2.939 Ödemiş 8,358 823 336 9,517
Milan 2.098 2.098 Bırgi 5,713 213 5.926
Karacaviran 833 833 Kılas 1,063 15 1 1.079
Bicure 1,607 1,607 Balabanyolu 1,709 11 1,720
Şabanözü (including SarrJ and Salihli 381 120 501
Inailu tribe) 2,917 2.917 Dağmarmarasi 609 609
Tuht 3.642 3,642 Alaşehir 6.374 • 911 7,285
Ksrgi 2.462 2,462 Kestel and Nazilli • 4.687 227 47 4,961
Tosya 5 585 5,585 Yenişehir 6,559 95 6,654
Öküz 1,092 1,092 Bozdoğan 4,199 27 4,226
Kurşunlu 1.226 1,226 Kuyucak 2,683 15 2,698
Boğaz 204 204 Arpaz 2.876 16 2.892
Çerkeş 2,569 2,569 İnegöl 2,802 26 2.828
Karipazari 1.908 1,908 Atça 2.332 92 2,424
Reaya 447 447 Sultanhisar 1.718 29 1.747
Total. Çankiri
Amasya 858 3 861
(Kengırı)
Beypazari 2,020 13 7 2.040
Sancak 50.586 447 0 0 0 51.033
Köşkderesi 2,050 110 2.160
51.033
Köşk 385 49 434
Bolü Sancak
Daltica 1,177 3 1,180
Bolu (town) 256 256
Vakıf 1,617 2 1,619
Devrek 15" 90 105
Ayasuluğ 69 _698 767
Gerede 5 5
Tribes 10,313
_
10,313
Total. Bolu
Total, Aydın
Sancak 0 20 0 0 346 366
Sancak 100,257 6,346 0 532 543 107,678
Kastamonu Sancakv
Kastamonu
Taşköprü
Boyabat
Gökçeağac
Devregan
Sinop
Gerze
Saray
Çanli
Akkaya
Islatan
Ayandon
Gineulu
İnebolu
Hoşalay
Cide
Zari
Kuremuhas
Azdavay
Devrekani
Güney
Göl
Çilene
Eflani
Merküze
Araç
Yoruks (01Araç)
Sarp
Boya!
Gerede
Akyürken
Puşiyens (reîigious
order)
Reaya
Tota'. Kastamonu
Sancak
14.861
6,975
7,456
1,947
2,919
7,137
2.521
4,839
2,478
1,586
2.835
2,088
5,713
2,822
6,586
4.455
2,399
8,345
4,986
3,002
2.520
2,297
912
1.663
2.912
2.472
706
1.888
2.293
795
218
226
3.285
3 285
14,861
6,975
7,456
1,947
2,919
7,137
2,521
4,839
2,476
1,586
2,635
2,088
5,713
2,822
6,586
4,455
2,399
8.345
4.986
3,002
2,520
2,297
912
1,663
2,912
2,472
708
1.688
2,293
795
218
226
3,285
118 139
Saruhan Sancak
Total, excluding
Nomads
Nomadic tribes
Total. Saruhan
Sancak
Muğla Sancak
Izmir (town)
Urla
Ayasefid
Birunabad
Tiryanda
Cumaabad
Karaburun
Çeşme
Seferihisar
Kuşadasi
Söke
Mandiçe
Balat
Karpuzlu
Çine
Şahme
Talma
Ineabad
Kızilhisar
Immigrants
Yorüks
Foreigners1,
Total. Muğla
Sancak
87.384
8,405
95.789
430" 6.637 35 , 3_.„530 2.205 21,837
806 2.647 29 50 4,532
882 108 990
475 1 205 21 11 30 2.742
248 1.260 11 2.519
892 87 22 1,001
240 1,027 55 4 3.326
196 5.560 23 49 5 6.833
105 219 31 1 2,356
698 674 66 32 3,470
381 1 124 74 2.579
618 358 17 1,993
144 538 29 1,711
684 6 1.692
951 54 3 4.008
930 30 960
454 23 75 2.552
786 213 73 2.072
590 38 99 727
278 1.276
732 4.732
847

847
520 22 657 520 3.706 2.354 74 757
111
1.1. TheOttoman Population in Rumili and An
Census 0 s!."c! Mus: r s Reaya' Gv;s es: Jéws Armenans Tela:
ANATOLI A
AN00LU EYALET cont .ued
Menteşe Sancak
Muğla 2 981 2 981
Tavas 6 835 6 835
Yarangure ı.N) 2.387
2.987
Gebranes 757 767
Uzunlu 40i 404
Ağırdos 1.2J1 , 1 241
Doğer 985 965
Eşen 1.721 1721
Meğn 1.706 1.706
Dadya 1.282 1.282
Tarahya 942 942
Ula 1.261 1.261
Talaman 1.633 1.633
Kerme 779
779
Köyceğiz 3.343 3 343
Gökabad 472 472
Karaova 790 790
Mandalyan 2.076 2.076
Bodrum 1.190
1.190
Troloz 1.354 1 354
Eskihısar 331 331
Subıce 3.373 3.373
Mazon 989
989
Bozüyük 2.32i 2,321
Yerkeskı 740
740
Mesul! 1.250 1.250
Müas 5.104 5.104
Nomads (ot Milas) 505 505
Foreıgners 468 52 520
Non-Muslıms 2,294 196 36 52 2,578
Total, Menteşe
Sancak 49,830 2,346 196 36 52 52,460
Hamit Sancak
İsparta 6,310
6,310
Pavlu 2,03a
2.038
Eğridir 4.259
4.259
Karaağaç 4.987 4,987
Afşar 2,25a
2,258
Yalvaç 7,930
7,930
Hoyran 1,060 1,060
Uluborlu 4,960
4,960
Badle 1.058
1.058
Ağros 2,007 2.007
Günan 631 631
Keçiborlu 1.913
1.813
Ağlasun 2,168 2.163
İncir 411 411
Burdur 8.505 683 9.188
Karaağaç 10.462 10,462
Kemerbamıt 1,321 1.321
Ibrala and Boyce 2,498 2.498
Güfhisar 4,248
4,248
Tefenni and Siroz 1,679 1.879
Denizli 7,487 358 7,845
Honaz 2.502 65 2.567
Ezıneılazkıye 5.652 155 5.807
Ezıneiçarsamba 4.254 7 4.261
Gökünük 1,843
1.843
TotaL Hamıt
Sancak 92.541 1.268 0 0 0 93,809
Census District Reaya' Gypsies" Jews Armenians
ANATOLI A
ANOOL'J EYALET, contır
Teke Sancak
Antalya (town)
Antalya (viliagesl
istanoz (N)
Elmali
Kaş
Kalkat
Fenike
Eğridir and Kaddıç
Serik, Beşkonak
Karavelüer (,Mi
and Has
Bucak and Germiye
Kizılkaya
Immigrants
Tribes
Tahtacı and Apdallar
(Alevi groups!
Total, Teke
Sancak
Karesi Sancak
Balıkesir
Gelenbe
Kozak
Bigadiç
Slndirgi
Kemer
Ayazmend
Manyas
Hat and Aşami
Edremit
İvrindi
Ayvalik
Total. Karesi
Sancak
Viranşehir Sancak
Viranşehir
Şahabeddın
Kizilbe!
Yenice
Çarşamba
Perşembe
Bendereğli
Bartin
Amasri (Amasra)
Ulus
Safranbolu
Eflani
Kiçno
Zerzene
Aktaş
Tefen
Ova
Börek
Kurukavak
Reaya (in
Safranboiu,
Bartın.
Bendereğli)
Total, Viranşehir
Sancak
2.879
1,963
5.033
4,735
2.933
1,672
1,307
1.893
2.110
1,724
942
961
7.148
3,629
1,713
1,817
1,393
4.047
2,931
9,062
7,135
6,411
3,110
8,220
2,842
1,736
1,839
527
623
1,343
801
323
59,502
2.879
1.963
5.033
4.735
2.933
1.672
1.307
1.893
2.110
1.724
942
961
7,148
539
539
35,839 0 0 0 0 35.839
7,649 756
8,405
2,255 127 2.382
1,945 10 1.955
4,219 62 4.281
5,900 111
6.011
3.649 123 3,772
1.713 458 2,171
1,271 91 1.362
699 30 729
4,952 289 5,241
2,870 23 2,893
16 1,932
— _ _
1.948
37,138 4,012 0 0 0 41,150
1,225
1,225
3,629
1,713
1.817
1,393
4,047
2,931
9,062
7,135
6,411
3,110
8,220
2,842
1,736
1,839
527
623
1,343
801
323
— 1 , 2 2 5
0 60,727
TOTAL, ANADOLU
EYALET 1,084,459 5,037 6.095 1,173,435
112
j i The Ottoman Population in Rumi l i and Anatolia, 1831 (continued)
—-—~~~~
IRANIAN EYALET1
12.457 Konya (town) 12.457
Konya (villages) 6.860
Konya Sancak 37,793
Beyşehir (town) 831
Beyşehir (villages) 4,005
Beyşehir Sancak 18,199
Akşehir (town) 2,171
Akşehir (villages) 3,443
Akşehir Sancak 8,391
Aksaray (town) 2,322
Aksaray (villages) 4.290
Aksaray Sancak 966
Kayseriyye (town) 13,466
Kayseriyye (villages) 21.005
Kayseriyye Sancak 5,014
Niğde (town) 3,353
Niğde (villages) 895
Niğde Sancak 41.025
Kirşehir (town) 3,051
Kırşehir (villages) 2,929
Kirşehir Sancak 7,908
Nomadic tribes33 11,682
Settied tribes 17,186
TOTAL. KARAMAN
EYALET
SİVAS EYALET
Sivas Sancak .
Divriği Sancak
Bozok Sancak
Yozgat (town)
Kızilkoca
Selmanli
Budaközu
Akdağ
Sorkun
Karahisar
Behramşah
Gedikçubuk
Emlak
Suleymanli
BDğazliyan
Reaya
Total, Bozak
Sancak
Çorum Sancak
Çorum5 "
İskilip
Osmancik
Hacihamzaöerbendı
Saz
Kurds and other
tribes
Total. Çorum
Sancak
Canik Sancak
Muslims Reaya3 Gypsies' Jews Armenians
ANATOLI A
Reaya3 Gypsies' Jews Armenians
229.242
97,253
14,593
3,218
7,997
2.914
6.731
7,371
8.573
3.819
2.512
2,919
1,389
2,745
50 188
10,075
11.450
4.349
659
661
6 581
33,775
40,935
12.457
3.051
3,069
7,908
11,682
17,166
263,703
115,790
14,593
3,218
7,997
2,914
6.731
7,371
8,573
3.819
2,512
2,919
1,389
2,745
9,826
10,075
11.450
4,349
659
661
6.581
0 33,775
55,743
ANATOLI A
SİVAS EYALET, continued
Amasya Sancak
8,538 Amasya (town) 4.326 2.053 6.379
37.793 Ezinepazari, Akdağ.
831 and Geldikten (N) 8.156 134 8,290
4.057 Day. Zennunahad,
18.199 and Kelkurasl 3,037 14 3.051
2.171 Kedegre (Köprü) 6.583 419 60 7,062
4.443 Havza 2 665" 314 2.979
8.391 Ladik 2.257 222 2,479
2,322 Gümüş Madeni 2.751 444 3,195
5,277 Haclköy 2.574 • 644 3,218
966 Zeytin . 4.016 4.016
13.466 Merzifon 4,928 2.178 7,106
36.906
Total, Amasya
5,014 Sancak 41 293 6.422 60 0 0 47.775
18,506
895 TOTAL. SİVAS
41,025 EYALET 278.037 49.593 60 0 0 327,690
ADANA EYALET
Adana Sancak
Adana (town)
Yuregif (villapes)
Yüregir (N)
Akçakoyunlu (tribe)
Sam Bayatı
(commumty)
Dindarlu (tribe)
Sarıcam (tribe)
Aşaği Dindarın
Karaisalı
Bılan Sancak
Total, Adana and
Bilan Sancaks
Azir Sancak
Azı /
Derbendi Misis
(village)
Totai. Azır
Sancak
Tarsus Sancak
Total, Tarsus
Sancak
içe; Sancak
Tola' ot towns and
villages m12
kazas
YÖrüks (nomads]
Total, içel
Sancak
Alaiye Sancak
Aleiye
Söker (including
Dusenbıh)
Manavgat
ibrsdı
Nevahiı Ala;ye
Total. Alaıye
Sancak
TOTAL. ADANA
EYALET
527
247
Tarsus (town) 2.891
Kusun 2,032
Yörük communities 569
Elvanlı 995
Ulaş 1.140
Kuş-tımur 1.307
Namrun 2 007»
Karabah tribe 1.710
Gökçe 2.157"
30.643
10.398
3.492
3.210
3.680
8.012
28.792
65.781
481
717
679
_99
705
270
270
2.215
168
O 147
0 197
6.501
1.000
845
245
' 113
107
550
, . 552
1,182
2.769
13.864
1.206
394
1.600
3.384
2.032
569
995
1,140
1.420
2.204
' 1 710
2.256
15.710
21.318
10.076
10.888
3.492
3.210
3.680
8.012
; . 86f 481
1.1. The Ottoman Population inRumi l i and Anatolia, 1831(continued)
Census District Muslims Reaya3 G.cs.es" Jews Armenians Total
ANATOLIA
CEZAYİR-I BAHR-l SEFID
EYALET
Kocaeli Sancak
Iznikmıt 5,597 5.972 11569
Adapazarı and
Sapanca 5,337 4.274 9.611
Akhisar 3.623 ; 1 314 4.942
Geyve 2,679 ' 1.108 3.787
İznik 3.220 957 4 177
Pazarkoy 1,980 3.434 5.414
Yalakabad 918 3 011 3.929
Karamürsel 1.443 1,496 2,939
Kaymas 3.388 814 4 202
Şeyhler 3.382 479 3.861
Kandlra and Gençli 3.066 3 066
Ağaçlı 1.732 1.732
Hendek and Akyazı 2,107 2.107
Karasu 1,302 1.302
Ibsafi 780 780
Sarıçayır 849 849
Beşdivan 342 342
Akabad 1.236 1.236
Foreigners 1,667 694 2,361
Şile" 3.517 1.957 55 5,529
Taşköprü 3.766 41 29 3,836
Total, Kocaeli
Sancak 51.936 25.551 84 0 0 77,571
Biga Sancak
Kalaısultanıye 2.208 2.208
Kumkale 632 632
Ezineikazdaği 2,253 2,253
8ayramıç 3,327 3,327
Can 1,856 1,856
Ünye 2,323 2,323
Balye 5.992 5,992
Güvercinlik 575 575
Biga 1,925 1,925
Lapseki 2,442 2.442
Yörüks 4,333 4.333
Bozcaada (ıslandı 439 793 1.232
İmroz (island) 2,505 2,505
Reaya (foreigners) 4614 , 4,614
Exiles (in Bozcaada
and Kumkale) 25 25
Consular service
personnel 5? 58
Marmara (island) 218 1,629 1,847
Paşa lımani 660 2,003 2.633
Imrali (island) 224 224
Total, Biga
Sancak 29.208 11.768 0 58 0 41.034
Cezayır-i Bahr-i Sefid
SancakmiT5
Midilli 2.058 8.878 10.936
Kalonya 761 7.390 8.151
Molva 3.102 8.134 11.236
Yunda 690 690
Limnı 511 4.937 43 5,491
Bozbaba 310 310
Taşoz 1,821 1,821
Semadirek 3 430 433
Istankoy 1,356 1.838 3,194
Sakiz 791 8 558 16 69 9,434
Rodos 3.095 7,420 10,515
Cyprus 14.983 29 190 43 44,216
Erdek 620 1,426 2.046
Kapu-daği 111 2,530 2,641
Bandırma 884 848 773 2.505
Total, Cezayir-ı
Bahr-i Sefıd
Sancak 28.275 84,400 102 69 773 113.619
TOTAL, CEZAYİR-!
BAHR-l SEFID
EYALET 109,419 121,719 186 127 773 232,224
Census District Muslims Reaya3 Gypsies5 Jews Armenians Total
ANATOL A
TRABZONEYALET
Trabzon Sancak
Trabzon 6.300 6.300
Künyen [liva] 20 532 20.532
Rize and Hemşın 30.547 30.547
Giresun and Keşap 8.785 8.785
Görele 3.973 3 973
Vakfıkebir and
Sağır 5.962 5 962
Polathane 8.432 ' 8 432
Yümrenek 6.755 6.755
Tonyan 1.910 1.910
Sürmene 12,985 12 985
Of 18.940 18.940
Reaya 11,431 11.431
TOTAL. TRABZON
EYALET 125.121 11.431 0 0 0 136.552
ÇILDIR EYALET1" 73,282 191 4.887 78,360
KARS EYALET 17,580 2.161°' ' 19.741
Visitors and
merchants in
Kars and Çildir 105 105
TOTAL, ÇILDIR AND
KARS EYALETS 90,862°° 105 191 0 7.048 98.206
TOTAL, ANATOLIA 2,002,921 297,130 1.802 5,164 16.643 2 323.660
S U M M A RY
EUROPE 487,971 783,333 33.905 10.133 2.099 1.317.441
ANATOLIA 2.002,921 297,130 1.802 5.164 16.643 2.323.660
GRANDTOTAL 2,490.892 1.080.463 35.707 15.297 18.742 3.641,101
Source: Defter (register) entitled "Mema!ik-i Mahrusa-i Şahanede 1247 Senesinde Mevcut Olan
Nüfus Defteri," Istanbul University. Ms. Cat. D-8, no. 8867. (The original register, which is a
summary of hundreds ol other registers, consists of 119pages of text plus 77blank pages}
Notes: Thelisting of localities in theoriginal register followed to alarge extent theform officially
adopted by theGeneral Directorate of Statistics: for that listing, elucidated by notes by Enver Zıya
Karal, seeOsmanlı İmparatorluğunda Ilk Nüfus Sayimı 1831 (Ankara, 1943). Each census taker in
1830/31 hadhis ownmethods, but I have tried to provide as uniform alisting as possible
The totals in this table differ from those of theGeneral Directorate because I have made (minor)
necessary recalculations andcorrections inthefigures andhave also rearranged thelisted localities,
grouping themin their proper administrative districts (intheregister they arelisted without regardto
administrative boundaries); for the administrative listing, I follow Fazila Akbal. "1831 Tarihinde
Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda İdari Taksimat veNüf us, " Belleten 15, no. 60 (1961): 617-28
The largest administrative division at thetime of the 1831census wastheeyalet, while themost
important unit inthedivision wasthesancak, headed byasancakbey (theliva wastheequivalent of a
sancak). Thekaza wasthemain judiciary district, while thenahiye wastherural district of akaza. The
majority of locality names inthefable areof kazas: thenames of other types of areas arespecifically
labeled.
Also listed under "census localities" are some non-geographical designations—the names of
groups (e.g., "reaya." "nomads." "foreigners")—that aretotalled for several localities rather than
counted separately for each.
Males only were counted in this census.
a l n the nineteenth century the term reaya came to be officially applied to Christians ingeneral,
whereas in the past it hadcovered all land cultivators regardless of religion: however, mpractice.
reaya, especially mtheBalkans, meant Orthodox Christians, that is, theGreeks. Bulgarians. Serbians,
andVlahs. Thecensus of 1831for thefirst time distinguishes theBulgarians, occasionally referringto
thembytheir ethnic name. Thecensus takers occasionally refer also to non-Muslims asagroupas
"reayay-i milei-i setase." that is. Christians of thethree "nations," Orthodox. Armenians, andJews:
but more often than not these are listed separately in the old Ottoman tradition. (Seealso note q
below.)
Dln theoriginal register theMuslimandChristian gypsies arelisted separately; here thetwogroups
are combined into onecategory. Their number is more or less equal
cAt thetime of thecensus of 1831theEuropean section ot theempire consisted of three e/a/eis.
Rumeli. Silistre. andBosnia. Thelast was not included in thecensus. Theoriginal register usesthe
term "Rumeli" for theEuropean section of therealm, despite thefact that administratively Rumeli
was aneyalet comprising only aportion of the European territory
dThe designation !N) after thenameof alocality indicates that it isanahiye (ptural: nevan/)—a rural
district of akaza.
eEdirne. Ada, Çoke. Üsküdar, andManastır arementionedtwice intheoriginal register They are so
114
11, The Ottoman Population inRumiii and Anatolia, 1831(continued)
|,S(erj here, but this first sel of population totals hasbeenexcludedfromthefinal tolals inthis section,
thesecond sel of totals, immediately following, has been used.
'Of these. ¿4391aredescribed asbeing Bulgarian and568asLatin, elsewhere they aredescribed
2 S "Pavlikan." Actually Filibe (ot Phıtlıppopoils) hada large Greek population, asindicated by later
censuses.
cmcludes Jews living in Karlova
n0f these. 877lived mtown, the rest lived in villages.
These arespecifically mentioned as being Bulgarians
Of these. 3.235 were townspeople, while 13.361 were villagers.
' Includes 750soldiers.
Includes Jews.
mln the original register it is stated that thecount of Christians inthese seven kazas is given ina
different register (which could not belocated), their number should besomewhat lessthan that of the
Muslims, whowere numerous inthese areas, but onemaysafely estimate that thetotal oi Christians
was not less than 20,000.
"Muslims were found mostly inthetown.
includes 35 persons described asEuropean merchants.
pThe figures for Babadağ! arefromasecond register for thecensus of Silistre apparently compiled
alabout thesame date asIhe1831 census register (andused byKaral), seeBA, Hatt-ı Hümayun, no.
49088A, None of thekazas listed in the 1831census register is listed also inthe second register,
except for Babadağ! ! have used the second set of figures for this kaza because the number of
Christians is given; the 1831census register gives aiota! of 1,968 Muslims and14gypsies only. It
shouldbenoted that the1831 census register gives nofigures forthe townof Silistre itseli. According
tothecensus of 1866, Silistre hadatotal of 3,787 taxable inhabitants, including 2.351 Muslims at
thesametime Babadağ! hadatotal of 2,035 taxable inhabitants, ol whom1,200were Muslims. About
ir, 1850the population ol Babadağı (town) consisted of 2,555 Musfims (481families) and 1,131
non-Muslims (229families), for atotal of 3.686 population in 710families Thetotal tor the entire
km was 3.099 Muslim families, or 14.756 persons, and 2,622 non-Muslim families, or 15,016
persons, for atotal of 5,721 families, or 29,772 people. SeeHans-Jurgen Kornkrumpf, "Zur Verwal-
lungspjıedeıung der Dobrudscha in den letzlen Jahren der Osmanischen Herrschati," Miinchener
Zeitschrift fur Balkankunde 1 (Munich: Rudolf Trofenik, 1978), 139-55.
^In thecensus of Anatolia theterm reaya often includes both theGreek Orthodox andtheArme-
nians, if there is not separate listing of the latter.
'Includes 1.972 soldiers, 4.799 immigrants, and6.392 visitors.
figures inparentheses indicate thenumber of villages in these kazas.
:There is noexplanation for thefailure to indicate thenumber of Muslims intheBotu Sancak.
uThese arespecifically described as being Rum, or Greeks.
*The original 1831 census register fromwhich most of thefigures inthis table have been compiled
does not include results fromKastamonu Thefigures areincluded inKarai's work and weretaken, he
states, from a special register for Kastamonu that he found in the library of istanbul University.
Isatistik ve Defatır Katalog. no 8. Despite intensive search. I have been unable tolocate this register,
therefore thefigures 1or Kastamonu are asgiven mKaral, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda, pp. 180-85.
Note that there is noexplanation for thefailure to include any figures for Christians
*The total number ot hanes. or families, is 3,430.
"The total population for Urla, Ayasefıd. Birunabad, Tiryanda. andCumaabad is 6.303 people in
2.817 tones
yThe foreigners {musteminin) are described as being persons under the protection of foreign
powers.
7 Inthis tabulation tor Karaman Eyalet, thesancak totals include persons living inthedistrict outside
the towns andvillages
SEThe nomadic tribes include the Pehüvanlu. Cermandelu, Sherefli. Boynumcelu. Abdalan, and
some Yörüks (Marchers). Thelast-named group (known also as Yürük) is of Turkish stock; it was
conservatively estimated that there were about 250,000 Yörüks inOttoman lands, tobefound mostly
in the mountainous areas of southern Anatolia.
b t 7he population of thetown of Çorum was4.822.
"Greeks andArmenians arecounted together.
0i Some 135persons are designated as members of various tribes.
"Includes 304 Yörüks.
nThis is thesancak area not inthe village, andit includes Payas Kaza.
05Includes 79Tahtaci. 335Di ki ti , and245Torak—that is, Alevi andother non-orthodox Muslims
and persons practicing thetrade of charcoal-making {torak).
MIncludes 1,083 Yörüks.
"Includes Tahtacılar (Alevis).
!JIncludes 4,800 persons classed as fellahin—that is. Egyptians (usually workers In the cotton
fields)—who are listed in the Muslim totals of Adana (town), Yuregir (village andnahiye). Bilan
Sancak, Azir Sancak, Tarsus (town): Kusun, a/idEvanii.
^includes someArmenians, asboth GreeksandArmenians were included inthereaya total of Bilan
Sancak, Azır Sancak, andPayas Kaza, Tarsus (town). Kuş-Timur. and Gökçe.
i ; Şile andTaşköprü, although included under Kocaeli Sancak in this list, were not actually inthat
district..
""'"'The listed localities ol Cezayır-i Bahr-i Sefid Sancak are islands, with the exception of Erdek.
Kapu-daği, andBandırma, which are non-insular kazas.
n n A total of 17livas were included inthis census. Çildir, which wascomposed ol Sarad, Levane,
Circiv, andCebecik, was located east of Trabzon.
0 0 Includes some Catholic Armenians.
p p Includes asmall number of tribesmen ineach eyalet.
115
1.2. Ottoman Population, 1844-1856
A. BY REGION ;
European Turkey
Thrace 1.800,000
Rumelia andThessaly 2,700.000
Bulgaria 3.000.000
Albania 1.200.000
Bosnia andtheHerzegovina , 1.100.000
Wallachia ( scecial •' 2.600.000
Moldavia [• autonomous : 1.400.000
Servia ! status ' 1.000.000
The Islands (Aegean) 700.000
Total 15.500.000
Asiatic Turkey
Asia Minor 10,700,000
Syria, Mesopotamia, andKurdistan 4,450,000
Arabia (Mecca, Medina, Ethiopia) 900.000
Total 16,050,000
Africa
Egypt 2,000.000
Tripoli and Fezzan 600,000
Tunis 1,200,000
Total 3.800,000
GRANDTOTAL 35,350,000
1.3. Population and Number of Villages,
Tuna Province, 1868(H. 1285)
B. BY ETHNIC ORIGIN
In Europe In Asia In Africa Total
Ottomans (Turks) 2,100,000 10,700.000 12,800,000
Greeks 1,000,000 1.000.000 2,000,000
Armenians 400,000 2,000,000 2,400,000
Jews 70.000 80.000 150,000
Slavs 6,200,000 6,200,000
Rumanians 4,000,000 4,000,000
Albanians 1,500,000 1,500,000
Tatars ' 16,000 20.000 36,000
Arabs 900.000 3,800,000 4,700,000
Syrians (Assyrians)
and Chaldeans 235.000 235,000
Druses 30.000 30,000
Kurds 1.000.000 1.000,000
Turkomans 85,000 85.000
Tsigani (Gypsies) 214,000 214,000
Total 15,500,000 16,050.000 3,800,000 35,350,000
C. Br RELI GI ON
In Europe In Asia In Africa Total
Muslims 4,550,000 12.650.000 3,800,000 21,000.000
Greek Orthodox 10,000,000 3,000.000 13,000.000
Catholics 640,000 260,000 900,000
Jews 70,000 80.000 150.000
Other Sects 300.000
Total 15,260,000 15.990.000 3,800,000 35,350,000
Source: [Jean Henri] A[bdolomyne] Ubicini. Letters on Turkey, trans. Lady Easthope
(London, 1856; reprinted., NewYork: AmoPress. 1973), pp 13-19, 22.
Notes: Ubicini's figures arebased onstatistics compiled intheOttoman census of
1844; thecensus figures cannot befound.
There aresome differences between population figures in theEnglish andFrench
versions of Ubicini's book; those in the English translation are presumably more
accurate.
As will beobserved, these tabulations include Wallachia andMoldavia, both over-
whelmingly Orthodox Christian; the inclusion of these two principalities andSerbia
distorts the Muslim-Christian ratio inthelast sectionof thetable Thepopulation of east
Arabia is not included inthis account.
Sancak Villages Muslims Non-Muslims Total
Rusçuk 833 138.692 95.834 234.526
Varna 391 58.589 20.769 79.458
Vidin 434 25,338 • 124.567 149.905
Sofia 71! 24.410 147,095 171.505
Tirnova 453 71.645 104,273 175.918
Tulça 252 39.133 17,929 57.062
Niş 549 54.510 100.425 154,935
Tota! 3.623 412.417 610,892 1.023.309
Source: Tuna Vilayet Salname of 1285.
Notes: Theyearbook fromwhich this census list istakenwas apparently thefirst one
issued for Tuna Province
Thepopulation totals and number of villages given inthis census list arehigher than
those given for 1874 (see1.5) because figures for Nişareincluded.
This population list is significant, as it wasintended to complement theproperty
survey {tahriri emlak) carried out in the towns of Tuna Province in 1866. andit
therefore includes areas omitted fromthat tabulation.
Women arenot counted in this census, a fact noted in theyearbook. It is also
reported that the male population had not been subjected tocensus since 1260 (1847)
and that theregistration of births anddeaths hadnot been properly kept up.
