Maria

Pia Pedani (Ca’ Foscari University, Venice)

Maritime insurances and the Ottoman merchants’ network in Venice (16th-17th c.).

1. Introduction.

The first information about the presence of Ottomans in Venice dates back to

1486 when the captain of a ship, Yusuf Reis, was condemned to death for an episode of

violence that had place at the inn Al Cappello Nero near St. Mark’s square (Pedani 2010,

215). In the following century more and more frequently Turkish sailors and merchants

reached the city. Other subjects of the sultan traded on the Rialto. There were Orthodox

Greeks, Armenians and Albanians who had the churches for the members of their

communities at San Giorgio dei Greci, San Zulian, Santa Croce degli Armeni and San

Maurizio, where there was also the Scuola degli albanesi (Albanians’ brotherhood).

There were also Jews who lived in a special quarter, the Ghetto, established in 1516. The

presence of the sultan’s Christian and Jewish subjects in foreign lands in the Modern Age

has been known for a long time. Once historians thought that they were the only

Ottoman merchants who traded abroad but after Şerafettin Turan (1968) and, above all,

Cemal Kafardar’s papers (1986) this historiographical thesis has been debated and now

many scholars speak of the presence of Muslim merchants in the Adriatic ports, in

Venice and Ancona and in the two major Adriatic ports of transit for trade in Ottoman

land, the Ottoman Dubrovnik and the Venetian Split (İnalcik 1994, 189, 266; Faroqhi

1994, 515).

Few scholars, however, wrote about the Muslim commercial networks in the

Adriatic zone and used as sources for their study Muslim merchants’ deeds made in

places where no kadı was available. This paper aims to be a first approach to a study of

1
this kind and the sources used are documents kept in the Venetian State Archives.

2. Muslim merchants.

After the Cyprus war (1570-1573) the Muslims who were in Venice asked and

obtained the inn All’Angelo, near Rialto, for their own to live quietly ‘as the Jews did in

their Ghetto’. In 1621 their number had increased more and more and the government

found a new build for them, the Fondaco dei Turchi. The idea was to concentrate all the

Muslim in only one building but the Persian merchants did not agree because they

considered the Turks their traditional enemy, different also in the way of understanding

Islam. They went on living in private houses in the parishes of Santa Maria Formosa and

San Giovanni Grisostomo but, in 1662, Venetian authorities ordered that all the Muslims

had to live in the fondaco. Thus, they left the city and did not come back any longer

(Pedani 2010, 219-221).

In the Modern Age in Venice Muslim merchants had to use brokers. The

government established this practice in 1534 to avoid that persons who did not know

Italian could be easily swindled by tricksters. For this reason they had to pay the same

duties of the Venetians, as established in Ottoman-Venetian capitulations (ahdnames)

since 1416, as well as a special tax of 3 % due to the broker/interpreter (CN, reg. 22, cc.

153v-154; Pedani in print). At the beginning to the following century Venetian

authorities confirmed again this law after the petition made by seventeen important

Istanbul merchants who had been deceived by their agents in Venice about the quantity

of goods sold and the profits (SDAC, f. 82, cc. 72-72v, 1616, 2 Nov./1).

In Venice there was no kadı to sign commercial deeds, even if the first

broker/interpreter, Girolamo Civran, had been a Muslim and had studied in a medrese.

2
Thus, it was necessary to use Venetian notaries who could make deeds ‘according to the

Turkish custom’. For instance in 1561 there is the reference to a commercial partnership

signed between two Ottoman subjects, Jacob Alexopoulos from Trabzon and Veli Reis

from Istanbul, a Christian and a Muslim, ‘according to the custom of Turkey and of the

sultan’s subjects’. The former risked his money and the latter his ship, a karamusal (NA,

b. 429, cc. 4v-5. Thanks to Mauro Bondioli for this reference).

3. Commercial partnerships.

The most widespread Islamic and Ottoman partnership was the mudarebe. An

important merchant entrusted his money or goods to an agent who traded in his name

and gave him back a previously agreed-upon share of the profits. As a reward the agent

received the remaining share. Any loss was shouldered by the investor while the agent

could lose only his time and labour (Çizakça 1996, 4-6).

