You are on page 1of 15

Revue de l'Occident musulman et

de la Mditerrane

The ottoman port of Izmir in the eighteenth and early nineteenth

centuries, 1695 -1820
Elena Frangakis

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Frangakis Elena. The ottoman port of Izmir in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, 1695 -1820. In: Revue de
l'Occident musulman et de la Mditerrane, n39, 1985. Les Ottomans en Mditterrane - Navigation, diplomatie, commerce.
pp. 149-162;

doi : 10.3406/remmm.1985.2071

Document gnr le 07/06/2016

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


CENTURIES, 1695 - 1820


Izmir, a major international port in the Eastern Mediterranean since the 17 th

century, developped into the most important port in the area in the course of the 18th
century (1). It linked the Ottoman Empire commercially with Western Europe. The
greatest part of Ottoman export produce reached the West through Izmir. At the same
time, the greatest part of European manufactured goods and colonial exports reached
the Anatolian and Iranian market also through Izmir (2). To that extent, Izmir was a
principal vehicle for the integration of the Ottoman Empire into the world economy
and penetration of Ottoman agricultural production by the international market.
The growth of trade in Izmir followed the growth of trade between Western
Europe and the Ottoman Empire and in particular between France and the Empire.
However, when French trade declined, following the French Revolution and the
Napoleonic Wars, Izmir continued to grow commercially and dominate the Empire's
trade with the West. In the early 19th century, the economic ties of Izmir with the
West were strengthened as Britain took the place of France (3). For most of the 18th
century, however, France dominated Ottoman trade, including that of Izmir.
Izmir's domination in the external trade of the Empire with the West dates from
the mid-1740's onwards. Before that date, Izmir was surpassed by Egypt, the Syrian
ports and those of the Islands of the Archipelago. In the first half of the 18th century,
it exported 20% of the Empire's exports to France, as an annual average, whilst the
Islands of the Archipelago exported 28% and Egypt 24%. In the second half of the
century, it surpassed all other ports exporting 34% of the Empire's exports annually
and importing 30% of total Ottoman imports. Istanbul was its closest rival in the
import trade.
From the 1760's onwards, Izmir's exports to France grew at a faster rate than
total Ottoman exports. The same occured in the import trade. Izmir's trade with
Western Europe, as well as with France, reached its peak in the last decades of the
18th and in the early 19th centuries. Between the early 19th century, 1801 - 3, and the
period following the Napoleonic Wars, 1817-1820, there was a dramatic increase in
the volume of trade. Although France's trade with the Ottoman port increased in
absolute terms, in relation to that of the Italian ports (1801 - 3) or with Britain (1817 -

20), it had declined (4). The predominance of Britain manifested itself initially in the
import trade. British cloth in the early 19th century, flooded the market in Izmir,
replacing French cloth and rivalring German textile manufacture.
" Le ngociant du Levant fait peu de retours et pour ceux qu'il ferait par la suite, il y a lieu
de croire qu'il s'adresserait de prfrence Malte o les Anglais ne manqueront pas
d'accumuler les marchandises et d'attirer eux les marchands du Levant " (5).
Yet only in 1777, British cloth was no more than a luxury item in the Ottoman
market. i
" Les Anglais ne fournissent la Turquie que quelques draps fins qui sont trop chers pour
que la consommation puisse s'tendre certain point" (6).
In the Annexe 1, annual trade figures are given, concerning the external trade of
Izmir with France, and in particular the port of Marseille, in the 18th and early 19th
centuries (7).
The reason for Izmir becoming such an important entrepot, was its ability to
draw to its port a large part of Ottoman agricultural production and distribute deep
into Anatolia Western imports. Several factors account for this. Izmir had a good
geographical position, conveniently situated for the Archipelago, with an accessible
port (8). Istanbul, which shared with Izmir the Anatolian hinterland, had ceded to the
latter the commercial functions. Within easy reach of the seat of Imperial authority,
the Ottoman port was surrounded by a relatively quiet countryside (9). A tolerance of
the Europeans on the part of the local inhabitants strengthened the presence of
Western European merchants, who were driven to the city by the commercial
opportunities offered (10). Izmir's multiple trade links both with the Empire and with Iran
further East, guaranteed a return cargo to Europe for the Western merchant (11).
Three factors led to the commercial growth of Izmir at the end of the 17th
century and beginning of the 18th. One was the deliberate policy on the part of the
Sultan to centralize trade in Izmir. As early as 1620, international trade activity of
small coastal ports such as Kusadasi or Chios in Western Anatolia was waved in
favour of Izmir (12). Special tax exemptions were given to European merchants to
induce them to use Izmir (13). For most of the 18th century, small coastal towns near
Izmir stagnated, whilst the latter was allowed to flourish. At the end of the 18th and in
early 19th century, the very considerable economic growth of Izmir allowed for a
proportionate growth of these centres. It was a process that continued into the 19th
century, as the Western Anatolian coast became integrated further in the
international market.
The other factor was the taking over from Aleppo of the silk trade of Iran at the
end of the 17th and in the 18th century. Protracted Ottoman - Iranian Wars had
brought instability to the whole area surrounding Aleppo. The safer route of Isfahan -
Izmir was thus preferred. Such a development brought to the Ottoman port one of the
most precious raw materials for the industries of the West in the first half of the 18th
century. At the same time, the lucrative market of the East was opened to Western
manufactured goods. It thus paved the way for the creation of Izmir as an entrepot for
the passage of goods from West to East and conversely. For the first two decades of
the century, raw silk constituted the most important export produce of Izmir (14)