1.4. Population and Number of Villages,
Tuna Province, 1869(H. 1286)
Sancak
Wanes
(Families) Villages Muslims Non-Muslims Total
Rusçuk 20,677 833 143.455 95,267 238,722
Varna 6,342 467 43,431 16,727 60,158
Vidin 9.340 523 25,701 125,692 151,093
Sofya 10,428 706 25,796 147,068 172,864
Tirnova 9.203 453 72,053 115.434 187,487
Tulça 5,959 248 39,059 23,461 62,520
Niş 9,763 1,208 29,331 131,265 160.596
Total 71,712 4,438 378,826 654,914 1.033.740
Source: Tuna Vilayet Salname of 1286.
116
1.5. Population and Number of Villages,
Tuna Province, 1874(H. 1291)
1.6. Ottoman Population in Europe and Asi a,
1872 and 1874
Administrative Wanes
restrict Villages (Families) Muslims Non-Muslims
Source: TunaVilayet Salnameof 1291.
Notes: Niş isexcludedfromthis table, and. asusual, only males werecounted.
Thecensus districts namedaremainly kazas: nevahi areidentified byIN) following
the name. Thedistrict listed first ineachgroup isthe central kaza.
Population
Area
Region (mi2) Muslims Non-Muslims Total
EUROPE (1872)
Wfeyefs
Istanbul (Europe) 46.3 285,100 400,100 685.200
Edirne 1140 3 503.058 801,294 1,304,352
Skutari (Işkodra) 225.1 100,000 128.000 228,000
Prizren 667.8 728,286 470,868 1,199.154
Tuna 1684.0 817,200 1,199,230 2.016.430
Janina 661.5 249,699 460,802 710,501
Salonica 1008.0 429,410 807.928 1,237,338
Bosnia 1134.4 630,456 612,000 1.242,456
Crete 156.5 90,000 120.000 210,000
Total 6723.9 3,833,209 5.000.222 8.833,431
Serbia 791.0 4,965 1.314,424 1,319,389
Romania (Wallachia-
Moldavia) 2201.0 3,000 4,497,000 4,500,000
Montenegro 800 — 100,000 100,000
TOTAL, EUROPE 9795.9 3.841,174 10.911,646 14,752,820
ASIA (1874)
Vilayets •
Istanbul (Asia) 232.5 455,500 340,500 796,000
Bursa 1358.3 838,494 191,750 1,030,244
Aydin 938.7 600.000 380,000 980,000
Cezayir-i Bahr-i
Sefid 264.4 95,044 347,991 443.035
Cyprus 173.2 44,000 100,000 144,000
Kastamonu 974.5 757,786 16,426 774,212
Ankara 1260.0 849.432 155,046 1.004, 478
Konya 1884.0 740,204 59,968 800,172
Adana 671.0 282,466 41,596 324,062
Trabzon andCanik 732.7 764,160 173,540 937.700
Sivas 1167.3 481,404 90,404 571,808
Erzurum 2345.2 624,346 260,840 885.186
Diyarbekir 1770.7 458,288 250.000 708.288
Baghdad 5877.0 2,200,00 — 2.200.200
Aleppo 1917.0 461,338 77,973 539,311
Syria 3109.7 638,920 334,200 973,120
Hejaz andYemen 10.3125 1,134,375 — 1.134.275
Total 34,988.7 11,425,757 2,820,234 14.245.991
Beylik of Samos 10.7 300 34.000 34.300
TOTAL, ASIA 34,998.7 11,426.057 2.854.234 14.280,291
SUMMARY
Ottoman Population
Region Area(mi2) Muslims Non-Muslims Total
Europe 9.7959 3,841.174 10.911.646 1.4,752.820
Asia 34,998.7 11.426.057 2.854.234 14.280.291
Africa (including
Egypt) 54.301.0 11.308,550 170,450 11.479.000
GRANDTOTAL 99.095.6 26,575,781 13.936.330 40.512.111
Source: A Ritter zur Helle von Samo, Die Völker des osmanischen Reiches (Vienna
1877)
Rusçuk 92 13,548 24,293 21,056
Şumnu 156 23.270 34,624 12,854
Hezargrad 135 15,628 34,433 15,685
Cumaiatik 46 5,894 13.039 2.965
Sılistre 235 10.912 21,616 12.133
Tutrakan 40 3,182 7,756 2.036
Zıştovi 39 8,018 8,088 14,859
Niğbolu 61 7,238 11.276 20,097
Pilevne 46 10,649 9,764 17,934
Total 850 98,339 164,889 119.619
Vidin 64 7,850 10,839 15,818
Lorn 74 6,573 6,174 32.881
Adliye 43 5,172 2,737 19,773
îelgratçik — — —

Berkofça 104 7,260 4,862 35,394
vraca 82 8,086 1,293 27,022
Rahova 60 4,359 1.856 7,523
Total 427 39.300 27,761 138,411
Sofya 198 14,851 42,796 9,263
Dubniçe 70 4,237 11,192 1,834
Orhaniye 29 8,221 19,706 2,312
Ihtiman 40 4,359 1,856 7,523
Köstendi! 173 8,049 27,293 4,096
Samakov 58 7,013 21,334 2,701
zladi 18 2,504 4,490 2,891
Radomir 127 4,600 16,532 1,520
Cuma 37 2,680 2,755 2,596
Total 750 56,514 147,954 34,736
Tirnova 122 17,592 22,561 42,555
Rahoviçe (N) 6 2,626 336 9,735
BebrovaandElnene(N) 45 5,176 5,930 11,901
Dranova(N) 10 1,788 164 4,269
Travna (N) 6 1,882 — 7,087
Lofça 77 10,525 21,548 15,397
Osmanpazar 85 3.840 1,154 16,446
Kazgan(Kazan) 1 1,033 2,540 2,540
Selvi 33 7,631 7,813 13,332
Gabrova 18 3.724 45 14,866
Total 403 55,817 62,091 138.128
Tulça 16 4,350 1.419 7,711
Sine 11 595 34 2,653
Babadaği 57 5.721 4,756 15,016
Maçin 25 3,231 6,084 8.924
Köstence 34 4,507 16,233 301
Harsova 38 3,589 12,426 3,672
Mecidiye 55 4,773 12,022 909
Mahmudiye(N) 11 928 2,192 1.513
Kili (Isakçaexcluded) (N) 19 1,310 1,558 3,448
Total 266 29,004 56,724 44,147
Varna 67 5,959 7.978 5,170
Pravadi 91 4,744 9.311 4,029
Balçık 71 2,641 6,954 3,618
Pazarcik 108 5.163 13,960 3,385
Mankalye 70 7.451 6,675 499
Total 407 25.958 44,878 16.701
GRANDTOTAL 3.103 304,932 504.297 491,742
117
1.7. A . Population of theOttoman State, 1877/78 (H. 1294)
Buildings
Main Census District Sancak Population (Houses) Kazas ın District
Edirne Edirne
Tekfuraağı
Gelibolu
Filibe
Islımıye
190,585
49,751
58,561
266.088
87.691
20.200
5.875
9.080
8,600
8,700
Babayatik. Pınarhisar. Çesriergene. Çermen. Çesrımustafapaşa.
Havsa. Hatuneiı. Oimetoka. Ferecik. KirkkıTıse. Kızılağaç
Çorlu. Hayrabolu, Lüleburgaz. Midye, Malkara, Vize.
Eureşe. Inoz, Şarköy. Keşan, Gümuicıne
Ahıçelebi, Pazarcık. Çirpan. Haskoy. Kizanlik. Zağraiatik.
Sultanyeri
Ahyolu, Aydos. Bergos. Zagraicedıt, Karinabat. Museurı.
Total (5) 652.676 52.455 (35)
Tuna Rusçuk
Varna
Vidin
Tulça
Tirnova
309.797
85.805
178.823
87.455
245.894
22,854
9.849
91,624
9.429
26,495
Pilevne, Cumaiatik, Ziştovi, Silistre, Şumnu, Niğbolu. Hezargrad.
Tutrakan
Balçik, Pazarcık, Pravadi, Mankalya.
Ivraca, Berkofça, 8elgratcik. Rahova, Adliye, Lom
Babayiatik, Hirsova, Sunne, Köstence, Maçin, Mecidiye.
Şerli, Osmanpazari, Gabrova, Lofça.
Total (5) 907.774 160.251 (28)
Sofya Sofya
Niş
127.000
213,180
19,000
21,318
Orhaniye, Izladi, Cuma, Radomir, Samakov, Dupniçe.
Ürgüp, Iznebol, Ivraniye, Şehirköy, Kurşunlu. Leskofça.
Total (2) 340.180 40,318 (12)
Selanik Selanik
Serez
Orama
177,761
151.612
63.656
13,990
9,542
3,521
Ustrumca, Petrıç, Tıkveş, Toyran, Avrathisari, Karaferye, Köprülü,
Vodine, Yenicevardar.
Demirhisar, Zihne, Menlik, Nevrekop.
Daridere, Kavala, Yeniceikarasu.
Total (3) 393,029 27,053 (16)
Bosna Saray
Izvornik
Banaiuka
Bihke
Travnik
Yenipazar
167,776
262,352
132,128
134,800
185.024
131,488
39,272
59,241
' 19,382
13,480
42,510
12,546
Çelebipazari, Çaynice, Visoka, Kaladine, Konice, Vişegrad.
Izvornik, Berçka, Pelne, Perçe, Gradagaç, Gradcaynice, Miglayi.
Teşne, Derbend, Zayçe, Gradişka.
Istroşça. Peridor, Krupa. Kosteniçe, Kluç. Maden, Novasil
Akhisar, Ihleune, Domana, Glamoç, Yayçe.
Akova, Brane, Bihor, Prebol, Tirgovışte, Taşlice, Kolaşin,
Mitroviçe, Yenipazar, Yenivaroş.
Total (6) 1,013,568 186,431 (39)
Hersek Hersek
Gaçka
100,616
92,632
19,549
8,438
Bileke, Foça, Foynice, Lubuşka, Novesin.
Ustruşça, Panaiuka, Penve, Popov, Trebin, Ravice, Lubin, Nıkşik.
Total (2) 193,248 27,987 (13)
Manastir Manastir
Prizrerf
Üsküp
Debre
74,135
175,365
112,550
177,104
20,439
74,135
98,725
57,352
Istarova, Eğribucak, Ohri, Perlepe, Serfice, Florina. Kirçova.
Kolonya, Kesriye, Görice, Nasliç.
Iştip, İpek, Priştine, Goslne, Kalkandelen, Gilan, Lume, Vulçitrin,
Yakova.
Palanka, Radovişte, Karatova, Koçana, Kumanova.
Ilbasan, Debreibala, Debreizir, Matu.
Total (4) 539,154 250,651 (29)
Yanya Yanya
Tirhala
Ergri
Preveze
Berat
102,513
25,000
12,000
26,000
22,000
15,270
2,500
3,400
3,400
2,500
Aydonat, Filan, Koniçe, Grebene.
Alasonya, Irmiye, Tirhala, Çatalca, Golos, Karadice.
Balibogun, Permedi, Tepedelen, Delvinye.
Parga, Fener, Margiç, Narda.
Esferbar, Avlonya, Timurice.
Total (5) 187,513 27,070 (21)
Işkodra 135,000 37,500 Akçahisar, Olgun, Bar, Buka, Podgoriçe, Beklin, Tiran, Diraç,
Razrıme, Kovaya, Leş, Mardina.
(12)
TOTAL, EUROPEANPOSSESSIONS 4,362,142 809,716
118
1.7 A.Population of theOttoman State, 1877/78 (continuée^
yamCensus District Sancak Population
Buildings
(Houses) Kazas in District
Cezayir-j Batır-i Sefid Biga 64,410 14.231 Ezine. Ayvacik. Bozcaada, Lapseki, Limnı.
(AegeanIslands) Midilli 32.207 10,020 Molve
(AegeanIslands)
Sakiz 18.599 7,500 Ibsara.
Rodos 14,010 6,900 Sombeki, Kaşot. Mis.
Kibris (Cyprus) 28,300 18,200 Baf, Değirmenlik. Tuzla. Limasol. Girne. Magosa.
Istanköy 20,456 9,112 Batnos. Kaiimboz.
Total (6) 177,982 65.963 (18)
Giril (Crele) Hanya 53,591 12,131 Elkiyan, Silne. Kisamu.
Giril (Crele)
Kandiye 86,814 22.251 Pedye. Rizo. Gürbur, Malvlz.
Resmo 39,529 13,213 Ameri. Potmu. Milo
Isfakye 23,946 9.312 Isfakye, İstanbul. Ivasal
Laşit 28,954 8,221 Esine, Praptre. Meramile.
Total (5) 232,834 65.128 (16)
Hüdavendigar Bursa 120,426 53.920 İnegöl. Bilecik. Gemlik, Mudanya, Mihaliç. Yenişehir.
Hüdavendigar
Karesi 28,721 15,934 Edremit. Erdek. Ayvalik, Bigadiç. Soma, Kemeredremit
Karahisarisahip 77,264 18,033 Akaabat, Ağaçli, Bolvadin, Çay, Sandıkli, Musluca (Aziziye),
Kütahya 139,574 55,292 Eskişehir, Simav, Uşak, Gediz.
Total (4) 365,985 143,179 (22)
Aydin İzmir 155,000 27,000 Ödemiş. Urla. Çeşme. Menemen, Bayindir. Kuşadasi.
Aydin 110,000 75.440 Buldan, Bozliğan, Denizli, Muğla, Nazilli.
Saruhan 84,522 13.648 Atala. Akhisar, Eşme. Gördes. Manisa.
Menteşe 22,500 11.300 Tavas, Köyceğiz. Marmaris.
Total (4) 372,022 127,388 (19)
Ankara Ankara 102,875 39.338 Ayaş, Beypazari. Zir, Çubukabat, Haymana. Seferihisar, Kurupazar,
Ankara
Mihaliç, Naili.
Yozgat 91,487 28,103 Akdağmadeni, Çorum. Boğaziiyan, Sungurlu.
Kayseri 65,443 23,200 İncesu, Develi.
Kirşehir 22,994 6,908 Avanos, Keskin. Mecidiye.
Total (4) 282,799 97,544 (18)
Konya Konya 149,280 50,321 Ereğli. Espkeşan, İlgin. Akşehir, Yenişehir, Bozkir, Hadim.
Konya Konya
Seydişehir. Karapinar. Larende.
Teke (Antalya) 80,391 26,174 Akseki, Elmali, Kaş, Alaiye.
Hamit (İsparta) 52,649 17.702 Eğridir. Uluborlu. Karaağaç. Yalvaç.
Niğde 89,353 26,713 Ürgüp, Aksaray. Bor, Nevşehir.
Burdur 38,720 13,337 Karaağaç. Tefenni.
Total (5) 410,393 134,247 (24)
Kastamonu Kastamonu 171,626 47,867 Araç, İskilip. Inebol. Cide, Safranbolu. Taşköprü. Daday. Tosya.
Kastamonu
Bolu 129,586 40,030 Ereğli, Bartin. Düzce. Gerede, Göynük
Sinop 53,306 14.036 Istetan, Boyabat.
Çankiri 68,388 17.568 Çerkeş. Kalecik
Total (4) 422,906 119.501 (17)
Sivas Sivas 197,786 50,629 Tokat. Tenus. Hafik. Darende, Divrik, Koçgir, Gürün
Sivas
Amasya 115,167 35.827 Erbaa. Zile. Osmancık, Köprü. Ladik. Madenisim. Merzifon.
Karahisar-i Şarki 93,435 24.451 Alucra. Suşehri. Koyulhisar. Giresun. Milas.
Total (3) 406,388 110.907 (19)
Trabzon Trabzon 223,982 64.653 Ordu. Sürmene, Of. Aybastı, Tirebolu. Tonya. Görele. Vakfikebir.
Trabzon
Batum 71,681 22,811 Atine. Icareler. Çürüksu. Hopa. Livana
Gümüşhane 43.478 16.243 Şiran. Torul. Kelkit
Total (3) 339,141 103.707 (16)
Canik (Samsun) 129.929 46.315 Ünye. Bafra, Terme, Çarşamba, Niksar.
Canik (Samsun)
(5)
119
I.7.A. Population of theOttoman State, 1877/78 (continued)
Md'H Census District Sancak Population
Buildings
(Housesı Kazas mDıs'nc
Erzurum
Total
Van
Diyarbekir
Total
Mamuretülaziz
Erzurum
Erzincan
Bayazit
Çıldır
Kars
Muş
(6)
Diyarbekir
Mardin
Siirt
Malatya
(4)
140.272
57.306
37.457
52.897
120.000
24,900
432,832
233,629
120,000
249,000
15,000
25,000
409,000
95,000
45.134 İspir andTortum. Keskin. Pasıni Ulya. Pasını Sufla. Bayburt.
Tercan, Tekman. Hinis.
23.734 Ovacik, Kuruçay, Korucan. Kemah, Mazgirt.
6,259 Ahtar. Karakilıse, Patnos. Diyadin. Eleşkirt
12,524 Ardanuç. Ardahan.
45.000 Zaruşat, Soregel andAkbaba, Kağizman. Cirfeles.
15.900 Bitlis, Bulanık. Çukur andKusur. Malazgirt, Mutki
148,551 (27)
73,799 Erciş. Bargıri, Beytüşşebap. Hoşap, Haydaranli. Çolemerik.
Şemdinan, Futurlbak. Gevar, Karcigan. Rıskan, Loblu. Adılcevaz.
(13)
45,000 Siverek. Silvan, Lice.
15.900 Cizre, Şırnak, Avniye. Midyat.
9,200 Erde, Şirvan, Ridvan, Sason.
10.200 Akçadağ. Besni, Hısnimansur, Kahta.
80.300 (15)
12,400 Eğin, Palu. Çarsancak, Arapkir, Keban.
(5)
Erganımadeni
Suriye (Syria)
Total
Cebelilübnan
Beyrut
Kudüs (Jerusalem)
Adana
Total
Halep (Aleppo)
Total
Trablusgarp
(Tripoli inLibya)
Total
52,000 14,900
Şam (Damascus)
Hama
Trablus (Tripoly)
Havran
Akka
Belka
(6)
Adana
Kozan
İçel
Payas.
(4)
Halep
Maraş
Urfa
Zor
(4)
Trablusgarp
Bingazi
Fizan
Cebeligarbiye
Humus
(5)
202,000
110,000
120.000
130,000
102,551
33,622
45,107
23,092
204,372
80,000
67,000
29,000
120,760
296,760
95,000
18,000
12,375
19,400
Maden
Baalbek, Bakaiarabi, Bakaulaziz, Hacyar, Raşyan, Taaz.
Hlsnilekrat, Humus.
Celile, Safita, Atar, Lazkiye.
Cebeliduruz. Aclun, Kuneytre.
Hayfa, Safed, Taberye, Nasira.
Salt, Maan.
(21)
Deyrülkamer,
Sur, Sayda, Merciun.
(3)
Heze, Mecdil, Yafa.
(3)
1,010,000
23,429 Tartuş, Karaısali, Mersin.
11,586 Bilayköy, Haçin, Karhi. Sis.
16,205 Ermenek, Anamur, Sinanli, Sarikvan, Köseler.
8,128 Osmaniye.
59,348 (13)
25,000 Edlep, İskenderun, Antakya, Beblcebul, Bilan, Cesrişuur, Harmand
Barisa, Reyhaniye, Ayintap. Kilis, Maarretüinuman.
14.000 İslahiye, Elbistan, Bulak, Pazarcik, Hassa, Zeytin, Göksün,
17,000 Birecik, Rumkale, Suruç.
39,270 Ebuikemal. Basire, Rakka, Resulayn, Seyhan, Sence, Aşare,
Ganze, Kevkep, Meskene, Yenişehir,
95,270 (32)
— Zaviye, Gıryan, Sahil, Menşlye.
— Ucele, Berika. Birasa, Cidabiye, Hasa, Deme, Kubbe, Mirlih.
— Havhan, Gidames, Kasto, Nalut.
— Urfele, Tehüne, Zilliteyn. Sert, Maslata, Misrata.
19,000 (22)
120
\ J k. Population of theOttoman State, 1877/78 (continued)
MamCensus District Sancak Population
Buildings
(Houses) Kazas ın Dıstrıct
Bağdat(Baghdad) Bağdat 250.000 65.000 Horasan, Hankin. Delim, Sarma. Aziziye. Kazimiye. Kut. Mendili,
Aneh
Musul 145,291 48.946 Dehuk. Zahu. Akra, Imadiye.
Süleymaniye 124,790 23.570 Barban. Şehripaza. Cafaşayıri. Karadağ. Gülanber. Merke
Kerbela — — —
Hille 700,000 10,000 Divaniye, Sehmare. Şambe, Necefieşref. Hindiye.
Şehrizor 127,060 39,270 Erbil, Ranye, Revandiz. İslahiye. Koysancak.
Ammare 257,330 50,650 Ammare.
Total (7) 1,604,471 237,436 (30)
Basra Basra 62,905 19,084 Kurna, Basra
Müntefik 300,000 50,000 Sevkilşuyuh.
Necet 32.619 9,065 Katıf. Meberz.
Total (3) 395,524 78,149 (4)
Yemen Sana 94,000 32,000 Uns. Recilhıraz. Hace. Rada. Zeman. Ümran. Kevkeban.
Hudeyde 65,000 21,000 Ebuaris, Zübeyır, Zeydiye, Cll, Reyme. Hacur, Lehye.
Asir 82,000 • 31,000 Ebtıa. Benişehir. Ricalilma, Sibya. Gan. Kanfide.
Taaz 25,000 9.200 Eb. Hicriye, Adın. Muha.
Total (4) 266,000 93,200 (24)
Hicaz Mekke Rabi, Lebed. Taif. Cidde.
Medine — — Yenbuulbahir.
(2) (5)
GRANDTOTAL 13,064.109 2,880,723
I.7.B. Summary of Totals (Compiled by Author)
Main Census District Population Buildings
Notes toTables 1.7.A. and I.7.B.
Source: Salname of 1294.
Notes: This population list probably is based onthe 1844census results andesti-
mates of population made after calculating thenumber of births anddeaths (including
losses inthe war).
The main census districts inthis list are primarily vilayets. Sofya and Hersek are
valiliks—z termapplied to aEuropean province administered byavali (viceroy); Canik
(Samsun) Cebelilübnan, Beyrut, and Kudüs (Jerusalem) were mulasauitliks—i.e..
small districts governed byamutasarrit (acivil administrator traditionally charged with
the collection anddistribution of taxes); Mamuretülaziz and Erganimadeni are sancaks:
Basra still Is listed as an eyalet, the name given the largest administrative divisions
beforethepromulgation of theVilayet Law(1864) andthereorganization that followed.
Also listed, but not included inthecensus, weresome special districts' Misir (Egypt)
and Tunus (Tunisia) in Africa, Sisam (the island of Samos), and Eflak (Wallachia),
Boğdan (Moldavia), Sirp (Serbia), andKaradağ (Montenegro) in Europe; the last two
districts were beyliks.
Notes follow TableI.7.B.
