sign in sign up
<<
Home , Samsun

1 5 th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HI STORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

ANATOLIAN URBAN NETWORK: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL NETWORKS OVERCOMING THE TERRITORIAL DISPARITIES

METHİYE GÜL ÇÖTELİ Address: Erciyes University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of City and Regional Planning, , 38039 e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

ABSTRACT The process of “incorporation of into the European-controlled world economy”, which touched to the port cities much earlier than the inland cities, was a partial and piecemeal affair. Thus, differential growth of cities and regional development disparities occurred and finally the transformation and evolution of an urban network appeared in . The regional development literature has long argued that port cities do the heavy lifting in the Euro-Mediterranean region for linking diverse circuits of cities and became major cities in the urban hierarchy. However, not much research currently exists on the cities taking place on the lower ranks of the hierarchy. The problem is how did these small and medium-sized cities adapt to the national and global network in the 19th century. This paper focuses on the small and medium-sized cities especially those in remote areas which had the chance to play an active role in the urban system through their direct interactions with the major cities of the system and other urban settlements. In order to address the size distribution of cities and the commercial relationships among cities clearly, data were collected from Ottoman archives (and personal collections). The urban entities, city populations, international and regional trade records, merchant relationships etc. are the variables of the study. The main result is that the city of Kayseri, a medium-sized Central Anatolian city, was able to cope with the rapid changes in the commercial, logistic and strategic network through its web of provincial and regional scaled trade networks. Kayseri was successful in selling specialized commodities to other cities that are located at much longer distance, to the capital of the Empire and building a sub-network in Anatolia. Besides, this study shows that the Anatolian urban network emerged from nested sub-networks which competed with international foreign traders’ networks. These results provide general support for the view that an urban network, which is a spatial organization of interacting cities that show complementarity and exchange. The present study provides a starting-point for further research in the categorization of sub-networks in the Anatolian urban network.

INTRODUCTION Incorporation into the world-economy coincided with the weakening of the ability of the Ottoman Empire’s centralized state to control the production, distribution and appropriation of the economic surplus (İslamoğlu-İnan 1987). The incorporation of the Ottoman Empire into the world economy occurred unevenly and drastically affecting one region at an early date while others remained comparatively untouched. Because of the fragmented articulation with the world-economy, Cities, nations and regions in planning history determining the periodization and giving a more precise dating for the incorporation process of the empire is difficult. Various studies date the beginning of incorporation to the sixteenth century, but some studies put it in the nineteenth century. According to Wallerstein, the Ottoman Empire was outside of the capitalist world-economy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Nevertheless, the process of incorporation into the system or peripheralization was complete between 1750 and 1839. Wallerstein and Kasaba claimed that the decline of the guilds and the Free Trade Treaty of 1838, which was signed between the Ottoman Empire and Britain, facilitated the decline of the Ottoman manufacturing sector in the nineteenth century (Wallerstein 1974; Wallerstein and Kasaba 1980; Wallerstein, Decdeli et al. 1987). In contrast to Wallerstein's interpretation of Ottoman incorporation into the world- economy, Pamuk divided the empire’s integration period into the world economy into several stages. While the first sub-period, beginning from the 1820s to the mid 1870s, witnessed a rapid growth process in the incorporation of Ottoman Empire into the world economy, the second sub-period, lasting between 1880 to World War I, was slow (Pamuk 1987). Similar to Pamuk, Çızakça stated that a two-phase incorporation process began first in the 1550-1650 period and the second in the 1830-1900 period, when permanent and profound integration into the world- economy took place (Çızakça 1985). Besides this periodization, Çızakça suggested that the Ottoman Empire integrated into the Europe-centered capitalist world- economy in part, instead of entirely, as seen in cotton manufacturing in Western Anatolia and , silk production in and mohair manufacturing in (Çızakca 1980; Çızakça 1985). Quataert contradicted the claim that the Ottoman manufacturing sector declined in the 19th century due to the effects of the incorporation process into the world- economy (Quataert 1994). According to Quataert, the guilds, who practiced protectionism, stifled commercial competition within the Ottoman Empire. After the disbandment of the Janissary Corps, the best organized advocates of protectionism in 1826, the guilds could no longer restrict trade, and free trade was promoted. Owen and Quataert have suggested that the quantity and value of domestic trade surpassed international Ottoman commerce throughout the period from 1800 to 1914, on one hand urban-based, guild-organized manufactory production declined, but on the other hand rural industry and household manufacturing continued in the first half of the nineteenth century (Owen 1993; Quataert 1994). From the 17th century untill the middle of the 19th century, caravan roads were the only transportation network in the Ottoman Empire. And the major cities of the empire were the inland cities before the nineteenth century. In Anatolia, most of the population gathered in the major inland cities of, Bursa, Kayseri, Ankara, Tokat and . The caravan routes determined the major cities that were located far from the sea coast in the interior regions and acted as production and trade centers. Although the only active ports were , Sinop and in this trade network, they were not dominant economic and political centers using their ports for global commercial practices. For that reason, sea trade was not a major factor in the urbanization of Anatolia before this century (Faroqhi 1994). The nineteenth century, especially the years between 1840-1870, was a revolutionary era of profound structural change in the Ottoman Empire which then came into close and direct contact with Europe. In this period, maritime towns which 1 5 th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HI STORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