(Annexe II). When the continuous Ottoman - Iranian Wars caused the near-drying up
of the Iranian market in the second half of the 18th century, Izmir's economy was not
affected. Cotton, a produce of Izmir's immediate hinterland, was by then the most
important export. Bursa also supplied the Ottoman port with silk in the second half of
the 18th century, as did Morea to a lesser extent.
The third factor that contributed to the establishment of the Western Anatolian
port as a major commercial centre in the area, was the near-monopoly of the export of
mohair-yarn from Ankara. Although a certain amount of mohair yarn was bought on
the place of production by European merchants, most of it was transferred by a
network of Turkish and Jewish dealers to Izmir to be sold to the Europeans for export
abroad (15). Mohair yarn was an even more important produce from the 1720's
onwards. It maintained a position of importance until 1760 (see Annexe II).
Changes in the manufacturing industries in the West and the growth of the
mass-produced cloth industry had direct effects on the export pattern of Izmir. Silk
stuffs and camelot, which were exported in small quantities in the early decades of the
century, ceded their place to raw silk and mohair yarn (16). These in turn ceded their
place to cotton, and to a lesser extent cotton yarn and wool. Export of cloth, always
very limited, diminished even more as the century progressed (see Annexe II).
The exports of the Ottoman port were almost exclusively raw materials,
foodstuffs or goods requiring no special treatment. Raw materials used in the
manufacturing industry of Western Europe constituted the greatest part. From 1718
onwards and until the early 19th century, these constituted 55% to 97% of all exports.
Exports of other raw materials such as galls, wax, safflower, various medicinal drugs,
skins were irregular and they diminished as the century progressed. Foodstuffs, wheat
and olive oil from the Archipelago and currents and dried fruit from Izmir, were
exported in limited quantities throughout our period. Among the imports, the most
important was cloth from Western Europe, as well as an assortment of small
manufactured goods of an advanced technology (watches, clocks). Then came colonial
goods re-exported to the Levant such as sugar, coffee, cochenille and indigo.
What produced the take off in the economy of Izmir in the second half of the
18th century, was the systematic supply of Western Europe and in particular of the
market of Marseilles with good quality cotton. Unalike silk or mohair yarn, cotton was
not subject to constraints of transportation and the added cost that this involved.
Cotton was produced in the environs of Izmir and production could be to a large
extent controlled according to demand in the international market (17). The growth
in the export of cotton was due to an absolute increase rather than a relative one, as
there was no great change in productivity in the 18tn century.
As the economy of Izmir became export-orientated, its volume of trade
increased. Exports of Izmir to Marseilles, for which data is available, remained the same
overall in value for the first half of the 18th century. For the second half, 1750-1789,
trade figures doubled. For the years 1700 - 1775, trade figures rose four-fold, whilst for
the whole century, 1700 - 1789, they rose six-fold. For the early 19th century, 1801 -
1820, trade figures again doubled. Taking into consideration the fact that prices of
Ottoman exports rose in the first half of the century at a faster rate than in the second

half, and at a rate that was higher than the devaluation rate of the Ottoman piastre vis-
-vis the European currencies, then the volume of exports fell in that period. In the
second half of the century, the rise in the prices of exports was smaller and did not
always keep pace with the rate of devaluation of the Ottoman currency. As a result,
Ottoman exports were very marketable in the West. Overall, there was a net increase
in the volume of exports in the second half of the century.
Imports to Izmir from Marseilles increased in the second half of the century,
although at a slower rate than the exports. In relative terms, however, the increase
was greater, for the prices of imports fell in Izmir as they did in the rest of the Levant
quite considerably in that period. In the early 19th century, imports rose four-fold,
reflecting the general economic growth of Izmir and expansion of the internal
Ottoman market.
The end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th was a period of new
developments in the world economy. Growth in productivity in the Western
economies, and in the British economy in particular, increased the needs for raw materials
and for markets for finished goods. New partners came to trade with Izmir. For the
Ottoman port, however, it was only the organisation of trade that changed. The nature
of the trade relation remained the same. This was a relation of domination between
the Western economies and the economy of Izmir, itself part of the Ottoman
economy, established in the nature of the trade exchanges and manifested in the
capitulations. The exchange of raw materials for manufactured goods led to the over-
specialization of Ottoman production as well as to the commercialization of a large
part of Western Anatolian agriculture. This commercialization however, did not lead
to the transformation of the relations of production in the countryside. Growth of
merchant capital did not lead to growth of industrial, productive capital. Izmir, as a
major commercial, and to a lesser extent banking, centre grew. This economic growth
was not reflected in its vast Anatolian hinterland, nor was the basis laid for an
industrial growth in Izmir.
A number of manufacturing industries existed in and around Izmir, employing
a small number of workers and making ordinary cloth and silk stuffs that catered for
the lower end of the internal market. A few bigger concerns printed cloth and
muslims and dyed cotton yarn for a wider internal market or even for export abroad.
They were all functioning in the early 19th century and were in some cases rivalring
similar products of French manufacture. Production, however, was very limited in
scale. Even the beleaguered French manufacture did not feel threatened by local
Ottoman manufacture at the time (18).
Part of the relation of domination that existed between the Ottoman Empire
and Western Europe in the 18th century, was the fact that European merchants were
allowed to trade in the Ottoman dominions a right that was not reciprocal for the
Ottoman merchants outside the Ottoman Empire and with certain privileges that
placed them above the Ottoman merchants. In fact, the external trade of Izmir was
carried out, to a large extent, by European merchants established in the Ottoman port
for this purpose. This was a phenomenon that was not unique to Izmir.