Edirne 652,676 52,455
Tuna 907,774 160,251
Sofya 340,180 40,318
Selanik 393,029 27,053
Bosna 1,013,568 186,431
Hersek 193,248 27,987
Manastir 539,154 250,651
Yanya 187,513 27,070
Işkodra 135.000 37,500
Cezayir-i Bahr-i Sefid 177,982 65,963
Girit 232,834 65,128
Hüdavendigar 365,985 143,179
Aydın 372.022 127,388
Ankara 282,799 97.544
Konya 410,393 134.247
Kastamonu 422,906 119,501
Sivas 406,388 110,907
Trabzon 339,141 103.707
Canik 129,929 46,315
Erzurum 432,832 148,551
Van 233,629 73.799
Diyarbekir 409,000 80,300
Mamuretülaziz 95.000 12.400
Erganlmadeni 52,000 14.900
Suriye 202,000 95,000
Cebelilübnan 110,000 18.000
Beyrut 120,000 12,375
Kudüs 130,000 19,400
Adana 204,372 59,348
Halep 296,760 95.270
Trablusgarp 1,010.000 19,000
Bağdat 1.604.471 237,436
Basra 395.524 78,149
Yemen 266,000 93.000
Hicaz — —
Total 13.064.109 2.880.723
121
1.8. A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893
Muslims Greeks Bulgarians
Administratıve Dıstrıct F M • F M F M F M
AYDINPRCVINCE
İzmir Sancak
İzmir Central Kaza 34,566 44.722 24.028 29,058 3,151 3,659 20
Bergama î 25.574 28.230 4.676 5,574 399 410 116 142
Seferhisar 2,779 2.842 632 660 2 6
Foçateyn (Foça) 1.703 2.059 5,023 5,573 13 34 1 45
Urla 3.973 4,143 5.919 6.135 7 9
Menemen 6,869 7.661 2,209 2,213 49 57
Çeşme 1.770 1,907 12,981 13,845
Kuşadası 4.296 4,526 3.179 2,942 45 42 17
Tire 15,183 15,118 1.075 1,190 5 7 19 31
Ödemiş 26,833 26,984 1.773 1,997 512 581
Bayindir 8,840 9,052 1.439 1.690 87 90 1
Total, İzmir Sancak 132,386 147,244 62.934 70,877 4,270 4,895 136 256
Saruhan Sancak
Manisa 33,557 34,629 7.130 8.268 1,102 1.125
Kasaba (Turgutiu) 10,320 11,074 1,343 1,511 230 250
Salihli 11,313 12.396 280 385
Gördes -15,426 15,394 310 314
Demirci 16,415 17,266 17 72 1 5
Kula 12,612 13,355 1.556 1,588
Eşme 8,586 9,341
Akhisar 11,607 12,403 2,389 2,287 168 181
Kirkağaç 8,396 8,336 1.306 1,296 390 380
Alaşehir 12,414 13,324 1,265 1,275 7 11
Soma 8,872 8,814 613 606
Total, Saruhan Sancak 149.518 156.332 16,209 17,602 1,898 1,952
Aydin Sancak
Aydin Central Kaza 30,399 31,815 2,585 3,058 124 132
Nazilli 30,141 29,815 959 1,069 149 152
Bozdoğan 13,808 13,887 16 50 5 3
Söke 6,919 7.195 4,019 4,156 25 34
Çine 12,809 12,443 159 131
Total, Aydin Sancak 94,076 95,155 7,738 8,464 303 321
Denizli Sancak
Denizli Central Kaza 16,902 16,512 856 902 250 251 1
Tavas 26,430 26,466 1 28
Çal 21,335 20,823 18 139 1
Buldan 12,660 12,855 4
Saray 8,680 9,225 271 343
Garbikaraağaç (Acipayam) 18,459 19,058
Menteşe Sancak
Muğla 21,135 21,277 545 607
Milas 13,522 13,466 833 1,012
Bodrum 5,732 5,819 1,112 1,133
Marmaris 6,221 6,114 304 330
Köyceğiz 10,466 10,585 135 113 2 32
Meğri (Fethiye) 10,174 10,696 1.938 2,110
Total, Denizli and Menteşe Sancaks 171,716 172,896 6,013 6,721 250 251 2 34
TOTAL, AYDINPROVINCE 547.696 571,627 92,894 103,664 6,721 7,419 138 290
Catholics
1 M~
372 365
58
58
452 423
122
1.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Monophysites Non-Muslim Foreign
Jews Protestants Latins (Syriacs) Gypsies Citizens Total
F M F M F M F M F M F M F M Population
7,175 7,734 63 65 464 586 26,295 25.225 96,114 111,434 207.548
252 243 24 52 31,041 34,651 65.692
3,413 3,508 6.921
53 44 1,374 1.399 8,167 9,154 17,321
142 140 10,041 10,427 20.468
128 101 30 50 9,285 10.082 19.367
54 69 33 .43 14.838 15.864 30.702
7,520 7,527 15,047
514 515 16.796 16.861 33.657
29,118 29,562 58,680
18 13 14 11 10,398 10.857 21,255
8,336 8.859 77 76 464 586 27,756 26.769 236.731 259,927 496.658
652 693 122 813 42,563 45.528 88,091
340 391 12.233 13,226 25,459
11.593 12.781 24.374
15.736 15.708 31,444
3 16,433 17.346 33,779
14,168 14.943 29,111
8.586 9.341 17.927
85 95 14.249 14.966 29.215
34 40 66 83 10,192 10,135 20,327
12 15 13,698 14,625 28,323
9.485 9,420 18,905
1,123 1,234 188 899 168.936 178,019 346,955
941 954 34.129 36.017 70,146
100 95 31.349 31.131 62.480
6 5 13.835 13.945 27,780
10,963 11,385 22.348
12,968 12,574 25,542
1,047 1,054 103.244 105,052 208.296
8 15 18.016 17,681 35.697
26,431 26.494 52.925
21,353 20.963 42,316
12.660 12.859 25.519
8,951 9.568 18.519
18.459 19.058 37,517
2 1 21,682 21.885 43.567
168 188 53 50 14,576 14.716 29.292
45 37 3 3 6,892 6.992 13.884
18 6.525 6.462 12.987
15 10,603 10.745 21,348
10 16 12.122 12.822 24.944
225 275 64 68 178,270 180.245 358.515
10.731 11.422 77 76 464 586 28,008 27.736 687,181 723.243 1.410.424
1.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Administrative District
EDİRNE PR0VINCE
Edirne Central Sancak
Gelibolu Kaza
Dedeağaç
Kirkkılise (Kırklareli)
Tekırdaği (Tekfurdağı)
Gümülcine
TOTAL, EOIRNEPROVINCE
ERZURUMPROVINCE'
ErzurumSancak
ErzurumCentral Kaza
Ova
Tercan
Bayburt
İspir
Keskin
Tortum
Pasinler
Kiği
Hinis
Total, ErzurumSancak
Bayezit Sancak
Bayezit Central Kaza
Diyadin
Tutak (Antap)
Karakilise (Karakose)
Eleşkirt
Total, Bayezit Sancak
Erzincan Sancak
Erzincan Central Kaza
Refahiye
Kemah
Kiruçay (İliç)
Total, Erzincan Sancak
TOTAL, ERZURUMPROVINCE
ADANAPROVINCE
Adana Sancak
Kozan Sanjak
Sis (Kozan)
Kadirli
Sayimbeyli (Haçin)
Feke
Total, KozanSancak
İçel Sancak
Silifke
Mut
Ermenek
Gülnar
Anamur
Total, İçe! Sancak
124
Muslims Greeks Armemans Bulgarians Cathoi es
F M . F M F M F M F M
57.162 60,046 37.449 40,381 1.917 1.924 14.708 16.213 136 173
12.239 13,366 28.250 30,903 524 556 805 869
13.205 15.327 12.093 11,734 33 • 254 5.835 6.614 35 35
17,111 19,216 26.208 27,455 45 63 16.320 17,679 44 40
21,397 23,235 18.361 20.532 5.403 5.601 1.765 2.010 274 287
90,364 91.698 6,492 7.362 175 147 9.828 9.599
211,478 222,888 128,853 138.367 8,097 8.545 49,261 52,984 489 535
3,797
4,870
3,137
2,294
6,799
20,897
5,146
5.226
4,496
3,905
7,729
26,502
945
132
105
969
1,650
3,801
210
108
1,211
1.957
4.454
19.879 21,644 91 115 6,125 6,561
10,009 10,631 557 544 376 393
6,468 7,393 281 299 1,483 1,671
4,874 5,045 1,231 1,186
•41,230 44,713 929 958 9,215 9,811
204,993 240,555 1,593 1,763 46,080 55,058
8,679
6.665
6,141
4,497
25,982
12,058
5,979
12,309
8,128
10,674
49,148
9,659
7,444
6,885
5,299
29,287
11,770
5,993
11,723
8.175
11,883
49,544
544
544
378
7
114
145
600
600
523
24
3
136
185
871
6,645
351
4,907
821
12,724
45
21
9
75
7.381
369
5.297
1.015
14,062
35
9
112
565
565
27
73
100
I H A . Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Jews Protestants
F M
Latins
Monophysites
(Synacs)
F M
Non-Muslim
Gypsies
Foreign
13.473 13,636 244 242 4,577 5.153 375 416
21,862 23,847 3 8 3,765 9,613 200 203
8,066 11,179 51 72 2.507 3,755
20,030 22,797 280 375 4.557 5,098
14,563 15,588 1 1,100 1.199 42 37
9,579 12,369 17 20 323 369 1,641 1,859
21,448 25,224 546 621 171 183
15,665 19,691 9 12 2,863 3.915 116 179
11,322 16.373 60 75 4,169 6.312
6,858 8,636 3,657 4,758
142,866 169,340 664 805 33,064 40,793 2,545 2.877
4,370
790
11
425
780
__232
6,608
4,548
814
24
475
876
372
7,109
18
27
92
137
743
743
3,110 3,620
95
322
152
733
£1
21
39
80
119
Adana Central Kaza 26,709 31,340 712 893 4,336 5,276 306 342
Tarsus 19,023 20.839 281 365 470 704 139 196
Mersin 9,707 10,030 505 697 121 309 131 166
Karaisalı 10,090 11,505 20 19
Total, Adana Sancak 65,529 73,714 1,498 1,955 4,947 6.308 576 704
29
72
101
4
17
304
94
398
42
331
_59
432
30
142
Citizens Total
Total
Population F M F M
Total
Population
115,760 123'313 239,073
25 88 42,633 46,596 89,229
31.212 33,988 65,200
99 92 60.279 65.050 125,329
48,072 52.629 100,701
90 150 107,181 109,328 216.509
214 330 405,137 430,904 836,041
164 165 97
136
412
208
921
i l
31
49
66
115
97
13
13
121
11
10
142
3
37
40
873 1,067 110 182
332
88
420
45
351
_84
480
39 76
39 76
18,941 19.743 38.684
30,830 33,671 64,501
10,624 15.006 25,630
24.867 28,270 53,137
15,705 16,836 32,541
11,560 14,627 26,187
22,165 26.028 48,193
18,748 23,933 42,681
15,873 23,172 39,045
10,667 13,602 24,269
179,980 214,888 394,868
4,742 6,114 ' 10,856
5.002 5,439 10,441
3,242 4.604 7,846
3,276 5,153 8,429
9,035 10,460 19,495
25,297 31,770 57,067
26.134 28,369 54,503
10,942 11,568 22,510
8,312 9,429 17,741
6,105 6,231 12,336
51,493 55,597 107,090
256,770 302,255 559,025
32,406 38.259 70,665
20,007 22,192 42,199
10,464 11,202 21,666
10,110 11,524 21,634
72,967 83,177 156,164
15,393 17.114 32,507
7,016 7,813 • 14,829
11,452 12,605 24,057
5,921 6.998 12.919
39,782 44.530 84,312
12.486 12,374 24,860
5,986 6.017 12,003
12,330 11.761 24,091
8,251 8.324 16,575
10,819 12.068 22,887
49,872 50.544 100,416
125
1.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Catholics
Admmıstrative Districi f M F M F M F M F M
ADANA PROViNCE. contınued
Cebelibereket (Osmaniye) Sancak
3arpu2 1.432 1.588 147 210
69 81
Hassa 2,923 4,157 14 11 136 ' 154 69 81
İslahiye ; 3,819 4.536 118 175
Bulanık (Bahçe) 4.251 4.496 911 1.122
Osmaniye 3,634 4.129 39 61
Payas 6,266 6,941 55 70 1,655 1.843
Total. Cebelibereket Sancak 22,325 25,847 69 81 3.006 3.565 69 81
TOTAL ADANA PROVİNCE 162,984 178,392 2,755 3,507 20.752 24.047 750 903
IŞKODRA (SCUTARI) PR0VINCE=
Işkodra Sancak
Akçahisar 6.132 6.264 923 873
Draç Sancak
Draç Central Kaza 1,383 1.634 712 802 114 87
Tiran 15,749 15,777 386 501 23 27
Kuvaya 8,372 8,523 1.295 1,456
Sirak 7,532 7,234 375 386 379 371
Total, Draç Sancak 33,036 33,168 2.768 3,145 516 485
TOTAL, IŞKODRA PROVİNCE 39,168 39,432 2.768 3,145 1,439 1,358
ANKARA PROVİNCE
Ankara Sancak
Ankara Central Kaza 8,686 8,532 843 794 376 349 2,846 2.733
Zir (Simdibuak) 7.310 7,014 1,118 1,096
Ayaş 10.852 10,933 2 2 9
Beypazari 8,327 7,924 9
Nailihan 7,516 7,354 403 424
Mihaliççik (Eskişehir; Kuyucak) 9,340 9.189
Sivrihisar 14,048 12.284 1,848 1.803
Haymana 11.945 13,383 11 12 2 3
Bala 11,316 11,556
Çubuk 9,236 8,518
Kalecik 17,226 17,550 227 252
Kizilcahamam (Yabanabat) 22,643 22,302
Total, Ankara Sancak 138,445 136,539 854 808 3,976 3,936 2,846 2,742
Kayseri Sancak
Kayseri Central Kaza 42,140 43,023 9,196 9,210 12,178 12,772 380 335
Develi 10,746 11,032 886 935 5,241 5,605
İncesu 6,575 6,841 2,356 2,312 23
Total, Kayseri Sancak 59,461 60.896 12,438 12,457 17,419 18,400 380 335
Yozgat Sancak
Yozgat Central Kaza 22,239 22,878 564 592 4,134 4,325
Çorum 23,830 24,551 45 101 200 297
Sungurlu 30,156 33,789 333 357 1,367 1.476
Boğazlıyan 16,091 17,359 218 270 4.076 4.770
Maden (Akdağmadeni) 13,713 13,971 2,677 2,391 767 925
Total, Yozgat Sancak 106,029 112,548 3,837 3,711 10,544 11,793
Kirşehir Sancak
Kirşehir Central Kaza 25,692 27,907 15 23 318 390
Keskin 19,465 20,014 362 410 161 161
Çiçekdağı (Mecidiye) 5,055 5,745
Avanos 8.357 9,613 241 151
Total, Kirşehir Sancak 58,569 63,279 377 433 720 702
TOTAL, ANKARA PROVİNCE 362,504 373,262 17,506 17,409 32.659 34,831 3,226 3.077
126
I.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Monophysites Non-Muslim Foreign
Protestants Latins (Syriacs) Gypsies Citizens Total T o t 3 |
F M F M F M F M F M F M Population
1,579 1.798 3,377
58 72 3.200 4,475 7,675
3,937 4,711 8,648
140 144 5,302 5,762 11,064
3,673 4,190 7,863
7,976 8.854 16.830
198 216 25,667 29,790 55,457
1,028 1,116 39 76 188,308 208,041 396,349
7,055 7,137 14,192
19 29 2,228 2.552 4,780
3 5 16,161 16.310 32,471
3 3 9,670 9,982 19,652
8,286 7,991 16,277
25 _37 36,835 36,335 73,180
25 37 43,400 43,972 87,372
12,983 12,602 25,585
188 7 6 8.537 8.237 16,774
10,854 10,955 21,809
2 109 127 8,327 7,924 16,251
7,919 7,778 15,697
9,340 9.189 18,529
15,896 14,087 29,983
11,958 13,398 25,356
11,316 11.556 22,872
9,236 8,518 17,754
3 17,453 17,805 35,258
22,643 22,302 44,945
190 116 133 3 146,462 144,351 290,813
664 651 64,558 65,991 130.549
120 118 16,993 17,690 34,683
8,931 9.176 18.107
784 769 90,482 92,857 183,339
111 96 27,048 27.891 54.939
16 17 24,091 24,966 49.057
66 63 31,922 35,685 67.607
18 25 20,403 22.424 42.827
17,157 17.287 ' 34.444
211 201 120,621 128,253 248,874
26,025 28,320 - 54.345
14 12 20,002 20.597 40.599
5,055 5.745 10.800
8,598 9,764 18.362
14 12 59,680 64,426 124.106
190 ' 1.125 1.115 3 417.245 429,887 847.132
¡ S.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Cathodes
Administraiive Dıstrict F M F M F M F M F M
İZMİT SPECIAL DISTR1CT
İzmit Centra! Kaza 9,285 9,963 1.696 1.880 7.826 8,011 5 '8 63 70
Adapazari r
18.991 21,327 1.307 1.210 5.432 5,270
Kandira r 21.011 19,675 990 1.098 626 633
Geyve : 11.528 10,605 2.229 2.291 2.818 3,055
Karamürsel 4.960 5.772 5.136 5.887 1,607 1.942
TOTAL. İZMİT SPECIAL DISTRİCT 65.775 67,348 11.352 12.366 18,309 18.911 5 8 63 70
i BAĞDAT (BAGHDAD) PROVINCE
Bağdat Central Kaza 756 103,625 349 875
Hille
26,916
Kerbela 18,811
TOTAL, BAĞDAT PROVINCE 756 149,352 349 875
BASRAPROVINCE
' Basra Central Kaza 5,729 32 75
Ammare 3,658 3 33
Kurna 767
TOTAL, BASRA PROVINCE 10,154 35 108
BEYRUT PROVINCEc
Beyrut Sancak
Beyrut Central Kaza 10,969 11,693 6,473 6,821 32 54 7.037 7,468
Sayda (Sidon) 16,570 17,215 66 82 2.352 2.714
Sur 11,061 10,656 142 160 1,938 2,072
• Mercium 6.607 6.281 1,826 1,902 892 899
Total, Beyrut Sancak 45,207 45,845 8,507 8,965 32 54 12,219 13,153
Akka (Acre) Sancak
Akka Central Kaza 9,686 10,328 1,369 1,545 1,510 1,703
Hayta 6,592 7,343 220 232 616 749
Safat 6,306 6,576 97 121 481 633
Nasira 3,463 3,385 1,406 1,453 442 497
Tabarya 2,505 2,656 22 32 80 78
Total, Akka Sancak 28,552 30,288 3,114 3,383 3,129 3,660
• Lazkiye Sancak
Lazkiye Central Kaza 17,634 19,754 870 982 266 270
Cebele 10,351 8,297
Merkap 14,851 13,761 1,179 1,215 463 572
Sakyun 12,006 13,864 487 645 2 2
Total, Lazkiye Sancak 54.842 55,676 2,536 2,842 731 844
Trablusşam Sancak
Trablus Central Kaza 15,749 16,781 3,520 4,237 1,467 2,058
Akar 6,198 6,340 3,309 4.610 2,031 2,854
: Safita
; Hisnülekrat
13,593 13,783 884 1,179 78 124
: Safita
; Hisnülekrat 7,686 7,978 3,356 3,517 152 251
j Total. Trablusşam Sancak 43,226 44,882 11,069 13,543 3,728 5,287
• ;Beika Sancak
Nablis 13,804 16.982 285 367 13 22
Benisaap 14,963 16,308 6 46
Cemain 9,837 11,443
Cenin 13,609 16,570 155 158
Total, Belka Sancak 52,213 61,303 446 571 13 22
TOTAL, BEYRUT PROVINCE 224,040 237,994 25,672 29.304 32 54 19.820 22,966
128
T fi,A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
~ — ~~ Monophysit.es Non-Muslim Foreign
jews Protestants Latins _ _(Syri acs)_ _ Gypsies Cfens _ _ Jotal
JeWS Krotestanış
M
Ldl l
F
ıs
M F M F M F M F M Population
F
ivl
fi/ 333 382
51 54 19.337 20,452 39,789
78
OH
Q 1 ^0 162
27 40 25,912 28,012 53,924
3 0 I Dc 22,627 21,406 44,033
1 36 43
1" 16,611 15,996 32,601
18 11.703 13,619 25,322
81 88 521 587
78 113 96,190 99,485
195,675
17 49 371
11.420 789 128.648 129,437
33 11,942
2
27.428 27,428
510
230
21.850 40,891 40,891
33 12,682 17 49 373
33,270 789 196,967 197,756
6,114 6,114
CI 0
1AO 126
3,963 3,963
9
776 776
421 135
10.853 10,853
ci t;
153 189 145 97
25,391 26,937 52,328
582 Dİ 0
007 64 82 21 16
19,350 20,406 39,756
277
50 57 1
13,191 12,946 26,137
426 441
9,751 9.523 19,274
859 912 693 769 166 114
67,683 69.812 137,495
R1 60 70 104 112
12,791 13,819 26,610
62
D i
9Q1
5 10 59 65
7,704 8.690 16,394
212 ¿3 i
ÛQ
6,978 7,429 14,407
94 yy
139 149 663 695
6,113 6,179 12,292
408 391
3 4
3,018 3,161 6,179
776 842 204 229 829 876
36,604 39,278 75,882
18,770 21.006 39.776
10,351 8,297 18,648
16,493 15.548 32,041
12,495 14.511 27,006
58,109 59,362 117,471
31
11; 23
5 8
20,787 23,139 43,926
31 32
İÜ
11,538 13.807 25,345
14.555 15.086 29,641
11,194 11.746 22,940
31 32 15 26 5 8
58,074 63.778 121,852
AO 112 134 98 130
14.353 17.677 32,030
41
Qc
14.969 16,314
0 1 ,¿00
9.837 11.446 21,283
3
3 13 14 79 77
13,856 16.862 30,718
41 48 125 148 177 207
53.015 62.299 115.314
1,707 1.834 1.037 1,172 1,177 1.205
273.485 294.529 568,014
129
1.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Administrative District
Muslims
Bulgarians
F M
Catholics
F M
BİTLİS PROVINCE*
Bitlis Central Sancak
Siirt
Muş Sancak
i Genç Sancak
TOTAL. BİTLİS PROVINCE
18.817
22.181
19.789
12.536
73.323
25.650
26.914
22,858
18,309
93,731
12.051
5.457
25.698
2,375
45.581
18,394
6,514
28.078
2.791
55.777
10 16
1.058 1,388
1,103 1.373
2.171 2.777
SIĞA SPECIAL DISTRICT
'' Çanakkale
Ezme
Ayvacik
Biga
Lapseki
TOTAL. BİGA SPECIAL DISTRICT
4,093 4.225 2.532 2.407 432 532
13,826 14,693 2.094 2.332 195 274
7,668 8.634 612 1.059
16,735 19.807 1.447 1,713 144 136
4,707 5,080 335 570 8 20 180 222
47,029 52,439 7.020 8,081 779 962 180 222
ÇEZAYIR-I BAHR-I SEFID
i (AEGEANISLANDS) PROVINCE6
Şodos Sancak
• Rodos
Sombeki
Meyis
Kirpa
3,024
15
110
3,443
21
115
22
9,537
2,691
2.083
3.225
803
11,174
3,185
2.552
3,209
805
Total, Rodos Sancak 3,149 3,601 18,339 20,925 2
Sakiz Sancak
Sakız Central Kaza 792 916 16,527 18,579 9
Istanköy 1,202 1,237 5,116 5,343
Kalimnos 18 46 4,666 4.816
Leros 6 12 3,674 2,949
Kalyot 4 17 3,998 4,197
. Ipsara 5 4 501 418
Total, Sakıs Sancak 2,027 2,232 34,482 36,302 9
iMldilii Sancak
Midilli Central Kaza 2,261 2,533 17,864 17,231 8
Mulve 3,022 4,570 13,320 13,737 12
Pilmar 301 358 9,218 9,506
• Yunda 39 50 2,059 2,358
Total, Midilli Sancak 5,623 7,511 42,461 42.832 20
Limni Sancak
Limni Central Kaza 944 1,048 9,539 10,101
İmroz 46 53 4,603 4,754
Bozcaada 629 618 1,163 1,316 3
Total, Limni Sancak 1,619 1,719 15.305 16.171 3
(TOTAL, CEZAYIR-I BAHR-I
SEFIOPROVINCE 12,418 15,063 110,587 116,230 34
ÇATALCA SPECIAL DISTRICT
Çatalca Central Kaza 3,093 3,510 4,907 5,438
Silivri • 1,690 2,131 4.526 4,915 436
Bûyükçekmece 2,071 2,596 7,522 8,540 11
TOTAL, ÇATALCA SPECIAL DISTRICT 6.854 8,237 16,955 18,893 447
9 5
24
12
36
44
439
J3
452
604
1.368
657
2,629
756
1,436
765
2,957
130
1.8.A. Ottoman General Census of .1881/82-1893 (continued)
Monophysites Non-Muslim Foreign
Jews Protestants Latins (Syriacs) Gypsies Citizens Total
F M F M F M F M F M F M F M Population
239 322 96 165 31.213- 44,547 75.760
202 233 755 965 29.653 36,014 65.667
195 307 70 89 46,855 52.705 99,560
14,911 21,100 36,011
636 862 851 1,130 70 89 122,632 154.366 276,998
766 729 19 27 125 167 7.967 8.087 16,054
114 126 16,229 17,425 33,654
3 8 22 8,288 9,718 18.006
18.326 21,656 39.982
17 5,230 5,909 11,139
880 875 19 27 133 189 56,040 62,795 118,835
,316 1,374 344 394 14,224 16.385 30,609
2,706 3.206 5.912
3 3 2 3 2,198 2,673 4,871
25 35 3,250 3,244 6,494
778 781 1,581 1,608 3,189
,319 1,377 1,149 1,213 23,959 27,116 51,075
80 99 14 18 1,507 1,486 18.929 21,103 40,032
32 35 6,350 6.615 12,965
91 79 4,775 4,941 9,716
54 59 3,734 3.020 6.754
2 4 4.004 4.218 8,222
_2 2 508 424 932
116 140 14 18 1.652 1.624 38,300 40.321 78.621
40 165 20,173 19.953 40.126
16.354 18.319 34.673
9,519 9,864 19,383
62 103 2,160 2,511 4,671
102 268 48,206 50,647 98,853
47 71 10,530 11.220 21,750
4,649 4,807 9,456
41 62 1,836 1,999 3.835
88 133 17,015 18,026 35,041
.435 1,517 14 18 2.991 3,238 127,480 136.110 263.590
1 4 8.605 9,708 18.313
444 521 219 208 8,683 9,650 18.333
1 10,261 11,915 22.176
444 522 220 212 27.549 31,273 58.622
131
1.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Admınisirative Dıstrıct
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Catholics
Admınisirative Dıstrıct F M F M F M F M F M
HALEP (ALEPPO) PR0VINCE:
Halep Central Sancak 228.413 226,148 3.562 3.988 10.100 11.505 7.722 7.758
Maraş 54,267 61.413 9.508 11,511 1.903 2.085
Urfa ? 56.827 57.531 2 4.146 5.637 244 224
TOTAL. HALEP PROVlıMCE ; 339.507 345,092 3.562 3.990 23.754 28.653 9,869 10.067
HUDAVENDIGAR (BURSA) PROVINCE
Bursa Sancak
* Bursa 44.641 45.022 10.702 10,584 3,232 2,594 22 357 293
Mudanya 2.348 2,543 5.63! 6,161
Gemlik 7.403 7,937 3.120 3,455 7,810 8.813
Orhaneli (Adranos) 19,290 19,139
Mıhaliç (Karacabey) 9,421 10,681 3,436 3,830 377 377
Kirmasti (M. Kemalpaşa) 19,128 21,000 514 540 404 409
Total, Bursa Sancak 102,231 106.322 23,403 24,570 11.823 12.193 22 357 293
'lErtuğrul Sancak
; Bilecik 24,211 22,932 3,942 3,602 3,213 3,124 378 372
i Söğüt 19,167 19,308 767 775 1,779 2.183 15 26
1 İnegöl 19,451 18,892 2,688 2,816 47 47
Yenişehir 13,950 14,304 878 862 760 833
Total, Ertuğrul Sancak 76,779 75,436 5,587 5,239 8,440 8,956 440 445
Kütahya Sancak
Kütahya Central Kaza 58,853 56,532 2,245 2,157 1,443 1,365 432 341
Uşak 37,070 34,535 725 707 340 320
Gediz 16,932 15,966
Simav 16,606 15,930 15 60 2 7 2 2
Eskişehir 27,470 28,608 308 512 568 604 3 81 108
Total, Kütahya Sancak 156,931 151,571 3,293 3,436 2,353 2,296 3 515 451
Afyonkarahisari (Karahisar-i Sahip) Sancak
Afyon Central Kaza 38.405 38,274 2,615 2,699
Emirdağ (Aziziye) 11.542 12,022 3 6 23 35 1
Bolvadin 15,779 16,212
'. Sandikli 36.592 36,713 25 69 36 42
Total, Afyonkarahisari Sancak 102,318 103,221 28 75 2,674 2,776 1
Karesi Sancak
Balıkesir 53,972 56,353 958 1,002 956 844 265 988
Sindirği 11,650 11,604 400 437
Erdek 1,485 1,585 14,462 14,703 8 10
Bandirma 14,519 15,473 2,762 2,725 2,282 2,175 443 406
Gönen 11,997 11,926 855 837 5 8 5
Edremit 12,851 14,148 2,591 2,937 4 6
Burhaniye (Kemer) 8,183 8,962 1,035 1,398 1 8
Ayvalık 40 50 9,798 10,335
Bigadiç 11.778 11.378 52 99
^ Total, Karesi Sancak 126,475 131,479 32,913 34,473 3,256 3,051 265 993 443 406
j TOTAL, HÜDAVENDIGAR PROVINCE 564,734 568,029 65,224 67,793 28,546 29,272 265 1.019 1,755 1,595
OIYARBEKİR PROVINCE
Diyarbekir Sancak
Diyarbekir Central Kaza 22,280 20,388 80 112 5.772 6,311 1,194 1,366
Siverek 13,514 14,957 726 675 50 21
Lice 8.785 10,284 2,171 2,476
Derik 4,524 5,262 148 175 74 88
Silvan 5,186 6,189 78 84 3.049 3.511 69 83
Total, Diyarbekir Sancak 54,289 57,080 158 196 11.866 13.148 1,387 1,558
132
I .8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued^
Jews Protestants Latins
Monophysites
(Syriacs)
Non-Muslim
Gypsies
F M F M F M F M
4,697 4,659 2,371 2,541 84 109 1,255 1,361
107 91 1,701 1,781 189 109
177 182 321 367 489 629
4.981 4,932 4,393 4,689 273 218 1,744 1,990
1,281 1,303 145 151 5 7
37 34
38 49 25 23
_ —
_

1,319 1,352 207 208 5 7
78 77
89 85
4 5
171 167
12
12
154
132
70
202
40
40
146
Foreign
Citizens
158 156
1,489 1,548
153
39
192
378
473
112
143
69
_24
821
375
510
101
148
78
21
858
1,969
261
348
48
239
2.865
2,077
187
444
51
285
3,044
25
25
28
28
Total
F M F M Population
258.204 258,069 516,273
67,675 76.990 144,665
62,204 64,572 126,776
388,083 399,631 787,714
533 718 60,896 60,694 121,590
7,979 8,704 16,683
97 116 18,467 20,355 38,822
19,290 19.139 38,429
2 4 13,299 14,964 28,263
20,046 21,949 41,995
632 838 139,977 145,805 285,782
31,822 30,107 61,929
21,728 22,292 44,020
22,275 21,840 44.115
J 15,592 16,008 31,600
4 91,417 90.247 181,664
62,973 60,395 123,368
14 8 38,149 35,570 73.719
16,932 15,966 32,898
16,625 15,999 32,624
5 76 28,444 29,951 58,395
19 84 163,123 157,881 321,004
41,020 40,973 81,993
11,568 12,064 23,632
15,779 16,212 31,991
36,653 36,824 73,477
105,020 106,073 211,093
14 22 56,165 59,209 115,374
12,050 12,041 24,091
194 260 16,303 16,704 33,007
59 68 20,065 20,847 40,912
12,860 12,782 25,642
95 99 15.542 17,194 32,736
4 4 9.223 10,372 19,595
703 751 10,541 11.136 21,677
11,830 11,477 23,307
1,069 1.204 164,579 171,762 336,341
1.720 2.130 664,116 671,768 1,335,884
31,925 30,945 62,870
14,733 15,980 30,713
11,447 13,352 24,799
4.863 5.654 10,517
8.645 10,173 18,818
71,613 76.104 147,717
133
1.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Catholics
Administrative Oistnct F M F M F M F M F M
OIYARBEKIR PROVINCE, continued
Mardin Sancak
Mardin Central Kaza 11,266 11,292 1.994 2.233
Midyat 9,742 11.784 24 29 93 118
Cizre 3.168 2.867 790 791
Avniye 10.112 11.788 51 70
Nusaybin 2.349 2.289
Total, Mardin Sancak 37.137 40.020 24 29 2.928 3.212
Maden (Ergani) Sancak
Maden Central Kaza 18.976 20,053 372 440 1.729 2.250 73 165 132
Çermik 11,050 13,363 2.330 2.614 200 211
Palu 17.035 20.588 6.104 6.729
Total, Maden Sancak 47.061 54.004 372 440 10,163 11.593 73 365 343
TOTAL, DIYARBEKIR PROVINCE 138.487 151.104 530 636 22,053 24.770 73 4.680 5.113
Zor Sancak5
Deyr 7,801 7,464 28 55 125 175
Aşare 5Î334 5,170
Resülayn 4,152 3,942
Total, Zor Sancak 17.287 16.576 28 55 125 175
SURİYE (SYRIA) PROVINCE"
Şam (Damascus) Sancak
Şam Central Kaza 53,935 44,686 1,991 2,260 96 103 2,249 2,535
Duma 21,185 20,927 93 107 75 115
Hasbiya 2,665 3,078 1,406 1,573 422 468
Raşya 1,535 1,993 769 883 269 321
Vadiülacem 17,110 17,077 784 1,033 153 187
Baalbek 6,241 6,765 489 733 1,693 2,253
Beka 5,999 6,633 1,064 1,347 2,298 2.944
Nebak 15,828 15,762 763 969 1,480 1.957
Total, ŞamSancak 124,498 116,921 7,364 8,905 96 103 8,639 10,780
Hama Sancak
Hama Central Kaza 22,362 20,875 2,692 3,231 205 246
Selimiye 158 172
Humus 21,337 20,154 2,672 3,787 2,302 2,926
Hamidiye 6,541 5,913 380 368 22 20
Total, Hama Sancak 50,398 47,114 5,744 7,336 2.529 3.192
TOTAL, SURİYE PROVINCE 174,896 164,035 13,108 16,291 96 103 11,168 13.972
SELANİK (SALONICA) PROVINCE
Selanik Sancak
Selanik Central Kaza 14,303 15,186 17,815 19,170 61 88 279 838 230 241
Avrathisari 11,427 12,193 1,252 1,421 6,958 7,626 22 30
Toyran 9,627 9,796 764 827 1 2,708 2,897 179 197
Usturmca 7,855 7.905 6,619 7,107 1,423 1,542
Köprülü 8,778 9,315 203 217 15.608 17,235
Yenice 10,825 11,748 8,363 9,792 668 700 4 6
Vodine 7,227 7,735 6,669 7,539 1.861 2,082
Tikveş 9,671 10,238 68 192 10.033 11,286
Kesendire • 1,856 2,482 14,361 16,006 4 3
Lankaza 14,328 15,106 9.271 10,267 808 843
Gevgili 8,309 8,754 6,745 7,813 2,756 3,028 694 708
Karaferiye 3,389 3,936 7,232 7,871 960 1.214
Aynaro2 57 4,195 2.251
Katrin 1.220 1,972 9,751 10,914 4 199
Total, Selanik Sancak 108,815 116,423 89,113 103,331 65 92 44,066 é 51,741 1,129 1,182
134
I.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Monophysites Non-Muslim Foreign
Jews Protestants Latins (Syriacs) Gypsies Citizens Total j o t a i
M F M F M F M F M F M F M Population
218 214 1,646 1,913 15,124 15,652 30,776
146 200 1,614 2,043 11,619 14,174 25,793
85 64 24 36 103 94 4,170 3,852 8,022
63 79 260 318 10,486 12,255 22,741
154 107 1,279 1,210 4,282 3,606 7,888
239 171 451 529 4,902 5,578 45,681 49,539 95,220
27 23 39 33 21,308 22,938 44,246
128 119 477 430 14,185 16.737 30,922
164 201 18 20 23,321 27,538 50,859
128 119 668 654 57 53 58,814 67,213 126,027
569 482 1,940 2,041 7,767 8,622 82 81 176,108 192,856 368,964
2 1 1 7,955 7,697 15,652
5,334 5,170 10,504
4.152 3,942 8,094
2 1 1 17,441 16,809 34,250
3.088 3,177 32 29 43 47 6 61,434 52,843 114,277
21,353 21,149 42,502
5 7 152 162 4,650 5.288 9,938
9 13 2,582 3,210 5,792
18,047 18,297 36,344
8,423 9,751 18,174
5 2 9,366 10,926 20,292
22 29 18,098 18,717 36,815
3,093 3,184 220 235 43 47 6 143,953 140,181 284,134
13 11 2 2 25,274 24,365 49,639
158 172 330
102 121 26,413 26,988 53,401
6,943 6,301 13,244
115 132 2 2 58,788 57,826 116,614
3,093 3.184 335 367 45 49 6 202,741 198,007 400,748
17,169 17,354 376 434 50,233 53,311 103,544
19,659 21,270 40,929
79 88 2 5 13,359 13,811 27,170
281 292 16,178 16,846 33,024
24,589 26,767 51,356
29 73 1 19,889 22,320 42,209
15,757 17,356 33.113
7 20 5 19,779 21,741 41,520
64 60 16.285 18,551 34,836
4 3 37 40 24,448 26,259 50,707
18,504 20.303 38,807
183 210 11 28 11,775 13,259 25,034
137 6.640 6,640
7 25 10,982 13.110 24,092
17.759 18.065 490 710 261,437 291.544 552,981
1,8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians
Administrative District F M F M F M F M
SELANİK PROVINCE, continued
Serez Sancak
Serez Central Kaza 14.935 16,275 14,951 16.197 5 9.338 10.1'56
Cumaibaia , 3.015 3.109 7 109 7.998 8,105
Zihne î 3.327 3.901 10.405 11,398 1.864 2,587
Nevrekop 27.267 29.218 562 591 14.341 15.722
Demirhisar 7.638 8.048 6.484 6,985 4.874 5.817
Petriç 4.713 4,910 32 39 7.915 8.702
Menlik 3.691 4.018 1.368 1,331 5.127 5.817
Razllk 4,973 4.822 7.334 7.740
« Total. Serez Sancak 69,559 74,301 33.809 36,650 5 58.791 64,646
Drama Sancak
Drama Central Kaza 24,120 25,051 5.659 6,632 4 1.607 1,651
Kavala 6,239 6,936 650 1.100 10 25
Sarişaban 8.183 8,277 58 235 182
Total, Drama Sancak 38,542 40,264 6.367 7,967 10 29 1,607 1,833
TOTAL, SELANİK PROVINCE '216.916 230,988 129.289 147,948 75 126 104,464 118,220
Catholics
F M
SİVAS PROVINCE
Sivas Sancak
Sivas Central Kaza 31,934 33,762 290 252 9,990 10,456 808
Hafik 16,443 16,061 5,526 5,369
Şarkişla (Tenus) 14.666 16,253 5,669 6,288
Yıldızeli 15.627 17,070 11 14 421 468
Zara (Kocgiri) 16,711 18,849 1,297 1,350 1,940 2,149
Divriği 12,158 13.020 3,853 4,133
Darende 7,923 8,678 1,113 1,163
Gürün 5,671 5,980 3 3,006 3,152 178
Emirdağ (Aziziye) 27.389 31,453 304 313 1,493 1,548
Total Sivas Sancak 148,527 161,126 1,902 1,932 33,011 34,726 986
874
169
Amasya Sancak
' • Amasya Central Kaza
Vezirköprü (Köprö)
; Merzifon
: Gümüşhaciköy
• Mecitözü
Osmancik
Ladik
Havza
Total, Amasya Sancak
Karahisar-i Şarki (Şebinkarahisar) Sancak
18,335 18,835 678 736 3,030 3.134 10 13
13,284 16,142 928 932 487 507
9,171 9,616 74 89 2.528 2.789 140 139
9,938 10,309 1,045 1,104 1,286 1,314
15,992 15,547 80 72 63 69
8,594 8,997 3 26 19
5,477 5,879 1,000 994 \ 85 94
6,723 6,907 1,863 1,766 39 55
87,514 92,232 5,668 5,696 7,544 7,981 150 152
Karahisar-i Şarki Central Kaza 9,500 9,921 3,814 4,698 3,491 3.627
Mesudiye (Melet; Hamidiye) 12,224 14,998 1.479 1,653 86 132
Suşehri 8,086 9,423 578 801 4,440 5,271
Koyulhisar 7,791 8,576 279 314 24 25
• Alucra 10,765 11,391 202 206
>-.4 Total, Karahisar-i Şarki Sancak 48,366 54,309 6,352 7,677 8,041 9,055
Tokat Sancak
Tokat Central Kaza
' •' Ziie
• Erbaa
Niksar
Total, Tokat Sancak
Foreigners within the province
TOTAL, SİVAS PROVINCE
30,818 34,526 1,079 1,088 4,277 4,921 370 351
23,011 25,447 26 23 964 1,054
17,329 18,346 1,843 1,855 790 851
7.571 8,863 946 1,081 826 1.002
78,729 87,182 3,894 4,047 6,857 7,828 370 351
3,565 5,008 193 452 565 937
366,701 399,857 18,009 19,804 56,018 60,527 1,506 1,546
136
1.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Monophysites Non-Muslim Foreign
Jews Protestants Latins (Syriacs) Gypsies Citizens Total j ( |
M F M F M F M F M F M F M Population
514 481 303 344 40,041 43,458 83,499
13 18 11,033 11,341 22,374
15 12 27 39 15,638 17.937 33.575
20 33 42,190 45,564 87,754
18,996 20.850 39,846
6 3 3 12,663 13,660 26.323
1 5 10,187 11,171 21,358
143 140 12,450 12,702 25,152
562 550 143 140 334 391 163.196 176,683 339,881
30 28 6 18 31,422 33,384 64,806
112 100 32 37 7,043 8,198 15,241
8,241 8,694 16,935
142 128 38 55 46,706 50,276 96,982
,463 18,743 143 140 862 1,156 471,341 518,503 989,844
44 55
-
43,066 45,399 88,465
21,974 21,430 43,404
20,335 22,541 42,876
16,059 17,552 33,611
37 30 19,985 22,378 42,363
16,011 17,153 33,164
27 26 9,063 9,867 18,930
240 256 9,095 9,560 18,655
20 27 29,206 33,341 62,547
368 394 184.794 199,221 384,015
64 66 5 20 22,122 22,804 44,926
119 95 14,818 17,676 32,494
258 301 12,171 12,934 25,105
70 80 12,339 12,807 25,146
51 54 16,186 15,742 31,928
8,620 9,019 17,639
6,562 6,967 13,529
8,625 8,728 17,353
562 596 5 20 101,443 106,677 208,120
16,805 18,246 35.051
13,789 16,788 30,577
13,104 15,495 28.599
8,094 8,915 17,009
10,967 11,597 22,564
62,759 71,041 133,800
104 105 16 21 129 141 20 20 36,813 41,173 77,986
24,001 26,524 50,525
46 65 20.006 21,117 41.125
9.343 10,946 20,289
104 105 16 21 175 206 20 20 90,165 99,760 189.925
17 20 25 29 4,365 6.446 10.811
104 105 963 1,031 200 235 25 40 443,526 483.145 926,671
1.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Catholics
Administrative District F M ' F M F M F M F M
SUBURBSADMINISTERED
BYISTANBUL MUNICIPALITY
Kuçükçekmece
Gebze
• Karta!
