Ottoman-Safavid Relations and the Anatolian Trade Routes: 1603-1618

Author(s): ANDRS RIEDLMAYER

Source: Turkish Studies Association Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 1 (MARCH, 1981), pp. 7-10
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43385090
Accessed: 08-02-2016 17:37 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Turkish Studies Association
Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.27.40.19 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 17:37:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ottoman-Safavid
Relations and
the Anatolian Trade Routes: 1603-1618
ANDRS RIEDLMAYER
BostonCollege
1 1 has longbeenrecognizedthatOttomanarchivalmaterialholdsa wealthofinformation
on tradeand othermattersof interestto the economichistorian.In spite of this, most
lifeoftheMiddleEast duringthesixteenthand seventeenth
studiesofthecommercial
centurieshave continuedto relymainlyon the impressionsand recordsof Europeanmerand diplomats.One recentexampleofboththepossibilitiesand thelimichants,travelers,
tationsofsuchan approachis Niels Steensgaard'sprovocativebook on the Levant-India
tradeat thebeginningoftheseventeenth
of his Eurocentury.1Steensgaard'streatment
and exhaustive.Yet, whenhe triesto extendhis analysis
peansourcematerialis masterful
to Ottomanand Safavidpolicieson trade,or to the roleof non-Europeanmerchantsin
overlandcommerce,he followshis sourcesintoa morassof vague generalitiesand distortedperceptions
becausehe lacksfirst-hand
information.
work
Followingthepioneering
ofHalil nalcik,OmerLtfBarkan,RobertMantran,and AndrRaymond,muchofthis
is nowbeingpublishedand analyzed,bringingus closerto an understanding
information
ofthecommercial
policiesoftheOttomanstateand theirimpacton tradebetweenIran and
the Mediterranean
seaboard.
in commerce
ThemostdrasticformofOttomanstateintervention
of
was theimposition
a tradeembargoas a weaponofeconomicwarfare.One suchembargo,thetotalinterdiction
ofOttomantradewithIranorderedby SelimI in 1514,has beenstudiedindetailand its effectshave beendocumentedin a numberofrecentarticles?
In myownresearchI have lookedfordocumentary
evidenceof anothersuch episodeof
economicwarfareparallelingthe seriesofOttoman-Safavid
from
militaryconfrontations
1603to 1618.Halil nalcikrefersto theperiodin questionas a timeof "reciprocalblockade," duringwhicha Safavidembargoon theexportof silk to the OttomanEmpirewas
matchedbyan Ottomanban on theexportofgoldand silverto Iran.3 As evidenceforthis,
Inalcikcitescontemporary
on theSafavidShah
Europeanreports,mostofthemcentering
Abbas I's efforts
to establisha militaryallianceand a directtradelinkwitha numberof
Europeanpowers.The historyof these ultimatelyunsuccessfulventures,and the role
playedinthembytheEnglishadventurers
Anthonyand RobertSherley,is too wellknown
to bearrepetition
here.4The references
citedofferno clearevidencethattheShah's diplomaticand commercial
schemesnecessarilyinvolveda shutoff
oftradewiththeOttomans,
nordo we see anycitationthatclearlydemonstrates
theimposition
ofan embargofromthe
Ottomanside. Intriguedby thisambiguousfoundation
fora clearstatement,I set about
combingthroughthe sourcesforanswers.
werenegative.A carefulsurveyofall availableOttoman,Safavid,and
The firstfindings
Europeansourcesfortheperiodfailedto turnup anyevidenceofan embargo.Therewere
oftheroads,theprevalenceofbandits,therapacity
occasionalreferences
to theinsecurity
ofsomelocal officials,
and othercommonhazardsof overlandtravelin the earlyseventeenthcentury.Therewas no record,however,ofanyannouncement
or enforcement
ofan
official
policybarringtradeby eitherside.
On theotherhand,I foundfairlyclearevidencethatcommercial
in
activityflourished
Bursa and Aleppo duringthe period 1603-1618.The same trade centershad recorded
markeddeclinesduringthe trade embargoesof the previouscentury.Thus, the sicills
with
(recordsofthekadi'scourt)ofBursa showthatin 1606thesale oftax farmsconnected
thesilktradeinthattownnetted5.2 millionakesforthetreasury.The samerecordsshow
7