were raised as port cities became the location of this incorporation into the world economy and functioned as gates in-between. Since the port cities acted as the linkage points of the incorporation process, the people of the empire interacted with those from the West. In addition regional and international communication networks, particularly sea and rail routes, came together in these agglomerations. In the second half of the 19th century, mainly in the 1890s, the railroad system connected the interior cities with the ports which were used in the flow of both imported commodities and the export of Ottoman raw materials of local industry. By the end of the nineteenth century the city size distributions differentiated from the beginning of the century. While the inland cities grew, the port cities of Izmir, Trabzon and Samsun became as major port cities in the urban hierarchy of Anatolia. Eventually, the rehierarchization of the Anatolian urban network had to be arranged. Thus, the inland urban network1, which involved classical caravan cities, was shifted to “a number of seaborne cities which were vertically integrated with core cities” (Özveren 1990). In this period of change, most of the attention was directed to the port cities, which were on the top level of the hierarchy. However, a few studies about small and medium-sized cities which provided distribution and commerce functions to their surrounding area on a regional scale have been conducted. It is unclear how these small and medium-sized cities adapted to the national and global network in the 19th century. This paper focuses on small and medium-sized cities, especially those in remote areas, which had the chance to play an active role in the urban system through their direct interactions with the major cities of the system and to assess the regional commercial networks of Kayseri, a medium-sized city in Central Anatolia. The urban entities, city populations, international and regional trade records, and merchant relationships, collected from Ottoman archives (and personal collections), were used to demonstrate the size distribution of cities and evaluate the commercial relationships among cities.

ANATOLIAN URBAN NETWORK The number and size of settlements increased and new urban regions such as Eğirdir–Burdur joined the Anatolian urban network (see Figure 1) during the 19th century. Some of the cities, in other words coastal cities like Izmir, Trabzon, and Samsun, ascended to the top of the urban network. According to the size of urban populations in Anatolia between 1830 and 1840 Izmir became the second-largest city after with a population of 110,000. Although Bursa was the second- largest city in the 16th century with a population of 65,000, the population of the city had only grown by about 7 percent. Thus, Bursa fell from the top hierarchy of settlements to the third-largest city in the Anatolian urban network. The urban population of cities, respectively, Diyarbakır, , Ankara, Tokat, Kayseri, , Aydın and Kütahya followed Bursa.

1 According to Pumain, the urban network or urban system can be defined as a spatial organization of interacting cities. Pumain, D. "Modelling Emergence Processes in Human and Social Sciences." 02.08.2010, from http://www.science-inter.com/EmergencePumainfr.doc. Cities, nations and regions in planning history