Beykoz
: Şile
Adalar (Islands)
TOTAL, ISTANBUL SUBURBS
1,833 3,507 4.769 6,176 505 891 15 25 36
7,633 8,189 1,947 2,178 2 6 3
2.073 3,022 3.093 3.827 401 468 1 2
1.665 1,955 604 729 49 91
4.964 5,350 3,166 3,281 3
78 186 2,495 3,006 196 337 3 66 67
8.246 22,209 16,074 19,197 1,104 1,705 21 141 196
TRABZONPROVINCE
Trabzon Sancak
Trabzon Central Kaza 37.091 42,038 13.027 14,561 4,440 5,106
Ordu 39,596 40,175 4.702 5.696 3,586 3,966
Giresun 27,877 28,907 5.118 6,251 610 629
Tirebolu 16,622 17,607 2,659 3,213 232 281
Görele 14,584 14,889 331 377 99 82
Vakfikebir 9,080 9,305 29 27
Akçaabat 19,062 19,742 1,838 1,997 1,367 1,591
Sürmene 15,003 20,926 2.339 2,624 71 107
Of 30,163 29,697 351 446
Total, Trabzon Sancak 209,078 223,286 30,365 35,165 10,434 11.789
621
588 621
Canik (Samsun) Sancak
Canik Central Kaza
Çarşamba
Ünye
Fatsa
Terme
Bafra
Total, Canik Sancak
Lazistan Sancak
Rize
Pazar(atina)
Hopa
Total, Lazistan Sancak
Gümüşhane Sancak
Gümüşhane Central Kaza
Torul
Kelkit
Şiran
Total, Gümüşhane Sancak
TOTAL. TRABZON PROVINCE
15,502 17,917 15,297 17,628 454 709
22,684 24,913 1,497 1,617 4,670 5,105
21,348 21,960 1,781 1,914 1,662 1.973
13,739 14,156 706 946 354 448
9,085 9,953 205 223 763 878
19.200 19,736 11,068 11,766 466 546
101,558 108,635 30,554 34,094 8,369 9.659
31.595 41,154 308 333
17,246 16,192 20 22
15,046 14,305 52 J 5
63,887 71,651 308 385 22 27
10,200 11,756 2,666 2,793 514 638
9,001 10,457 8,000 8,679
11,059 12,191 163 141 58 55
7,115 7,406 834 892 100 121
37,375 41,810 11,663 12,505 672 814
411,898 445,382 72,890 82,149 19,497 22,289
41 23
41 23-
629 644
KASTAMONUPROVINCE
Kastamonu Central Kaza 28 107 26,288 813 782 261 300
İnebolu 29 678 29,004 739 758 9 8
Safranbolu 24 070 25,127 1,658 1,668
Tosya 16 288 16,731 256 255
Taşköprü 19 564 20,075 300 296
Daday 20 734 19,714 6 4 86 96
Araç 15 878 17,253
Cide 19 437 19,538
Total. Kastamonu Sancak 173 756 173,730 3,772 3,763 356 404
138
ffi.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Jews-
30
30
35
36
Protestants
F 'M
Latins
12
J
21
19
18
37
Monophysites
(Syriacs)
Non-Muslim
Gypsies ..
Foreign
Citizens Total
Total
Population F M F M
Total
Population
52 135 7,196 10,779 17,975
9,582 10,376 19.958
32 49 5,600 7,369 12.969
2,318 2,775 5,093
6 8,130 8,640 16,770
736 668 3,615 4,322 7,937
B20 858 36,441 44,261 80,702
41 51
146 142
187 193
5 25 23
193 224
218 247
405 440
55.187 62,377 117,564
48,030 49,979 96.009
33.605 35,787 69.392
19,513 21,101 40,614
15.014 15,348 30.362
9,109 9,332 18.441
22,267 23,330 45.597
17.413 23,657 41,070
30,514 30,143 60,657
250.652 271,054 521,706
31,319 36.305 67,624
29,044 31,659 60,903
24,791 25,847 50,638
14,801 15,557 30,358
10,053 11,054 21,107
30,734 32,048 62.782
140,742 152,670 293.412
31,903 41,487 73.390
17,266 16,214 33.480
15.048 14,362 29,410
64,217 72,063 136,280
13,380 15,187 28.567
17.001 19,136 36,137
11,280 12,367 23,667
6,049 8,419 16,468
49,710 55,129 104,839
505,321 550,916 1,056,237
29.181 27,370 56,551
30,426 29,770 60.196
25,728 26.795 •52,523
16,544 16,986 33,530
19,864 20.371 40,235
20,626 19.814 40,640
15.878 17,253 33,131
19.437 19.536 38.975
177.884 177.897 355.781
139
I.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
"Administrative District
CASTAMONU PROVİNCE, continued
3olu Sancak ı
Bolu Central Kaza
Bartın
Ereğli (K. Deniz)
Gerede
Göynük
Düzce
• Mudurnu (Mud)
Hamidiye
Total, Bolu Sancak
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians
M
Catholics
F M
21,632 21,034 17 397
13
24,284 25,535 200 180 95 13
15,926 17,981 363 372
20,174 19,130 27 97 7
23
8,377 7,762 2 9 23
14,497 16,015 22 58 13 52 2
13,341 13,148
21,389 28,231 162 192
— —
139,620 148,836 614 733 667 779 2 36
Sinop Sancak
Sinop Central Kaza
Boyabat
Ayancik
Total, Sinop Sancak
Çankiri Sancak
Çankiri Central Kaza
Çerkeş
İskilip
Total, Çankiri Sancak
TOTAL, KASTAMONU PROVİNCE
KOSOVA PROVİNCE'
Usküp (Skopje) Sancak
Usküp Central Kaza
Iştip
Karatova
Radovişte
Kumanova
Planka
Kaçana
Total, Usküp Sancak
19,519 20,735 2,048 2,015 123 150
20,132 22,549 22 62
13,960 14,629 575 638
53,611 57,913 2,645 2,715 123 150
41,190 42,917 368 390 155 143
26,957 27,529
20,724 22,517
88,871 92,963 368 390 155 143
455,858 473,442 7,399 7,601 1,301 1,476 2
19,469 20,787 3,219 3,436 10,829 11,668
11,437 12,729 8,131 9,444
2,193 2,139 11 24 9,369 10,249
4,698 5,821
3,541 3,823
5,935 6,333 12 75 13,591 15,887
1,013 1,065 171 217 8,904 9,292
10,684 11,555 34 49 15.897 17,223
55,429 60,429 3.447 3,801 70,262 77,586
36
Priştine Sancak
Priştine Central Kaza
Vilçitrin
Metroviçe
Gilan
Preşuva
Total, Priştine Sancak
24,634
6,759
1,033
14,288
7,770
54,484
27,980
14,193
3.401
18,450
8,168
72,192
7.271
811
512
9,645
12,179
7,997
2,116
3,398
9,660
13,868
30,418 37,039
Yenipazar Sancak
Senice
Yenipazar
Akova
, l Yenivaroş
. i Aşağikolaşin
', Total, Yenipazar Sancak
5,485
9,145
6,168
680
21,478
7,548
9,958
7,272
658
2,472
27,908
3,697 4,063
7.386 7,796
2,217 2,416
3,449 3,594
554
16,749 18,423
Taşlica Sancak
Taşlica Central Kaza
Prepol
Total, Taşlica Sancak
6,155
3,097
9,252
7,789
3,514
11,303
2,592
4,850
7,442
4,545
5,168
9,713
140
L8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Monophysites Non-Muslim Foreign
Latins
F M F M F M F M F M F M Population
Jews Protestants Latins (Syriacs) Gypsies Citizens Total T ( |
22.029 21,492 43.521
24,579 25,815 50.394
16,289 18.353 34,642
20,201 19.257 39,458
8,379 7,771 16,150
1 14,532 16.128 30.660
13,341 13,148 26,489
21,551 28.423 49,974
1 140,901 150.387 291,288
30 36 21,720 22,936 44,656
864 935 21,018 23,546 44,564
14,535 15,267 29.802
894 971 57,273 61,749 119.022
41,713 43,450 85,163
26.957 27,529 54,486
20,724 22.517 43.241
89,394 93,496 182.890
894 971 1 465,452 483.529 948,981
308 416 38 33.825 36,345 70,170
260 250 19.828 22,423 42,251
11,573 12,412 23,985
43 54 8,282 9,698 17.980
1 7 19,539 22,302 41,841
10,088 10,574 20,662
26.615 28,827 55.442
568 666 43 54 1 45 129,750 142.581 272.331
152 153 764 869 32.821 36,999 69,820
7,570 16,309 23,879
1,545 6,799 8,344
716 900 24.649 29,010 53,659
19,949 22,036 41,985
152 153 1,480 1,769 86,534 111,153 197,687
5 7 9.187 11.618 20,805
78 72 16,609 17,826 34,435
8.385 9,688 18,073
2 3 4,131 4,255 8.386
_
3,026 3.026
85 82 38,312 46,413 84;725
8.747 12,334 21.081
7.947 8.682 16.629
16.694 21,016 37.710
141
1.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians
•Admınıstratıve Dıstrıct F M F M F M
KOSOVA PROVINCE contınued
pek Sancak
İpek Central Kaza 8.114
Yakova ;. 9,721
Tergovışte 4.606
Berane ' 620
Gosine 2,259
Total. İpek Sancak 25,320
'rizren Sancak
Prizren Central Kaza 35,492
Lume 7.011
Kalkandelen 29,212 4.990
Total. Prizen Sancak 71,715 4.990
TOTAL. KOSOVA PROVINCE 140,643 268,867 10,889 18,504
KONYA PROVINCE
Konya Sancak
760
] Konya Centrai Kaza 46,348 46,468 2,150 1,866 760 806
Akşehir 21,158 22,107 872 839 1,582 1,552
İlgin 10,943 11,128 12 43
Seydişehir 8,596 9,304 46 47
Bozkir 18,369 19,100 44 50
Hadim 5,637 6,026
Beyşehri 17,702 17,621 96 57
Karaman (Larende) 18,223 18,504 60 64 287 316
Ereğli 11,682 12,348 87 80 221 220
Karapınar 8,214 8,024
3
Koçhisar 8,770 11,857 9 3
Total, Konya Cancak 175,642 182,487 3,367 3,055 2,850 2.897
Hamitabat (İsparta) Sancak
• İsparta 21,878 21,683 2,265 2,259 300 319
Uluborlu 7,636 6,597 429 392
Yalvaç 12.919 12,720
: Karaağaç 10,203 9,974
Eğridir 9,803 9,884 678 657
Total, Hamitabat Sancak 62,439 60,858 3,372 3,308 300 319
Teke (Antalya) Sancak
. Antalya 37,494 35.468 2,072 1.987 26 23
Alanya (Alaiye) 17,699 19,261 439 515
Akseki 13,545 13,838 7
Elmali 11.752 ' 11,846 104 105 118 128
Kaş 8,716 8.766 2 5
Total, Teke Sancak 89,206 89,179 2,617 2,619 144 151
Burdur Sancak
Burdur Central Kaza 18.766 18,447 874 880 409 401
,^ Tefenni 8.363 9,424
. i Total, Burdur Sancak 27,129 27,871 874 880 409 401
'Niğde Sancak
; Niğde 17,149 19,719 7.365 8,360 370 473
Nevşehir 14,093 16,277 4.353 4,565 192 285
Ürgüp 9,956 9,924 1,636 1,498 9 7
Aksaray 17,279 20,128 1,118 1.319 200 278
Gülşehri (Arapsun) 5,380 5,649 2,019 1,916 10 10
Bor 9,665 9,351 469 520 247 261
Ulukişla (Hamidiye) 3.551 4,300 631 700
Total, Niğde Sancak 77,073 85,348 17,591 18,878 1,028 1.314
TOTAL, KONYA PROVİNCE • 431.489 445,743 27,821 28,740 4,731 5.082
F M
Cathol.cs
M F
4,348
261
781
1.640
356
7.386
7.100
9.830
16.930
117,429 157,364
9 28
15 30
19
19
34
' 17
17
47
142
1.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Monophysites
Jews Protestants Latins (Syriacs)
M F M F M F M
374
949
_ 10
1,333
960
960
805 901 43 54 1,481 4.107
22 19
22 19
104 112
104 112
9 12
25 30
10 12
44 54
104 112 . 66 73
Non-Muslim Foreign
Gypsies Citizens Total
F M Population
-12,836 12,836
10,931 10,931
5,387 5,387
2,260 2,260
2,625 2,625
34,039 34,039
43,552 43,552
7.011 7,011
44,032 44,032
94,595 94,595
271,290 449,797 721,087
49,267 49,168 98,435
23,634 24,517 48,151
10,955 11,171 22,126
8,642 9,351 17,993
18,413 19,150 37,563
5,637 6,026 11,663
17,798 ,•17.678 35,476
18,570 18,884 37,454
11,996 12,650 24,646
8.214 8,024 16,238
8,770 11,869 20,639
181,896 188,488 370,384
24,443 24,261 48,704
8,065 6,989 15,054
12,919 12,720 25,639
10,203 9,974 20,177
10.481 10,541 21,022
66,111 64,485 130,596
39,696 37,590 77,286
18.138 19,776 37,914
13,545 13,845 27.390
11,974 12,079 24,053
8,718 8,771 17.489
92,071 92,061 184.132
20.049 19.728 39,777
8.363 9.424 17,787
28.412 29,152 57,564
24.884 28,552 53,436
18.666 21,156 39,822
11,601 11.429 23,030
18,622 21.755 40,377
7,409 7,575 14,984
10.391 10.144 20.535
4.182 5.000 9.182
95.755 105.611 201.366
464.245 479.797 944.042
1.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued^
Administrative Oistricî
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Catholics
Administrative Oistricî F M F M F M F M F M
KUOUS SPECIAL DiSTRICT
Kudüs Central Kaza 26,317 28.047 5.750 6,272 343 504 18 33
Yafa 21.281 23.894 1,826 2,071 40 52 172 199
Gazze [ 27.951 31,566 379 389
Halilürahman 18,852 21,705 1 14
_
TOTAL. KUDÜS SPECIAL DİSTRICT ; 94,401 105,212 7.956 8.746 383 556 190 232
• ELA.ZIZ (ELAZIĞ) PROVINCE1
Elaziz Central Kaza 64,244 70,517 168 184 23,940 27.156 373 391
Malatya 55,361 68,977 4 5 4,427 4.605 491 660
Hozat (Dersim) 10.489 11,688 90 92 4,845 5.792
Mazgirt 7,979 10,933 976 1,437
• TOTAL, ELAZİZ PROVINCE 138,073 162,115 262 281 34.188 38,990 864 1,051
MUSUL PROVINCE*
, Musul Central Kaza 27,881 1 45 2,809
? Dehük 4,834 1,742
Akra 6,183 170
Zaku 1,655 228
Zibar 2,610 76
Sincar 3,442
Kerkük 22,008 2 243
Salahiye 9,559
~:<l Erbil 10,677 340
Ranye 5,389
Köysancak 8,680 205
Ravandiz 11,147
Süleymaniye 14,556 54
- Gülanber 6,313
Morge 6,320
Şehirpazar 5,330
Bazyan 4,408 2
Umadiye 13,601 1,213
TOTAL, MUSUL PROVINCE 164,593 3 45 7,082
MANASTIR PROVINCE1
Manastir Sancak
Manastir Central Kaza 15,535 14,982 19,503 21,574 12 14 29,816 31,678
Pirlepe 6,969 7,301 598 650 20,236 23,527
Ohri 7,754 8,606 1,505 1,544 16,266 17.040
Filorina 6,409 6,454 12,950 14,212 1,544 1,810
Kirçova 6,579 6,703 3 61 10,216 10,663
Total, Manastir Sancak 43,246 44,046 34,559 38,041 12 14 78,078 84,718
Görice Sancak
Görice Central Kaza 15,129 17,630 14,666 15,809 1,045 1,089
Kesriye 5,943 7,170 5,014 6,411 15,912 19,676
* Istrova 10,089 11,017 1,450 1,578
' Kolonya 4,466 5,045 2,841 2,973
i Total, Görice Sancak 35,627 40,862 23,971 26,771 16,957 20,765
• : Serfice Sancak
Serfice Central Kaza 1,797 2.249 6,043 6,849
Alasonya 1,040 1,148 11,676 12,955 1
Kozana 7,511 7,506 5,988 6,645 2
Cuma 13,656 15,191 1,344 1,551 2,424 2,950
Nasliç 3,352 3,767 11.379 11,995 1
Grebene 2,066 2,470 12,980 15,019
Total. Serfice Sancak 29,422 32,331 49,410 55,014 3 2,424 2.950 1
TOTAL. MANASTIR PROVINCE 108,295 117,239 107,940 119,826 12 17 ' 97,459 108,433 1
144
I.8.A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Monophysites Non-Muslim Foreign
(Syrıacş) Gypsies Citizens
M F M F M F M F M F M Population
Jews Protestants Latins (Synacs) Gypsies Citizens Total y ( |
3,535 3,570 238 296 2,878 3,174 35 49 39.114 •41.945 81,059
167 227 46 63 312 393 475 631 24.319 27,530 51,849
6 5 14 19 28,350 31,979 60,329
291 320 3 56 143 148 19,290 22,243 41,533
3,993 4,117 290 364 3,207 3,642 35 49 618 779 111,073 123,697 234,770
1,826 2,381 185 196 90.736 100,825 191,561
248 298 98 70 60,629 74,615 135,244
2 120 98 15,544 17,672 33,216
8,955 12,370 21.325
2 2,194 2,777 283 266 175,864 205,482 381,346
692 74 31,502 31,502
496 7,072 7,072
283 6,636 6,636
543 2,426 2,426
57 2,743 2,743
3,442 3,442
441 22,694 22,694
157 9,716 9,716
620 11,637 11,637
45 5,434 5,434
134 9,019 9,019
359 11,506 11,506
218 14,828 14,828
59 6,372 6,372
35 6,355 6,355
5,330 5,330
26 4,436 4,463
121 28 14,963 14,963
4,286 ' 102 176,111 176,111
2,095 2,179 16 18 15 16 66,992 70,461 137,453
8 8 27,841 31,486 59,327
25,495 27,190 52,685
20,903 22,476 43,379
3 1 16,801 17,428 34,229
2.095 2,179 19 19 23 24 158,032 169,041 327,073
30,840 34,528 65,368
407 367 27,276 33,624 60,900
11,539 12.595 24,134
7,307 8,018 15.325
407 367 76,962 88,765 165.727
7,840 9,098 16,938
15 5 15 12,721 14,134 26.855
13,499 14.153 27,652
17.424 19.692 37.116
9 14.731 15.772 30.503
15.046 17,489 32.535
24 5 15 81,261 90.338 171.599
2.502 2.570 T9 19 28 39 316,255 348,144 664.399
1.8. A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Administrative Dısîrıct
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Catholics
Administrative Dısîrıct F M F M F M F M F ' M
VANPROVINCE"
Van Sancak
Van Central Kaza ; 8.324 9.772 14,052 19,001
Erciş 3.836 3.899 1.418 2.293
Adiicevaz ; 2.963 3,266 1.661 2.379
Kariçkan 2,618 3,575 1.748 2.618
Gevaş 1,864 2,564 2.023 2.779
Mekri 1,576 1.972 2.152 2.082
Muradiye (Bargıri) 1,805 1,696 619 764
Çatak (Sitak) 2,188 2,664 1.715 2.078
Totai, Van Sancak 25,174 29,408 25,388 33.994
Hakkari Sancak
Mamuretulhamıdiye 2,281 2,549 626 440
Totai, Hakkari Sancak 2,281 2,549 626 440
TOTAL, VANPROVINCE 27,455 31,957 26,014 34,434
YANYA(JANINA) PROVINCE
Yanya Sancak
Yanya Central Kaza 2,124 2,635 37,694 39,564
Aydonat 1,681 2,310 4,843 5,748
Filat 4,582 5,358 6,878 7,354
Meçva 2,336 2,723
Leshovik 2,219 2,528 6,585 6.976
Koniçe 614 815 7,173 7,965
Pogon 413 540 10.160 9.943
Permedi 8,747 9,714 5.031 5,380
Totai, Yanya Sancak 20,380 23,900 80,700 85,653
Ergiri Sancak
Ergiri Central Kaza 5,767 6,024 9.458 9,439
Delvine 2,810 3,075 6,571 7,154
Tepedelen 9,211 10,456 3,113 3,135
Kurveles 5,295 5,241 2,533 2,635
Totai, Ergiri Sancak 23,083 24,796 21,675 22,363
Berat Sancak
Berat Central Kaza 34,033 38,119 16,895 18,791
Goşince 3,597 3,954 86 178
Avlonya 11,376 13,614 1,916 2,595 35 48
Lusne 5,450 5,950 156 163
Totai, Berat Sancak 54,456 61,637 19,053 21,727 35 48
Prevese Sancak
Prevese Central Kaza 754 887 4,233 5,422
Loros 383 785 7,179 7,862
Margiliç 6,533 7,821 4,956 5,481
Totai. Prevese Sancak 7,670 9,493 16,368 18,765
TOTAL, YANYA PROVINCE 105,589 119,826 137,796 148,508 35 48
İSTANBUL CITY ANDGREATER
İSTANBUL 183,571 201,339 60,937 91,804 65,720 83,870 400 3.977 3,233 3.209
146
8 A. Ottoman General Census of 1881/82-1893 (continued)
Monophysites Non-Muslim Foreign
Jews Protestants Latins (Synacs) Gypsies Citizens Total
Total
F M F M F M F M F M F M F M Population
22,376 28,773 51.149
5,254 6,192 11.446
4,624 5,645 10.269
4.366 6,193 10.559
3.887 5,343 9.230
3,728 4,054 7.782
2,424 2,460 4.884
3.903 4,742 8,645
50.562 63,402 113,964
2,907 2,989 5,896
2,907 2,989 5,896
53,469 66,391 119,860
1.531 1,803
93 114 - 41,442 44,116 85,558
5 5 6,529 8,063 14,592
18 20
11,478 12,732 24,210
18 20
8 32 2.344 2,755 5,099
3
8,804 9,507 18,311
3
7,787 8,783 16,570
4 12
10.577 10,495 21,072
3 \
13,781 15,095 28,876
1.556 1.842
106 151 102.742 111,546 214,288
1 1 15,225 15.464 30.689
150 230 9.531 10.460 19,991
12,324 13,591 25.915
7,828 7,876 15,704
1 150 231 44,908 47,391 92,299
2 3
50,930 56,913 107,843
3,683 4,132 7,815
12 19
13,339 16.276 29,615
12 19
5,606 6.113 11,719
14 22
73,558 83,434 156,992
60 132 45 154 5,092 6.595 11.687
12 34
7.574 8.681 16.255
4 45 116 11,534 13.422 24,956
72 170
90 270 24,200 28.698 52,898
1.642 2.035
346 652 245,408 271.069 516,477
21.967 22.394 331 488 554 528 28.038 10 .205 364,751 508.814 873,565
/Voies follow Table I.8.D.
