Esnaf

Last updated August 26, 2024

Esnaf is a Turkish word which means "corporation". During the Early Modern Period belonging to a guild gave people a voice and was an important part of one's identity. Handicraft producers were linked to one another by a range of social, political, and economic ties.^[1] Guilds varied among societies, social class, and genders. There were many misconceptions, differences, as well as similarities between Europe and the Ottoman Empire. There were hierarchies within guilds; sometimes they shared tools, worked together, or worked alone.

History

In the Early Modern Period, collective identity was mainly established by normative framework, but was also a result of the process of interaction itself, and could be manipulated according to the circumstances.^[2] During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the Islamic state created a system, based upon an open- minded interpretation of Islam's attitude toward rival monotheists that allowed inclusion for the Christians and Jews who populated the conquered lands of Anatolia and the Balkans.^[3] The uprising of Istanbul in 1651 was a successful protest against dominant authority. The people marched on the palace and got a powerful religious leader on their side in order to get the vizier to step down. They made their voices heard as a group within their guild, and gave people a sense of pride to belong to a guild. Economic activity within guilds was controlled by political powers.^[1]

Misconceptions

Contrary to general assumption, even in the highly segmented world of the Early Modern Period, trading Diasporas did not simply act as middlemen within dominant societies, but also developed durable commercial ties with other merchant groups outside any institutional structure.^[4] Not all workers were equal among guilds; many of them had hierarchies which varied among different regions. "There might be four or five different shoemakers".^[5] Being a part of a guild was a great way for people to create compositions; it became a major part of one's identity. It was assumed that guilds declined due to repressed innovations but in all truth guilds declined mainly due to political issues. Political authorities were very much a part of production within guilds and controlled all economic factors involved. The prosperity and commercial success of merchants were both a cause and consequence of their domination of urban politics.^[6] Guilds are often associated with the medieval times in nature but guilds have been along for a long time; even prior the medieval era. Guilds are often associated with Europe only as well, but in fact guilds were a massive part of the Ottoman Empire too. Guilds within the Ottoman Empire and Europe had both their similarities and differences.

Europe

Metal products created a significant share of the goods handled by European merchants; but their most important commodities were raw and finished cloth.^[7] Guilds were mainly male dominated but wives and servants still played an important role in production. In some cases woman could even hold formal positions and widows could inherit. Stocking knitting became a common livelihood for the poor in numerous parts of Europe, because it required more or less no capital investment; knitters would use yearn from their own sheep or yarn given by merchants.^[7] All social classes were allowed, but there still was an evident hierarchy within the guilds. Although, religion was more exclusive; therefore Jews were marginalized. Europe was a very spiritual economy meaning people took care of each other and would help when one another when they could. For example, there were charitable services. Around 1560, Antwerp reached its peak of its success just before the revolt of the Netherlands.^[6]

Ottoman Empire

In the Ottoman Empire many young woman were hired to unwind cocoon, spin silk threads, and weave.^[8] Also, there were many woman groups outside of guilds such as cloth makers. Woman would exchange good among each other within female markets. In the late sixteenth century estates of peasant woman living near Konya and owning some jewellery have been stumbled upon, which indicates market links.^[9]

Guilds were a major part of an economy that was very state dominated like the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman dynasty, especially along its seaboards and borderlands opportunities of commerce tended to diversify economies and put together sundry people and ideas.^[10] The Ottoman society was extremely mixed main due to conquest and immigration; therefore there was a vast number of religion and Jews were very much included. The Ottoman society was a spiritual economy but not as much as Europe. This was mainly because the Ottoman Empire was mixed religiously meaning there were many different religions mixed within guilds.

Guilds were an urban phenomenon. The Ottomans had politics as much as commerce in mind when they negotiated and dispersed capitulations.^[11] The Ottoman- Venetian conflicts led to international commerce booms in Dubrovnik, Florence, Ancona, and Genoa. In the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries Florence, Genoa, and Venice vied for control of Ottoman markets and merchandises.^[12] Primarily in the north and east, Muslim traders dominated several Ottoman exchanges and some international routes.^[13] There were links between cities and the countryside; although, direct commercial exchanges were probably the exception rather than the rule.^[9] The Empire was separated into zones so that civilians were limited to buying only from the source that they had been assigned to.^[14]

Division of labor

In small towns, craft structures might be reasonably simple, for example, with one type or a few types at the most of tailors who made up fabrics into ready to wear clothing; but large cities producers were highly specialized.^[14] Different guilds often produced similar goods. "Collective workshops were considered more desirable by more substantial craftsmen themselves".^[5] This would make collective workshops a suitable means of social control. Every member was monitored very closely; there were influential members but no one completely controlled the productivity of other fellow members.^[15] Partnerships existed, although it is unknown how common partnerships occurred. A more modern type of labor division also existed during the Early Modern Period.^[15] During this time bleachers, twisters, and dyers craftsmen not only owned their own equipment but their own shops as well. A compound product such as silk may go through the hands of many different craftsmen prior to reaching the consumer.^[15]

Related Research Articles

In the Ottoman Empire, a millet was an independent court of law pertaining to "personal law" under which a confessional community was allowed to rule itself under its own laws.

