SLAVERY AND THE OTTOMAN-CRIMEAN KHANATE CONNECTION By SHAWN CHRISTIAN BROYLES Bachelor of Arts in History Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 2010 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS May, 2014 SLAVERY AND THE OTTOMAN-CRIMEAN KHANATE CONNECTION Thesis Approved: Dr. Tonia Sharlach Thesis Adviser Dr. Lesley Rimmel Dr. Yongtao Du ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to Dr. Sharlach for guiding me through this difficult process when I had no idea what was going on. To Dr. Rimmel who kept my work professional and of a high standard. To my parents who have helped me get where I am. iii Acknowledgements reflect the views of the author and are not endorsed by committee members or Oklahoma State University. Name: SHAWN CHRISTIAN BROYLES Date of Degree: MAY, 2014 Title of Study: SLAVERY AND THE OTTOMAN-CRIMEAN KHANATE CONNECTION Major Field: WORLD HISTORY Abstract: This document discusses the economic connection between Ottoman Anatolia and the Crimean Khanate within the context of the slave trade. It emphasizes the consumption of slaves in Anatolia as a driving force behind the khanate’s consistent raiding into Russian territory. The frequency of this raiding correlates with several historical events and social practices which cause the demand for slaves to fluctuate. Through the detailed analysis of this correlation, the Black Sea system is more effectively described by a core-periphery relationship. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1 Thesis Statement ......................................................................................................1 Historiography and Sources .....................................................................................2 II. BEGINNINGS OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE OTTOMANS AND THE KHANATE ..............................................................................................................7 Historical Introduction of the Crimean Khanate ......................................................7 Ottoman Involvement in Crimean Khanate Politics ................................................9 Letters between the Khanate and the Porte ............................................................12 Slavery and Slave Raiding in the Crimean Khanate ..............................................16 Historical Data .......................................................................................................21 Discussion of the Data ...........................................................................................25 Conclusions ............................................................................................................26 III. SLAVE OWNERSHIP, BUREAUCRATIZATION OF THE TRADE, AND REASONS FOR THE TRADE’S FLUCTUATION .............................................28 Slave Ownership in the Ottoman Empire ..............................................................28 Ottoman Taxation and Revenue from the Slave Trade ..........................................33 Ottoman Islamic Tradition, Slavery, and Manumission ........................................36 Changes in Agricultural and Price Realities ..........................................................38 v Chapter Page IV. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................42 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................46 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................50 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1 23 1.2 24 1.3 51 1.4 52 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Thesis Statement The Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate had a very complex economic relationship that lasted for over three centuries. This relationship revolved, in part, around the capture, sale, and taxation of slaves who were taken on the Russian steppes and beyond. This trade was centered between Istanbul and the major trade ports of the North Black Sea system. From the trade’s official beginnings in the 1450s to its near- death in the eighteenth century, it grew consistently. This growth is directly attributable to social and economic realities in Anatolia. These include the empire’s bureaucratization 1 of the slave trade so as to increase tax revenue, the sultan’s subsequent urging of the khan to increase slave raids, and Anatolia’s persistent need for slaves caused by its people’s adherence to Islamic principles regarding slavery. These confluent streams regarding the slave trade created a persistent and growing demand for slaves from Anatolia from the trade’s bureaucratization in the 1450s to its end at the hands of Russian Emperor Peter the Great. This pattern shows that the Ottoman Empire and the 1 By “bureaucratization” I am referring to the Ottoman practice of taxing new sources of revenue by passing laws regulating the harvest and exchange of resources. Consequently, this creates a large paper trail handled by an extensive system of Ottoman bureaucrats. 1 Crimean Khanate existed within a core-periphery relationship, with economic and social realities in the Ottoman core influencing activities in the Crimean periphery. Historiography and Sources The Crimean Khanate was a breakaway state from the Golden Horde which, after winning independence from the Horde, became an autonomous state in the north Black Sea. As such, the Crimean Khanate adopted and continued the region’s well-established economic system, most notably the slave trade. While there are several historians who discuss the slave trade in Anatolia and the Crimea separately, few have discussed the trade as a singular entity, and far fewer have focused on this exclusively through the lens of the slave trade. The historiography of the Ottoman Empire has a lengthy tradition, with a veritable army of scholars dissecting one of the largest and longest-lived empires in history. There are several notable scholars who have made grand contributions to the field. Five of these authors are Halil Inalc ık, Donald Quataert, Saraiyah Faroqhi, Şevket Pamuk, and Bruce McGowan. 2 Inalcik and Pamuk stand out especially as both early modern and economic historians, a group greatly aided by Ottoman bureaucratic practices that produced a wealth of sources. Regardless of the criticisms placed on the empire by different historians, the empire was very thorough in its bookkeeping practices. Such practices 2 Engin Akarli Deniz, “Ottoman Historiography,” Middle East Studies Association Bulletin 30, no. 1(1996): 33. 2 were necessary in running such a heavily centralized and patrimonial system. All assets of the empire were ultimately owned by the sultan. Taxes on these assets, which were the lifeblood of the empire and which provided a majority of the Porte’s budget, were therefore thoroughly documented by trusted officials sent from the Porte. Inalcik has made immense contributions to the field by capitalizing on these documents. His translations of the Customs Tax registers at Caffa are a cornerstone of understanding early Ottoman trade relations with the Black Sea economic system. He has translated several maliye 3 finance ministry documents held at the Topkapı Sarayi archives in Istanbul. Inalcik’s summary of this wealth of economic data is in his two-volume edited work, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire .4 Sevket Pamuk’s contributions are no less important. He has written several articles and books which discuss the power and value of Ottoman currency. He has compiled detailed and lengthy charts listing price changes of several commodities from lumber to grain over several centuries. 5 Both Pamuk’s and Inalcik’s works are the primary starting points for any scholar wishing to explore early modern Ottoman economics. While all of these authors have made invaluable contributions to the field, they are plagued by the problem of all Ottoman historians in that a majority of our available 3 The maliye was the Ottoman financial ministry, which was famous for its thorough bookkeeping practices and extensive bureaucracy. All taxes collected by the empire were recorded in documents at the maliye . For more information see Linda T. Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire, 1560-1660: Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage (Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 1996). 4 Halil Inalcik and Donald Quataert, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire: vol. 1, 1300- 1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 5 Sevket Pamuk, “Economic History of the Ottoman Empire.” University of Connecticut , 2000, http://www.ottoman.uconn.edu/data.html, accessed 7 April 2014. 3 data is tied to the elite center of the empire. The further one moves away from the sultan, the more sparse documentation on daily life in the early modern empire becomes. This bias of information toward the Ottoman center of power slightly precludes complete discussions of any topic that includes non-elites, especially slavery and the Crimean Khanate, the foci of this paper. While there are a great number of works on Ottoman slavery, they fall in line with this data problem and focus almost exclusively on Janissaries and palace slaves, whose lives are well documented; a quick online search will yield a wealth of popular history books by authors