147
T S R. Summary: Totals for Principal Administrative Districts
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Catholics
District
Aydın
Edirne
Erzurum
Adana
Işkodra
Ankara
İzmit Special Dıstnct
Bağdat
Basra
Beyrut
Bitlis
Biga Special District
Cezayir-i Bahr-i Sefid
Çatalca Special District
Halep
Hüdavendigar
Diyarbekir
Zor Sancak
Suriye
Selanik
Sivas
İstanbul Suburbs
Trabzon
Kastamonu
Kosova
Konya
Kudüs Special Oistrict
Elaziz
Musul
Manastir
Van
Yanya
Total
İstanbul City and Greater İstanbul
GRANDTOTAL
547.696
211,478
204.993
162,984
39,168
362,504
65,775
756
224,040
73,323
47,029
12,418
6,854
339.507
564,734
138,487
17,287
174,896
216,916
366,701
18,246
411,898
455,858
140,643
431,489
94,401
138.073
108,295
27,455
105,589
5,709,493
5,893,064
M F M F M F M F M
571,627 92,894 103,664 6.721 7.419 138 290 452 423
222.888 128,853 138,367 8.097 8.545 49,261 52.984 489 535
240.555 1,593 1,763 46.080 55.058 3,110 3.620
178,392 2.755 3.507 20.752 24.047 750 903
39,432 2.768 3.145 1.439 1.358
373.262 17.506 17.409 32.659 34.831 3,226 3.077
67.342 11,358 12.366 18.309 13.911 5 8 63 70
149,352
349 875
10,154 35 108
237,994 25.672 29.304 32 54 19,820 22.966
93,731 45,581 55.777 2,171 2.777
52,439 7,020 8,081 779 962 180 222
15,063 110,587 116,230 34 44 1
8,237 16,955 18,893 447 452 2,629 2.957
345,092 3.562 3,990 23,754 28,653 9,869 10.067
568,029 65,224 67,793 28,546 29,272 265 1,019 1,755 1.595
151,104 530 636 22,053 24,770 73 4,680 5.113
16.576 28 55 125 175
164,035 13,108 16,291 96 103 11,168 13.972
230,988 129,289 147,948 75 126 104,464 118.220 1.129 1.182
399.857 18,009 19,804 56,018 60,527 1,506 1.546
22,209 16,074 19,197 1,104 1,705 21 141 196
445,382 72,890 82,149 19,497 22,289 629 644
473,442 7,399 7,601 1,301 1,476 2 36
268,867 10,889 18,504 117,429 157,364
445,743 27,821 28,740 4,731 5.082 34 47
105,212 7,956 8.746 383 556 190 232
162,115 262 281 34,188 38,990 864 1,051
164,593 3 45 7.082
117,239 107,940 119,826 12 17 97,459 108,433 1
31,957 26.014 34,434
119,826 137,796 148,508 35 48
6,492,734 1,036,710 1,142,746 397,291 454.584 371,831 441,593 63,645 79.699
201,339 60,937 91,804 65.720 83,870 400 3,977 3,233 3,209
6,694,073 1,097,647 1,234,550 463,011 538,454 372,231 445,570 66,878 82.908
148
f.g-B- Summary: Totals for Principle Administrative Districts (continued)
Monophysites Non-Muslim Foreign
Jews Protestants Latins (Syriacs) Gypsies Citizens Total
Total
F M F M F M F M F M F M F M Population
10.731 11.422 77 76 464 586 28,008 27,736 687,181 723,243 1,410,424
6.608 7.109 137 142 4 214 330 405,137 430,904 836,041
3 3 873 1,067 8 7 110 182 256.770 302,255 559,025
1.028 1.116 39 76 188,308 208.041 396.349
25 37 43,400 43,972 87.372
225 190 1,125 1,115 3 417,245 429,887 847,132
81 88 521 587 78 113 96,190 99,485 195,675
33 12,682 17 49 373 33,270 789 196,967 197.756
421 135 10,853 10,853
1,707 1,834 1,037 1,172 1,177 1,205 273,485 294,529 568.014
636 862 851 1.130 70 89 122,632 154,366 276.998
880 875 19 27 133 189 56.040 62,795 118,835
1,435 1,517 14 18 2,991 3,238 127,480 136,110 263,590
444 522 220 212 27,549 31,273 58,822
4,981 4,932 4,393 4,689 273 218 1.744 1,990 388,083 399,631 787,714
1,489 1,548 378 375 5 7 1,720 2,130 664.116 671,768 1,335,884
569 482 1,940 2.041 7.767 8.622 82 81 176,108 192,922 369,030
2 1 1 17,441 16,809 34,250
3,093 3,184 335 367 45 49 6 202,741 198,007 400,748
18,463 18,743 143 140 862 1,156 471,341 518,503 989,844
104 105 963 1,031 200 235 25 40 443,526 483,145 926,671
30 36 5 2 21 37 820 858 36.441 44,261 80,702
5 405 440 2 7 . 505,321 550,916 1,056,237
894 971 1 465,452 483,529 948,981
805 901 43 54 1,481 4,107 271,290 449,797 721,087
104 112 66 73 464,245 479,797 944,042
3,993 4,117 290 364 3,207 3.642 35 49 618 779 111,073 123,697 234,770
2 2,194 2,777 283 266 175,864 205,482 381,346
4,286 102 176,111 176,111
2,502 2,570 19 19 28 39 316,255 348,144 664,399
53,469 66,391 119,860
1.642 2,035 346 652 245,408 271,069 516,477
59,922 79.723 16,628 18,791 6,970 10,188 10,401 12,197 1,509 1.644 35,980 70,760 7,710,380 8,804,659 16,515,039
21,967 22,394 331 488 554 528 28,038 101,205 364,751 508,814 873,565
81,889 102,117 16,959 19,279 7,524 10,716 10.401 12,197 1.509 1,644 64,018 171,965 8,075,131 9,313,473 17,388,604
Noies follow Table 1.8.D.
149
f ar gnppİPment to 1881/82-1893 Census Results: Population Estimates
District or Unit
AdministrativeDistricts
with Uncompleted Census
Erzurum
Işkodra
Bitlis
Bağdat
Basra
Cezayir-i Bahr-ı Sefıd
Halep
Zor Sancak
Kosova
Eiaziz
Musul
Manastır
Suriye
Van
Area and or Group
Celalls and other tribes
Işkodra Sancak
Sason, Mutki, and some tribes
Nomadic tribes and women
Nomadic tribes and women
Sporato Islands
Tribes
Tribes and Bedouins
Prizren. Ipek, and Yenipazar
Sancaks
DersimSansak
Estimates of tribes and women
not covered by the census
Debre and llbasan Sancaks
Havran Sancak and tribes of
Hama Sancak (partly subject
to the census)
Hakkari Sancak
Estimated
Population
Total
100,000
250.000
200,000
600.000
300,000
100,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
100,000
250,000
400,000
200,000
150,000
3,100,000
AdministrativeUnits
Not Included in Census
Asir and Yemen
Hicas (Hejaz)
Trablusgarp (Tripoli in Libya)
Bengazi Mutasarriflik
Total
Spec/a/ Administrative
or Autonomous Units
Misir (Egypt)
Tunis (Tunisia) Eyalet
Şarki Rumeli (Eastern Rumelia)
Bulgarian Principality
Girit (Crete)
Bosnia and Herzegovina"
Kibris (Cyprus)
Cebeliiubnan (Mount Lebanon)
Sisam(Samos) Beylik
Total
2,500,000
3.500,000
800,000
500,000
7,300,000
6,000,000
I . 500,000
500,000
1,500,000
200,000
1,336,091
120,000
100,000
50,000
I I , 306,091
150
1,8.D. Final Summary: Counted and Estimated Totals
Countedpopulation of all administrative units included incensus 17,388,562
Estimated populationof areaswith uncompleted census 3,100,000
Estimatedpopulationof administrative units not included incensus 7,300,000
Estimatedpopulation of special andautonomous provinces 11,306.091
Ottomancitizens inforeign countries 14,978
TOTAL 39,109,631
Notes toTables I.8.A, 1.8.B, I.8.C. andI.8.D.
Source: BA (Y)/(P)/11s 311, no, 215,
Notes: Females were counted forthe first time inthe 1881/82-1893 census, andthe
columns headed F give their number; the columns headed M. of course, give the
tabulation of males. Females were excluded, however, totally or largely, from the
census count in Bağdat, Basra, and Musul Provinces and Ipek and Prizren Sancaks.
In 18S0 boundary changes, reflected in the 1881/82 census, took place as follows:
the sancak of Manastir (Bitolia) was elevated to the rank of province by adding to it
portions of Kosova (Prizren, Diakovo, and Dibra) and of Selanik (to which it had
previously been attached); Üsküp (Skopje) was detached from Selanik and added to
Kosova.
This census tabulation is for the most part by vilayet (province), sancak (county/
district), and kaza (judicial district), with kaza populations being totaled to give the
sancakpopulation and sancakstotaled for the province figure. Some of the listed main
units (including some provinces as well as special districts and urban areas) do not
have sancafr divisions, however, but only teas. Sancaks areidentified as such; un-
labeled small divisions are irazas.
Districts in whichthe census was certified as completedwereAydin, Edirne, Adana,
Ankara, İzmit, Biga, Diyarbekir, Selanik, Kastamonu, Konya. Kudüs, and Yanya; in
Sdmeother areasthecensuswas quitecloseto completion, while somedistricts lagged
far behind in their count, as indicated by the lettered notes.
'Census completed except for the Celali tribe.
b Census completed only for Drac Sancak and dependent kazas and the centrally
dependent Akgahisar Kaza.
c Census completed except for Lazkiye Sancak.
cCensus far fromcompletion.
'Census completed except for the Sporato Islands.
'Census completed except for tribal population.
'Tribes excluded fromcensus.
"Census completed except in Havran Sancak. which was excluded fromthe census,
as were afewtribes.
'Census completed except in Prizren, Ipek, and Yenipazar.
'DersimSancak excluded fromcensus.
kTribes excluded from census (as well as females).
Census completed except for the sancaks of Debre and llbasan.
mCensus completed except in Hakkari Sancak.
"The following is a breakdown of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Mus-
lims, 492,710; Orthodox Christians. 571.250; Catholics. 265.788; Jews, 5,805; other
religious groups, 538; total, 1,336,091.
151
1.9. Ottoman Population, 1894
Muslims Greeks' Armenians Bulgarians Catholics
Admınıstratıve Dıstrıct M F ' M F M F M F M F
Edirne 222.388 211,478 138,367 128.853 8.545 8,097 52,984 49.261 535 489
Erzurum 240.855 204,993 1.763 1.593 55.058 46,080 2 3,620 3,110
Adana r 178.392 162.984 3,507 2.755 17.736 15,079 903 750
Ankara ' 373,262 362.504 17,409 17,506 34.831 ' 32.959 3.127 3.226
Aydın : 571,128 547,368 102.924 92,507 7.419 6.521 288 138 424 452
Işkodra (Scutari) 39,432 39.168 3,145 2.768 1.358 1.439
İzmit Sancak 67,342 65.775 12.366 11,342 18.911 18.309 8 5 70 63
Bağdat (Baghdad) 149,352 756 349 875
Basra 8,154 35 108
Bitlis 93,731 73.323 55,777 45,581 2,777 2,171
Beyrut 237,994 224,040 29,304 25,672 54 32 22,966 19.820
Biga Sancak 52.439 47,029 8,081 7,020 955 776 222 180
Cezayır-i Batır-i Sefid 15.069 13,414 116,101 110,489 47 36 1
Çatalca Sancak 8,237 6,854 18,893 16,955 452 447 2,957 2,629
Halep (Aleppo) 345.092 339.507 3,990 3.562 28.653 23.754 10.067 9.869
Hüdavendigar 568,027 564,734 67,793 65,224 29.272 28,546 1,019 865 1.591 1,755
Oıyarbekir 151.104 138.487 558 452 24,770 22.053 7 5.197 4,758
Zor Sancak 18,732 19,533 55 28 175 125
Sivas 399,857 366,702 19,804 18,009 60,382 55,884 1,601 1.622
Selanik (Salonlca) 1230,948 216,916 147,948 129,286 126 75 118,216 105.064 1,182 1,129
Suriye (Syria) 164,035 174,896 16,291 13,108 103 96 13,972 11,168
Şehremaneti Mülhakatı0 22,209 18,246 19,197 16,074 1,705 1,104 21 196 141
Trabzon 445.445 411.898 82.149 72,890 22,282 19,498 644 629
Kastamonu 473,442 555,858 7,440 7,099 1.772 1,601 2 36
Konya 445,737 431,489 28,740 27,794 5,082 4,731 47 34
Kosova 268,862 140,870 18,504 10,889 157,367 117,459
Kudüs-ü Şerif (Jerusalem) Sancak 105,212 94,401 8,750 7,956 556 383 232 190
Musul 164,591 3 45 7,082
Mamuretüiaziz 162,115 138,073 281 262 38.990 34.188 1.051 864
Manastir 117,239 108,295 119,826 107,940 17 12 108,433 97,459 1
Van 31,957 27,455 34,434 26,014
Yanya 119,826 105,589 148,498 137,796 48 35
Total 6,492,505 5,812.635 1,141,632 1,035,801 448,413 391,884 441,525 373,062 79,885 63,839
Oersaadet ve Bilad-i Selasec 298,306 221,888 99,281 62,586 89,181 68,950 5,758 606 3,466 3,170
GRANDTOTAL 6,790,811 6,034,523 1,240,913 1,098,387 537,594 460,834 447,283 373,668 83,351 67,009
152
1.9. Ottoman Population, 1894(continued)
Jews Protestants Latins Syrians
Non-Muslim Foreign
Citizens Total
M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Population
7,113 6.608 142 137 4 330 214 430,904 405.141 836.045
13 3 - 1.097 873 7 8 182 110 302,395 256,772 559.167
.1,116 1.028 76 36 201.730 182.632 384.362
190 225 1,115 1.125 3 429.937 417.545 847.482
11,489 10,784 76 77 586 464 27.736 28 006 722.070 686.317 1.408.387
37 25 43.972 43,400 87,372
88 81 587 521 113 78 99.485 96.174 195.659
12,682 33 17 49 373 33.270 196.967 789 197.756
421 135 8.853 8.853
862 636 1.130 851 89 70 154.366 122.632 276.998
1,834 1,707 1,172 1.037 1,205 1,177 294.529 273.485 568.014
875 880 26 19 189 133 62.787 56.037 118,824
1.521 1,435 18 14 3,238 2.991 135,995 128.379 264,374
522 444 212 220 31,273 27,549 58,822
4,932 4,980 4.689 4,393 218 274 1.990 1,744 399,631 388,083 787.714
1,548 1,486 375 378 7 5 2,140 1.720 671,772 664.713 1.336.485
482 569 2,041- 1,940 8.622 7,767 81 82 192.862 176.108 368.970
2 1, 1 18.965 19.687 38,652
105 104 1,031 963 235 200 40 25 483.055 443,509 926.564
18.743 18,463 140 143 1,156 862 518.459 471,938 990,397
3,184 3,093 367 335 49 45 6 198,007 202.741 400.748
36 30 2 5 37 21 858 820 44,261 36,441 80,702
5 440 404 7 2 550,972 505.321 1,056.293
971 894 1 ' 483.664 565.452 1.049,116
112 104 73 66 479.791 464.218 944.009
901 805 54 43 4,107 1,481 449.795 271,547 721.342
4,117 3,993 364 290 3,643 3,206 49 35 779 618 123.702 111,072 234,774
4,286 1,040 177.047 177.047
2 2.777 2,164 266 283 205.482 175,834 381.316
2,570 2,502 19 19 39 28 348,144 316.255 664.399
66,391 53,469 119.860
2.035 1,641 652 346 271,059 245,407 516.466
79,808 59,970 19,758 16,597 10,185 6,974 12,197 10,398 1,644 1.509 70,770 35.978 8,798,322 7,808,647 16,606,969
23.304 22,065 1,073 595 1,775 1,478 9,564 27,188 621.708 408,526 1,030,234
103,112 82,035 20,831 17,192 11,960 8,452 12,197 10.398 1,644 1,509 170,334 63.166 9,420,030 8,217,173 17.637,203
Source: BA(Y) (Sadaret. Hususi Maruzatı) H 3C1312, no. 2072 ot R 20 Teşrinisani
1310 (2 December 1894).
Note' This table is based on the 1893 census in which various tribes and the
populations of Hejaz and Yemen were not counted. The full title of this tabulation is
"List Indicating the Population of the Capital and Its Boroughs andthe Subjects Who
Were Counted in the Vilayets Subject to Census." It was compiled by the premier's
office in answer to a direct request by the sultan.
"The term "Greek" includes also those attached to the Orthodox church whose
language is Arabic; the "Greeks" in Syria and Jerusalem should be msome other
category.
"Şehremaneti Mülhakatı is Greater Istanbul, and it includes the kazas of Kücükçek-
mece. Gebze. Kartal. Beykoz. Şile. and Adalar.
c Dersaadet veBilad-i Selase isthe Capital City andtheThree Boroughs, consistingof
Istanbul. Beyoğlu, and Üsküdar.
153
I 10. Muslims and Non-Muslims in theOttoman State; 1894
AdmınistFöt've Dıstrıc! Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Jews Catholics Proteslants Latins Syrians Others Tola!
Edirne 434,366 267,220 16,642 102,245 13,721 1.024 279 544 836.041
Erzurum 559,508 3,356 101,138 6 3.730 1.970 292 670.000
Adana 349,636 6,262 32,815 1 1,653 2.144 115 371 392.997
Ankara 763,262 , 34,915 67,790 415 6.353 2,240 25 875.000
Aydin 1,150,109 195,431 13,940 426 22,273 876 153 1.050 55.742 1.440.000
Işkodra 330,728 5,913 2,797 62 339.500
izmit 152,659 23,708 37,220 43 129 133 1.108 215,000
Bağdat 752,000 349 12.715 875 17 49 373 33.270 799.648
Basra 313,147 358 421 108 135 831 5,000 320.000
Bitlis 366,066 101,358 4,948 1,498 1,130 475.000
Beyrut
Biga
467,020 54,967 86 3,541 42,786 2.209 2.382 572.991 Beyrut
Biga 104,144 15.100 1,731 402 1,755 46 322 123.500
Cezayir-i Bafır-i Sefid 30,869 226,590 83 2 2,956 32 260,532
Çatalca 18,701 35,848 899 5,586 966 62.000
Halep 810,619 7,552 52,407 9,913 19,936 9.082 491 3,734 913.734
Hicaz 3,700,000 50,000 3.750.000
Hüdavendigar 1,161,000 133,017 57,818 1.884 3.037 3,350 753 15 3,860 1.364,734
Dersaadet 521,128 152,741 144,807 4,377 44.361 6,442 819 1.082 129,243 1.005,000
Diyarbekir 327,173 1,010 46,823* 7 1,051 9.955 3,981 390.000
Zor 186,517 83 400 187,000
Sivas 793,000 37,813 116,266 209 3,223 1,994 70 952,575
Selanik 463,000 277,000 1,257 223,000 37,206 2,311 283 2,018 1.006,075
Suriye 546,926 29,399 199 6,277 25,140 702 94 4.263 613.000
Şehremaneti Mülhakatı' 50.251 35,268 2,809 21 66 337 12 58 1,678 90.500
Trabzon 874,029 155,039 41,780 5 1,273 844 30 1.073.000
Kastamonu 939,037 14,539 3,373 5 36 10 957,000
Konya 885,217 56,534 9,813 216 81 139 952,000
Kosova 419.390 29.393 274,826 1,706 97 5,588 731.000
TK09UF) , 213,310 , 16,706, 939 422 8,110 654 6,849 10 247.000
Girit" 74/150" 175,000 500 — - 2Qg- 150 250,000
Musul 408,000 3 7,127 4,383 162 419,675
Manastir 630,000 228,121 29 5,072 67 1,069,181
Mamuretülaziz 423,842 543 73,178 9 1,915 4,971 542 505.000
Van 212,552 60,448 273,000
Yanya 235,948 286,294 3,677 998 527.000
Yemen 1,840,000 500 709.500 2.550,000
Total 21,507,304 2,505,782 994,065 819,138 184,397 139,765 36.130 18,232 10,618 993.252 27.208,683
Source: BA (Y)/(Sadaret, Hususi Maruzati)/3 C1312, no, 2072,
Note: This table, compiled by the prime minister's office, covers areas the population of which was only partially tabulated in the 1893 census.
155
1.11. Muslim and Non-Muslim Subjects Counted in theCensus up to_1895
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Catholics
"Administrative District F M F M F M F M F M
Edirne 211.478 222.883 128.853 138.367 8.097 8.545 49.261 52.984 489 535
Erzurum 235,543 274.405 1,750 1.861 51.240 59.079 3.906 4.098
Adana , 165,148 178.981 2.831 3.543 15,031 17,732 960 996
Ankara '
396.142 412,560 15.093 14.876 33.806 35,073 3.336 3.266
Aydın 573.692 583,870 102.355 108.048 7,004 6,970 168 378 1.092 1.204
Işkodra 39,168 39,432 2,768 3,145 1.439 1.358
İzmit Sancak 68,169 70,271 11.986 12.802 19,300 19,349 29 23
Bağdat 756 149,352 349 875
Basra 8,154 35 108
Bitlis 104.992 132,400 44.725 58.990 2,513 3.123
Beyrut 224,040 237,994 25.672 29.304 32 54 19,820 22,966
Biga Sancak 56,598 61,284 8,259 8,622 884 878 261 309
Cezayir-i Bahr-i Sefid 13,414 15,069 110,489 116,101 36 47 1
Çatalca Sancak 6,854 8,237 16.955 18,893 447 452 2.629 2,957
Halep 343,945 348,434 3,546 4,013 24.216 28.765 8,803 8.896
Hüdavendigar (Bursa) 577,922 581,544 66,226 69,140 29.123 29.661 875 1,040 1.847 1,685
Diyarbekir 144,768 175.443 640 659 21,659 24.309 3,699 4.145
Zor 65,958 65,900 182 288
Sivas 381,336 409.012 19,267 21.940 57.819 62,403 1,567 1,545
Selanik 216,916 230.948 129,289 147.948 75 126 105,064 118,216 1,129 1.182
Suriye 276,142 276,100 15,452 16,949 137 147 8,143 9.409
Şehremaneti Mülhakatı" 18,246 22,209 16,074 19,197 1,104 1,705 21 141 196
Trabzon 424,292 445,311 78.324 84,724 20,599 22,594 684 699
Kastamonu 477,121 489,302 7,783 8,093 2,798 3,017
Konya 445,976 451,902 30,155 31,289 4,775 5,097 35 47
Kosova 140,870 268,862 10,889 18,504 117,459 157,367
Kudüs 128,480 138.134 8,538 9,231 388 400 195 229
Musul 239.386 13 73 5,653
Mamuretülaziz (Elazig) 228,924 248,492 476 479 37,917 41,503 1,179 1,210
Manastir 108,295 117,239 107,940 119,826 12 17 97,459 108,433 1
Van 40,879 56,462 28,280 36.349
Yanya 105,589 119,826 137,796 148,498 35 48
Total 6,221,653 7,079,403 1,059,406 1,156,070 409,686 464,007 373,176 441,706 61,041 73,497
İstanbul 221,888 298,306 62,586 99,281 68,950 89,181 606 5,758 3,170 3,466
GRANDTOTAL 6,443.541 7,377,709 1,121,992 1,255,351 478.636 553,188 373,782 447,464 64,211 76,963
GRANDTOTAL, BOTHSEXES 13,821,250 2.377,343 1,031,824 821,246 141,174
156
1.11. Muslim and Non-Musl i m Subjects i n Census up to 1895 (continued)
- • • • Non-Muslim Foreign Jews Protestants Latins Chaldeans Old Syrians
Non-Muslim Foreign
F M F M F M F M F M F M F M M
Total
6,603 7.113 137 142 4
214
IV)
Tin
Population
ooe r\A.c
1 3 960 1,148
15 17 116 180
oàb,v4z>
dOA OOA
1,028 1,116 39 76 Qo4.oc4
22 186 1,387 1,351
379 435
387,481
12,51i 12.650 47 66
28,2% 27,617
918,117
1fi" 25 37
I .HDD, y/o
!U 100
, ^ con
551 602
27 C;Û
87,312
or\r> "île
12.682 17 49
373
oy
33 270 421 135 197,756
1707
778 973 1,419 1,727 8,853
1 , 1U/ 1,834 1,037 1.172 1,177 1,205 351,640
1,06"
1
1,041 22 35
98 156
568,014
1OQ CAO 1,521 14 18
2,991 O. OOQ
My.ouo
444
f; 177
522
220 212
O.COO
264.374
D, 111 5,333 4,483 4.777 366 353 62 89 1,807 2,039 996 1,014 504 1 i^RO
58,822
1,486
K7Q
1,534 390 394 5 7
137 131 1,645 2 220
799,185
1OC~7 Di 1 o* y 612 2,035 2,258 485 552 9,333 10,108 6 6 3
1.ob/,U1c
1 in
4U 1, ¿ 9 9
i on non
1iu
1Ci AG.0
137 1,348 1,299
765 947 nen «ne
0. 000.
18,743 143 140
862 1 156
yoy,4yo
Qûn >tnn
3,441 530 541 535 476 1,872 2,411 2,497 2,938 yyu,4uu
Cin r\ a*\ 30 36 5 2 21 37
820 858
b2u,943
RA 7no
442 457
15 26 97 135
OU, IXJC
1fi7fl TOO
11ß
t ,U; ö. j yy
I l ö
fine;
118 173 199
245 267 5 q
988,114
07n Af\ a
ÖUO
A RRA
901 43 54 1,481 4,107 y/u,4Ub
4,142 321 364 3,729 4,010
45 55 2,674 0 780
721,342
4,675 135
1.159
¿08,602
1 3,535 3,764 305 321 1,322 821 821
251,094
2,502 2,570 19 19
28 39
571,070
1
664,399
Q7fï
2,035
346
t oi ,y/u
63,261 82,353 19.414 21,160 7,637 10,583 547 1,963 15,291 18,714 3,493 3,952 1,827 2,096 38,748 74,300
516,467
V,704,984
22,065 23,304 595 1,073 1,478 1,775
27,m 99,564 1,030,234
85,326 105,657 20,009 22,233 9,115 12,358 547 1,963 15,291 18,714 3.493 3,952 1,827 2,096 65,936 173,864 18,735,218
190,983
Snnrrp- RÛ IV\ :ID\:i
42,242
ili "e,'~;ıı ;
21,473 2,510 34,005 7,445 3.923 239.800 18,735,218
tns7Z 5 S ; sr
W u , u s
'
U m u m i y y e s r of 1 7 R a ma z a n 1 3 1 2
* 2 ? S £ % S t ' , n c M n 9 K u * k m e c e - G e t o - ™- **• «*
Notes: Thefigures do not cover areas (Basra, Heiaz, Scutan-l§kodra, etc ) wherethe
census was nol completed in 1893. Crete is excluded.
157
¡,12. Muslims and Non-Muslims in theOttoman State,_1896
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Catholics
"dministrative District M M F M M
>lanik
zmi!