Several Venetian documents hint to partnerships of this kind. In 1542 the

imperial interpreter Yunus bey had a share in jewels left in Rialto by the late Hoca

Süleyman Cevheri (SDS, reg. 62, cc. 14-14v). In 1588 Hüseyin from Sarajevo stated that

he was Hacı Sinan’s agent and the whole merchandise he had belonged to the investor

(NA, reg. 3359, cc. 281v-282). In 1589 the sultan asked the doge to give back to the heirs

of Kara Hacı from Skopje the goods and money left by his two late agents in Venice

(Pedani-Fabris 1994, No. 988). In 1625 Hacı Resul died in Istanbul and the defterdar

(imperial treasurer) Mehmed wrote a letter to the doge to have back his goods kept in

Venice (Mumcu 2013, No. 438). Eric Dursteler wrote that Resul Ağa, or Sipahi, was a

large scale merchant active at the beginning of the 17th c. According to his account book,

he used to send annually to Venice 550 bolts of camlets, 40 bales of silk, 200 bales of

3
wax, other goods, and 20,000 ducats in cash (Dursteler 2002, 114).

Also the shipping partnership was based on mudarebe. The captain’s services

could be rewarded by means of a fee but sometimes he too was a member of the society.

The crew was either paid or had a share in profits and losses. This kind of partnership

was usually formed of three or four partners and their shares were divided into 40 parts

(Çizakça 1996, 88-91, 128). Venetian sources make reference to this kind of partnership

too. For instance in 1636 three Muslims, Bayram Reis from Istanbul, Osman Beşe from

Terranova (Albania) and Karim Çelebi from the Tophane in Istanbul sold a vessel to a

Venetian, Pietro Bevilacqua, and to a Muslim, Hasan Çelebi from Moton, who acted in

solidum. The ship had been sold to the sellers by Sarı Yusuf in North Africa and they had

to present the hüccet (kadı’s deed) made in Algiers. The mariners had no share in the

affaire (NA, reg. 11000, cc. 255-256, 264v-265, 271v, 275v-278, 306-309, 327v-328;

Pedani 2008a). In 1641 Murad Reis Umurović and Süleyman Hacı Mehmedović from

Hersek Nova, in solidum, sold another vessel they had bought in Dubrovnik to Pietro

Bevilacqua and Gabriele Martinelli (NA, b. 2940, cc. 182-183). In another act, made in

1567, the 57 members of a crew were paid with the shares of the profits and each sailor

received 15 gold scudi even if they protested that they deserved more money (NA, b.

3280, cc. 580r-580v, 586v-587v, 588v-591v. Thanks to Mauro Bondioli for this

reference).

Venetian sources recall also family partnerships where two or more members of

the same family shared the work and the capital. Usually one remained at home while

the other went abroad to trade. For instance in 1615 Pir Kaya bin Binyad remained in

Harput in Anatolia and Istanbul while his brother Hacı Kara went to Venice where he

died (Mumcu 2013, No. 190). In the same way, in 1628, Mehmed Çelebi from Terranova

4
went to Venice while his father remained in Durrës (NA, b. 10928).

Sometimes also money borrowed from pious foundations and fund administrated

by guardians on behalf of their orphan wards was used to trade in Venice. In this case

merchants did their best to recover losses, even making petitions to the doge or the

sultan lamenting their difficult situation as it happens to two groups of Bosnian

merchants whose goods were seized by Uskok pirates in 1588 (Ortega 2014, 74-75;

Stefini 2015) and by the Spanish fleet in 1617 (Pedani-Fabris 1994, No. 1214). In the

case of these cash vakfs the capital was only ‘transferred’ to the borrows who had to give

it back, usually after one year, plus an extra amount to be used for pious purposes in

order to avoid the charge of usury (Çizakça 1996, 131-134; Okur 2005). In the 1588

affaire few merchants borrowed many small capitals from many institutes and,

according to the law, they were obliged to give them back no matter what had happened

during the journey (Faroqhi 2014, 84-85; Faroqhi 2004, 225–239; Moshin et al. 2016,

41-42). Other examples can be found: for instance in 1591 two Ottoman merchants died

in Venice leaving 2,600 ducats belonging to orphans (SDC, reg. 8, c. 31v).