Figure 1- Methiye Gül Çöteli. 19th century spatial distribution of Anatolian cities, 2011. 2 The hierarchy of the settlements (see Figure 2) located on the Anatolian urban network changed at the end of the 19th century. However, Izmir, with a population of 200,000 and Bursa, with 76,000 inhabitants, maintained their positions in the Anatolian urban network. By 1890 the urban populations of Kayseri (72,000), Urfa (55,000), Maraş (52,000), Antep (43,000), Sivas (43,000), Konya (40,000), (39,000), Diyarbakır (35,000), Trabzon (35,000), Tokat, , Ankara, and Adana (about 30,000) came after Izmir and Bursa. As a consequence, Bursa, Kayseri and Ankara were placed at the top of the Anatolian urban network, respectively. At the end of the 19th century, Kayseri, with a population of 72,000, approached the urban population of Bursa which was the second-largest city in the Anatolian urban network. Thus, Kayseri gained the status of the third city in the Anatolian urban network. Moreover, Kayseri became a candidate, due to its large population for the European-Far East and Japan urban network that was formed by the seventyfive cities with more than 77,000 inhabitants. The settlements of Ankara, Tokat, Amasya, Diyarbakır, Antep, Urfa, and Sivas, which had urban populations of between 50,000 and 100,000, were located near the city of Kayseri and agglomerated together on the northern and southern sides of Anatolia. At the same time the coastal cities of , Samsun and Trabzon advanced in economic activities including the import and export trade that developed in the 19th century, in addition to İzmir. When compared to the beginning and end of the 19th century, significant manufacturing cities like Ankara, Tokat and Diyarbakır had a negative increase in urban population. Although the increase in urban population was 8.57 percent even in Bursa, it was placed on the second hierarchy of the Anatolian urban network; a population increase of more than 80 percent was seen in Kayseri, Antep, , Maraş, Erzurum, Adana and Samsun.

2 This map was drawn by using a map of the Ottoman Empire. Menke, T., “The Ottoman Empire”, Historischer Atlas des Osmanischen Reiches und des Orients. Berlin, Reimer, 1880. 1 5 th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HI STORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

Figure 2- Methiye Gül Çöteli. Agglomeration areas and the main caravan routes in 1890, Anatolia, 2011.

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIPS In the 19th century export trade appeared as a profitable area for manufacturers due to the impact of changes thein financial structure and price movements in the Ottoman fiscal system. In the middle of the nineteenth century merchants paid duties of 3 percent on imports and transit 12 percent on exports (Issawi 1980). However, import duties rose from 3 to 8 percent in the new convention of 1861–62 and to 15 percent in 1914. Import duties were raised at the end of the century, conversely, export duties were reduced from 12 percent to 1 percent (Quataert 1994). Significant differences in the volume of export trade were seen especially after 1820 in conjunction with reduced customs duties and fiscal movements. According to Quataert, even though the volume of foreign trade increased between 1800 and 1914, the value and volume of internal trade was more important and estimable than foreign trade (Quataert 1994). The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria and Italy shared a leading role in the increase of foreign trade. In particular, The United Kingdom developed as a monopoly in the field of international trade in the first half of the 19th century (Bailey 1942). The Ottoman Empire experienced an economic growth rate of 1.5 percent between 1780 and 1830. However, as is shown in Figure 3 the balance between foreign trade and internal trade was not maintained from 1830 to 1913. The trade gap widened especially after 1850. During the price crisis, which deeply affected the whole world between 1873 and 1896, the level of increase in the exports of the Ottoman Empire did not catch up with previous growth rates since 1870 (Quataert 1994).

Cities, nations and regions in planning history

Time Period Export (million £) Import (million £) Balance 1830 – 39 4.2 5.1 -0.9 1840 – 49 6 6.9 -0.9 1850 – 59 9.8 12.3 -2.5 1860 – 69 15.4 18.3 -2.9 1870 – 79 18.6 20.8 -2.2 1880 – 89 15.5 16 -0.5 1890 – 99 17.7 18.6 -0.9 1900 – 09 23 26 -3 1910 26 39.2 -13.2 1911 27.1 40.4 -13.3 1912 27.6 35.2 -7.6 1913 28.4 39.4 -11 Figure 3- Şevket Pamuk. The volume of foreign trade in the Ottoman Empire by the 19th century, 1987. Methiye Gül Çöteli. 19. yüzyıl Anadolu şehirsel ağında hinterland ilişkileri, Kayseri örneği, 2011. Foreign trade activity in the was higher until 1850 when the Balkans left the empire’s territory (Quataert 1994). Afterwards the provinces of Anatolia rose to the top. Beginning from the mid 19th century three-quarters of English foreign trade was conducted from the Anatolian entrepôt to Middle Eastern territories (Quataert 1994). The ports of Izmir, Trabzon, Samsun and Mersin were the most important from 1840 to the mid 1870s. Exports from these cities increased by 3.5 percent and imports by 4.3 percent. However, compared with trade in the Syria and Iraq regions, the trade of Anatolian provinces was only 0.5 percent. The importance of Ottoman port cities according to economic activities is shown in Figure 4. Accordingly, the port cities located on the coasts of the Eastern Mediterranean were used intensely in the transportation of foreign trade products in the 19th century. Izmir, Beirut and Salonica became the top three between port cities, excluding İstanbul. In Anatolia, the port cities of Samsun and Mersin were significant in addition to Trabzon, and Dedeağaç. According to the values of exports and imports made from the diverse regions of the empire, İzmir, Salonica, Beirut and Aleppo (the port of İskenderun) gained a leading role between 1873 and 1877. On the other hand, Izmir, Kastamonu, Adana and Trabzon emerged in importance in Anatolia (Issawi 1980).