The history of the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century has classically been described as one of stagnation and reform. In analogy with 18th-century France, it is also known as the Ancien Régime or Old Regime, contrasting with the "New Regime" of the Nizam-i Cedid and Tanzimat in the 19th century.

A kaza was an administrative division of the Ottoman Empire. It is also discussed in English under the names district, subdistrict, and juridical district. Kazas continued to be used by some of the empire's successor states. At present, they are used by Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and in Arabic discussion of Israel. In these contexts, they are also known by the Arabic name qada, qadā, or qadaa.

Jean Baptiste Vanmour or Van Mour was a Flemish-French painter, remembered for his detailed portrayal of life in the Ottoman Empire during the Tulip Era and the rule of Sultan Ahmed III.

The Ottoman Empire was one of the most dominant empires in the Mediterranean region, having lasted ~600 years and controlling much of the eastern and southern portions of the Sea. Albert Hourani described the Ottoman Empire as "a bureaucratic state, holding different regions within a single administrative and fiscal system".

The Industrious Revolution was a period in early modern Europe lasting from approximately 1600 to 1800 in which household productivity and consumer demand increased despite the absence of major technological innovations that would mark the later Industrial Revolution. Proponents of the Industrious Revolution theory argue that the increase in working hours and individual consumption traditionally associated with the Industrial Revolution actually began several centuries earlier, and were largely a result of choice rather than coercion. The term was originally coined by the Japanese demographic historian Akira Hayami to describe Japan during the Tokugawa era. The theory of a pre–industrial Industrious Revolution is contested by some historians.

An Ahdname, achtiname, ahidnâme or athname is a type of Ottoman charter commonly referred to as a capitulation. During the early modern period, the Ottoman Empire called it an Ahidname-i-Humayun or an imperial pledge and the Ahdname functioned as an official agreement between the Empire and various European states.

The Ottoman–Safavid War of 1623–1639 was a conflict fought between the Ottoman Empire and Safavid Iran, then the two major powers of Western Asia, over control of Mesopotamia. After initial Persian success in recapturing Baghdad and most of modern Iraq, having lost it for 90 years, the war became a stalemate as the Persians were unable to press further into the Ottoman Empire, and the Ottomans themselves were distracted by wars in Europe and weakened by internal turmoil. Eventually, the Ottomans were able to recover Baghdad, taking heavy losses in the final siege, and the signing of the Treaty of Zuhab ended the war in an Ottoman victory. Roughly speaking, the treaty restored the borders of 1555, with the Safavids keeping Daghestan, Shirvan, eastern Georgia, and Eastern Armenia, while western Georgia and Western Armenia decisively came under Ottoman rule. The eastern part of Samtskhe (Meskheti) was irrevocably lost to the Ottomans as well as Mesopotamia. Although parts of Mesopotamia were briefly retaken by the Iranians later on in history, notably during the reigns of Nader Shah (1736–1747) and Karim Khan Zand (1751–1779), it remained thenceforth in Ottoman hands until the aftermath of World War I.

The Truce of Constantinople was signed on 22 July 1533 in Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire and the Archduchy of Austria.

Dina Rizk Khoury is a Lebanese-American historian, Guggenheim Fellow, Professor of History and International Affairs, at George Washington University and former President of the Middle East Studies Association of North America.

Haraç was a land tax levied on non-Muslim subjects in the Ottoman Empire.

Suraiya N. Faroqhi, is a German scholar, Ottoman historian and a leading authority on Ottoman history. She was elected as a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy for the year 2022, under the "Early Modern History to 1850" category.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bibliography of the Ottoman Empire</span>

This is a bibliography of notable works about the Ottoman Empire.

The Capture of Baghdad (1624) by the Safavid army under Abbas the Great occurred on 14 January 1624, which was part of the ongoing war between Sultan Murad IV against Shah Abbas I.

Fitnat Hanım was the pen name of the Ottoman Turkish woman poet Zübeyde, "considered the most important woman poet of the Ottoman school".

The Karaosmanoğlu Dynasty is a family that were derebey or ayans, part of the land owning elite in the peripheral provinces, during the Ottoman Empire. After the empire fell, its members have continued to have an impact in Turkey and abroad.

The Polish–Turkish War of 1485–1503 was a prolonged conflict, rather a series of conflicts, between the Kingdom of Poland and the Ottoman Empire. The conflict formally lasted eighteen years, but during this time hostilities were ceased on several occasions due to temporary treaties being signed between the warring parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ottoman decline thesis</span> Historical narrative

The Ottoman decline thesis or Ottoman decline paradigm is an obsolete historical narrative which once played a dominant role in the study of the history of the Ottoman Empire. According to the decline thesis, following a golden age associated with the reign of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, the empire gradually entered into a period of all-encompassing stagnation and decline from which it was never able to recover, lasting until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 1923. This thesis was used throughout most of the twentieth century as the basis of both Western and Republican Turkish understanding of Ottoman history. However, by 1978, historians had begun to reexamine the fundamental assumptions of the decline thesis.

The Transformation of the Ottoman Empire, also known as the Era of Transformation, constitutes a period in the history of the Ottoman Empire from c. 1550 to c. 1700, spanning roughly from the end of the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent to the Treaty of Karlowitz at the conclusion of the War of the Holy League. This period was characterized by numerous dramatic political, social, and economic changes, which resulted in the empire shifting from an expansionist, patrimonial state into a bureaucratic empire based on an ideology of upholding justice and acting as the protector of Sunni Islam. These changes were in large part prompted by a series of political and economic crises in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, resulting from inflation, warfare, and political factionalism. Yet despite these crises the empire remained strong both politically and economically, and continued to adapt to the challenges of a changing world. The 17th century was once characterized as a period of decline for the Ottomans, but since the 1980s historians of the Ottoman Empire have increasingly rejected that characterization, identifying it instead as a period of crisis, adaptation, and transformation.

Şehzade Murad was an Ottoman prince (şehzade), a son of Şehzade Ahmed and a grandson of Sultan Bayezid II. He was involved in the chaos that surrounded the succession to Sultan Bayezid II.

References

1 2 Faroqhi, Suraiya N. 2006. "Guildsmen and Handicraft Producers". In The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 3, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839. New York: Cambridge UP, 336.
↑ Trivellato, Francesca. 2002. "Jews of Leghorn, Italians of Lisbon, and Hindus of Goa. Merchant Networks and Cross-Cultural Trade in the Early Modern Period". In Commercial Networks in the Early Modern World. Eds. Diogo R. Curto and Anthony Molho. Badia Fiesolana: European University Institute, 88.
↑ Goffman, Daniel. The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge university press, 1999, 169.
↑ Trivellato, Francesca. 2002. "Jews of Leghorn, Italians of Lisbon, and Hindus of Goa. Merchant Networks and Cross-Cultural Trade in the Early Modern Period". In Commercial Networks in the Early Modern World. Eds. Diogo R. Curto and Anthony Molho. Badia Fiesolana: European University Institute, 89.
1 2 Faroqhi, Suraiya N. 2006. "Guildsmen and Handicraft Producers". In The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 3, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839. New York: Cambridge UP, 340.
1 2 Wiesner- Hanks, Merry. Early Modern Europe, 1450- 1789. Cambridge university press, 2006, 207.
1 2 Wiesner- Hanks, Merry. Early Modern Europe, 1450- 1789. Cambridge university press, 2006, 202.
↑ Wiesner- Hanks, Merry. Early Modern Europe, 1450- 1789. Cambridge university press, 2006, 203.
1 2 Faroqhi, Suraiya N. 2006. "Guildsmen and Handicraft Producers". In The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 3, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839. New York: Cambridge UP, 338.
↑ Goffman, Daniel. The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge university press, 1999, 171.
↑ Goffman, Daniel. The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge university press, 1999, 176.
↑ Goffman, Daniel. The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge university press, 1999, 187.
↑ Goffman, Daniel. The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge university press, 1999, 182.
1 2 Faroqhi, Suraiya N. 2006. "Guildsmen and Handicraft Producers". In The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 3, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839. New York: Cambridge UP, 339.
1 2 3 Faroqhi, Suraiya N. 2006. "Guildsmen and Handicraft Producers". In The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 3, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839. New York: Cambridge UP, 341.