4. Ottoman commercial networks.

The commercial partnerships used to trade in Venice were usually made among

Turks but they could involve also other subjects of the sultan, such as Christians and

Jews, and sometimes even Persians (Pedani-Fabris 1994, Nos. 927, 929). Two laws

issued by the doge in 1492 and 1601 established that Venetians could not take part to

agreements with foreigners but they were often disregarded (Pedani 2008a) as it

happened in the affaire of Süleyman’s golden helmet sold to him by a company where

the great treasurer İskender Çelebi had a share of 1/6 (4 carati) (Sanuto 1901, coll. 358-

5
359). The 1601 law was issued to settle a quarrel that had raised in Istanbul between

the Agazzi family and Ali Ağa, the chief of the janissaries, brother-in-law of the kapıağası

(chief of the white eunuchs) (Dursteler 2006, 51-52; Pedani 2000, 9-32).

Ottoman grandees such as Cafer Paşa (end of the 16th c.) and Gümülcili Nasuh

(grand vizier, 1611-1614) both quoted by Dursteler (2002, 118-121) were often

involved in Venetian trade by means of agents. They could risk huge sums of money

often together with other merchants. In 1617, for instance, a vizier’s galliot was raided

by the Spanish fleet in the Adriatic: he was refunded with 48,000 ducats and the other

merchants with 70,000 piastre (Pedani-Fabris 1994, No. 1344).

Important merchants too remained home and used agents to trade as Seyyid Abdi

Çavuş, the so-called emir dagli zambelotti (prince of the camlets) because of his

involvement in the trade of camlets from Ankara, did in the 1580s (Faroqhi 2014, 79-82;

Pedani 1994, 177). I strongly suggest that kapan tuccaları were also involved in the

Venetian trade at least at the beginning of the 17th century. They were merchants

organized in special guild-like structures that had a special status and privileges and had

priority in loading and unloading (Çizakça 1996, 117-22). I did not find any berat

(imperial title of privilege) for them but documents, such as the already quoted petition

made to the Senate in November 1616, hint to groups of important merchants interested

in Venetian trade. In this case each merchant had different agents and was member of

different partnerships but they united to protect their rights against unfaithful agents.

In Venice Ottoman Muslim merchants often acted as a group or a guild-like

structure. Sometimes they also acted together with Christian and Jewish subjects of the

sultan, if a right that involved them all had to be defended. Muslim merchants seldom

settled in the city for a long period, as the members of other nations did, and even more

6
rarely they created there a family there, but they were not alone. Just because of their

several journeys they were in contact with other Muslims who traded in Ancona, Split,

Dubrovnik and Durrës (Pedani-Fabris 1994, Nos. 130, 245) and came from Bosnia,

Albania, Istanbul and Anatolia. A bill could be paid in a place and the goods taken in

another one. Exchange letters issued in Venice could be paid in Ancona and vice-versa.

Moreover, Venetian merchants could loan money abroad and then be reimbursed by

means of the credits a Muslim merchant had in Venice. Notarial deeds show that

Christians could act in the name of a Muslim or help him in his trade or even share the

same business. The whole Ottoman community could even threaten the Most Serene

Republic to leave the Rialto market for Dubrovnik or Ancona if their requests were not

accepted (Pedani-Fabris 1994, Nos. 249, 1368). Venetians wanted that merchant ships

reached first their city and then other Adriatic ports but Ottoman merchants preferred

to follow other routes and to arrive in Venice only at the end of a long journey. No

matter if they were only agents or real merchants who risked their own money. They

often made petitions together to the doge or to the sultan. They really formed a

community or a network.

At its turn this community of merchants often created agents to take care of their

interests. This happened in the Venetian fondaco as well as in other parts of Venetian

maritime lands (Stato da Mar). In some places, such as Corfu or Zante, the sultan’s

subjects created real consuls who were recognised first of all by Venetian authorities

and, only in the second half of the 18th c., also by the sultan by means of a berat of

appointment (Pedani 2005, 213-19). In 1626 the Turkish and Greek Ottomans present

in Venice, both private persons and imperial merchants, created an attorney to deal with

their merchandise by means of a notarial deed (NA, reg. 10890, cc. 665-667). In 1654 the

7
whole Ottoman community began to boycott the Rialto to oblige the authorities to issue

a law against the Venetian guild of tanners that had created a trust to keep the price of

their merchandise low (ST, filza 609; Pedani 2008a, 13; Pedani 2010, 230; Ortega 2014,

68-69). In 1672, after the end of the Cretan war (1645-1669) a group of them went to

the office of the Cinque Savi alla Mercanzia, together with a notary, to protest against

unjust taxes (CSM, b. 186, fasc. n. 113/1, 18 Nov. 1670; fasc. n. 113/2, 5 Sep. 1701;

Pedani 2007, pp. 39-54). In the following century, in 1795, the forty merchants present

in the fondaco created another agent (CSM, b. 996, fasc. Fedi di sanseri, 24 Aug. 1795).

5. Insurances.

On making business in Christian lands Ottoman merchants had to face the risks

connected with the presence of pirates and privateers (Köse 2010, 12-29). To protect

themselves they could use also European legal institutions. One of the most striking

examples of this fact is the insurance. In his book about business partnership Murat

Çizakça (1996, 128-29) states:

In the Ottoman case, it can be presumed that an effective maritime insurance did

not exist. Certainly, not a single document has been found to indicate the contrary.

Venetian documents, however, tell us another story. In 1559 the Venetian bailo’s

son, Sigismondo Cavalli, as agent of the kapudan-i derya (probably Piyale pasha, 1554-

1567), had to receive the premium of an insurance made in his master’s name by

another of his agents, Pompeo Boro, by means of a third person, Girolamo Fella, in

Ancona with a Venetian company. The ship rented by the great admiral probably

8
underwent an accident but Fella did not want to give back the 2,450 ducats of the

premium, even if he had already cashed 500 ducats from the insurers. Thus, a quarrel

began (SDAC, b. 2B, 17 Oct. 1559).

In Venice to sign insurances was easier. At the end of the century, in 1592,

Mustafa, Ali Bey’s agent, made a proxy and spent also 300 ducats to insure the wool that

his master will send to Venice from Albania by a Venetian ship (NA, reg. 11913, cc. 269-

269v). In 1611 Mehmed Çelebi from Kruja, agent of a group of investors made of reises

(ship captains), hocas (merchants who know to read) and janissaries, from Shkodër in

Albania, made an insurance with Giovanni Trombino on the wool and skins arriving on a

Venetian marciliana ship (NA, reg. 11933, cc. 547-548).

To make an insurance, however, it was not necessary the presence of a notary. It

was possible also to go in front of a kadı who made a hüccet as a Venetian, Tranquillo

Coletti, made in 1602 to ensure his goods embarked on an Ottoman karamusal. He and

the other owners paid the insurance and 1,000 akçes for the document (BC, b. 272, reg.

387, 27 Jul. 1602).

Other sources testifying Ottoman merchants’ insurances date back to the 17th

century. Before leaving Egypt for Venice a certain Mehmed insured himself and his

companions with the Venetian consul in Cairo, Giovanni da Mosto (1599-1602); he was

then captured by Christian privateers and, once rescued, he went to the new consul to be

refunded with notary deeds and hüccets testifying that the consul had agreed to refund

the damages (Mumcu 2013, No. 107; Pedani 2008b, 163). In 1620 some merchants were

attacked by the Spanish fleet in the Adriatic and then they went to the bailo (Venetian

diplomat in Istanbul) stating that they had made an insurance before leaving Venice

against the damage that could occur during the sea journey with the Venetian

9
authorities, but in reality with a Venetian private company (Mumcu 2013, No. 305;

Pedani, 2008b, 162-163). Since 72 owners were involved in the affaire and some of them

were members of the Ottoman élite in the end Venetians decided to pay and, besides a

notary deed in Italian, the kadı of Gelibolu Abdullah made a hüccet to certify that 70,000

tolars were paid as a premium for goods worth 186,000 tolars. In this case it is

interesting to note that the two deeds did not check: in the Ottoman one there is written

that the recovered merchandise had to be given back to the owners, while in the Italian

one that it had to be given to the Venetians who had anticipated the money (BC, b. 251,

reg. 334, cc. 8-10; BC, b. 251, reg. 334, cc. 1-3; Mumcu 2013, No. 308; Pedani-Fabris 1994,

Nos. 1271, 1272, 1275).

In reality it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a real insurance and

only a generic promise. Often Ottoman merchants had not a clear idea of the persons

who had to refund the money while both parties tried to take advantage of an

ambiguous situation. Thus, in 1618, Osman II issued a name-i hümayun (imperial

document) where he stated that Venice had to recognise the promises made by the

count and other officials of Split to his merchants. They were officials of the Republic

and could not act as private persons. In fact thinking to be under the protection of

Venetian armed galleys some Ottoman merchants began their voyage but then they

were attacked by the Spanish fleet (Pedani-Fabris 1994, Nos. 1127, 1231).

In the Mediterranean ports consuls of different nations used to make both

general promises and real insurances. About 1723 an affaire of this kind happened when

the French consul in Crete assured some Ottoman merchants against every risk and they

decided to rent a ship with the Venetian flag: during the journey they were raided by a

privateer from Malta (BC, b. 255, reg. 351, cc. 237-241). In 1735 43 Muslim merchants

10
from Morea rented another Venetian vessel and asked the French consul to check the

captain’s patente (licence). He stated that the document assured them against the risks

of corsairs: this time too the ship was raided by a Spanish corsair (BC, b. 257, reg. 356, cc.

132-135). After two years of quarrels, in 1739, the sultan issued an order: no Muslim or

haracgüzar (Christian or Jewish Ottoman subject) merchant could embark on a Venetian

ship without a real insurance signed by a Venetian consul or ambassador (BC, b. 257, reg.

357, cc. 46-59; b. 258, reg, 359, cc. 289-298).

6. Conclusion.

In Christian lands Ottoman merchants began to know the others’ way of living

and making business. On the other hand many similarities existed between European

maritime law and the Islamic one that some scholars considered a continuity of the

Rhodian Sea Law (Khalilieh 1998, 13). Moreover, we cannot forget that many elements

of the Islamic customary law arrived in Europe. The Italian words avallo (endorsement)

and sensale (broker) derived from the Arabic ḥawāla and simsār, while cheque comes

from ṣakk (the written document) and the Italian commenda was based on the qirāḍ or

muḍāraba (Çizakça 1996, 3-64). According to me it is probable that also the institution

of the consul derived from the person responsible for a non-Muslim community in an

Islamic country (Pedani 2007, 205).

Despite their religion suggested to the faithful Muslims to reach Christian lands

only to ransom prisoners, in the Modern Age Ottomans were involved in long distance

trade in the Adriatic. Their presence in Venice increased more and more from the 16th

century forwards (Faroqhi 2017, 133-134). It reached its apex in the first half of the

following century, when the new fondaco was created, and it decreased only in the

11
following years when two long wars (1645-1669, 1684-1699) ruined the relations

between the doge and the sultan. They were able create a real network of merchants,

made business and were even partners of non-Muslims and documents tells us a story of

contacts, exchanges, and even confidence and friendship.

SOURCES

Venetian State Archives:

BC = Bailo a Costantinopoli.

CN = Collegio, Notatorio.

CSM = Cinque Savi alla Mercanzia.

NA = Notarile Atti.

SDAC = Senato, Dispacci Ambasciatori, Costantinopoli.

SDC = Senato Deliberazioni Costantinopoli.

SDS = Senato, Deliberazioni Secrete.

ST = Senato Terra.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Çizakça, Murat (1996). A Comparative Evolution of Business Partnership. The Islamic

World and Europe, with Specific Reference to the Ottoman Archives. Leiden: Brill.

Dursteler, Eric (2002). Commerce and Coexistence: Veneto-Ottoman Trade in the Early

Modern Era, «Turcica», 34, pp. 105-133.

Dursteler, Eric R. (2006). Venetians in Constantinople. Nation, Identity and Coexistence in

the Early Modern Mediterranean. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

12
Faroqhi, Suraiya (1994). Part II. Crisis and Change, 1590-1699, in İnalcik Halil and

Quataert Donald (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire 1300-

1914. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 411-636.

Faroqhi, Surayia (2004). Bosnian merchants in the Adriatic, in Koller and Karpat (eds),

Bosnia: A History in Peril, «The International Journal of Turkish Studies», 10/1–2, 2004,

pp. 225–239.

Faroqhi, Suraiya (2014). Travel and Artisans in the Ottoman Empire: Employment and

Mobility in the Early Modern Era. London: Tauris, 2014.