Çatalca
"rafczon
;ezayir-i Bahr-i Seflö
Musul
Halep
Sığa
. Kastamonu
Bitlis
Konya
.Diyarbekir
Adana
Zor
Edirne
Erzurum
Ankara
Mamuretülaziz {Elazığ)
Hüdavendigar
Kosdva
•Manasîir
Aydin
Suriye
Sivas
Yanya
Van
Beyrut
Kudüs
Işkodra
Bağdat
Basra
Şehremaneti Mulhakati*
Total
' İstanbul
GRANDTOTAL
GRANDTOTAL, BOTHSEXES
222.322
69,415
7.180
J27.951
13.400
383.945
56.638
468.996
155.179
444.804
186.611
73.685
66,187
254,759
235.558
396,542
228,924
577.922
140,870:
108.295
573,692
276.142
387,263
105,196
73,623
244,186
128,480
39,168
756
18,246
221,888
228.134
72.4'2
7.879
446.752
15.000
196.126
408.434
61.344
478.605
210,742
452.408
176.323
177.964
66.233
265,988
274.422
413.060
248.492
581.544
268,862
117.239
583,870
276,100
423.653
110.781
100,150
250.186
138.134
39,432
149.352
8,154
22.209
6,365,835 7,269.994
298,306
135.168
12.071
17.421
79 944
125.100
7.635
8.328
7,788
662
2.782
11
135.433
1.750
15.412
476
66.363
10,889
107.940
102,355
15,452
20,125
143,931
26.088
2,768
16,074
62,586
146.845
12.860
18.828
85.296
131.000
13
7,973
8.735
7,999
681
2.920
9
147,140
1.861
15,311
479
69,271
18,504
119.826
108,048
16.949
23.080
148,115
29.908
3,145
19,197
1,061,966 1,143.993
99,281
6,587,723 7,568,300
14,156,023
1,124,552 1,243,274
2,367,826
19
19,416
458
22,536 "
49
73
28,765
882
2,995
49,997
5,161
23.633
16.660
44
8,861
59,079
35,073
41,503
29.661
17
6,970
147
62.398
4
30,483
46
400
349
35
1.104 1,705
408,130 447,419
68,950 89,181
477.080 536.600
1,013,680
29
19.360
449
20.633
34
24.216
886
2.880
38.725
4.809
21.260
16,029
21
8,592
51,240
33,806
37,917
29,123
12
7,004
137
57,981
5
31,450
40
388
110,411 121,195
2,737 3.042
269 301
56,683 59.850
875 1.040
117,459 157,367
97.459 108,433
168 378
21
386,062 451,628
606 5,758
386,668 457,386
844,055
.127
29
402
5.762
2.913
4.472
769
56
580
3.906
3.336
1.179
1.847
1.092
9.647
1.610
11.429
23.820
195
1.439
1.157
23
706
44.182
6.044
3,123
5,105
863
62
940
4.098
3.262
1,210
1,685
1
1,204
11.284
1,562
1
13,625
27,676
229
1,358
875
108
141 196
75,751 130,579
3,170 3,466
78,921 134,045
212.966
158
1.12. Muslims and Non-Muslims in theOttoman State (continued)
Foreign
Jews Old Syrians Protestants Latins Citizens Total
Total
F M F M F M F M F M F M Population
20,562 21,422 165 164 586 686 490.370 519.622 1.009,992
449 529
506 602 101,381 105.313 206,694
449 529
93 142 28,329 30,878 59,207
1,400 1,500
444 457 97 135 529,471 555.892 1.085,363
1,400 1,500 12 20 2,900 3,200 142,846 150,769 293.615
5,037
4,675 6,812 135 252,016 252,016
5,037 5,333 1,807 2,039 4,483 4,777 300 419 504 1,562 433,689 465,346 899,035
1,094 1,083 23 36 98 160 67,336 72,541 139,877
479.664 489,599 969,263
1,419 1,727 770 973 199,006 266,562 465,568
693
449.613 457,569 907,182
693 612 9,038 9.948 2,043 2,317 8 15 224.787 218,634 443.421
110
13 1,183 1,990 94,448 200,410 294.858
7,528 7,979
110 97 66,385 66,445 132,830
7,528 7,979 98 100 4 463,673 490,862 954,535
3 3 960 1,148 116 180 293,533 340,791 634,324
225 188 1,387 1,351 450.708 468,245 918.953
1,486
1
1,534
821 821 3,535 3,764 305 321 273.157 296,591 569,748
1,486
1
1,534 390 394 5 7 1,645 2,220 679,656 687,356 1,367,012
805 901 43 54 1,481 4,107 271,547 449,795 721,342
2,502 2,570 19 19 28 39 316,255 348,144 664,399
12,519 12,650 47 66 28,290 27,617 725,167 740,803 1,465,970
3,223 3,441 2,865 3,474 530 541 535 476 308.531 312.412 620,943
111 134 1,353 1,299 468.443 512,126 980,569
1,829 2,148 1 250,862 261,051 511,913
925 975
117.427 145,233 262,660
4,009 4,290 130 146 1,150 1,205 1,207 1,370 300,630 314,827 615,457
4,884 4,142 321 364 3,729 4,010 2,764 2,783 140,671 150,062 290,733
25 37 43.400 43,972 87,372
33 12,682 373 17 49 33,270 789 196,967 197,756
30
421 135
8,853 8,853
30 36 5 2 21 37 820 858 36,441 44,261 80.702
69.347 89,249 16,190 25,450 19,455 21,910 7,603 10,836 37,876 72,889 8,448,215 9,663,947 18.112.162
22,065 23.304 595 1,073 1,478 1,775 27,188 99,564 408,526 621,708 1,030,234
91.412 112,553 16,190 25.450 20,050 22,983 9.081 12,611 65,064 172,453 8.856,741 10,285,655 19.142,396
203,965 41,640 43,033 21,692 237.517 19.142.396
Source: BA(Y)/(P) 1313/1459.
Note: This table is based on the 1893 census; it includes estimates for tribes not
subject to the census and the annual population figures reported by the province
officials (the full original title of the list reters to the estimate of tribes and to results
"obtained by cable").
aGreater İstanbul in this case includes Küçükçekmece, Gebze, Kartal, Şile, and
Adalar,
159
1.13. Ottoman Population, 1897
Administrative District
Muslims Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Catholics Jews
M F M F M F M F M F M F
298,306 221,888 99.281 62.586 89,181 68.950 5,758 606 3,466 3,170 23,304 22.065
273,776 265.255 149.919 139.049 9,030 8.898 62,243 59,627 958 596 8.377 7.980
605.277 598.499 117.643 111,955 6,965 7.127 376 • -172 •498 526 13.924 13.777
274,689 238.757 1.706 1.590 58,509 51.309 4.139 4.060 3 3
179,586 176.326 3.012 2.874 16,673 16,206 875 785
38,426 40.573 2.891 2.913 1.285 1.441
454,995 440.201 18.024 18.743 37.434 36.597 3,790 3,745 339 354
83.700 71.865 14.196 13.526 21,750 21.861 38 40 99 100
254,322 250 697 30.285 26.846 55 34 9,988 9,361 4.282 4.543
126,643 98.129 56,621 44.965 2.413 2.225
165,249 6.149 255 1 458 13,440 1.227
79,248 13 5 33 341 440 1
63,011 58.316 9.011 8.670 910 932 318 294 1.182 1.191
16,124 14.454 130.494 122.572 3 7 1.555 1.478
8,452 7.868 18.958 17.562 469 460 3.048 2,739 539 464
357,070 355.515 4.228 3.588 28,329 25,136 8.868 9,122 5,436 5.325
621,290 613.014 73.182 70.956 32,944 32,833 1,148 1,119 1,672 1.829 1,828 1,565
177,969 151.874 723 698 23,958 22,244 5,205 4,203 657 724
25,138 25,629 . 2 209 156 82 41 2
21,121
227,545 224,630 152.834 141,790 23 31 124,945 114,345 1.220 1,196 22,302 21,121
258,456 217,978 20.205 15,515 175 161 11,435 8,206 3,526 3,371
413,281 394,370 22,468 19,555 62,801 60,403 1,512 1,663 134 119
25,859 21,869 20.046 16,930 1,839 1,235 17 214 164 38 30
473,581 460,147 92,568 88,476 24,278 22,918 744 740
947
278,040 154,138 22,044 14,376 1 157,635 118,067 898 1 938 947
477,953 467,239 8.542 8,398 3,435 3.217
129 129
473,816 469,116 34,680 33,421 5,467 5,120 50 35 129 129
112,099 105,247 9.986 9,084 398 427 254 215 5,443 6,466
120,712 132.250 137,569 134,636 14 8 93,817 83,933 3,053 2,861
198,405 181,687 479 479 38,062 36,142 1,154 1,202 1
179,831 6,987 13 74 4,355 1 4,568
45,294 31,662 26,085 28,966
111,670 109,805 145,839 141,973 1 1 2,228 1,916
7,499,813 6,612,147 1,340,931 1,228,863 546,030 496,344 449,306 380,903 65,912 54,567 117,767 97,757
Dersaadet
.Edirne
Aydın
Erzurum
Adana
•Işkodra
i Ankara
İzmit
Beyrut
Bitlis
Bağdat
Basra
Biga
Cezayir-i Bahr-i Sefid
Çatalca
Halep
Hüdavendigar
Oiyarbekir
Zor
, Selanik
; Suriye
Sivas
Şehremaneti Mülhakatı
Trabzon
Kosova
Kastamonu
Konya
Kudüs
: Manastir
Namuretülaziz
; Musul
Van
Yanya
Total
Source: IUKTY 9184.
1.14. Ottoman Population Growth,
1874/75-1894/95 (R. 1290-1310)
Year Population Increase
1290 19,865,800
1300 24,675,950 4,810,150
1310 27,299,500 2,553,550
Source: IUKTY9075.
Note: This accounting of population growth over atwenty-year period compiled by
' Ottoman officials is evidence of the changing attitude of the Ottoman government
v -M toward census and population statistics.
160
1.13. Ottoman Population, 1897 (continued)
Non-Muslim
Protestants Latins Maronites Chaldeans Old Syrians Gypsies Total
Total
Population M F M F M F M F M F M F M F
Total
Population
1.073 595 1,775 1,478 522.144 381,338 903,482
99 101 3 1 504,455 481.507 985,962
66 47 862 705 3 2 745,614 " 732.810 1,478,424
1.165 965 60 60 340.271 296.744 637,015
1.204 1,198 15 10 201.365 197.399 398,764
42.602 44.927 87,529
1,649 1,644 615 496 516.846 501,780 1,018.626
640 624 1 2 1 120.425 108.018 228.443
1,372 1,242 1,377 1,393 11,156 13,504 155 145 2 4 312.994 307,769 620.763
949 877 1,313 1,153 1,745 1.609 189.684 148.958 338.642
29 45 3 517 12 179,993 7,392 187.385
80,067 14 80.081
43 26 74.475 69,429 143.904
28 21 148,204 138,532 286,736
216 226 31,682 29,319 61,001
4.833 4,948 362 372 1,029 1,007 88 64 2,079 1.839 412.322 406.916 819,238
448 446 13 7 732,525 721.769 1,454.294
2,485 2,186 15 8 789 673 10,648 9.434 82 82 222.531 192.126 414.657
1 25,431 25.829 51,260
183 196 3,371 3.241 532,423 506.550 1.038,973
553 414 180 59 3,077 2,643 2,905 2.272 3 300.515 250.619 551,134
1,320 1,386 959 805 502,475 478,401 980,876
37 21 48,050 40,249 88,299
2 5 26 16 591.199 572.301 1.163,500
548 554 2,941 1,663 1,674 1,174 464.719 290,920 755,639
53 44 490,083 478,898 968.981
256 230 514,398 508,051 1,022,449
207 178 4,330 4,025 58 43 132,775 125,685 258,460
436 349 1,332 1,247 356,933 355.284 712,217
18 16 310 297 761 745 8 13 239,198 220.581 459,779
3,479 3,355 1,158 1,192 194,670 10.343 205,013
109 71,488 60,628 132,116
1 1,644 1,603 261,383 255,298 516,681
22,963 21,397 12,280 10,055 15,262 17,154 3,866 1,902 19,500 16,054 10,309 9.241 10,103,939 8,946.384 19,050.323
1.15. Foreign Citizens in theOttoman State, 1899(R. 1315)
Foreign Citizens Foreign Citizens
Administrative District M F Total Administrative District M F Total
İstanbul 99.564 27,188 126,752 Halep 1.596 511 2,107
Edirne 287 197 484 Hüdavendigar 2,177 1,608 3,785
Aydin 27,558 28,247 55,805 Oiyarbekir 9 10 19
Erzurum 191 116 307 Selanik 682 583 1,265
Işkodra 29 26 55 Sivas 67 39 106
Ankara 1 1 Şehremaneti Mülhakatı 860 868 1,728
İzmit 59 27 86 Trabzon 135 97 232
Beyrut 1,483 1.259 2,742 Konya 5 5 10
Bağdat 33,270 — 33.270 Kudüs 2.783 2,674 5,457
Basra 559 — 559 Manastir 33 23 56
Biga 157 95 252 Mamuretülaziz 33 26 • 59 -
Cezayir-i Bahr-i Sefid 330 252 582 Yanya 348 245 593
Çatalca 142 93 235
Total 172,358 64,189 236.547
Source: IUKTY9184.
Note: Thistabulation of foreigners was compiled bytheStatistical Directorate of the
TradeandConstruction Ministry in 1915. but it was basedonthe original statistical list
(compiled eighteen years earlier). "The General Statistics of the Ottoman State in
R. 1313 11897]."
161
L16. A. Summary of Census of Ottoman Population, 1906/7
Greek Armenian
Ajmınıstralıve
Muş ıms Cossacxs Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Wailacnians Catholics Calhol'CS Protestants
Ajmınıstralıve
M f M f M F M. F M F M F M F M F M F
s'anbui
151 dıstnct 57.680 32.809 13.771 7.625 6.405 6 168 542 99 11 13 46 31 96 102
2d dıstncı 25.710 22.281 9.687 7.410 1.156 1.060 138 29 2 3 158 153 152 152
3ö d strıc! 34.679 32.197 7.182 5.731 4.012 4.004 386 84 12 12 1 2
4!h dıstnct 16.797 13.658 12,433 8.789 4 838 3.717 171 50 491 ' 515
ı 5thı distr.ct 2.393 2.118 2.671 2,349 474 474 8 1 27 12 220 32
Sin dıstnct 39.468 23,867 32.660 22,354 7.044 7 206 899 240 141 117 3.726 3,536 190 162
: 7tîı dıstnct 3 335 2 025 3 309 2 828 359 381 17 14 11 12 13 10
.. atfı dıstrıct 5.956 4.829 2,402 1 590 216 204 10 12 8 9 3
9tfı disînct 19.536 18,412 3.861 2,549 3 727 4.007 91 28 67 37 81 77
10th dıstfict 6.597 5,992 3,908 4,056 2.181 2.330 28 22 14 16 232 245 44 33
" Totai. İstanbul 212.151 158,188 91,884 65,281 30.412 29.551 2.290 579 168 149 4.770 4,562 300 570
IheVıci nıty of
İstanbul
Beykoz 2.308 2,015 882 754
Sile 6,705 6,326 4,256 4 252
Gebze 10,046 9,023 2,654 2,257
Kuçukçekmece 8.285 5.571 1.594 1,225 900 400
Kartal 6,260 4.881 785 618 326 510
Total.Vicinityof
İstanbul 33,604 27.816 1.0.171 9,106 1,226 510
1 Aydın (İzmir) 176,157 165,279 100,516 92,764 6.544 5.729 136 49 17 11 330 342 98 162
Manisa 180,148 174,279 23,093 21,120 2,340 2 194 4 8 100 87
Aydin 108,219 108,274 14,646 12,698 453 383 17 18 32 42
Menteşe (Muğla) 83.650 85,258 8.967 7.904 8 6
Denizli 125,837 124,451 1,864 1.533 331 299
Totaî, Aydin 674,011 657,541 149,086 136,019 9,676 8.611 153 67 17 11 366 392 198 249
2. Ankara 179,956 170,635 1,835 1,532 5.047 4,802 7 7 3.196 3,336 426 361
Yozgat 82,259 73,670 5,565 4.805 16.735 13,935 14 7 546 481
: Kayseri 72,804 65,469 12,422 11,590 22,491 20.130 848 731 1,115 936
' Kırşehir 87,506 81,469 1,472 1.414 1.619 1,481 6 2 92 83
Çorum 102,257 95,541 601 540 1.817 1,723 67 55
Total, Ankara 524,782 486,784 21,895 19,881 47,709 42,071 7 7 4.064 4.076 2,246 1,916
3 Adana 53,571 49,673 1,391 1,043 7.531 6,941 32 27 468 401 518 466
Mersin 42,293 41,093 1,898 1,552 2.409 1,764 110 98 328 304 307 279
Cebelibereket (Payas) 33,836 29,868 91 158 6,700 5,837 10 4 130 132 707 626
Kozan 32,242 28.919 981 857 8,402 7,092 1 847 683 973 857
İçel 61,402 62,898 1,697 1,399 175 196 1
Total. Adana 223,344 212.451 6,058 5,009 25,217 21.830 154 129 1.773 1.520 2,505 2,228
4. Erzurum 189,498 160,213 2,127 856 36,961 33,618 1 4 2.259 3.561 706 609
Erzincan 58,805 57.036 1,162 949 12,037 11,343 124 138
Bayazid 39,590 29.043 380 330 3,565 3.266 598 452 20 22
Hınıs 9,582 7.739 4,787 3.733 215 155
Totai, Erzurum 297,475 254,031 3,669 2,135 57,350 51.960 1 4 2,857 4,013 1,065 924
5. Bitlis 24,656 19,335 15,623 12,209 70 60 359 295
Muş 31,688 23,465 27,709 22,060 1,360 1,088 321 208
Surt 30.715 28,784 3,643 3,023 1,402 1,194 189 179
Genç 21,761 17,502 3,383 2 569
Total. Bitlis 108,820 89,086 50.358 39,861 2.832 2,342 869 682
6 Cezayir-ı Bahr-i Sefid 6,995 6,390 36,478 32,621 18 13 18 10 13 4 3
Midilli . 9,697 8,267 58,169 55,313 39 19 1 7 5
Sakız 1,303 1.144 52,355 46,494 18 22
Lımnı 1.976 1.829 17.813 17,599 2
Total, Cezayir-i
Bahr-i Selid 19.971 17,630 164,815 152,027 77 54 19 17 18 4 3
7. Hudavendigar
(Bursa) 133,141 126,600 30,048 28,284 16.978 15,962 338 397 204 228
Ertuğrul (Bilecik) 102,937 98,210 7,257 7,146 12.341 11,459 279 233 321 279
Kütahya 192.880 187,652 5,270 4,813 3.636 3,492 448 475 114 96
Karahısar (Afyon) 130,855 127,526 390 178 3,307 3.195 1 1 2 7
karesi (Balıkesir) 170.272 160.425 782 804 42.144 40.838 3,628 3.867 2.544 2.452 68 48 22 26
Total. Hudavendigar 730.085 700 413 782 804 85,109 81.259 39.890 37,975 2,544 2,452 1.134 1,154 663 636
162
I.16.A. Summary of Census of Ottoman Population, 1906/7 (continued)
Süryani
Latins Maronıtes (Syriac) Chaldeans Jacobites Jews Samarıîans Yezıdıs Gypsies Foreigners Tolal T o t a t
M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Population
26 16 16 2 569 516 2.298 887 81 459 48.266 129.727
5.293 5.405 3 1.236 828 43.527 37.321 80.646
35 53 147 147 3 791 430 47.245 42,663 89.908
6 5 2.233 2 358 2.966 1.580 39.935 30 672 70,607
1 79 72 197 207 6.070 5,265 11.335
1,048 1.331 360 118 291 108 12.263 12,395 80 88 89.884 21.661 188.054 93.183 281,237
26 30 91 100 625 280 7.786 5.680 13.466
142 140 352 276 9.089 7,060 16.149
18 19 2,042 2 055 46 45 2.517 1.645 31.986 28,874 60.860
25 24 8 14 887 845 345 244 14.269 13.821 28.090
1,184 1.478 384 134 291 108 23.746 24,033 ' 129 136 101.211 28.038 469,420 312.807 782.227
3.190 2.769 5.959
2 10.963 10.578 21,541
12.700 11.280 23,980
10.779 7,196 17,975
7.371 5,609 12.980
2 45.003 37 432 82.435
701 701 2 1 12.327 12,306 33.403 22 549 330.232 299.892 630.124
1 7 8 1,789 1,739 356 275 207.838 199.710 407.548
1,503 1,406 , 403 213 125.273 123.034 248.307
785 666 4 93.414 93,834 187.248
11 13 10 5 128.053 126,301 254.354
701 701 2 2 7 8 16,404 16,117 11 13 34.176 23.042 884.810 842,771 1,727,581
633 632 2 191.102 181,305 372.407
192 177 5 4 105,316 93.079 19B.395
20 28 109,700 98.B84 208.584
90,695 84.449 175.144
104,742 97.859 202.601
633 632 192 177 27 32 601,555 555.576 1.157 131
27 40 648 493 209 150 5 5 64,400 59.239 123.639
52 49 63 71 61 11 34 36 47.510 45.257 92.767
96 79 2 1 3 2 1 41,575 36.708 78.283
1 34 27 1 3 2 43,485 38,437 81.922
5 1 t 7 3 63,288 64.497 127.785
181 169 748 591 227 164 51 47 260.258 244 138 504,396
1 21 10 6 10 6 4 10 14 104 47 231,700 198,946 430.646
24 25 10 3 72.162 69.494 141,656
1 2 45 28 44.199 33.143 77,342
14,584 11.627 26.211
1 45 35 7 12 6 4 55 42 114 50 362.645 313 210 675 855
189 155 40.697 32.054 72,951
61 078 46.821 107,899
1.466 1.000 37.415 34,180 71,595
25,144 20 071 45.215
1.655 1.155 164,534 133.126 297,660
1 3 2.183 2.098 49 46 45.756 41.187 86.943
1 25 16 1 399 1.305 69.338 64.925 134.263
37 27 196 179 940 861 54.849 48.727 103.576
1 35 30 87 69 19.914 19 52Z 39.441
38 30 1 1 2.439 2.323 2.475 2.281 189 857 174.366 364 223
1,951 1.809 704 621 183.364 173.901 357.265
74 65 123.209 117.392 240,601
76 75 118 113 289 195 202.831 196,911 399.742
5 2 134.560 130.909 265.469
142 138 219.602 208.598 428.200
2.248 2.089 822 734 289 195 863.566 827.711 1.691.277
163
I.16.A. Summary of Census of Ottoman Population, 1906/7 (continued)
OıStr.Ct
Muslims Cossacks Greeks Armenians
Greek
Bulgarians Waiiachians Catbo-cs
Armenian
Catholics Protestants
OıStr.Ct M F M F M ç M F M F M f M F ,V, F M F
8 Diyarbakır 67 555 53,761 256 197 • 12.960 12.316 842 785 953 866
Mardin 50.988 40,628 3.215 3.040 387 324
Ergan.madeni 53.419 49,218 307 365 9 419 8.915 288 233 508 533
Total. Dıyarbekır 171.962 143.607 563 562 22.379 21 231 4.345 4.058 1.848 1.723
9 Sivas 208 262 190.605 3.301 2,451 42.320 37 024 1.0B2 999 940 942
Amasya 107.06; 100.269 12,341 11.292 10.928 12 882 263 278 905 864
Karahısar-t Şarkı 67.33S 61.101 9.718 10 649 10.649 9.770 55 45
Tokat 123.383 114.765 6,934 10.688 10.688 9.795 325 353 260 242
Total, Sivas 506.048 466.740 32,294 35,080 74.585 69.471 1.670 1.630 2,160 2 093
10 Trabzon 265.886 251.617 43,254 38.874 13.216 12.151 624 590 617 591
Canık [Samsun) 130.267 122.690 47.750 43.468 12.006 10,124 1 96 118 613 628
Lazıstan (Rize) 98,063 97.382 938 696 !4 17
Gümüşhane 55,733 50,350 19,887 20.607 1.280 1.247
Total. Trabzon 549,949 522.039 111.829 103.645 26,516 23,539 1 720 708 1.230 1.219
11. konya 247,943 238,671 105 101 5,348 4.650 4.785 4,276 48 31 3 3 126 84
Niğde 111,296 102.261 28.284 26.116 2.130 1.798 1 24 18 311 255
Burdur 36.517 36.633 1,344 1,278 595 561 28 25
İsparta 73.491 73.622 4.618 4,668 408 460
Antalya 113 502 111,777 5,174 5,081 270 254 5
Total, Konya 582.749 562.964 105 101 44,768 41,793 8,188 7.349 5 49 31 27 21 465 364
12. Kastamonu 167.453 155,253 4,614 4,446 1,727 1.581 3 3
Bolu 152.192 142,575 1.525 1,289 833 805 6 7 2 8
Çankiri 77.526 69.966 649 691 218 204 4 1 2 3
Sinop 167,673 155.499 5,319 4,528 2.368 2.073
Total. Kastamonu 564,844 523.293 12,107 10,954 5.146 4.663 6 1 1 3 10 6 3
13. Mamuretiılaziz 81,877 72,422 338 313 25.156 23.374 736 558 2.288 2.943
Malatya 93,362 86,857 4.760 5,055 751 751 340 344
Dersim 30,165 26,101 5.183 3.984 1.651 1.773 211 228
Total, Mamuretülaziz 205,404 185,380 338 313 35,099 32,413 3,138 3,082 2.839 3.515
14. Beyrut 42,064 41.142 8,666 7,761 14 4 4,529 4,432 649 624
Akka 30,798 30,072 3,041 2,943 3,498 2,969 204 189
Trablusşam 45,275 43,949 13,218 9,819 292 217 101 35
Lazkiye 58,564 56,392 2,740 2,476 270 186 3 2
Nabius 59,177 52.787 594 463 6 2 175 146
Total. Beyrut 235,878 224.342 28,259 23,462 14 4 8,595 7,806 1,132 996
15. Bağdat 109,568 1,973 371 723 40
Divaniye 29,185 1,311 2
Kerbela 20,376 530
Totai, 8ağdat 159,129 3,814 373 723 40
16. Basra
Amara
Münteíik
Need
Total. Basra
7,460
2,000
9,460
165
169
334
17. Haleb
Maraş
Urta
18 Suriye
Hama
Kerk
Havran
Total, Suriye
19. Trablusgarb
Humus
Cebeiigarbı
Fizan
Rıngazı
Total. Trablusgarb
239,392
69.449
75.035
233,507
62,101
60.724
383,876 356,332
152,185 158,302
47.114 50,398
199.299 208,700
122.696 114.219
63.625 56.271
42,682 37,000
229,003 207.490
4.729 4,174 15,097 12,792 4.042 3,851 2.685 2,498 3.529
12.731 10.218 12 10 2.191 2.315 2.346
10 7 7.003 6.517 499 435 750
4,739 4,181 34,831 29.527 4,054 3.861 5.375 5.248 6.625
10,953 9,087 196 164 7.311 6,904 90 102 385
7,386 5,744 296 305 132
18,339 14,831 196 164 7.607 7,209 90 102 517
68 70 43 17 13 15
5 2
73 72 43 17 13 15
791
164
1.16.A. Summary of Census of Ottoman Population, 1906/7 (continued)
Laims Maronites
Süryani
(Synac) Chaldeans Jacobites Jews Samaritans Yezidis Gypsies Foreigners Tola!
Total
Population M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F
Total
Population
3,322 2,787 187 202 86,075 70,914 156 989
6,907 6,246 235 239 61,732 50.477 112.209
150 152 64.091 59,416 123.507
10.229 9.033 572 593 211.898 180,807 392.705
255,905 232.021 487.926
1 2 577 531 29 31 132,111 126.149 258.260
169 139 87,927 81.704 169.631
150 149 427 396 142,167 136,388 278,555
1 2 150 149 1.173 1.066 29 31 618 110 576,262 1,194,372
1 59 43 323.657 303,866 627.523
3 3 20 17 969 254 191,725 177,302 369.027
9 1 99.024 98 096 197.120
2 2 76.902 72 206 149 108
1 3 3 20 17 1.039 300 691,308 651.470 1.342.778
1 1 2 2 4 2 4 256,368 247,622 506.190
1 142,047 130.448 272.495
38,484 38,497 76.981
50 40 78,567 78,790 157,357
139 119 212 191 30 119.332 117,422 236,754
1 1 3 2 143 119 264 235 30 636,798 612.979 1.249,777
127 116 21 22 173.945 161.421 335,366
1 33 20 30 23 27 20 154,662 144,734 299,396
1 9 5 14 1 78,426 70.868 149.294
175,360 162 100 337.460
1 1 42 25 157 139 62 43 582.393 539.123 1.121 516
264 258 345 452 2 4 26 30 111.032 100.354 211,386
67 81 142 130 1 1 99.423 93.219 192.642
37,210 32.086 69,296
331 339 487 582 2 4 27 31 247,665 225,659 473,324
82 106 5,329 5,284 89 89 841 819 62.263 60.261 122,524
737 729 621 564 3.118 3,185 42,017 40.651 82,666
8 5 4,989 3,643 29 29 63,912 57.697 121,609
659 611 62,236 59.667 121,903
228 184 46 41 95 71 60.321 53,694 114.015
1,055 1,024 11,598 10,102 69 89 4,034 4,074 95 71 290,749 271,970 562 719
55 2 327 12,933 70 124.017 2.045 126.062
533 22 29 720 1.333 31,053
155 2 20,531 532 21,063
55 2 327 13,621 94 174,268 3.910 178,178
266 7,927 7.927
174 2.343 2,343
715
518
755
538
23 14
1,316 1,247
39
2
967
2,730 2,221
1,451 1,298 192 163
124 108
1.022 786 200 205
2.597 2.194 392 368
755 655 24 24
2,863 2,172
440
5,938 5.015 52 44
373 338 _ _
6.311 5.353 52 44
158
158
108
108
10.270 10.270
130 279.136 268.341 547.477
• 87,391 77.811 165.202
85,073 69 927 155,000
130 451,600 416.079 867.679
9 179.677 182.464
57.826 58788
362.161
116.614
2.763 2,273 3,618 2,827 24 24 4.939 4.596 57 40 13 9 237,503 241,272 478,775
4.964 4 604 127,784 119 125 246.909
1.104 1,103 70 37 64,804 57.413 122.217
430 385 43,112 37 385 80,497
6,498 6 292 37 235.700 213.923 449.623
165
I.16.A. Summary of Census of Ottoman Population, 1906/7 (continued)
Greek Armena.n
lAdmiivslrabve
: 0's;rc!