REGIONAL COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIPS According to the many studies on the economic history of the Ottoman Empire, it was reported that there was a decrease, in other words a “collapse”, in the volume of internal trade with respect to the growth of foreign trade volume. Nevertheless, Quataert and Owen stated that the volume of foreign trade was on a larger scale than anticipated (Owen 1993; Quataert 1994). According to them it was difficult to 1 5 th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HI STORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

prove the volume of internal trade as oppesed to foreign trade due to insufficiently clear and precise records. Quataert used the term “regional trade” to indicate the carrying and selling of only local industrial commodities and crop productions from one region of the empire to another, excluding imported commodities (Quataert 1994).

Province Year Carried commodities Carried commodities from ports to different from the different regions regions of empire % of empire to ports%

Samsun 1883 24 13

1901 48 37

Mersin 1898 52 20

Ankara 1897 38 -

İzmir 1885 1 13 Figure 4- Donald Quataert. The transferred commodities between regions of Ottoman Empire, 1994. According to British parliamentary records, Izmir () had a crucial function in the trade of exports and imports (see Figure 4). Additionally, Izmir was in a weak position in transferring foreign and local commodities to the other regions of the empire. On the other hand, Mersin and Samsun were influential in transferring commodities between regions. The concept of regional trade emerges from the records showing the volume of interregional trade of local commodities produced in Ankara, Harput, Diyarbakır and Mosul (see Figure 5). The volume of interregional trade was at a high level when compared with the volume of foreign trade. Especially well-kept statistics on Diyarbakır’s trade records in 1894 and on Ankara’s in 1887 with respect to the selling and consuming commodities where they were manufactured, show that the volume of internal trade was much higher than the total volume of foreign trade. The province of Diyarbakır, in which three quarters of locally produced goods were consumed, was one of the important manufacturing centers in southeastern Anatolia (H.1321/M.1903). the regional trade records of Ankara, Harput, Diyarbakır and Mosul the not only emphasize the importance but also the capability of regional trade in the empire (Quataert 1994). Mosul was an other province that was mentioned in British parliamentary records in relation to regional trade. According to Shields, the city of Mosul constituted a market area that supplied goods which were produced by its own artisans for the small-sized settlements in the surrounding province and accrued special goods from there in the 19th century (Shields 1991). While Mosul’s distance from the seacoast and railroads mitigated the effect of European trade, the city of Mosul gained a distributive role in regional and provincial trade comprising a region including the area between Iran and Baghdad and the cities of Diyarbakır, Aleppo, Cities, nations and regions in planning history

Damascus, Tabriz, Erzurum, Bitlis and Siirt (Shields 1991). The province of Ankara and the city of Kayseri were other significant areas because of their increasing regional trade volume. International Trade/ Province Year Regional Trade Ankara 1883 18/9 1887 1/5 Harput 1887 1/2 1891 3/7 1906 2 Diyarbakır 1890 1/2 1894 2/3 Mosul 1884 1/2 1896 1/4 1897 1/3 1909 1 Figure 5- Methiye Gül Çöteli. 19. yüzyıl Anadolu şehirsel ağında hinterland ilişkileri, Kayseri örneği, 2011.

