Procuring and Trafficking in Women in the Late Ottoman Empire
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
KEZBAN ACAR PROCURING AND TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN IN THE LATE OTTOMAN EMPIRE There have been many studies on prostitution and procuring in differ- ent periods and places in the Ottoman Empire, and its legal aspects in the Islamic and Ottoman Law. Although these studies give valuable and insightful informations on the legal status of procuring in şeriat and kanuns, and although by their distinct and sometimes similar approaches toward procuring and procurers as well as by providing examples of procuring and prostitution in Istanbul and different towns and cities in the Empire such as Aleppo, Kastamonu, Balıkesir, Damascus, Antep (Ayntab), and Crete, they contribute greatly to the understanding of sex crimes and trafficking in the Empire,1 almost none of them refers to the international extent of procuring and trafficking in women in the late Ottoman Empire. Some studies by Edward J. Bristow and Rıfat Bali deal specifically with trade in women in the Ottoman Empire. Covering a time period from 1870 to 1939 and a large area from Europe to Asia and America and utiliz- ing mainly German sources, Bristow opens a window to trade in women in the Ottoman Empire and contributes greatly to our understanding of Prof. Dr. Kezban Acar, Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, [email protected]. 1 Heyd, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law; Imber, Studies in Ottoman History and Law; Ze’evi, “Changes in Legal-Sexual Discourses;” Semerdjian, “Sinful Professions;” Semerdjian, Off the Straight Path; Sariyannis, “Prostitution in Ottoman Istanbul;” Sariyan- nis, “Neglected Trades;” Zarinebaf, Crime and Punishment in Istanbul; Rafeq, “Public Morality;” Kermeli, “Sin and the Sinner;” Ergene, Local Court. Turcica, 48, 2017, p. 271-299. doi: 10.2143/TURC.48.0.3237142 © 2017 Turcica. Tous droits réservés. 272 kezban acar trade in white women from Europe to the Ottoman Empire, especially to Istanbul and from Istanbul to Africa and Asia.2 As for Rıfat Bali, he provides some examples in his article on the Jewish role in trade in women in Istanbul.3 The information and examples Bristow and Bali provide on what route and ways Jewish traders in women used match with examples of trade in women in Ottoman archival documents. Their studies, especially Bristow’s work, draw a general picture of trade in women in the Ottoman Empire. Examples from Ottoman archival documents can complete the picture. Such is the aim of the present paper, based on an examination of doc- uments from different archive collections – Imperial Edicts (Hatt-ı Hum- ayuns), Ministry of Interior Records (Dahiliye Nezareti Fonu), Ministry of Foreign Affairs Records (Hariciye Nezareti Fonu), Police Records (Zaptiye Nezareti Fonu), Cevdet Records (Cevdet Fonu) – all preserved in the Ottoman Archives of the Prime Ministry (Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivleri/BOA) in Istanbul, and on a review of the correspondence between high-level officials and institutions, such as the Ministry of Interior and Foreign Affairs, the Chamber of Deputies, the Ministry of Sects, the Orthodox-Greek Patriarchate, the Chief Rabbinate, the Police Department, governors, and prosecutors in the same archives. Examining archival documents on procuring and prostitution from the early modern age to the late imperial era, I argue that there was indeed both change and continuity in procuring and prostitution from earlier times to the period under discussion. In the historiography of prostitu- tion and procuring specifically, or sex crimes in general in the Ottoman Empire, the most emphasized aspect seems to be the different legal status of prostitution and procuring in kanuns and şeriat.4 Some scholars also point out the difference between prostitution and procuring in the kanuns.5 As will be seen further on, whereas prostitution was regarded as a sign and consequence of loose morals in the classical age, as well as a product 2 Bristow, Prostitution and Prejudice. 3 Bali, “Yirminci Yüzyılın Başlarında...”. 4 Kermeli, “Sin and Sinner,” p. 85-87; Semerdjian, “Sinful Professions,” p. 69-71; Sariyannis, “Prostitution in Ottoman Istanbul,” p. 40-43; Ze’evi, “Changes in Legal- Sexual Discourses,” p. 225-233; Imber, Studies in Ottoman History and Law, p. 182-188, 201; Ze’evi, Producing Desire, p. 48-67; Zarinebaf, Crime and Punishment, p. 105-106; Heyd, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law, p. 277, p. 304-305; Demir, “Kanuni’nin Bir Fermanı”, p. 7. 5 Semerdjian, “Sinful Professions,” p. 69; Sariyannis, “Prostitution in Ottoman Istanbul,” p. 39, 43. procuring and trafficking in Women 273 of social and economic conditions in the late imperial era, procuring was viewed as a much more wicked offense since it involved deceiving peo- ple and alluring them into prostitution. I shall show that there were some other differences, firstly between kanuns of the early modern age and of the modern and late imperial era. Whereas laws were in general harsher toward procurers in the early modern era, they were more tolerant in modern and late imperial era. The same goes for the kanuns and their practices. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: PROCURING IN OTTOMAN LAWS AND IN PRACTICE As scholars rightly point out, while prostitution is not specifically defined in şeriat and kanun6 and is only mentioned in the larger context of zina, which is described as “a sexual intercourse with someone besides lawful wife/husband and slaves;”7 procuring was referred to in more specific and definite terms especially in kanunnames. Some scholars argue that the following verse from the Surat an-Nur (24/33) in the Qur’an which reads “Do not force your slaves (young slaves who wanted to remain chaste) into zina for your worldly pleasures; whoever forces them to zina, God has mercy and pity on those who are forced”8 forbids procuring even though procuring is not necessarily mentioned. However, it needs to be underlined that scholars such as Colin Imber point out that the Islamic jurists from the eleventh century on discussed whether pros- titution was a crime or not since it is not specifically defined and referred to in the Qur’an. Abu Hanifa (702-777) considered prostitution to be legal since the fee that a customer paid to a prostitute was like a dowry and brought quasi-ownership.9 Despite such a specific view of prostitution, “the legal frame for prostitution [and procuring] seems to be governed by a general vagueness.”10 Due to a lack of clear-cut reference to prostitution 6 Sariyannis, “Prostitution in Ottoman Istanbul,” p. 40; Barkan, Kanunlar, p. 121, 125, 388; Heyd, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law, p. 63, 71, 76, 102, 110, 114; Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri, VIII, p. 114; Imber, Studies in Ottoman History and Law, p. 188, 201. 7 Ze’evi, “Changes in Legal-Sexual Discourses,” p. 226. Also, see Zilfi, Women and Slavery, p. 199. 8 Sarıcık, Batılı Kölelik Anlayışı, p. 245. 9 Imber, Studies in Ottoman History and Law, p. 179; Avcı, Osmanlı Hukukunda Suçlar, p. 172. 10 Sariyannis, “Prostitution in Ottoman Istanbul,” p. 43. 274 kezban acar and procuring in şeriat, scholars argue that the Ottoman authorities stepped in and tried to fill the gap through kanunnames.11 Since they reflected the sultan’s secular authority and law-making power12 and served practical purposes such as maintaining order, the kanunnames were not always in accordance with the şeriat. For instance, the şeriat required statements of at least four eye witnesses and confes- sion of the crime to prove and punish zina; while the Ottoman kanun- names considered that rumors, accusations or complaints were enough for trials and verdicts.13 In this context, the mahalle (neighborhood) was especially important. In Ottoman towns and cities, the mahalle was a place where people knew each other and were responsible for each other’s behaviors without any legal requirement.14 Some kanunnames accepted this role played by the mahalle and assigned an important role to its residents in identifying the culprits and punishing them. For instance, an article in the Kanunname of Selim II (r. 1566-1574) reads that, “if the residents of a settlement or village complain about a person for being a thief or a prostitute and reject her or him and want to expel him from their neighborhood, they can expel the culprit whose misdeeds are the talk of the town. If this person is not welcomed in his/her new place, she/ he can again be expelled thence. But people should wait for a few days since the culprit can repent and behave well, and if she or he does not, then they can expel him or her.”15 Given this, complaints made by people in a mahalle played an important role in trials for adultery, prostitution, and procuring as well as some other crimes.16 In the sixteenth century Ottoman jurists came to consider prostitution to be a crime because it was “unavoidable,” and they legislated about it. These laws were the result of “an attempt and tendency of a bureaucratic state to centralize bureaucracy” and its need to regulate and control pros- titution which it saw as a threat to order.17 The following definition of prostitution and procuring in archival documents indicates that the laws against procuring and prostitution were also a result of an official concern 11 Acar, “Osmanlı Kanunnameleri,” p. 54. 12 Hassan, Osmanlı, p. 185. 13 Imber, Studies in Ottoman History and Law, p. 182. 14 Yılmaz, “XVI. Yüzyıl Osmanlı,” p. 96; Ergenç, “Osmanlı Şehrindeki,” p. 73. 15 Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri, v. 7, 356, 307th article. 16 Özcan, “Osmanlı Mahallesi,”; Zilfi, Women and Slavery, p. 6; 6 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri, p. 234; 7 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri, p. 322; Sak, 10 Numaralı Konya Şer’iye Sicili, p. 235, 263; Güzelbey, Yetkin, Gaziantep Şer’i Mahkeme, p. 15. 17 Ze’evi, Producing Desire, p.