The most important mercantile communities were the French, Dutch and
British. At the end of the 17th and in the early 18th century, the British and Dutch
were the most prosperous trading communities. They were better organised and
disposed of larger capital resources (19). After the 1730's, the French who had in the
meantime built up their organisation in the Levant and their manufacture at home,
became the most important trading nation in Izmir. They held their position of
predominance until the French Revolution (20). After this date, the British became once
more important together with the Americans and the Austrians who started large-
scale trade with the Ottoman port at that time. In 1832, the United States accounted
for 49,2% of Izmir's imports (21).
In the 18th century, European merchants were engaged in importing European
and colonial goods to Izmir and exporting Ottoman goods to Western Europe. In the
late 17th century and at the beginning of the 18th, Ottoman raya merchants, mostly
Jews and Armenians, were also active in the external trade of Izmir. They had
established mercantile communities in many Western European ports - Marseilles,
Amsterdam, Livorno (22). As the 18th century progressed and Western Europe had a
greater need of Ottoman raw materials, European merchants became better organised
ousting their Ottoman rivals, both from Izmir and from Western Europe, as was the
case with Marseilles (23).
Ottoman merchants were relegated to the position of commissioners, brokers
and middlemen between the Ottoman producers and the European merchants. This
was a position that the Ottomans fought hard to maintain against opposition of the
Europeans who wanted to be able to go to the Ottoman producer direct, as was the
case with other ports of the Empire such as Salonica, Ploponnse or the Islands
of the Archipelago (24). The Jews were the commissioners and moneylenders par
excellence of Izmir, whilst the Armenians dominated the caravan trade with the East
and the silk trade (25). They were also the hommes d'affaires of large-scale Ottoman
producers (26). The Greeks were active in the retail and wholesale trade of cloth
inside the city of Izmir and the environs (27). They were also active in the commission
Other sectors of the economy such as customs, health, local taxes were
exclusively in the hands of the Ottomans. Prosperous Jews and Turks held high offices in the
Customs whilst the Greeks were the sole authority in matters of health for the port
(28). The other sector of the economy that was in the hands of the Ottomans was
internal trade. This was dominated almost entirely by Muslim merchants, who carried
out the trade of Izmir with the rest of the Ottoman Empire, either by land or by sea
(29). If they travelled by sea or sent their goods that way, this was usually done in
European ships ! Till the closing decades of the 18th century, the carrying trade of the
Ottoman port was dominated by Europeans and in particular by the French (30).
Banking, which was informal and complimentary to trade in the 18th century, was
done on an individual basis by both Ottomans and Europeans, although the latter
usually disposed of larger capital resources. All communities lent at high interest
rates. Usury was a very common practice at all levels (31). Those who lost out from it
were the peasants who became indebted to their landlord and in many cases lost their
land to him.

In their competition with each other, the major European nations allowed for
the Ottomans to carry out part of the trade. In this, a vital role was played by the
Italian ports. Traditionally, these ports were outposts of trade for the Ottoman
merchants particularly Jews and Armenians. At times of War, when friction
between the major trading nations of France and Britain was strong, a great deal of
Izmir's trade with Marseilles or London was directed to Livorno (32). At times of
peace, European merchants and in particular British, who worked outside the
framework of the Levant Company, co-operated with Armenians or Jews and traded with
Izmir via the Italian ports.
.." several unfree of the Company and others who were not to be governed by our positions,
are sending their goods to Leghorn and thence into Jews'hands and that so plentifully that
only one Jew of Smyrna this year has received to the value of 300,000 piastres in English
commission which is more business than what the English Factory have received these
three years" (33).
This was probably an exaggeration, however, it showed the type of trading
contacts that were going on at the time. Nevertheless, the amount of trade that was
carried out by the Ottoman merchants was small compared to the total volume of
trade in Izmir.
The Europeans were involved in a number of activities that left them profits in
addition to that from trade. The carrying trade between Izmir and the other Ottoman
ports or along the Western Anatolian coast as well as with Western Europe was in the
hands of the Europeans, together with maritime insurance, shipbuilding and other
related activities. Lending, monetary speculation and investment in trade were other
" Sur la loi de systme, le Levant tait pour la France beaucoup d'gards une vritable
colonie ; la possession commerciale de ce pays nous tait assure tel point, que tous nos
changes d'importation et d'exportation le faisait, presque sans autre intermdiaire que nos
nationaux qui avaient ainsi tout le bnfice du commerce et de navigation, ne laissant aux
sujets Ottomans que celui d'agriculture et du dbit de nos marchandises, bnfice que nous
ne pouvons ni ne devons convoiter" (34).
The average rate of devaluation of the Ottoman piastre vis--vis the Venetian
sequin was for the first half of the 18th century 9%, for the second half 38% and for the
closing decades of the century, 1774-1789, 47,5% (35). Thus a rise in the price of an
Ottoman produce was eliminated or reversed when translated in European currency.
This was the case in the second half of the 18th century with cotton wool, mohair
yarn, Izmir mohair wool, certain qualities of lambswool and ardassine silk whose
prices rose at rates which were below the rate of devaluation. It was not so for all
exports of Izmir. Prices of Bursa silk, red and white cotton yarn and some othr qualities
of lambswool rose at rates which were higher than the rate of devaluation. However, a
large part of the rise was, even here, eliminated. For instance, laines surges rose 47%
in Ottoman currency in the years 1760 - 1788. This gave a net rise in the international
market of only 5%, taking into consideration a rate of devaluation of 42% for the
period (36). At the same time, these prices were not set according to the needs of the
Ottoman economy but represented the fluctuations of the stronger economies of the
West which dominated the international market.

Izmir showed an active balance of trade with France for most of the century and
with Western Europe as a whole in the closing decades of the century and at the
beginning of the 19th, when such documentation exists. The only time when France
had an active balance of trade was in the 1770's. There were also periods of overall
equilibrium, as in the duration of the Seven Years War. During that time, Marseilles
had difficulty in supplying the market of Izmir with goods. For those years, the port of
Livorno substituted Marseilles. The deficit for France increased at the end of the 18th
century and reached its peak at the beginning of the 19th century. The reasons for this
are not so much the inability of the market of Izmir to absorb French goods but the
internal problems that France and French industry were facing at the time (37).
Izmir had an active balance of trade with Britain in the last quarter of the 18th
century. This was reversed in early 19th century (38). At the end of the 18th and
beginning of the 19th century, Holland which was the third trading nation in Izmir,
had a trade deficit that was larger than that of France or Britain. At that time, Holland
was acting as a kind of entrepot, distributing to other places in Europe many of the
goods it imported from Izmir. It also exported to Izmir considerable quantities of
German manufactured cloth (39).
The Italian ports of Livorno, Genoa and Messina which also acted as entrepots
in the trade of Izmir with Western Europe, showed large trade deficits at the end of
the 18th century. In the early 19th century, these were entirely reversed. The ports of
Ancona and Trieste, also entrepots, had a passive balance of trade with Izmir in the
last quarter of the 18th century which was greatly diminished in early 19th century
(40). At that time, Marseilles had again severe difficulties in supplying the market of
Izmir. British and German manufactures were reaching Izmir through the Italian
ports whose trade with the Ottoman port had greatly increased (41). The greatest
increase occurred in the trade of Izmir with Ancona and Trieste.
One of the principal exports of the Italian ports was money. Despite the
continuous trade surplus, the market of Izmir was facing chronic monetary dearth. A
number of factors contributed to this.
Part of the trade surplus was directed to Istanbul, to be converted into Ottoman
piastre in the Imperial mints. Continuous wars had drained away money from the
Imperial Treasury. The deliberate policy of devaluation carried out by the Sultan
impoverished large sections of peasant population who were unable to meet
additional taxation for the needs of the State. Money also went by way of Alexandria, Mecca
or Bagdad to India. In early 19th century, part of this money went to Britain, by way of
Malta, to pay for imports of British cloth. This was one of the reasons why interest in
foreign currencies was high in Izmir at that time (42).
A great deal of the money from the trade surplus went back to the West in the
form of a passive balance of payments for Izmir. Many activities related to trade were
carried out by the Europeans, as described above. Profits thus realized were
repatriated either during the merchant's stay in the Ottoman port, or upon his repatriation.
Despite the lack of documentation to quantify the balance of payments of Izmir with
Western Europe, it is to be assumed that a great deal of the trade surplus of Izmir was
eliminated, with a possible deficit for the local economy as a whole.