THE RELATIONSHIPS OF MERCHANT OF KAYSERI The regional trade of Kayseri was promoted by the agency of local and foreign merchants in the city. Loans and credit matters recorded in the judicial and business archives (in Turkish, ahkâm defteri) of Kayseri give more information on the interregional trade relationships and interactions of the city during the 19th century. Thirty five percent of Ottoman archive records about the commercial loans of Kayseri are related to disputes over credits between European (beratlı Avrupa tüccarı) and Muslim merchants (hayriye tüccarı). The other 30 percent of Ottoman archive records involve the requests of exchange artisans who demanded refunds for money previously given to the merchants of Kayseri. It is noteworthy that there were a large amount of commercial and business interactions between exchange artisans, who made a huge profit obtained through the low value bills of exchange, and the merchants of Kayseri3. The merchants of Kayseri had established commercial partnerships with other merchants living in the other cities of Anatolia. These partnerships were the main factors that allowed the regional trade to be conducted regularly. Kayserili (from Kayseri) Davidoğlu Karabet, a manufacturing artisan who was an inhabitant of Istanbul, supplied goods to the stores of his brothers and partners living in Ankara, Yozgat and Kayseri. Merchant Anasti and his brothers managed their manufacturing shops which they opened in Istanbul, Adana and Kayseri4. Similarly, Yani and Yusuf, merchants of İstanbul, had commercial relations with Siyo Derviş, living in the village

3 02 Zilkade 1273/24 Haziran 1857). Hariciye Nezareti. BOA. HR.MKT. Dos. No: 195, Göm. No: 34. (05 Zilhicce 1271/19 Agustos 1855 ). Hariciye Nezareti. BOA. HR.MKT. Dos. No: 117, Göm. No: 28. (20 Cemaziyelahir 1276/14 Ocak 1860). Vilayet Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.UM. Dos. No: 390, Göm. No: 28. (24 Recep 1271/12 Nisan 1855 ). Hariciye Nezareti. BOA. HR.MKT. Dos. No: 105, Göm. No: 75. (27 Zilhicce 1263/6 Aralık 1847). Hariciye Nezareti. BOA. HR.MKT. Dos. No: 18, Göm. No: 81. 4 20 Şaban 1276/13 Mart 1860). Vilayet Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.UM. No.400-15. 1 5 th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HI STORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

of Erkilet, Kayseri (Öztürk (Öztürk 2000). Also merchants of Kayseri had mutual business contacts with their partners and relatives, living in Izmir5. Artin Acemoğlu, a European merchant who resided in Yeni Inn (han), Istanbul, applied for permission on behalf of his servant Mardiros to reside in Kayseri6. This illustrated that the merchants of Istanbul appointed merchants as agents to arrange their commercial and business relations in Kayseri. The merchants of Kayseri also lived in the other cities and settlements of Anatolia including, in particular, Izmir, Ankara 7, Malatya 8, Amasya 9, Yozgat 10, Karaman 11, Samsun 12, Adana 13, Erzurum 14, Tosya, Bodrum, Kırkağaç and Saruhan 15, with the intention of making interregional trade practices and agreements. In addition, merchants were also highly effective in commercial activities between cities other than Kayseri 16. It was clearly seen that the merchants of Kayseri not only had a large number of regional trade relations, but also the amount of debt was high in archives records of loans and credit matter relating to the city 17. The inheritances of merchants recorded in judicial record books (şer’iyye sicili), in 1820, contained only a small amount of cash; conversely there were a large amount of loans that increased to 38 percent. Thus, one could say that there was a wide range of credit use in the 19th century, as well as in the first half of the 17th century (Jennings 1973; Öztürk 2000). Regional Commercial Network of Cotton / Cotton Commodity-Chain The merchants of Kayseri were able to store raw materials supplied from distant cities in warehouses built in Kayseri, and they transported these goods to the ports of Izmir, Samsun and Mersin. In the beginning of the 19th century the marketing and production-distribution organization of the merchants, which was based on