Muslims Cossacks 'Greeks Arr-'emans Bulgarians Wailacbians Catholics CathOliCS Protestants lAdmiivslrabve
: 0's;rc! M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F
:20 Musul 43.775 1 ' 45 3 882 74
ı Kerkük 67.458 2 788
Suieymanıye 36.929 56
Total. Musul 148.162 3 45 4,726 74
21. Van 29.408 25.174 33.994 25.388
Total.Van 29.408 25.174 33,994 25.388
; 22. Işkodra
Oraç 40.508 40,642 3,291 2,807 3 3 1,058 1.120
Total. Işkodra 40.508 40,642 3,291 2,807 3 3 1 058 1.120
• 23 Selanik 118.262 108.324 99.039 86.646 269 155 44,841 37.640 8.744 7.717 1,597 1.084 26 24 101 91
Sereı 34.837 33.331 18,577 27.441 22 9 35,643 33.391 2,064 1,836 8 13 16
Orama 65.330 59,520 18.522 13,656 132 50 3.026 1 169 75 50 7 5 64 44
Tolal, Selanik 218.429 201.175 136.138 127,743 423 214 83,510 72.200 10.883 9.603 1.604 1,089 34 24 178 151
1 24. Edirne 89.007 64,886 53,066 50,192 2,493 2.406 18.759 18,024 164 106 20 24
Gümülcıne 121.725 118.145 11,614 9,931 262 231 14.929 13,685 8 9 10 3
Kirkkılise 41.252 37,086 35.752 34,749 91 58 14.727 15.009 101 106 1
/ Oedeağaç 23.438 20,297 14,508 13.065 215 241 8.625 8.298 3 4
Tekfurdağı 40,408 36,405 28,114 25.313 11.876 7.138 2,768 2,978 68 52 25 23 76 70
Gelibolu 13,374 12,581 : 33,239 31 365 550 583 669 805
Total. Edirne 329,204 289,400 176,293 164.615 15.487 10.657 60.677 58.799 344 277 26 23 106 97
25 Kosova 59,301 54,302 4.636 3.968 1 75.913 68,632 119 54
Priştme 72.462 50,828 37.082 29.873
İpek 20.760 8.523
Senice 28.328 21,528 18,691 16.969
Prezrin 72,086 4.990 17.135 235
Tolal, Kosova 252,937 126,658 9.626 3,968 1 157,344 115.474 235 119 54
26, Manastir 47,943 47.248 43,905 41,824 1 1 88,236 83.382 356 296
Sertice 40,031 36.839 62.037 56.210 2 1,769 1,624 941 773
Debre 32,526 10,555
llbasan 30,364 7.692 818
Gorice 44,081 41.827 43,760 38.265 2 2 5,814 4,890 1.724 1.466 1 4
Total, Manastır 194,945 133,606 149.702 136,299 5 3 107,192 89,896 3.021 2,535 1 4
27. Yanya 13,646 11,222 70,330 65,507
Ergiri 35,050 32,243 37,986 36.866
Preveze 9,493 7,670 16,765 16.368
Berat 61,637 54.454 21,717 19,053 49 35
Total, Yanya 119.826 , 105.589 148,798 137.794 49 35
28. Biga 6,154 5,944 3,994 3,717 645 615 3 3 2 8 30 26
Ezine 8.064 7.370 2,760 2.630 336 285
BigaandLapseki 38 150 35.215 3,175 2,939 220 202 376 350
Ayvacık 10,110 9,328 9,328 8,778 5 3
Bayramiç 10,230 10.206 569 401 12 13 t 2 6
Total, Biga 72.708 68,063 19,826 18,465 1.218 1.118 380 353 2 8 32 32
29. İzmit 19,535 17.755 2,588 2,361 11.082 10.456 1 214 188 514 500
Adapazari 38.251 34,797 4,095 3,600 7.967 7,902 311 317
Karamürsel andYalova 11,012 9,611 7.849 7,284 2.657 2.487 1
Geyve 15,946 15.357 3,198 3,196 4,147 4,035 102 82
Kandıra 19,546 18,750 875 820 272 260
Total, İzmit 104,290 96,270 18,605 17,261 26,125 25,140 1 1 214 186 927 899
30. Zor 20,717 19.869 4 9 31 28 17 9 151 82
Resülayn 1.245 1,180 1
Aşara 9,020 8,342
Ebukemal
»
— — —
Total, Zor 30,982 29,391 4 9 32 28 17 9 151 82
31 Kudüs 27,093 25,997 5,819 5,438 322 300 18 12 230 209
Yafa 23,739 21,139 2,051 1,820 45 39 199 172 46 35
Gazze 31,456 27.849 380 377
Halilürrahman 21,631 18,797
Blrulsebi and Nasıra
Total. Kudüs 103,919 93,782 8,250 7,635 367 339 217 184 276 244
32. Çatalca 12,502 10,626 23,314 21,011 505 491 3,985 3,603 3,603
Total. Çatalca 12.502 10,626 23,314 21.011 505 491 3.985 3.603
166
r
I.16.A. Summary of Census of Ottoman Population, 1906/7 (continued)
Süryani
(Synac)
Gypsies Total
F Population
2,071
1,758
336
4,165
54.421
70.006
37.321
161,748
54.421
70.006
37,321
161.748
63,402 50.562 113,964
63.402 50.562 113.964
149
149
144
144
14 12
4 1
16 13
1 2
605
1.242 1.303
419
2,266 1,303
2 1
3 4
5 5
1
2
93
21.014
1.250
9,020
20 048
1,180
6.342
23 28 45.104 44,744 89.84B
23 28 45,104 44,744 89,848
24.269 24,520 948 795 164 98 296,278 267.106 565,384
741 679 1.036 993 2 2 92.957 97.699 190,656
1.163 1,013 471 493 273 256 89.063 76.256 165,319
26.183 26,212 2 455 2.281 439 356 480.298 441.061 921,359
7,769 7,765 990 923 13 8 172,281 144.334 316.615
640 650 99 102 46 26 149.336 142.784 292.120
821 878 293 280 93,038 88.166 181.204
167 159 6 7 46.962 42 071 89.033
1,365 1,289 387 312 199 136 85,286 73.716 159.002
1,241 1,095 74 46 49,347 46.475 95.822
12.003 11,836 1,769 1.617 340 223 596.250 537.546 1.133.796
630 568
141,205 127.524 268.729
153 152
110.939 82 156 193.095
153 152
29.702 29,702
83 83
47.101 38.580 85.681
83 83
94.446 94,446
865 803
423.393 248.260 671.653
2,332 2,227 271 264 16 15 183.060 176.257 358,317
17 7 423 288 22 105.243 95.743 200,986
17
43,081 43,081
31,182 7.692 38,874
445 431 417 441 96.244 87.326 183.570
2,794 2,665 1,111 993 38 15 458,810 366.018 824.828
1,829 1.549 151 106 85.956 78,384 164.340
14 7 231 150 73,281 69.266 142.547
170 72 270 90 28,698 24,200 52,898
22 14
83,425 73.556 156,981
2,035 1,642 652 346 271,360 245,406 516,766
1,435 1,394 408 404 12,671 12,111 24,782
89 76
11,249 10.361 21.610
76 63
14 8 42,011 38,777 80 788
1
63
3 19,447 18 109 37.556
134 117 18 10 10,966 10,753 21 719
1,735 1,650 443 422 96,344 90.111 186 455
111 125 76 69 34.130 31.459 65.589
57 44 41 43 50.722 46 703 97.425
57 44
21,522 19 386 40.908
23.393 22 670 46.063
3 1 3 2 20 699 19.833 40 532
171 170 120 114 150,466 140 051 290 517
41 062
2 430
17 362
1
3.072 2.836
393 311
11 9
3.476 3.156
3 543 3.525
217 162
220 216
3.980 3.903
938 828
938 828 265
_V02
102
75
75
31.284 29 570 60 854
40.146 38.352 78 496
26.690 23 678 50.368
31.847 26 235 60.062
21,851 19.013 40.864
120.534 109 278 229 812
41,630
41.630
36 899
36 699
76.529
78 529
Kotes lonox labte I 16 B
167
I.16.B. Final Summary of Ottoman Population, 1906/7
Adnmıstratıve Dstnct
Muslims Cossacks Greeks Armenians Bulgarians Wallachians
Greek
Catholics
Armenian
Catholics Protestants
Adnmıstratıve Dstnct M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M p
istanbul 212.151 158.188 91.884 65,281 • 30.412 29.551 2.290 579 168 149 4.770 4.562 800 570
The Vıcınıty ot İstanbul 33.604 27.816 10.17! 9.106 1.226 510
Aydın 674.011 657.541 149.086 136 019 9 676 8.611 153 67 17 11 366 392 198 249
Ankaıa 524.782 486 784 21.895 19.881 47.709 42.071 7 7 4.064 4.076 2.246 1.916
Adana 223.344 212.451 6,058 5.0O9 25.217 21 830 154 . 129 1.773 1.520 2 505 2 228
Erzurum 297,475 254 031 3 669 2,135 57.350 51 960 1 4 2.857 4.013 1 065 924
Bitus 108.820 i 89.086 50.358 39.861 2 832 2.342 669 682
Cezayır-ı Banr-ı Sefıd 19.97! : 17.630 164 815 152,027 77 54 19 17 18 4 3
Hudavendıgar 730.085 700.413 782 804 85,109 81,259 39.890 37,975 2.544 2.452 1.134 1.154 663 636
Dıyarbekır 171.962 143.607 563 562 22.379 21.231 4.345 4.058 ! 848 1.723
Sivas 506.048 466.740 32,294 35,080 74.585 69.471 1.670 1.630 2.160 2.093
Trabzon 549,949 522.039 111.829 103,645 26.516 23.539 1 720 708 1.230 1.219
Konya 582.749 562.964 105 101 44.768 41.793 8.188 7.349 5 49 31 27 21 465 364
Kastamonu 564.844 523.293 12,107 10,954 5.146 4.663 6 11 3 10 6 3
Mamuretulaziz 205.404 185.380 338 313 35.099 32,413 3.138 3.082 2.839 3.515
Beyrut 235.878 224.342 28,259 23.462 14 4 8.595 7 806 1.132 996
Bağdat 159,129 3.814 373 723 40
Basra 9,460 36 334
Halep 383,876 356.332 4,739 4.18t 34.831 29,527 4.054 3.861 5.375 5.248 6.525 6.519
Suriye 199,299 208 700 18,339 14,831 196 164 7,607 7.209 90 102 517 439
Trablusgarb 229,003 207,490 73 72 43 17 13 15
Musul 148.162 3 45 4.726 74
Van 29,408 25,174 33.994 25,388
Işkodra 40,580 40 642 3.291 2.807 3 3 1,058 1.120
Selanik 218,429 201,175 136,138 127,743 423 214 83.510 72.200 10.883 9.603 1.604 1.089 34 24 178 151
Edirne 329,204 289.400 176,293 164,615 15.487 10,657 60.677 58.799 344 277 26 23 106 97
Kosova 252.937 126.658 9.626 3,968 1 157,344 115.474 235 119 54
Manasür 194,945 133,606 149.702 136,299 5 3 107,192 89.896 3,021 2.535 1 4
Yanya 119.826 105.589 148.798 137.794 49 35
Biga 72.708 68.066 19.826 18,465 1,218 1.118 380 353 2 8 32 32
İzmit 104.290 96.270 18,605 17.261 26.125 25.140 1 1 214 188 927 899
Zor 30.982 29,391 4 9 32 28 17 9 151 82
Kudüs 103,919 93,782 8,250 7.635 367 339 217 184 276 244
Çatalca 12.502 10.626 23,314 21.011 505 491 3,985 3.603
Total 8,279,736 7,229,017 887 905 1.479,846 1,343.217 547,526 484,182 418.107 343,423 13.904 12,138 15.608 14,141 47,991 41,049 26.925 25,560
168
I.16.B. Summary of Ottoman Population 1906/7 (continued)
Latins Suryani Foreign
(RomanCatholics) Maronites (Synac) Chaldeans Jacobites Jews Samaritans Yezidis Gypsies Citizens Total T o l a ,
~~M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Population
1,184 1.478 384 134 291 108 23,746 24.033 129 136 101.211 28,038 469 420 312.807 762.227
2 45.003,. 37.432 82.435
701 701 2 2 7 8 16.404 16,117 11 13 34.176 23,042 884 810 842,771 1 727.581
633 632 192 177 27 32 601,555 555,576 1,157.131
181 169 748 591 227 164 51 47 260,258 244,138 504.396
1 45 35 7 12 6 4 55 42 114 50 362.645 313.210 675,855
1,655 1.155 164.534 133.126 297.660
38 30 1 1 2.439 2,323 2.475 2,261 189.857 174.366 364,223
2,248 2,089 822 734 289 195 863,566 827,711 1.691.277
10,229 9.033 572 593 211,898 180.807 392.705
1 2 150 149 1.173 1.066 29 31 618,110 576.262 1.194.372
1 3 3 20 17 1.039 300 691,308 651,470 1.342.778
1 1 3 2 143 119 264 235 30 636,798 612,979 1.249.777
1 1 42 25 157 139 62 43 582 393 539,123 1.121.516
331 339 487 562 2 4 27 31 247,665 225 659 473.324
1.055 1.024 11.598 10.102 89 89 4,034 4,074 95 71 290,749 271.970 562.719
55 2 327 13,621 94 174,268 3.910 178.178
440 10.270 10.270
1.316 1,247 1,033 967 2,597 2,194 392 368 6.311 5,353 52 44 158 108 241 130 451,600 416.079 867.679
41 58 2,763 2.273 3,618 2,827 24 24 4.939 4,596 57 40 13 9 237,503 241.272 478,775
6.498 6,292 70 37 235,700 213,923 449,623
719 1,024 4.165 2,830 161,748 161.748
149 144 23 28 63 402 50.562 113.964
45,104 44,744 89,848
18 13 4 26,183 26,212 2,455 2,281 439 356 480.298 441.061 921,359
1 2 12,003 11,836 1,769 1,617 ,340 223 596.250 537.546 1.133,796
2,266 1.303 865 803 423.393 248.260 671,653
1 2 2,794 2,665 1,111 993 38 15 458 610 366.018 824.828
2,035 1,642 652 346 271,360 245.406 516.766
1,735 1,650 443 422 96,344 90.111 186,455
5 5 2 1 5 3 171 170 120 114 150.466 140.051 290,517
1 94 51 3 31,284 29.570 60,854
3,476 3.156 3,980 3,903 49 35 120.534 109.278 229,812
938 828 284 265 102 75 41.630 36.899 78,529
0,823 9.673 15,396 13,342 20,288 16,697 1.678 693 1,024 137,169 116,266 147 115 2.887 40 6,629 7,841 141.962 55.798 11.170,533 9,714,097 20,884,630
Notes to Tables 1.16.A and 1.16.B.
Source: iUKTY947, "Memalik-i Osmaniyyede Dehil-t Tahrir Otan Nufusun Icmaii" [The summary oi
Ottoman population included in the census].
Notes The register (59 pages long) containing these summary figures does not give information
about the year to which they pertain. However, it can be deduced, from comparison with other
statistics and factors such as the arrangement of the provinces in the list, that this summary was
compiled in 1906 or 1907 andthat certainly it summarizes data obtained inthe countrywide census oi
1905 6. That census was carried out for each kaza under the direction of a general committee
consisting of the kaza population officials plus one member each from the provincial executive
committee andthe municipal council, two reserve officers, and representatives of the local communi-
ties, Muslimand non-Musltm. Census teams (secretaries) visited eachvillageto recordthe population
and compile acensus list, the accuracy of which was attested by the kaza general committee and by
village leaders including the muhtar (elected elder), the imams and priests of the religious communi-
ties, andthe community council. In order to keepthe population records upto date, the officials were
required to report each quarter on birtns, deaths, immigration, and emigration See Memalik-i
Osmaniyyenin 1330 Senesi Nüfus Istatistikı (istanbul. 1919), Introduction.
Districts 1-27 are vilayets; the capital is listed first in each case, followed by the other sancaks in
the province. Districts 28-32 aresancaks; the capital is listed first, followed by the other kazas inthe
sancak.
169
1.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(R. 1330)
Greek Armenian Süryani Old
Admintstraîîve Oısîrict Muslims Greeks Armenians Jews Catholics Catholics Protestants Latins (Syriac) Syrians
İstanbul (Capital and Vicınity)
İstanbul (Oıd City) 279.056 64,287 ' 27,575 13.441 32 520 221 139 18
Makrikoy (Bakırköy) 28,967 11,221 5.734 364 46 220 6 5
Adalar (Islands) 1,586 8,725 596 79 5 56 6 8 5
Beyoğlu (former Pera-Galata and .
Bosphorus. European Shore) ; 117,267 75,971 22.180 31.080 273 8.462 • 739 ' 2.659 511
Üsküdar \ 70,447 19.832 13.296 6.836 31 653 240 89 23
Gebze / 26,220 5,856 47 21
Kartal > mAsıa 8,257 6.862 3.209 13 7
Beykoz \ 14,466 3,708 325 292 1
Şile ) 14,168 8.913
Total, İstanbul 560,434 205,375 72.962 52,126 387 9,918 1,213 2,905 562
1. Edirne 53,731 36,222 4.536 13.889 45
Mustafa Paşa 11.857 6.134 568
Seymenli 4.594 4,235 1 10
Lala Paşa 13,987 1.878
Dimetoka 20,110 24.447 174 986
Uzunköprü 26,483 13,711 81 232
A. Kirk Kilise (Kırklareli) 22,022 14,154 987
Lüleburgaz 14,777 3,125 64 434
Baba-yi Atik 16,749 2,195 48
Vize 10,020 4,089
Demirköy 4,023 5,110
Pinarhisar 10,976 3,126
B. Tekfurdaği (Tekirdağ) 19.484 4,618 9,093 1.566 48 115
Çorlu 13,858 3,415 1,678 1,211
Malkara 24.857 14,523 2,658 176
Hayrabolu 19,914 3,971 193
Saray 16,990 2,035 1 4
C. Gelibolu 8.220 16,137 1,190 2.576
Keşan 15,221 15,371 51 1
İpsala 11,296 7,007
Şarköy 5,604 11,009
Mürefte 2,730 14,146
Inos 5,523 3,509
Eceabad 7,391 10,292 5 3
Tdtal, Edirne 360,417 224,459 19,725 22,515 221 48 115
2. Erzurum 83,070 1,092 32,751 10 5 1,308 483 1 34
Pasinler 56,403 10,046
Bayburt 64,289 1,148 12,025
İspir 40,015 2.920
Tercan 36,153 349 7,401
Tortum 28,320 507 716
Keskin 36,122 37 908 5,285
Kiğı 35,572 13,621 988
Narman 28,684 2 556
Hinis 33,525 7,779 450
A. Erzincan 53.898 275 16.144 147 54
Pülümür 11,755 511
Refahiye 23,308 1,394 1,270
Kuruçay 11.466 2,649
Kemah 20,742 560 4,597 144
B. Bayazid 20,952 2 2,619
Eleşgird 23,368 4,202 1.393 29
Diyadin 19,640 904
Tutak 23,873 1.070
Karakilise 22,142 3,177 18
Total, Erzurum 673,297 4,859 125,657 10 5 8.720 2,241 1 88
170
1.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
Chaldeans Jacobites Maronites Samaritans Nestorians Yezidis Gypsies Druzes Cossacks Bulgarians Serbians Wallachians Total
1.603 386.892
280 52 1 46.896
21 11,087
476 1.467 261.095
196 111.643
32,144
18.348
18.792
' _ 23.081
^ 280 3.339 1 909,978
478 648 109.549
18.559
8.840
15,865
225 45,942
349 40.856
1,599 38,762
18,400
18,992
14,109
9,133
14,102
34,924
40 20,202
42,214
24,078
19,030
28,123
30,644
18.303
16,613
16,876
234 9.266
21 17.712
1,092 2,502 631,094
13
10 118,777
66,449
77,462
42,935
43,903
29.543
42,352
50,181
14 29.256
41,754
70.518
12,266
25,972
14,115
26,043
23.964
28,992
20.670
24.943
25.337
~3 5Î 7 24 815,432
391
126
171
I.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
l . l / . r V. v_/ ı . ı . uı ı ı aı ı ı w p
Muslims' Greeks Armenians Jews
Greek Armenian
Catholics Catholics Protestants Latins
Suryam
(Syrıaci
AO İTİ'î i'bil alı VC Uı Jll lı_l
1 Artana
71,617 3.104 14.956 20 71 888 1.006 71 441
9
0. .HUülıö
16.068 110 • 299 3 13 36 5 IL
K3rais3Ü
27.771 20
Vı ırnı ırtalik 6.694 60 520
TUMIUı inli r\
20.763 3.859 62 146
A. MJidll
16.972 11,042 3 1,10.3 1,405 •
Hsçin r
Fsks
13,170 1.879 2.308 632
Kars
16,989 16 1.108 99
-|
o rphpühprpkpi 13,193 16 675 4 80
Dörtyol
15,495 272 6.672 3 8 3 366 11
İslahiye
10,927 500
600
Bağçe, Bulanık
14,643 3.691
600
Hassa
8,810 33 770 1 269 285
C Marcln 27,844 2.273 790 35 73 42 68 1 23
U. ivicisin
Tarsus
60.947 774 2.929 5 281 122 313 86

Total, Adana
341.903 8.537 50,139 66 437 2.511 5,036 174 467
4 Ankara
69,066 3.327 3,341 1,026 6,990 915
Ayaş
24,986
Bala
31,546 48 11
Beypazari
23,931 26
13 40
Haymana
34.352 180 91 13 40 7
Kalecik
44,064 830
Nallihan
. 16,581 4 1,088 15
Yabanabad
54,957 2 9 1
A. Çorum
83,150 555 1,231
İskilip
55,016 15 43
Sungurlu
40,501 816 1,863 73
Osmancik 31,824 50 68
Mecitözü
34,134 834 318 167
B. Kirşehir
71,647 412 1,729 4 1
Mucur
8,643
Keskin
48,349 3,039 1,883 188
Mecidiye
21,401 52
Avanos
25,499
C. Yozgat
77,187 2,281 13,736 20 213
Akdağmadeni 37,081 7.892 3,312 49
Boğazliyan 43,370 745 14,902 768
Total, Ankara
877,285 20,226 44,507 1,026 14 7,069 2,381
172
1.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
Chaldeans Jacobites Maronites Samaritans IMestorians Yezidis Gypsies Druzes Cossacks Bulgarians Serbians Wallachians Total
367 650 26 93,217
2 16,538
27,791
7,274
24,830
30,525
17,989
18.212
13,969
3 7 22.845
11.427
18,934
169 10,337
3 281 1 31,434
_33 _I14 _97 65,701
406 1,045 302 411,023
84,665
24,986
8 31,613
23,957
34,683
44,894
64 , 17,752
54,969
84,936
113 55,187
699 43,952
31,942
35,453
73,793
8,643
53,459
21,453
25.499
93,437
425 48,759
_ 59,785.
1,301 8 953,817
contnuwd I'll ioHoirin^ pti^c
173
I.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
Aomımstratıve Dıstr.ct Muslims Greeks Armenians jews
5 Aydın (İzmir) 100.356 73.676 . 10.061 24,069
Bergama 56.812 16.841 968 698
Menemen 21.433 8.058 146 425
Urla 9.361 24.711 42 423
Çeşme 4.539 39.073 199
Foçtin (Foça! i 7.427 15.670 83
Kuşadası ; 11.438 9.220 114 157
Seferihisar 7.816 2.641 14 4
Tire 37.514 3,227 24 1.872
Bayindir 22.622 3,655 274 10
Ödemiş 71.069 6,104 1.552 12
Nif 19.658 4,876 12 15
Karaburun 8,838 9,934
A. Manisa 86,565 22,471 2,630 2.146
Kasaba 32,938 3,573 447 983
Salihli 28,836 1.693 91 242
Alaşehir 33,467 3.359 17
Kula 32,022 3.228
Eşme 23.415 33
Demirci 34,440 141 9
Gördes 36,858 988
Karaağaç 18,076 3,388 919 30
Soma 20,360 2,094 10 11
Akhisar 31,359 6,358 514 471
B. Aydin 82.163 9,702 245 2,560
Nazilli 50,719 2,699 543 463
Bozdoğan 33,298 406 11 3
Söke 20,028 18,720 133 95
Çine 32,376 651 2 30
Karacasu 18,865 221
C. Denizli 41,788 2,409 548 35
Tavas 57,271 4
Çal 52,585 177 14
Buldan 30,911 24 14
Sarayköy 21,068 1,041 37 5
Garbikaraağaç 50,776 34
Total, Aydin 1,249,067 299,096 19,395 35.041
6. Bitlis 38,701 18,650
Ahlat 10,190 9,501
Hizan 11,624 5,023
Mutki 12,462 4,110
A. Siirt 27,649 2,218
Eruh 22.677 1,890
Prevari 6,415 1,326
Şirvan , 15,181 1,169
Garzan 14,541 4,225
B. Genç 24,467 1,603
Çapakçur 11.292 734
Kulp 15,252 3,573
C. Muş 30.254 33,087
Bulanik 16,372 14,662
Sasun 7,454 6,505
Malazgird 30,929 4,438
Varto 14,539 1,990
Total, Bitlis 309,999 114,704
Greek Armenian
Catholics Catholics Protestants Latins
Süryani
ISynac)
Old-
Syrians
813 253 ,785
19 226
59
892 479
384
207
412
107
1,793 2
350
775
714
1,109
1,044
2,699 530
2,788 1,640 3,992
174
I.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
Chaldeans Jacobites Maronites Samaritans Neslorians Yezıdıs Gypsies Dtuzes
Cossacks Bulgarians Serbians Wallachians
12
51
2,766
30
2.796
Total
211,013
75,331
30,113
34,538
43,811
23.180
20,929
10,475
42,736
26,561
78,737
24,561
18,772
114,076
37,941
30,862
36,844
35,250
23,455
34,590
37,846
22,413
22,475
38,702
97,495
54,454
33,719
36,976
33,059
19,086
44,780
57,275
52,777
30,949
22,151
50,810
169
1,742
1.549
954
1.781
72
4.356
58,174
19.898
16,647
16,572
32,603
26,235
9,522
17,459
19,989
26,070
12,026
18,825
66.570
31,034
13,959
35.367
16.529
'437,479
175
I.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
Greek Armenian Süryani Old
Admın.strat've Dtstnct Muslims Greeks Armenians Jews Catholics Catholics Protestants Latins (Synac) Synans
7. Beyru! 45.063 22,018 123 3.431 3.718 270 314 250 491
Sur 31.653 550 4.101 206
Sayda 46.472 130 859 2.540 2 110 19
Merıuyun 22.296 4.777 278 1.671 1.133 Î 03
A Trablus Şam (Tripoli) ; 50.004 10.734 72 66 , 5. 69 23
Safita 32,254 4,271 175 137
Akkar 19.920 12.573 671 391
Hasniülekrad 16.477 12,185 144 177
B Akka 31,800 3,959 4 106 4.316 332 268
Haıfa 23,417 939 2,439 2,903 54 250
Tabariya 8,410 150 3,194 244 5 24
Safed 22,481 326 4,644 2.049 26 3
Nasireh 11,777 4,274 1.612 367 1.820
C. Lazkiye 46,057 3.485 481 85 24
Merkeb 29,469 3,413
Ceble 28.586 105
Sahyun 30,626 1,537 580
357
D. Nablus 74,843 1,035 29 370 357
Beni Saab 35,929 18
Cenin 40,780 765 47 226
Total. Beyrut 648,314 87,244 1.188 15,052 24.210 277 3,823 3,367 491
8. Halep (Aleppo) 93,976 1,173 3,603 9,973 7.772 3,952 385 606 2,874
İskenderun 14,140 2,373 1,519 129 213 65 33 70 78
Idlib 51,762 845 53 84
Antakya 78,054 7,352 4,773 357 179 72 736 4
Bab 25,359 31 8 2
Beylan 10,506 1.696 18 2 314 232
Çisrişuğur 26,435 1,488 4,150 1 517 2,027 488
2
Harem 29.967 13 47 1
488
2
A. Cebelisemaan 25,138
Maaratainaman 20,272 27
Münbiç 2,768 7 1 11 13
610
B Ayintab (Antep) 89,769 67 14,466 860 7 393 4,635 610
Kilis 78,905 434 3,934 775 376 390
Rumkale 29,269 878 26 37 108
Total, Haleb 576,320 13,772 35,104 12,193 8,182 5,739 8,643 1,776 2,956
9, Hüdavendigar (Bursa) 111,301 24,048 6,433 3,687 691 278
Gemlik 16,373 8,568 3,348
Orhangazi 11,884 22.726 36 121
Karacabey 25,763 9,921 987 44
20
49
Mudanya 7,677 17,389 100 53 20
Kirmasti 56,599 1,381 1,016 184
Orhaneli 47.140 44 6
A, Ertuğrul (Bilecik) ' 59,508 9,877 7.774 52 479 183
Şögüt 55,223 1,982 7,770 52 136
İnegöl 56,238 34 7.101 106 225
Yenişehir 26,408 1,683 1,660
Total, Hüdavendigar 474.114 74,927 58,921 4,126 1,278 992
10. Diyarbekir 52,285 343 13,970 520 113 1,269 1,228 3,820 296
Lice 23,595 4,151 508 468
Silvan 26,330 507 12,756 327 932
104
Derik 21,189 415 436 277 165 104
Beşiri
A. Mardin
11,015 3,369 58 1,393
2,858
Beşiri
A. Mardin 51,116 12 4 6.974 917 9,227
2,858
Cizre 17,022 268 234 90 3.009 140
Midyat 42,607 67 1,385 13,470 451
Savur 39,928 5 96 931 1.316 80
Nusaybin 12.842 1,009 2.766
B. Siverek 50,435 2,455 136 126 272 638
Çermik 19.226 784 184 37
204
Viranşehir 15.477 2 521 2 528 53 772
204
C. Maden 71.493 958 8,901 473 1.185
Palu 37,541 8,224 166
Total, Diyarbekir 492,101 1,822 55,890 2,085 113 9,960 ' 7,376 37.976 4,133
176
I.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
Chaideans Jacofailes Maromtes Samaritans Nestonans Yezıdıs Gypsies Diuzes Cossacks Bulgarians Serbians Wallachians Total
19
19
13,446
3.059
3,430
1,338
6,396
579
8,333
775
67
187
1.032
398
368
1,315
40,723
160
4
164
89,144
39,569
53,562
31,596
67,369
37,416
41,888
29,758
40,852
30,189
12,027
30,561
20,248
50,500
34,197
28,691
32,743
76,794
35,951
41,818
824,873
262 144 1,956 126,676
102 153
18,875
52,744
10 91,537
1 25,401
2 46 12,816
35,106
14 30,044
25,138
20,299
2,800
3 110,810
84,814
316 96 30,730
365 309 316 159 1,956 667,790
1,339 147,777
28,289
34,767
530 37,294
25.239
59.180
47,190
77,873
65,163
63.704
29,751
1,869 616,227
1,245 75,089
28.722
891 41.743
82 22.668
233 ' 16.068
861 71.969
2,753 1,022 24.538
73 724 58.777
42.356
75 314 17.006
54.062
20.231
96 17.655
83.010
45.931
5,994 2,375 619.825
177
I.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
Greek Armenian Sun/am Old
Admmısuatıve D'strict Muslims Greeks Armenians Jews Catholics Catholics Protestants Latins (Synac) Syrians
11 Süriye (Syria) 197.507 6.569 413 10,129 6.282 237 131 122 739
Baalbek 18.667 1.144 1 3.713 10 10 10 6
Buka 19.113 3,403 4 251 34
Zebdani 14.329 1.448 153 82 7
Wadi el Acem 13.528 2.297 34 56 370
Hasbiya • 5.063 3.958 6 591 351
Raşiya 5.407 3.393 173 62 175
Kuneytra 33.534 748 4 320 142 12
Duma 35.350 1.337 1.671
Nebk 40,139 1.755 3.847 108 495
A. Havran 27,274 241 195
Izra 28,196 595 781
Mismiye 7,802 239 2,756
Busra 22,485 3.096 594 180
Suweyda 23,800 900
Aclun 57,156 4,749 58
B. Kerek 18,550 1,655 317
Tefile 7,665 4
Salt 33,496 3,604 783 379 1.733
Maan 6,012
C. Hama 64,225 8,089 181 332 501
İmraniye 24,838 1,508
Selimiye 19,859
Homs 67,587 10,246 1,327 6 751 774
Total, Suriye 791,582 60,978 413 10,140 27,662 247 1,873 2,991 3,079
12. Sivas 54,819 728 23,812 1,830 434
Tonus 40,868 12,969 141 584
Halik 40,076 21 11,376
Darende 26,518 2,798 6 58
Divriği 30,630 8.354
Aziziye 50,344 8 1,038 4 60
Kangal 29,212 3.111
Koçgiri 47.203 6,112 5,980 76
Gürün 15,640 7,788 414 703
Yildizeli 39.239 569 1.379
A. Amasya 53,123 2,679 9,598 121 260
Havza 17,475 7,869 335
Küprü 41,853 4,755 1,032 1 7 320
Gümüşbaciköy 24,957 3,660 3,549 173
Merzifon 25,370 1,067 8,160 406 1,160 3
Ladik 15,881 4,920 343
B. Tokat 90,125 3,997 12,046 339 764 115
Erbaa 50.895 7,922 3,274 4 430
Zile 69,328 154 2,833 88
Niksar 22,843 4,815 3.183
Reşadiye 25,660 811
C. Karahisarişarki 26,379 16,383 8,477 17
Alucra 30,737 692 30
Mesudiye 26,510 5,264 664
Suşehri 22,871 2,040 11.240 97
Koyulhisar 21,199 858 37
Total. Sivas 939,735 75,324 143,406 344 3,693 4.575 3
178
\ n A.Ottoman Population. 1914 (continued)
••jldeans Jacobites Maronites
63 112 300
1,536
2,528
13
943
336
156
Samaritans Nestotıans Yezıdıs Gypsies Druzes Cossacks Bulgarians Serbians Wallachians
20
4,342
83
2,960
351
5.464
5,577
141
155
6.111
20 7,385
217
282
707
370
165
268
24
330
2.363
Total
222,624
25,097
29,339
16.019
16.298
15,254
9.629
34,916
38,358
46,344
27,710
29,572
13.757
26,355
24,700
61.967
20,522
7,669
39.995
6.012
73,328
26,487
19,859
86,598
918,409
81,623
54,562
51,473
29,380
38,984
51,454
32,323
59.371
24,545
41,187
65,998
25,679
48,250
32,339
36,873
21,124
107,756
62,690
72,671
30,865
26,471
51,586
31,459
32,438
36,248
22,094
1.169.443
179
I.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
Greek Armenian Süryani Old
Aömlnistrat've Dıstnc! Muslims Greeks Armenians Jews Catnoi.es Catholics Protestants
13. Trabzon 64.726 23.806 14,846 a 1.345 127
Ordu 111.421 18,505 12,349 5 1.211
Of 75.050 1.819
Akçeabat 56.401 6,561 3,517
Tirebolu 48,999 10.530 868
Sürmene 57,698 9.762 323
Giresun ; 92,301 24.138 2,275
Görele ; 42,823 1,648 312
Vakfikebır 28.484 13 51
Maçka 17,950 19,575 258
A. Lazıstan (Rize) 122.055 1,507 5
Atina 50,297 171 28
Hopa 38,156 44 2
B. Gümüşhane 29,639 9.179 1,817
Torul 29.686 30.547 24
Şiran 22,312 3.155 392
Kelkit 33.130 614 482
Total, Trabzon 921,128 161.574 37,549 8 1.350 1.338
14. Kastamonu 67,467 2,468 2.153
inebolu 80,431 3,289 167
Safranbolu •59.866 3,818
Taşköprü 50,721 65 1,477
Daday 47,536 46 310
Cide 41,845 388 3
Araç 41,642 53 10
Tosya 29,489 680 114
A. Çankiri (Kengiri) 94,385 1,234 472
Çerkeş 63,519 103 10
B. Sinop 28,290 4,595 675 8
Boyabat 59,324 194 3,074
Ayancik 42,556 1.917 3
Gerze 30,231 2,108 491
Total, Kastamonu 737,302 20,958 8,959 8
15. Konya 101,880 6,542 3,235 77 200
Akşehir 57,234 2,266 4,890 1
Beyşehir 41,596 122 33
Şeydişehir 22,946 26 129
İlgin 31,932 705 103
Bozkir 55,115 272
Karaman 55.237 567 1,245
Ereğli 29,102 565 887 3 2 1
Sultaniye 20,640
Koçhisar 35,177 209 14
Ermenak 29,424 1 2
Saiteli 39,979 4
A. Burdur 54,032 2,783 1,271 53
Tefenni 27,671 86 24
B. İsparta 46,698 6,648 1,119
Uluborlu 19,367 1,278 5
Eğridir 27,020 2,982
Karaağaç 25,743 10
Yalvaç 29,919 9 10
Total, Konya 750,712 25,071 12,971 4 79 254
180
K17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
Chaldeans Jacobites Maronites Samaritans Nestonans Yezidis Gypsies Druzes Cossacks Bulgarians Serbians lA'ailachians Tot £
104.858
143.491
76,869
66,479
60,397
67.783
118.714
44.783
28,548
37.783
123.567
50.496
38,202
40,635
60,257
25,859
34.226
1.122.947
72.088
83.887
63,684
52.263
47.892
42,236
41.705
30.283
96,091
63,632
33.568
62.592
44,476
32,830
767,227
111,938
64,603
41,751
23,101
32.740
55.387
57,049
30,561
20.640
35.400
29.427
39.983
58.139
27,781
54,465
20.650
30.002
25,753
29,938
789,308
212
212
181
I.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
Greek Armenian Süryani rjld
Admınıstratıve Dısîrict Muslims Greeks Armenians Jews Catholics Catholics Protestants Latins (Synac)
16 Mamureîulazlz 56,365 23 _ 23.725 1.323 4,000 374 344
Harput 22.541 7.519 125 1.528 167 639
Eğin 32.610 636 9.373 12 503
Arapkir 24.194 1 9.204 221 666
Kebanmadeni 23.944 37 320 57-
Potürge ; 34.165 679 777
A. Malatya 57.726 7.060 764 390 174 18
Behisni ; 42.282 1.550 420
Hasanmansur 34.154 2,189 754 441 402
Kahta 16.434 743 7 54
Akçadağ 35,987 341 125
B Oersim 11,874 1,151
Çemişkezek 16,181 267 3.772 215
Çarsancak 12,157 6.862 243
Ovacik 4.165 10
Nazimiye 7.276 7 89
Mazgirt 14,323 1.483
Total, Mamuretüiaziz 446,379 971 76.070 3.751 8.043 715 2,234
17. Van 45,119 33,789
Erciş 27,323 8,083
Çatak 8,132 4.292
Adilcevaz 10,820 4,849
Gevaş ' 18,123 10.520
A. Hakkari 21,848 1 3,461 836
Çölemerik 7,450 296
Mahmudiye 10,230 528
Şemdinli 9,873 274
Güvar 12,771 959 273
Hoşab 7,691 1,015
Total, Van 179,380 1 67,792 1,383
18. Eskişehir 83,883 2,613 3,979 194 316 215
Sivrihisar 33,328 4,185 206
Mihaliççik 23,367 112 328
Total, Eskişehir 140,578 2,613 8,276 728 316 215
19, Antalya 70,165 7,837 141 173
Elmali • 25,081 325 484
Alanya 32,390 1,877 33
Akseki 34,384 65
Kaş 19,210 1,028 5 '
Manavgat 19,411 56
Korkuteli 23,534
Finike . 11,587 1,197 44
Total, Antalya 235,762 12,385 630 250
20 Urfa 69,526 13,995 817 1,084 1,597 39 2,328
Birecik 27,085 1.071 48 461 55
Rakah 14,638 2 12
Suruç 26,824 83 12
Harran 11,311
Total. Urfa 149,384 2 15,161 865 1.557 1.652 39 2,328
182
17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
I ^ Jacobites Maronites Samaritans Nestorıans Yezıdıs Gypsies Druzes Cossacks Bulgarians Serb.ans Waliachians
36
56
293
835
1,128
1,534
1,258
1,593
2,878
8,091
1,366
1,366
Total
86.162
32.519
43.170
34,286
24,358
35.622
66.143
44.252
37,949
17,238
36,453
13,025
20,435
19.262
4.175
7.372
15.806
538,227
79.736
35,406
12,717
15,669
28,643
27,680
9,004
12,959
11,740
16,881
8,706
259.141
9Î Î 00
37.719
23,807
152,726
336
14
271_
621
37
38
78.317
26.226
34,314
34.449
20.243
19.467
23.534
13.136
249.686
89.386
28.720
14.652
26.919
11,311
170.988
183
I.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
Greek Armenian Süryani Old
Admımsîratıve Oıstrıcî Mdslıms Greeks Armenians Jews Catholics Catholics Protestants Latins (Syria
21. İçel 34.628 1.210 334
Anamur 31.768 725 9
Gülnar 20.668 457 7 6
Mut 14.970 108 1 1
Total, İçel 102.034 2.500 341 to 7
22. İzmit ' 40.403 5,226 23.873 307 448 1.078 3 3
Adapazarı 76.864 7.957 16,461 113 1 655
Karamürsel 14.850 6,047 2.635 7
Kandıra 40,495 1.804 641 4
Geyve 32.508 7,108 8,363 4 204
Yalova 7,954 10,274 3,304
İznik 13,785 1,632 126
Total. İzmit 226,859 40,048 55,403 428 449 1.937 10 3
23 Bolu 53,594 14 1.220 7
Ereğli 42,059 1,389
Bartin 64,395 1,104 401 3
Gerede 50,423 45 19
Göynük 19,075 2
Oüzce 58,041 1,013 392
Devrek ı 53.336 404 670
Mudurnu 29,818
Zonguldak 28,540 1,175 259 17 5 2
Total, Bolu 399,281 5,146 2,961 20 5 9
24. Canik (Samsun) 44,992 54,709 4,791 18 261 263
Ünye 58.351 5,251 5.861 9
Bafra 48,944 30.838 1,735
Fatsa 35,678 3,026 1,250 385
Çarşamba 54,353 3,948 10,820 609
Terme 23,632 967 2,601
Total, Canik 265,950 98,739 27,058 27 261 1.257
25. Çatalca 13,034 16,984 44 53
Büyük Çekmece 3,255 9,511 17
Silivri 3,759 10,302 781 1,427
Total, Çatalca 20,048 36,797 842 1,480
26. Zor 43,645 18 67 27 215 1
Ftasülayn 2,667 2
Aşara 19,458
Total, Zor 65,770 18 67 2 27 215 1
27. Kuddüs-i Şerif (Jerusalem) 70,270 19,717 1,173 18,190 533 1,473 9,062
Yafa (Jaffa) 62,758 5,312 137 2,105 553 249 774
Gazze 77,296 1,006 243 11 41
Halil ür-Rahman 55,720 721 3
Total, Kudüs-i Şerif 266,044 26,035 1,310 21,259 1,086 1,733 9,880
28. Ah/on Karahisar-i Sahip 97,547 59 7,163 7 2 9
Dinar 37,496 327 65
Bolvadin 39,618 3 8
Sandikli 37,165 7 33
Aziziye 44,097 151 123
Çivril 21,736 85 45
Total, Karahisar-i Sahip 277.659 632 7,437 7 2 9
184
1.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
51
11
270
270
Gypsies Druzes Cossacks Bulgarians Serbians Wallachians Total
36,172
32,502
74 21,212
228 15,308
302 105,194
71,349
102,051
8 23,547
42,944
48,187
21,532
15,543
8 325,153
54,835
43,448
65,903
50,487
99 19,176
753 60,199
54,410
364 30,182
6 30,008
1,216 6 408,648
105,044
69,472
81,517
40,339
69,730
27,200
393,302
10 40 30,165
143 195 13,121
98 103 16,470
251 338 59,756
44,165
2,671
19,458
66,294
106 120.921
7 72,206
78,597
56,444
113 328,168
104,787
74 37,962
. 39,629
37,205
44,371
21.866
74 285,820
185
I.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
Admımstratıve Dısîrıct Muslims Greeks Armenians Jews
Greek Armenian
Catholics Catholics Protestants
Suryam Old
Latins (Syriaci Syrians
29- Karesi (Balıkesir) 156,092 2.655 2.963 3 1
Edremit 30,846 9,699 41 40
Erdek 15,232 31,035 1,094 303
Ayvalık 454 31,440
Balya 33,680 3,266 298
Bandırma 41,146 11,507 4.032 4 ' 106 51
Burhaniye ; 20,280 4,514 43 14
Sindirgi 27,095 1,130 20 1
Gönen 34,979 2,251 53 1
Total, Karesi 359,804 97,497 8,544 362 109 51 2
30. Kale-i Sultaniye (Çanakkale) 13,596 4,358 1.269 2,961 9 59
Ezine 15,801 486 700 256
Ayvacik 17,089 5 1
Bayramiç 20,614 290 48 269 8
Biga 65,242 2,243 409 103
Lapseki 17,561 1,164 43 52
Total, Kale-i Sultaniye 149,903 8,541 2,474 3,642 9 67
31. Kayseri 101,924 19,662 30,105 1,513 1,614
Develi 30,948 2,085 15,689 2 404
İncesu : 14,559 3,773
Bünyanihamid 36,861 1,070 2,865
Total, Kayseri 184,292 26,590 48.659 1,515 2,018
32, Kütahya 136,164 5,587 2,811 638
Gediz 38,256
Uşak 88,626 2,957 1,099
Simav 40,302 211
Total, Kütahya 303,348 8,755 3,910 638
33. Maraş 50,356 11 13,260 251 23 3,808 4,972 1,189
Pazarcik 23,868 37
4,972
Elbistan 47,595 1,200 372 445
- Zeytun-Süleymanli 8,069 10,050 182 486
Göksün 22,757 3,295 118 208
Total, Maraş 152,645 11 27,842 251 23 4,480 6,111 1,189
34. Menteşe (Muğla) 61,576 2,008 4 1
Maramaris 15,040 2,082 69
Köyceğiz 23,716 727 5 120
Fethiye 36,734 7,394 217
Bodrum 15,468 4,042 3 203
Milas 36,382 3,670 1.005
Total, Menteşe 188,916 19,923 12 1,615
35, Niğde 52,754 26.156 1,149 137
Nevşehir 38,146 10,935 1,050 46 • 106
Ürgüp 26,671 7,953 30 166
Aksaray 59,010 4,551 .1,758 333
Bor 22,924 1,442 777 26
Ulukişla 11,807 2,475 114 1
Arapsun 15,788 4,800 12
Total. Niğde 227,100 58,312 4,890 46 769
186
1
I.17.A. Ottoman Population, 1914(continued)
Chaldeans Jacobites Maron.les Samaritans Nestorıans Yezıdıs Gypsies Diuzes Cossacks Bulgarians Serb.ans Wallachians
30
792 1,787
1
339
369 794 5,438
243
243
3
4
396
400
Total
161,744
40,626
47,666
31,894
3,650 4 0 8 g ¡ )
59.425
24,851
28,247
37,623
472,970
22,252
82 17,325
17,095
21,230
67,997
19,916
1.096
1 ' 0 9 7 82 165,815
154,818
49,128
18,332
40,796
263,074
145,443
38,256
92,682
40,513
316,894
73,873
23,905
49,612
18,787
26,378
192,555
63,589
17,195
24,972
44,345
19,716
41,057
210,874
80,196
50,283
34.820
65,652
25,169
14.397
20.600
' 291.117
Notes follow Table I.17.B.
187
1.17.B. Summary of Ottoman Population, 1914
Greek Armenian Süryani 0 ld
. . . . . . . . . j Synacl Syri ans
Administratıve District Muslims Greeks Armenians Jews Catholics Catholics Protestants Latins
Edirne 360.417 224,459 19,725 22,515 221 48 115
Erzurum 673.297 4,859 ' 125.657 10 5 8,720 2,241 1
İstanbul 560,434 205.375 72.962 52.126 387 9.918 1,213 2.905
Adana 341.903 8,537 50.139 66 437 2.511 5,036 174
Ankara 877,285 20.226 44.507 1,026 14 7.069 ' 2.381"
Aydın ! 1,249,067 299,096 19,395 35,041 1 892 479 1.793
Bitlis • 309.999 114,704 2,788 1,640
Beyrut ; 648.314 87,244 1,188 15,052 24,210 277 3,823 3.367
Halep 576.320 13.772 35,104 12,193 8.182 5,739 8,643 1.776
Hüdavendigar 474.114 74.927 58,921 4.126 1.278 992
1.776
Diyarbekir 492.101 1,822 55,890 2.085 113 9,960 7,376
Suriye 791,582 60,978 413 10.140 27,662 247 1.873 2.991
Sivas 939,735 75,324 143,406 344 3.693 4.575
Trabzon 921.128 161,574 37.549 8 1.350 1.338
Kastamonu 737,302 20,958 8.959 8
Konya 750,712 25,071 12.971 4 79 254 1
Mamuretülaziz 446,379 971 76.070 3.751 8.043 715
Van 179,380 1 67,792 1,383
Eskişehir 140,578 2,613 8.276 728 316 215
Antalya 235,762 12,385 630 250
Urfa 149.384 2 15.161 865 1.557 1,652 39
İçil 102,034 2,500 341 10 7
1,652
İzmit 226.859 40,048 55,403 428 449 1,937 10
Bolu 399.281 5,146 2,961 20 5 9 2 1
Canik 265,950 98,739 27,058 27 261 1,257
Çatalca 20,048 36.797 842 1,480
Zor 65,770 18 67 2 27 215 1 1
Kudüs-i Şerif 266,044 26,035 1,310 21,259 1,086 1,733 9.880
Karahisar-i Sahip 277,659 632 7,437 7
1,086
2 9
9.880
Karesi 359,804 97,497 8,544 362 109 51 2
Kale-i Sultaniye 149,903 8,541 2,474 3,642 9 67
Kayseri 184,292 26,590 48,659 1.515 2,018
Kütahya 303,348 8,755 3,910 633
2,018
Maraş 152.645 11 27,842 251 23 4,480 6,111 1,189
Menteşe 188,916 19,923 12 1,615
6,111 1,189
Niğde 227,100 58,312 4,890 45 769
Total 15,044,846 1,729,738 1,161,169 187,073 62.468 67,838 65,844 24.845
562
467
2
3.992
491
2.956
37.976 4,133
3.079
3
2,234
2,328
3
1
141
427
54,750 4,133
t
188
[ 17.B. Summary of Ottoman Population, 1914 (continued)
Chaldeans Jacobites Maronites Samaritans Nestorians Yezidis Gypsies Druzes Cossacks Bulgarians Serbians Wallachians Total
13
476
406
11
4,356
19
365
5,994
351
4
8
1,128
51
11
517
1,045 302
40,723 164
309
5,577 6,111
B.091
316
2,375
20
2,363
1,366
270
1,092
24
280
1,301
2,796
159
1,869
13,211 6,932 47,406 164 8,091 6,957
56
621
302
1,216
251
113
74
369
243
3
400
11,169
2.502
3.339
8
169
1
1,956
7,385
212
794
7,385
38
6
338
5,438
1,097
14,908
82
82
631,094
815,432
909,978
411,023
953,817
1.608.742
437,479
824,873
667,790
616,227
619,825
918,409
1 169,443
1.122,947
767,227
789,308
538,227
259.141
152.726
249,686
170,988
105,194
325.153
4138.648
393,302
59.756
66,294
328,168
285,820
472,970
165,815
263,074
316.894
192,555
210,874
291,117
18,520,016
Notes toTables 1.17.A andI.17.B.
Source: Ministry of the Interior, Directorate General of theAdministration of Popula-
tion Registers, Memalik-i Osmaniyyenin 1330 Senesi NOtus Istatistiki [Population sta-
tistics of the Ottoman state In the year 1914] (Istanbul, 1919).
Notes: According to the official introduction, these statistics were prepared by using
thefigures fromthe 1905'6 census andadding births andsubtracting deaths registered
during the intervening years. Estimates of current population were made for tribes In
eastern Anatolia, such as the nomadic Nestorians, and for areas not subject to the
census (these included Hicaz, Yemen, Musul, Bağdat, Basra, Cebililübnan, Asir, Me-
dian, and areas o1European Turkey incorporated into Greece, Serbia, and Albania).
InTable 1.17.A. districts 1-17 are vilayets. Listed first is the vilayet capital, followed
by thetowns inthe central kaza. The lettered districts arethe capitals of other teas in
the vilayet, followed by other towns in the kaza.Districts 18-35 are independent
sancalcs (müstakil sancaki). The central kazais listed first, followed by other kazas in
the sancak.
189
1.18. Summary of Ottoman Census Reports, 1893-1914
Administrative District 1893' 1894 1895 1896 1897 1906 1914
Net Gain (Loss)
1893-1906
Aydin 1.410,424 1,408,387 1,465.976 1,465,970 1,478.424 1.727,581 1.818,859
317,157
Edirne 836.041 836:045 836,045 954.535 985.962 1.333.796 631,094
497.755
Erzurum 559,055 559.155 634,324 634.324 637.015 675.855 815.432
116.800
Adana 396,349 384 362 387,421 294.858 398.764 504.396 ' 516.217
108.047
Işkodra 87.372 37.372 87.372 87.372 87.529 89,848
108.047
Ankara 847.132 347.482 918.117 918.953 1,018.626 1.157.131 1.156.891
309.999
İzmit ; 195.669 195.659 203.375 206.694 228. 4« 290.517 325.153 94.848
Bağdat 197,756 197.756 197.756 197.756 187,385 178.178
94.848
Basra 10.853 8,853 8.853 8.853 80,081 10.270
Beyrut 568,014 568.014 568,014 615.457 620,763 562.719 824.873 (5.295)
Bitlis 276,998 276,998 351,640 465.568 336,642 297.660 437.479 20.662
Biga 118,835 118.824 139.508 139.877 143,904 186.455
67.620
Cezayır-i Bahr-ı Sefid 263,590 264,374 264,374 293.615 286.763 364,223 100.633
Çatalca 58,822 58.822 58.822 59,207 61.001 78.529 59.756 19.707
Halep (Aleppo) 787,714 787,714 799,187 899,035 819,238 867,679 1.031.333 79.965
Hüdavendigar 1,335,884 1,336,884 1,367.012 1,367,012 1,454.294 1,691,277 2,010.452 355,393
Diyarbekir 368,964 368,970 401.399 443,421 414.657 392,705 619.825 23,741
Zor 34,250 38,652 132,328 132.830 51,260 60,854 66,294 26,604
Suriye (Syria) 400.748 400,748 620.943 620.943 551,134 478.775 918,409 78,027
Selanik 989.844 990.397 990,400 1,009,992 1,038,973 921.359 (68,485)
Sivas 926,671 926,564 959,495 980,569 980,876 1,194,372 1,169,443 267,701
Şehremaneti Mülhakati (Greater
İstanbul) 80,702 80,702 80,702 80,702 88,299 82,435 1,733
Trabzon 1,056,237 1,056,293 1,078.399 1,085,363 1,163,500 1.342,778 1,616,249 286.541
Kastamonu 948,981 1,049,116 988,114 969,263 968,981 1,121,516 1,175,875 172,535
Kosova 721,087 721,342 721,342 721,342 755,639 671,653 (49,430)
Konya 944,042 944,009 970,406 907,182 1,022,449 1,249,777 1,339,111 305,735
Kudüs 234,770 234,774 308,602 290,733 258,460 229,812 328,168 (4,958)
Elaziz 381,346 381.346 571,070 569,748 459,779 473,324 538,227 91,978
Musul 176,111 177,047 251,094 252,016 205,013 161,748 (14.363)
Manastir (Bitolla) 664,399 664,399 664,399 664,399 712,217 824,828 160,429
Van 119,860 119,860 161,970 262.660 132,116 113,964 259,141 (5,896)
Yanya (Janına) 516,477 516,477 516,467 511,913 516,681 516,766 289
Dersaadet veBilad-i Selase
(Istanbul andtheThree
Boroughs) 873,565 1.030.234 1,030,234 1.030.234 903,482 782,227 909,978 (91,338)
Total 17,388,562 17,637,191 18,735,218 19,142,396 19,050,323 20,884,630 18,520,015 3,496,068
Notes: Becausethe1914census list reflected major changes intheterritorial bound-
aries andadministrative division of the Ottoman state, the 1914column in this sum-
mary table required some adjustment. Thepopulation figures for newly created prov-
inces have been added to the figures for the larger areas from which they were
detached Thus Icel is included with Adana; Menteşe with Aydin; Kayseri with Ankara;
Canlk with Trabzon, Bolu with Kastamonu; Niğde andAntalya with Konya; Maraş and
Urlawith Halep; andKale-i Sultaniye, Karahisar-i Sahip, Kütahya, Eskişehir, andKaresi
with Hüdavendigar. Of course, this must distort thetotals inmany cases, aseach new
administrative division usually included parts of more than oneformer province; for
example, Biga, which was added to the new Karesi province, is counted in with
Hüdavendigar intheadjusted total. Thetotal figure for Istanbul andits suburbs inthe
1914 list is placed opposite Dersaadet veBilad-i Selase in the summary.
Notethat the columnshowing net gain or loss compares 1893with 1906rather than
with 1914, theadministrative alignment having beensodrastically altered bythelatter
datethat a province-by-province comparison wasnot inorder. The grandtotal for1914
shows a net gain of 1,131,454; this reflects the loss of territory andpopulation in
Europe, asthetotal net gain figure for 1906is 3,496,068. Thecounts for Basra and
Bağdat never approached completion; therefore no net gain/loss figures at all are
included for these twoareas.
The figure for Basra given in the 1897column is much higher than that for other
years because that figure is fromtheStatistical Office. TheStatistical Office wasless
conservative than the Population Directorate andwould publish figures gatheredby
other means than actual count.
190
STATI STI CAL APPENDI CES
SECTI ON" I I
TABULATI ONS OFNATI ONAL AND RELI GI OUS GROUP
POPULATI ONS I N VARI OUS PROVI NCES
II.1. Comparative Table Showing Various Estimates of thePopulation of Certain Provinces of the
Ottoman Empire (Report of Major Henry Trotter)
A V'layets o Erzeroum Van. and Billis 'excluding S en
Armenians
Gregorian. Zinganis Turks and
Totals
Catnolic and Circassians Kurds
Totals
Authority Protestant Nestonans Greeks Jews kmchors &c Kurmandıı Kurds. Zaza Yezidis Non-Moslems Moslems2
Brand Total
(1) Sir Robert Dalyell. 1863 ; Details not given 289.309 609.758 899.067
(2) Mr Consul Taylor. 1869 i 290.500 110,000 4.000 1.200 244,700 320 000 158,000 2,000 405.700 724,700 1.130.400
13| Berlin Protect. 1878 . 1 150.000 14,000 5.000 3.000 400.000 80.000 35,000 13 000 1 172.000 528.000
1700.000
(4) Official to Sir Charles dike'
1700.000
1880 563.685 84.995s 3.420 363 223.484' 273,095 67,369 3.627 652.463 567.575 1.220.038
(5) Patriarch to Ambassador
1.220.038
1880 373.500 85.000 5.000 1.500 13.000" 80,000 40.000' 140,000' 20.000 478.000 280.000 758,000
(6) Vahan Vartabed. 1879 440,500s
758,000
(7) Vice-Consul Clayton, 1880 53.940
(8) Official figures 316.444 61.778 6,792 2.050 821,476 387.064 821.476 1.208.540
B Viiayat of D'arbekir (including Saert. or Siirt)
Kurds. Zaza
Totals
Turks Kurds, and
Totals
Authority Armenians* Syrians' Greeks Jews Zmganls &c. Kurmandji Kiziibash1 Arabs Yezidis Non-Moslems Moslems'
(9) Mr Taylor, 1869 Christians, 108,000 1.000 45,000' 391,000™ 12,500° 118.000 8.000 109.000 574.500
(10) Patriarch to Ambassador 88.800 55,000° 5,000 55.000" 30.000° 55.000' 5,000 148.800 145.000
(11) Official figures, 1880 76,958s : 10,212 306 432 328.174 87,908 328,174
(12) Sal-nama, 1879 129.092 562,778
(13) Private 19,200 370
C Viiayet of Kharpul
Kurds. Zaza
Totals
Syrians Turks Kurds, and
Authority Armenians1 Sc " Greeks* Jews Zinganis &c " Kurmandji Kizilbash Non-Moslems Moslems
(14) Mr. Taylor, 1869 130,000 Christians 140,000 100.000 30,000 130,000 270,000
(15) Patriarch to Ambassador 155,000 5.000 5,000» 5,000 70.000* 55,000' 170,000 125,000
(16) Official figures 88,204 826 2,382 378 337.788 91.790 337,788
(17) Private 1,500
D. Vilayet of Aleppo
Authority Armenians33 Syrians6" Greeks'' Jews Zinganis &c. Kurmandji Kizilbash Arabs Yezidis Non-Moslems Moslems
(18) Patriarch to Ambassaddr 90,500 106,000™ 6,000 5,000 80,000" 40,000 15.000 207.500 135,000
(19) Mr. Consul Skene. 1860 Approximately 100,000