Faroqhi, Suraiya (2017). Protecting the Property of Foreign Merchants: Venice and the

Ottoman Empire in the Early 1600s, in Ortalli Gherardo e Sopracasa Alessio (a cura di),

Rapporti mediterranei, pratiche documentarie, presenze veneziane: Le reti economiche e

culturali (XIV-XVI secolo). Venezia: Istituto Veneto, pp. 133-152.

İnalcik, Halil (1994). Part I. The Ottoman State: Economy and Society, 1300-1600, in

İnalcik Halil and Quataert Donald (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman

Empire 1300-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 9-409.

Kafadar, Cemal (1986). A Death in Venice (1575): Anatolian Muslim Merchants Trading in

the Serenissima, in Raiyyet Rüsûmu, «Journal of Turkish Studies», 10 (1986), 191-217.

Khalilieh, Hassan S. (1998). Islamic Maritime Law. An Introduction. Leiden, Boston, Köln:

Brill.

Köse, Metin Ziya (2010). 1600-1630 Osmanlı Devleti ve Venedik. Akdeniz'de Rekabet ve

Ticaret. İstanbul: Gize.

Moshin, Magda Ismail Abdel et al. (2016). Financing the Development of Old Waqf

Properties: Classical Principles and Innovative Practices around the World. Basingstoke:

Macmillan Palgrave.

13
Mumcu, Serap (haz./ed.) (2013). Venedik Baylosu’nun Defterleri (1589-1684) / The

Venetian Baylo’s Registers (1589-1684). Venezia: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari, 2013.

Okur, Kaşif Hamdi (2005). Para Vakıfları Bağlamında Osmanlı Hukuk Düzeni ve Ebussuud

Efendinin Hukuk Anlayışı Üzerine Bazı Değerlendirmeler, «Gazi Üniversitesi Çorum

İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi», 1-2/IV/7-8, pp. 33-58.

Ortega, Stephan (2014). Negotiating Transcultural Relations in the Early Mediterranean.

Ottoman-Venetian Encounters. Farnham (Surrey), Burlington (USA): Ashgate.

Pedani, Maria Pia (1994). In nome del Gran Signore. Inviati ottomani a Venezia dalla

caduta di Costantinopoli alla guerra di Candia. Venezia: Deputazione editrice.

Pedani, Maria Pia (2000). Safiye’s Household and Venetian Diplomacy, «Turcica», 32, pp.

9-32.

Pedani, Maria Pia (2005). Venetian consuls for Ottoman Subjects, in IXth International

Congress of Economic and Social History of Turkey. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, pp. 213-

21.

Pedani, Maria Pia (2007). Consoli veneziani nei porti del Mediterraneo in età moderna, in

Cancila Rossella (a cura di), Mediterraneo in armi (secc. XV-XVIII). Palermo: Associazione

Mediterranea, pp. 175-205.

Pedani, Maria Pia (2008a). Between Diplomacy and Trade: Ottoman Merchants in Venice,

in Faroqhi Suraiya and Veinstein Gilles (eds), Merchants in the Ottoman Empire. Paris-

Louvain-Dudley, MA: Peeters, pp. 3-21.

Pedani, Maria Pia (2008b). Ottoman Merchants in the Adriatic. Trade and smuggling,

«Acta Histriae», 16/1-2, pp. 155-172.

Pedani, Maria Pia (2010). Venezia. Porta d’Oriente. Bologna: il Mulino.

14
Pedani, Maria Pia (in print). The interpreter Michele Membré’s life in Venice, paper

presented at the workshop Venetian Rule in the Eastern Mediterranean 1400-1700,

Venice 10-11 July 2015.

Pedani-Fabris, Maria Pia (a cura di) (1994). I “Documenti Turchi” dell’Archivio di Stato di

Venezia. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico-Zecca dello Stato.

Sanuto, Marino (1901). I Diarii, vol. 56. Venezia: a spese degli editori.

Stefini, Tommaso (2015). Ottoman Merchants in Dispute with the Republic of Venice at

the End of the 16th Century, «Turcica», 46, pp. 153-176.

Turan, Şerafettin (1968). Venedik’te Türk Ticaret Merkezi, «Belleten», 23, pp. 247-283.

15