5 (04 Muharrem 1276/3 Ağustos 1859). Vilayet Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.UM. No.358- 819. 6 07 Zilkade 1276/27 Mayıs 1860). Sadaret Divan. BOA. A.DVN., No.152- 66. 7 (13 Cemaziyelevvel 1273/9 Ocak 1857). Deavi Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.DV., Dos. No:104, Göm. No:22. 8 (21 Cemaziyelahir 1276/15 Ocak 1860). Deavi Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.DV., Dos. No:150, Göm. No:58. 9 (02 Zilhicce 1272/4 Agustos 1856). Deavi Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.DV., Dos. No:96, Göm. No:11. 10 (23 Cemaziyelahir 1282/13 Kasım 1865). Riyaset Belgeleri. BOA. MVL. , Dos. No:483, Göm. No:50. (23 Zilhicce 1278/21 Haziran 1862 ). Vilayet Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.UM., Dos. No:573, Göm. No:56. (25 Cemaziyelahir 1280/7 Aralık 1863). Riyaset Belgeleri. BOA. MVL. Dos. No:431, Göm. No:104. 11 (18 Şevval 1275/21 Mayıs 1859). Vilayet Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.UM. No.350-21. 12 (7 Recep 1276/30 Ocak 1860). Deavi Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.DV. No.151-64. (22 Ramazan 1277/3 Nisan 1861). Deavi Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.DV. No.186-39. 13 (17 Şevval 1276/8 Mayıs 1860). Deavi Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.DV. No.157-44. 14 (29 Rebiülevvel 1268/22 Ocak 1852). Hariciye Nezareti. BOA. HR.MKT. No.42-35. 15 (8 Recep 1274/22 Şubat 1858). Deavi Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.DV. No.124-11. (11 Safer 1270/13 Kasım 1853). Hariciye Nezareti. BOA. HR.MKT., No.66-79. (22 Cemaziyelevvel 1271/10 Şubat 1855). Vilayet Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.UM. No.203-97. 16 (10 Cemaziyelevvel 1266/24 Mart 1850). Mühimme. BOA. A.MKT.MHM., No.754-14. (11 Cemaziyelahir 1271/1 Mart 1855). Mühimme. BOA. A.MKT.MHM., No.66-33. (27 Safer 1270/29 Kasım 1853). Hariciye Nezareti. BOA. HR.MKT., No.67-74. 17 (5 Ramazan 1277/17 Mart 1861). Deavi Yazışmaları. BOA. A.MKT.DV., No.185-43. (08 Cemaziyelevvel 1277/22 Kasım 1860). Sadaret Mektubi. BOA. A.MKT., No.176-8. Cities, nations and regions in planning history interregional cotton trade, had a very large network. Cotton and wool traders in Kayseri took raw cotton from Adana, an important agricultural region in the southeast, and provided it to the yarn production centers of Northern Anatolia – Malatya, Sivas, Yozgat, Nevsehir, Tokat, Amasya, Vezirköprü, , , Zile and Samsun (Quataert 1999). In the 1850s, the merchants in Kayseri provided raw cotton, cotton yarn and imported dye to Tokat, one of the significant cotton manufacturing centers in Northern Anatolia (Quataert 1999). Additionally, they organized the production of cotton and wool yarns and also cloth. Although the traders tried to compete with the use of imported English machine-spun yarn (Quataert 1999), its web of provincial and regional scaled trade network that embraced much of central Anatolia and spread from the Mediterranean to the lasted up to 1865 (Çöteli 2011). Nevertheless, the network coordinated by the merchants of Kayseri resisted the production of textiles using imported yarns after the 1870s (Çöteli 2011).

CONCLUSION It is clear that the influence of the Western powers on the Ottoman Empire promoted changes in the Ottoman Empire. The results demonstrate that there were also regional differences in Ottoman foreign trade activities. Western Anatolia came into existence with a significant amount of international trade volume. Izmir, the main port of Western Anatolia, was in a privileged position where because it was there thet the sea routes, railroads and caravan roads of trade overlapped. Because of its successful communication networks, socioeconomic development and population, Izmir rose to the top level in the Anatolian urban network during the 19th century. The ports of Anatolia, except for Izmir, generally worked in regional trade inside the Empire until the nineteenth century. By then, they were used predominantly in import trade. On the other hand, regional trade was a more essential business activity than international trade in the northern and southern parts of Anatolia. The other main findings of our study is that the city of Kayseri, a medium-sized Central Anatolian city, was able to cope with the rapid changes in the commercial, logistic and strategic network through its web of provincial and regional scaled trade networks. Kayseri was successful in selling specialized commodities to other cities distant from the capital of the Empire. In order to compete with the cities located in the international trade networks, Kayseri built a sub-network in Anatolia, through their regional and provincial trade practices comprising a region which included the cities of Ankara, Sivas, Yozgat, Tokat, Amasya, Merzifon, Kastamonu, Tosya, Danişmend, Samsun, Mersin, Tarsus, Adana, Urfa, Mosul, Bağdad, Aleppo, Kilis, Karahisar-ı Şarki, Erzurum, Darende, Eğin, Gürün, Arapkir, Malatya, Harput, Bor, Uluborlu, Kırkağaç, Saruhan, Karaman and Konya. This study showed that the Anatolian urban network emerged from nested sub- networks namely the web of Kayseri, Diyarbakir, etc. which competed with international foreign traders’ networks. These results provide general support to the view that a city cannot exist unless it interacts with other towns and cities in its surrounding area; it also indicates that an urban network is a spatial organization of interacting cities that show complementarity and exchange on a commodity-chain. This study provides a starting-point for further research in the categorization of sub- 1 5 th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HI STORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

networks according to raw materials, end-products etc. (Diyarbakir sub-network: a shining example of cotton commodity-chain) in the Anatolian urban network.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank Zekiye Yenen, Professor in Yıldız Technical University and the supervisor of the author’s dissertation thesis, for significant comments on the paper’s abstract.

REFERENCES İslamoğlu-İnan, H. “Introduction: "Oriental Despotism" in World-System Perspective”. In: İslamoğlu-İnan H, editor. The Ottoman Empire and the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987, 1-24. Wallerstein, I. The Modern World-System, I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press, 1974. Wallerstein, I. and Kasaba, R. Incorporation into the world-economy: change in the structure of the Ottoman Empire, 1750-1839: Fernand Braudel Center for the Study of Economies, Historical Systems, and Civilizations, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1980. Wallerstein, I., Decdeli, H. and Kasaba, R., “The Incorporation of the Ottoman Empire into the World-Economy” IN İslamoğlu-İnan H. (edit). The Ottoman Empire and the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987, 88-97. Pamuk, Ş., The Ottoman Empire and European Capitalism, 1820-1913 : Trade, Investment, and Production. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Çızakça, M. Incorporation of the Middle East into the European World-Economy. Review. Vol. 8, No. 3, 1985, 353-77. Çızakca, M. “Price History and the Bursa Silk Industry: A Study in Ottoman Industrial Decline, 1550-1650”. Journal of Economic History. Vol. 40, No. 3, 1980. Quataert, D., “The Age of Reforms, 1812-1914” IN İnalcık H. and Quataert D, editor. Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1994. p. 761-932. Owen, E. R. The Middle East in the World Economy: 1800-1914. London: I.B. Tauris, 1993. Pumain, D. “Modelling Emergence Processes in Human and Social Sciences. 2010” [cited 02.08.2010]; Available from: http://www.science- inter.com/EmergencePumainfr.doc. Cities, nations and regions in planning history

Özveren, Y. E. The Making and Unmaking of an Ottoman Port City: Nineteenth Century Beirut, its Hinterland and the World Economy, Binghamton: PhD thesis, State University of New York, 1990. Issawi, C. P. The Economic History of Turkey: 1800-1914. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Bailey, F. E. British Policy and the Turkish Reform Movement, A Study in Anglo – Turkish Relations, 1826-1853. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press; H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1942. Diyarbakır Vilâyeti Salnamesi. Diyarbakır: Matbaa-yı Vilâyet; H.1321/M.1903. Shields, S. D. Regional Trade and 19th-Century Mosul: Revising the Role of Europe in the Middle East Economy. International Journal of Middle East Studies. Vol. 23, No. 1, 1991, 19-37. Öztürk, S. “Kayseri ve Çevresinin Sosyo-Ekonomik Tarihi İçin Önemli Bir Kaynak: Karaman Ahkam Defterleri” IN Aktan A, Tosun R, Öztürk A, (edits.) III Kayseri ve Yöresi Tarih Sempozyumu Bildirileri (6-7 Nisan 2000). Kayseri: Erciyes Üniversitesi Kayseri ve Yöresi Tarih Araştırmaları Merkezi Yayınları, 4; 2000, 401-14. Jennings, RC. “Loans and Credit in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri”. JESHO. Vol. 16, 1973, 168-216. Quataert, D. Sanayi Devrimi Çağında Osmanlı İmalat Sektörü. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1999. Çöteli, M. G. 19. Yüzyıl Anadolu Şehirsel Ağında Hinterland İlişkileri, Kayseri Örneği. İstanbul: PhD thesis, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, 2011.