The urban sector as a whole gained from the growth of trade in Izmir.
Merchants, middlemen, moneychangers and moneylenders, both Muslim and raya
benefited from the development of commerce and banking and the raya communities
even more so. This was also the result of general developments in the world economy
at the end of the 18th century that warranted free trade and greater competition. The
growth in the volume of trade between Izmir and the Italian ports was characterized
by the taking over of large sectors of this trade by Greeks, Armenians and Jews (43).
France and Britain abolished laws that excluded foreigners, that is non-British or
French, from their trade as this no longer served the needs of their economies (44).
The Greek mercantile community was the main beneficiary of these developments.
By the beginning of the 19th century, Greek merchants traded not only from their
bases in Holland, Italy, Britain and France but also from the ports of Spain and the
Black Sea, taking an active part in the international trade of Izmir and disposing of
considerable capital resources. However, they displayed a high rate of bankruptcy.
" Depuis quelques annes le corps des ngociants grecs est devenu si considrable et a
acquis des richesses si colossales qu'on peut les dire presque matres absolus du commerce
de la place... des fortunes colossales acquises en peu de temps de s'vanouir assez vite... Il
est rare de voir une maison grecque se soutenir pendant 20 ans dans le mme tat de
splendeur" (45).
The other great beneficiaries from the growth of trade in Izmir were large-scale
Turkish producers, also called ayans, in the 18th century. The most important ayans
were the families of Karaosmanoglu and Araboglu. However, there were lesser ayans
who owned land producing wheat and cotton in Manisa and elsewhere in the environs
of Izmir. To their revenue from the land was added the profit from trading their
produce in the international market. Revenue from trade was neither the sole nor the
most important source of revenue for these agas. Administrative office gave them
political and economic priveleges. Revenue from international trade, in which they
participated either directly or through their representatives, helped their position but
did not determine it (46). The settling of Greek peasants from Morea in the lands of
Karaosmanoglu, which took place at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th
century, showed that there was economic growth in the area (47).
Izmir suffered from certain environmental hazards earthquakes which
sometimes destroyed it almost totally ; fires which occurred often partly due to its wooden
housing system, itself a deterrent against earthquakes ; plague which was brought to
Izmir by caravans either from the land (Iran, Anatolia) or from the sea (Istanbul,
Alexandria) and attacks of malignant fever. These hazards caused serious damage to
trade, especially when they occurred simultaneously or followed one another (fires
followed earthquakes). They do not appear to have had long-term effects on trade or
the economy in general. They did, however, have an effect on the demography of the
city which remained static throughout the 18th century.
To the extent that Izmir exported the agricultural produce of Anatolia to the
West and imported Western manufactured goods, it contributed to the penetration of
these areas by the international market. The impact and extent of this penetration was
certainly greater in the immediate environs of Izmir and Western Anatolia at large,
than further East. That said, international trade represented a relatively small sector

in the Ottoman economy in the 18th century. For the whole of the Ottoman economy,
therefore, the impact from the international market could only be limited. There was
certainly a pattern of domination established between the Empire and the West, the
expression of which on the economic level were the trade agreements. Nevertheless,
the Empire was not yet dependent politically or economically on the West, in a way
that it was going to be in the 19th century.
The pattern of socio-economic development that the Ottoman Empire followed
in the 18th century, was largerly the product of internal factors. These were affected
and influenced by the stronger economies of the West, through the Empire's
integration, largerly via Izmir, in the international market but were not determined by them.

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


(1) ACCM, I, 19 - 20, tats des marchandises envoyes en Levant et Barbarie, 1749 -1789 ; I, 26 -
28, tats estimatifs des marchandises venant du Levant et de Barbarie, 1700-1789.
(2) ANF, AE Bi 1053, Mmoire, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir, 22 nov. 1751.
(3) ANF, F/12, 1850A, Consul Fourcade, Izmir 10 sept. 1812 to Minister in Paris.
(4) ARA, VUIf Totaal Bedrag van de Invoer en Uitvoer te Smirna in de jaren, 1801 - 1803 in J. G.
Nanninga ed, Bronnen tot de Geschiedenis van den Levantschen Handel, vierde deel, 1765-1826,
s* Gravenhage, 1966. See also, AMAE, CCC 35, tat gnral des marchandises importes Smyrne de
diverses places d'Europe et de celles exportes de Smyrne pour les diverses places d'Europe, 181 7 1820.
(5) ANF, AE Biii 242, Sur l'article 30, de l'ordonnance du 20 sept. 1810, 28 sept. 1814.
(6) ANF, F/12, 549-550, Mmoire sur le commerce du Levant en gnral, 1777.
(7) For the compilation of this table the following sources have been used : Consular
Correspondence, ANF, AE Bi 1045 - 6, 1053, 1056, 1062, 1065 - 9 ; AE Biii 269, 271 - 7 ; AMAE, CCC 35 ; and
Statistics of the Chamber of Commerce of Marseilles ACCM, I, 19-20 and 26-28 ; also ANF, F/12,
549-550 and ARA, VUIf. Where there is more than one source for a single year, the highest figure has
been chosen.
(8) C. Le Bruyn, Voyages de Corneille Le Bruyn au Levant, La Haye, 1732, p. 86 ; see also W.
Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia, 2 vols, London, 1842, p. 58 vol. 1 ; and C.
Frankland, Travels to and from Constantinople in the years 1827 and 1828, London, 1829, p. 67.
(9) There were exceptions to the general rule, the most notable one being the Saribeyoglu
disturbances in 1738; PRO/SP/105/336, Register of Assemblies ; see also, R. Pococke, Voyages de
Richard Pococke 1739, 5 vols., Paris, 1772, p. 19 vol. 5.

(10) Despite a record of peaceful co-existence for most of the 18th century, in the closing
decades Izmir fell prey to the wave of anti-Christian feeling that swept the Empire. In 1774 and 1797, the
Christian population and in the latter date the Europeans also, were objects of attack. In the case of the
Europeans this amounted to material losses only. PRO/SP/105/126, Consul Werry, Izmir 17 Mar 1797
to Levant Co, London ; see also, C.C. de Peyssonnel, Lettre de M. de Peyssonnel, ancien consul
Smyrne, contenant quelques observations relatives aux mmoires qui ont paru sous le nom de Baron de
Ton, Amsterdam, 1785, p. 78.
(11) ANF, AE Bi 1052, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir 29 jan. 1749 to French Minister in Paris.
(12) J.-B. Tavernier, Les six voyages de J. -B. Tavermer en Turquie, Perse et aux Indes, 6 vols.,
Paris, 1712, vol. 5, p. 105 ; see also P. de Tournefort, Relation d'un voyage au Levant, 2 vols., Paris,
1717, vol. 2, p. 512.
(13) J. Bowring, Reports on the Commercial Statistics of Syria, London, 1840, p. 40.
(14) For the compilation of this table, the following sources have been used : ANF, AE Bi 1065 -
9; AE Biii 269, 271-7; AMAE, CCC 35; ARA, VUIf; ACCM, I, 19-20 and 26-28.
(15) ANF, AE Bi 1053, Mmoire, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir 22 nov. 1751.
(16) ACCM, I, 26-28.
(17) ANF, AE biii 242, Mmoire sur le commerce de Smyrne, Consul Fourcade, Izmir, ? 1814.
(18) Ibid.
(19) Arvieux, Ch. de, Mmoires du Chevalier d'Arvieux, 1653-1657, Paris, 1735, p. 89 ; see also,
J. du Mont, Nouveau voyage du Levant, La Haye, 1694, p. 268 ; and, PRO/SP/105/145, An account of
English Woollen Manufactures, Tin and Lead Exported by the Levant Company in the Years 1699-1706,
London, 10 may 1708.
(20) ANF, AE Biii 243, Renseignements sur le commerce du Levant, Mige, Livorno, 13 may
(21) AMAE, CCC 43, Exportation et Importation de Smyrne, 1832.
(22) Macler F., "Notes de Chahan de Cirbied sur les Armniens d'Amsterdam et de Livourne ",
Annahir. 1, 1904, p. 10 ; see also ANF, AE Biii 235, Commerce du Levant : Mmoire sur les Juifs, 1693.
(23) PRO/SP/105/115, Levant Co, London 14 aug. 1695 to Con Raye, Izmir ; see also Tekeian,
C-D, " Marseille, la Provence et les Armniens ", Mmoires de l'Institut Historique de Provence, 1929,
XI, pp. 22-26.
(24) ANF, AE Biii 242, Commerce du Levant en gnral, Jumelin, 1812.
(25) ANF, AE Bi 1058, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir 9 jun. 1769 to Minister in Paris.
(26) ANF, AE Bi 1054, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir 9 may 1754 to Minister in Paris.
(27) ANF, AE Bi 1053, Mmoire, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir 22 nov. 1751 ; see also ARA, 349,
Fremeaux, van Lennep and Enslie to van Haaften, 29 jun. 1782.
(28) PRO/SP/105/127, Consul Werry, Izmir 17 jun. 1800 to Minister in Paris.
(29) ANF, AE Biii 242, Mmoire sur le commerce de Smyrne, Consul Fourcade, Izmir, ? 1814.
(30) ANF, AE Biii 272-4, tat des btiments, Izmir 31 mar. 1763 to 30 jun. 1774.
(31) ANF, AE Bi 1055, Consul Gilly, Izmir 28 jun. 1755 to Minister in Paris.
(32) C. Carrire & M. Courduri, " Les grandes heures de Livourne au XVIIIe sicle ", Revue
Historique, CCLIV, 1, pp. 1-40.
(33) PRO/SP/ 105/336 Register of Assemblies.
(34) ANF, AE Biii 242, Sur l'article de l'ordonnance... 28 sept. 1814.
(35) These calculations are based on figures given for the annual devaluation of the Ottoman
piastre vis--vis the Venetian sequin, in V Kremmydas, To empono Us Peloppomsou ton 18o eona,
1715-1792, Athens, 1972, p. 116.
(36) ACCM, I, 28 and ANF (ACCM), AE Biii 271-7.
(37) ANF, AE Biii 415, Mmoire sur le commerce d'importation Smyrne du produit des
manufactures de plusieurs nations trangres, Consul Amoureux. Izmir, 7 may 1781.

(38) ANF, AE Bi 1065-9; AE Biii 276-7; AMAE CCC 35.

(39) ANF, AE Biii 415, Mmoire... , Consul Amoureux, 7 may 1781.
(40) ARA, VIHf ; AMAE CCC 35.
(41) ANF, AE Biii 243, Renseignements..., Mige, Livorno, 13 may 1825.
(42) ANF, AE Biii 243, Inspection gnrale du Levant, No 1, F. de Beaujour, Izmir 5 jul. 1817.
(43) ANF, AE Biii 243, Renseignements..., 13 may 1825.
(44) PRO/SP/105/129, Consul Werry, Izmir 13 aug. 1804 to Levant Company, London.
(45) ANF, F/12, 1850A, tat gnral des maisons de commerce ottoman tablies Smyrne, 1820.
(46) ANF, AE Bi 1054, Consul Peyssonnel, Izmir 7 jul. 1754 to Minister in Paris ; see also ANF,
AE Biii 242, Sur l'ordonnance... 28 sept. 1814 ; and G. Veinstein, Ayan de la rgion d'Izmir et le
commerce du Levant (deuxime moiti du X Ville sicle), Revue de l'Occident Musulman et de la
Mditerrane, 1975, p. 137.
(47) G. Keppel in L. Erder, The making of industrial Bursa Economie activity and population in a
Turkish city, 1835-1975, PhD, USA, 1976, p. 41.

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

Year Imports Exports Year Imports Exports

1700 2,047,314 1751 4,500,000 4,500,000

1701 3,806,715 1752 4,132,544 4,280,905
1702 1,272,044 1753 5,439,862 5,205,557
1703 1,257,253 1754 4,080,184 6,553,717
1704 1,685,059 1755 4,264,640 7,207,383
1705 1,381,727 1756 6,454,847 6,745,689
1706 1,526,296 1757 5,728,464
1707 1,074,995 1758 2,701,449
1708 816,396 1759 3,677,262 3,156,858
1709 827,382 1760 3,591,534 3,557,450
1710 707,094 1761 4,337,454 3,762,726
1711 910,901 1762 4,058,151 4,078,926
1712 2,619,961 1763 7,357,215 7,796,237
1713 1,771,889 1764 8,503,920 8,614,880
1714 4,360,226 1765 6,832,581 7,942,008
1715 1,013,527 1766 9,608,652 10,611,300
1716 796,668 1767 11,443,158 10,024,464
1717 638,698 1768 7,653,294 10,752,484
1718 3,027,022 1769 7,108,446 7,668,723
1719 5,048,319 1770 7,275,192 8,121,159
1720 2,354,957 1771 7,813,611 7,137,435
1721 2,004,666 2,004,663 1772 9,922,167 8,670,096
1722 187,526 1773 10,338,201 9,655,497
1723 1,428,642 1774 11,028,570 10,337,697
1724 2,347,781 1775 14,205,774 12,993,429
1725 1,914,878 1776 13,370,161 9,967,419
1726 963,007 1777 7,257,198 13,277,592
1727 2,462,597 1778 7,057,534 10,389,025
1728 1,333,603 1779 7,095,493 8,119,006
1729 1,513,879 1780 10,905,215 11,987,816
1730 759,297 1781 9,264,351 10,047,784
1731 1,984,360 1782 12,560,880 11,424,148
1732 2,339,204 1783 9,692,147 12,402,387
1733 1,877,808 1784 9,350,429 10,100,861
1734 3,370,779 3,274,737 1785 11,586,840 13,371,591
1735 1,209,526 1786 13,056,355 14,130,347
1736 2,282,234 1787 13,460,268 16,903,862
1737 2,006,095 1788 13,202,551 16,499,726
1738 1,825,751 1789 9,545,773 12,805,693
1739 1,572,380
1740 2,008,846 1802 16,254,291 13,612,353
1741 2,669,222 1803 11,779,146 12,033,309
1742 2,455,357
1743 3,340,845 1817 19,173,441 26,626,710
1744 1,916,877 1818 4,223,295 6,802,545
1745 1,825,972 1819 31,555,716 39,253,851
1746 2,751,934 1820 15,425,574 13,659,156
1747 3,227,007
1748 2,050,258
1749 4,222,984 4,531,162
1750 4,686,087 5,629,076

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

% Share % Share % Share * Share % Share S Share

Year (Mohair (Cotton (Cotton
Yarn) (Silk) Wool) (Yarn) (Wool) (Cloth)

1700 24 29 1.1 16 14.3 1.4

1701 16.5 38 1 10.4 8 1
1702 12.1 52 1 6.2 13 3
1703 26.1 41 4.5 7 8 2.
1704 33.4 21.2 10 8.2 28.1 2.3
1705 15.3 17.3 7 15.4 13 7
1706 13.3 21.4 6.1 14 16 7
1707 4 31.2 1.2 9.4 21 4.2
1708 5 24.3 __ 4 24.4 1
1709 9.3 43 __ 3 19 3
1710 12.2 10 1 2 24.4 3
1711 39 17.1 1 0.4 19.3 2
1712 36.2 22 4 0.1 15 2
1713 18.2 28.4 6 2.4 8 3.1
1714 10 _ 12 5.3 12.5 ' __
1715 6.2 8 10.1 4.3 30.2 4
1716 54 7 0.1 19 5.1
1717 26 17.2 0.3 0.2 22.1 2.3
1718 21.4 19 9 4 22.4 1.4
1719 20.1 20 21.1 1.5 17 1
1720 41 0.3
1721 16 2.3 1 1.4 3.3 3.4
1722 47.3 1.4 1 9 24.1 4.3
1723 30 7.1 1 0.2 19.4 5
1724 10.4 6.3 7 7 14.3 6.4
1725 21 4 17.2 3.4 23.1 5
1726 22.1 12 10 6 15.1 2
1727 34 6 13.3 1.4 15.2 2.3
1728 26.1 1 17.1 4 13 6
1729 27.1 . 21 4.4 14.4
1730 34 1 2.1 0.3 35.3 7.3
1731 27.1 5.1 19 3 7.5 2
1732 36.5 27.1 4 14 3
1733 31.1 6 15 3.2 16.3 2.3
1734 40 7.2 6.3 __ 29 2
1735 40 1.3 17.5 0.4 22.5 0.3
1736 41.3 2.4 25 1 7 1
1738 17 12 35.5 5.5 12.3 1.4
1739 34.3 15.2 17.5 1 12 1
1740 46 12 7 0.3 11.4 2.5
1741 33.2 16 8 5.1 8 1.5
1742 45 15 11 1 11 2
1743 32 4.1 23 1.3 18 2.3
1744 5.2 ___ __ 5 0.1
1745 30.4 0.4 52 0.2 3.2 0.2
1746 35 2.5 40.3 1.1 9 0.5
1747 28.1 2 30.2 0.5 7.4 0.5
1748 15 2.1 24.4 24.4 0.4

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

% Share % Share % Share

Year (Mohair % Share (Cotton (Cotton % Share % Share
Yarn) (Silk) Wool) (Yarn) (Wool) (Cloth)

1749 29 10.3 25.1 1 22 1

1750 24.4 6 39 6.1 16 1
1751 30.1 1 28 7 21 1
1752 19.3 6 41 1 21.2 0.2
1753 28 13.5 27 0.5 25 0.2
1754 28 2.2 29.4 8.2 21 0.2
1755 23.4 0.5 28.5 2.4 25 0.2
1756 15.3 3.4 36 7 29 0.4
1757 35.5 2 38 1.5 12 0.5
1758 43.2 2.5 22.5 1.4 20.5 0.2
1759 49 6 46.1 11 12.5 1
1760 37.3 9 17 17 16 0.2
1761 1.2 10 42 23 5
1762 10 10 54 21.4 6.2 0.2
1763 16 7 43 16.4 12 0.2
1764 17 4.5 47.4 19 10.1 0.5
1765 5 6 47 21 2
1766 11.3 8.1 36.4 25 11
1767 12 3 42.1 31.4 9.4
1768 23.2 10.4 28 21.2 11
1769 26.5 11.1 23.4 18.1 17 0.2
1770 22 7.2 30.4 21 15 0.4
1771 13.3 7 33 29 22.5 0.2
1772 21.3 6.2 26.2 21 15 0.3
1773 15 9 15 22.2 7 0.1
1774 16 8 36 23.3 5.1 0.4
1775 10 5 49 . 16 3 ......
1776 13 4.1 57 14 10.3
1777 9.2 4 56.1 13.5 12.4 0.2
1778 9 3 72 22 8.1 1
1779 8 3 42.3 27.2 7.3 0.5
1780 12 5.4 50.1 16 14 0.2
1781 9.1 4 51.3 16 10 0.2
1782 5.5 7 57 10.3 14.5
1783 12 -i 12 41.4 12 15.5 0.2
1784 10 3 44 20.2 15.1 0.4
1785 20.2 4 50 18 8 1
1786 18 1 51.3 13 12 0.3
1787 8 5.1 53 10 13.4 0.4
1788 6 10.2 48 13.2 14 0.4
1789 4 4 40.5 16 11 0.3

1817 2.4 1 21.4 _.._ 8

1818 0.02 6
1819 2 4.3 9 -~ __
1820 7.2 2 12 15.1