This content downloaded from 194.27.40.19 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 17:37:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

thatduringa periodofeighteendaysin September1611/Receb1020themzn-iharr(silkscale tax) at Bursa broughtin 78,609akes* A registerin the PrimeMinister'sArchives
recordsthatfromDecember1612/a'bn1021to August1613/Receb1022thereceiptsof
thePrivyPursein Bursa consistedof 1,692,447akes, ofwhich900,000akes werespent
on thespotto buysilkclothforthe Palace.6 A Venetianconsulreportson Aleppo at the
beginningof 1614:
morethanever,sincecaraThe tradingofgoodsinAleppois flourishing
vans fromdiverspartsare continually
arrivingtherewithvaluablemerchandise;but in particular[thisis trueof]silk,ofwhichtherewere500
bales at mydeparture,even thoughthe new [shipment]had not as yet
arrived.7
In thecase of Bursa, thereis somepossibilitythata sizeablepartof theserevenueswas
generatedbytherisinglocal silkindustry.In thecase ofAleppowe areclearlydealingwith
withtheIraniansilk
Iranianimports.Thereis also otherevidencethatBursa's connection
1016an Iranianmertradewas notseveredduringthewaryears.In May 1607/Muharrem
of 1320liidres [743
chantwas hauledbeforetheBursa kadi'scourtforroutinghis shipment
kg] of IraniansilkboundforRumeliathroughthe OttomanBlack Sea portof Trabzon,
thereby
savinghimselfboththelandjourneyand thehigherexcisefeeschargedat Bursa.
Fineddoublethesumoftheexcisefeeforthisevasion,hewas releasedto resumehis trade?
Iranianmerchantsand caravansboundto and fromIran
Archivalrecordsconcerning
aboundduringthisperiod.It appearsthatmerchantcaravansin bothdirectionswerealof the Ottomangovernment.
lowedto proceedwiththe sanctionand protection
Thus, in
1018to March1611/Muharrem
theperiodfromFebruary1610/Zilhicce
1020,the miihimme defteri(registerof importantaffairs)recordsfive entriesdealing with merchant
caravansboundforIran and nineentriesdealingwithinboundcaravans.9What makes
is that1610-11was a yearin whichtheOttomanslauncheda
thisparticularly
remarkable
invasionofAzerbaijan.The monthsfromJulyto November1610,whenthearmy
full-scale
was on themarchto Tabriz,are theonlyones devoidof such entries.In November1610/
fromTabriz,was overtakenby a caravanof
Ramazan1019,theOttomanarmy,retreating
merchants
boundfromSafavidArdabilto the Ottomancityof Van. The merchantshad
Ottomanprisoners,as a gesture
beenentrusted
by theShah to deliversomehigh-ranking
ofgoodwill.10
Goodwillin mattersoftradewas notlackingon eitherside. The continuedflowof coman importantsourceof
merceacrosstheAnatolianplateau,even in wartime,represented
who had investedin it.
revenueforbothstates,and personalprofitforthe highofficials
oftraderecurto see a toneofsolicitousinterestinthefurtherance
Thus itis notsurprising
documentsoftheperiod.Typicalin thisrespectis a generalordersentout
ringin official
districtgoverfromtheOttomancapital"to governors
imperialtreasuryofficials,
-general,
nors,and kadison thehighwayleadingfromIstanbul,thewellprotected,to the Iranian
border."It declaresthatin timesofmilitary
expeditionsdirectedagainstIran it has been
to
the
times
"from
ancient
(kadimdenbu ana degin) to protectmerpresent"
customary
chantsboundto and fromIran,as longas theykeepto theirownaffairsand pay theircuswhethertheybe Persians,ArmeniansofJuif
a, or of
tomsandmarketfees.All merchants,
othernations,are to be protectedfromharmand harassment,sinceotherwisetheywould
materialharm.The orderwas issuedat therequest
stopcomingand thestatewouldsuffer
of customsin thewinterof 1610.11
of the Istanbulcommissioner
ofthisOttomanpoliSafavidsourcesattestto theapplication,ifnotalwaystheefficacy,
cy extendingofficialprotectionto enemymerchantsin the midstof hostilities.In June
1608a camelcaravanleftErzurum,boundforIran. On its way east it was ambushedby
theOttomangarrisonof Hasankale,whocarriedoffthe camels. AmirguneKhan Qajar,
8

This content downloaded from 194.27.40.19 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 17:37:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SafavidgovernorofErivanand ownerofthecaravan,senta letterof protestto theOttomangovernor

ofErzurum,who"wheninformed
ofthismountedup, and goingto Hasankale seizedall who had done thisdeed, cut offtheirheads, and sent them[to Amirgune
Khan]."12
Whilethe Sherleysand otherSafavidenvoyscontinuedto canvass thecapitalsof Euallies, Shah Abbas tookcareto
ropeforpossibledirecttradepartnersand anti-Ottoman
Saalongtheoverlandroute.In September1609,Giovanfrancesco
keepup his commerce
the Doge that an Armenianmerchant
gredo,the Venetianconsul in Aleppo, informed
namedCogia Seffer[also knownas Hogia Seffer= Hoca Sefer]of Julfahad arrivedin
to negotiatethe sale of fiftybales of
Syriawithlettersfromthe Shah and authorization
IraniansilkthroughAleppo.13The Shah's merchant
appearedin Venicein January1610,
silkcontractand inquiringaboutmeansofrecoveron a long-term
continuing
negotiations
inga largedebt leftbehindby RobertSherleywhenthelatterpartedcompanywiththe
Shah.14Whileit isn'tknownwhathappenedto thedebt,theVenetiancontactborefruitin
theformof an expandedtradein Iraniansilk throughAleppo.15
In conclusion,we can state witha fairdegreeof certaintythat the state of "mutual
blockade"postulatedfortheyears 1603to 1618 was neverapplied. This does not mean
thattheuse of an embargoas an economicweaponhad been abandonedin practice.For
example,in 1610/1019the Ottomansembargoedall purchasesof grainfromthe Abkhaforan Abkhazianpirateraidon theOttomanportofArhavi,nearTrabziansinretaliation
zon.Theordercarriestheusual coda: "providedthisis consistentwiththeinterestsofthe
SublimeState."16 An embargoagainstIran was apparentlynotconsistentwiththoseinterestsat thistime.

NOTES
1NielsSteensgaard,The Asian TradeRevolutionof theSeventeenthCentury:The East
India Companiesand theDeclineof theCaravanTrade (Chicago,1974).
-Halil inalcik,"Harir--ii.theOttomanEmpire,"Encyclopaediaof Islam: New Edition,
III (1971),pp. 211-218;Jean-LouisBacqu-Grammont,
"tudes turco-safavides,
I: Notes
sur blocus de commerceiranienpar Selm Ier," Turcica VI (1975), pp. 68-88; HansJoachimKissling,"h Ism'l Ier," TurcicaVI (1975),pp. 89-102.
^Halil inalcik,The OttomanEmpire:The ClassicalAge 1300-1600(London,1973),p. 45;
iktisadvaziidem,"OsmanliImparatorlugu'nun
kuruluve inkiafdevrindeTrkiye'nin
TTK BelletenXV (1951),pp. 665-71.
yetizerindebirtetkikmnasebetiyle,"
abenlndischer
^Steensgaard,op. cit., passim; Barbara von Palombini,Bndniswerben
Mchte um Persien1453-1600(Wiesbaden,1968); RogerSavory,"The SherleyMyth,"
Iran-Journalof theBritishInstituteofPersianStudies V (1967),pp. 73-81.
^FahriDalsar, Trksanayive ticarettarihinde
Bursa'da ipekilik(Istanbul,1960),p. 286
no. 231, p. 185 no. 68.
*}BavekletArgivi,MaliyedenMdevverdf. no. 399/104,cited in Murt izaka, "A
ShortHistoryoftheBursa SilkTrade,"JournaloftheEconomicand Social Historyof the
OrientXXIII (1980),p. 143 n. 13.
' RelazioneofGirolamoMorosini(Venetianconsulin Aleppo 1611-14),read to the Senate
on9 February1614,in GuglielmoBerchet,Relazionidei consolivenetinellaSiria (Torino,
1866),p. 158.
^Dalsar, op. cit., p. 195 no. 81.
9

This content downloaded from 194.27.40.19 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 17:37:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LXXIX, nos. 394, 441, 568, 610, 920, 1019,

^BagvekletArgivi,MhimmeDefterleri,
1069,1070,1074,1219.
NationalbiblioTarih-ial-iOsman, Vienna,sterreichische
lTopularKtibiAbdiilkadir,
thek,cod. mxt. 130, f277a.
-March 1610/
^Bagveklet Argivi,MhimmeDefterleri,LXXIX, no. 610 (February
Zilhicce1018).
l^Mulla Jalal-iMunajjim-iYazd, Tarikh-icAbbas,London,BritishLibrary,ms. or. add.
27,241,f271.
13AntonioFa varo, "Giovanfrancesco
Sagredoe la vita scientificain Veneziaal principio
del XVII secolo, Nuovo archivioveneto, ser. III, Vol. IV, pp. 399-402docs, xii, xi;
GuglielmoBerchet,La republicadi Veneziae la Persia (Torino,1865),pp. 201-11docs,
xxxvii-xlii.
l^Great Britain,ForeignOffice,Calendarof State Papers and Manuscriptsrelatingto
EnglishAffairs,existingin theArchivesand Collectionsof Venice, and in otherLibraries
Italy, ed. by HoratioP. Brown,Vol. XI (London,1904),nos. 769, 773, 790.
ofNorthern
15See note7 above; letterofShah Abbas I to Sagredo,June-July
1610/Rab'-isn 1019,
in Favaro,op. cit., pp. 401-402.
Safer
LXXIX, no. 518, May 1610/evhir-i
l^Baveklet Argivi,MhimmeDefterleri,
1019.

10

This content downloaded from 194.27.40.19 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 17:37:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions