¹ Orhonlu, Cengiz and Turgut, Işiksal, “Osmanli Devrinde Nehir Nakliyati Hakkinda Aratirmalar: Dicle ye Firat Nehirlerinde Nakliyat” Tarih Dergisi, 13, 17–18 (1962–1963), 77–102;Google ScholarOrhonlu, Cengiz, “Osmanh Türkleri Devrinde lstanbul'da Kayikçilik ve Kayik İṣletmeciliĝi,” Tarih Dergisi, 16, 21 (1966), 109–134;Google Scholaridem, Osmanli Imparatorluğunda Derbend Teşkilau, Iü Edebiyat Fakflltesi Yayinlari, 1209 (İistanbul, 1967);Google Scholaridem, “Gemicilik,” Türkiyat Mecmuas, 15 (1968), 157–169;Google Scholaridem, “Mesleki Bir Teşekkül Olarak Kaldirimcilik ve Osmanli İSehir Yollari Hakkinda Bazi Düşünceler,” Guuml;ney-Doğu Avrupa Araşt rmalar, Dergisi, 1 (1972), 93–138.Google Scholar

² Yücel, Ouml;zkaya, “XVIII Yüzyilda Menzilhane Sorunu,” Aü Dil Tarih Coğrafya Faküliesi Dergisi, 28, 3–4 (1970), 339–368;Google ScholarYusuf, Halaçolu, “Osmanli Imparatorluğu'nda Menzil Teşkilati Hakkinda Bazi Mülahazalar,” Osmanh Araşg rmalart- The Journal of Ottoman Studies, 2 (1981), 123–132;Google ScholarColin, J. Heywood, “Some Turkish Archival Sources for the History of the Menzilhane Network in Rumeli during the Eighteenth Century (Notes and Documents on the Ottoman Ulak I),” Boğaziçi üniversilesi Dergisi, 4–5 (1976–1977), 39–56;Google Scholaridem, “The Ottoman Menzilhane and Ulak System in Rumeli in the 18th Century,” Türkiye'nin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Tarihi (1071–1920)… Okyar, Osman and Inalcik, Halil, eds. (Ankara, 1980), pp. 179–186.Google Scholar

³ Orhonlu, , Derbend, p. 76 and elsewhere.Google Scholar For a discussion of Ottoman policies concerning the safety of trade routes compare also Mustafa, Akdağ, Celali Isyaniart, Aü.Dil ve Tarih Coğrafya Fakütesi Yayinlart No. 144 (Ankara, 1963), pp. 68 ff.,Google Scholar and Steensgaard, Niels, The Asian TradeRevolution of the Seventeenth Century: The East India Companies and the Decline of the Caravan Trade (Chicago and London, 1974), pp. 60 ff.Google Scholar

⁴ Xavier, de Phanhol, “Le boeuf porteur dans le Proche-Orient et l'Afrique du Nord,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, (hereafter JESHO), 12, 3 (1969), 298–321.Google Scholar

⁵ Xavier, de Planhol, De la plaine pamphylienne aux lacs pisidiens, nomadisme et vie paysanne, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique de l'lnstitut Français d'Archéologie d'lstanbul (Paris, 1958), pp. 167 ff.Google Scholar

⁶ Ortayli, IIber, “Devenin Taşima Maliyeti Eğrisi üzerine Bir Deneme,” Siyasal Bilgiler Fakuuml;ltesi Dergisi, 28, 1–2 (1973), 181–190.Google Scholar

⁷ Richard, W. Bulliet, The Camel and the Wheel (Cambridge, Mass., 1975).Google Scholar For camel transportation in antiquity compare Walz, Reinhard, “Zum Problem des Zeitpunkts der Domestikation der altweltlichen Camehiden,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 101 (1951), 29–51;Google Scholaridem, “Neue Untersuchungen zum Domestikationsproblem der altweltlichen Cameliden,” Zeitschrtfi der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 109 (1954), 45–87;Google ScholarÉmihienne, Demougeot, “Le chameau et I'Afrique du Nord romaine,” Annales économies Sociétés Civilizations, 15, 2 (1960), 209–247;Google ScholarForbes, R. J., Studies in Ancient Technology, 2d ed., Vol. II (Leiden, 1965), 193–213.Google Scholar

⁸ Erder, Leila and Faroqhi, Suraiya, “The Development of the Anatolian Urban Network during the Sixteenth Century,” JESHO, 23, 3 (1980), 265–303.Google Scholar On the importance of caravans in nineteenthcentury lzmir, see Panzac, Daniel, “La peste à Smyrne au Xvlll^e siécle,” Annales économies Sociétés. Civilizations, 28, 4 (1973), 1071–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Jirecek, Constantin, Die Heersirasse von Beigrad nach Constantinopel und die Balkanpässe, Eine hisiorisch-geographische Studie (Prague, 1877).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Compare, however, the accounts of camels and camel raising by Ogier, Ghiselin de Busbecq, The Turkish Letters of.…, Edward, Seymour Foster, trans. and ed. (Oxford, 1968), pp. 108 ff.;Google ScholarJean, Baptiste Tavernier. Les six voyages de Jean Baptiste Tavernier en Turquie, en Perse et aux Indes (Paris, after 1679), pp. 129 ff.Google Scholar On wagons compare: Hans Dernschwam's Tagebuch einer Reise nach Konstanlinopel und Kleinasien (1553/55), Babinger, Franz, ed. (Munich and Leipzig, 1923), p. 184.Google Scholar

¹¹ For a document concerning the Atçeken, compare Ibrahim, Hakki Konyali, Abideleri ve Kirabeleri ile Niğ Aksaray Tarihi (3 vols.; Istanbul, 1974), 1, 741 ff.Google Scholar

¹² Başbakanlik, Arşivi, Mühimme deflerleri (hereafter MD), 24, p. 311, no. 841 (982/1574–5).Google Scholar

¹³ Ankara, Etnoğrafya Müzesi, Ankara kadi sicilleri 7 (hereafter AKS) 5, p. 204, no. 834, p. 211, no. 866, p. 216, no. 884.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ortayli, Devenin, pp. 186–188; Tavernier, , Les six voyages, p. 19.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Compare, Suraiya Faroqhi, “Alum Production and Alum Trade in the Ottoman Empire (about 1560–1830),” Wiener Zeitschrfr für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 71 (1979), 167.Google Scholar

¹⁶ On sürsat and nüzul, see Lütfi, Güçer, XVI–XVII Astrlarda Osmanli Imparatorluğunda Hububat Meselesi ye Hububattan Alinan Vergiler, lü. Yayinlarindan no. 1075, İktisat Fakültesi no. 152, (Istanbul, 1964), pp. 67–114.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Compare in this context Nejat, Göyünç, “Eski Malatya'da Silahdar Mustafa Paşa Hani,” Iü Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Araştirmalari Dergisi, 1 (1970), 83. In an oral communication, Professor Göyünç has stressed that accommodation for large numbers of camels was always provided in hans newly constructed during the seventeenth century.Google Scholar

¹⁸ MD 21, p. 128, no. 311 (980/1572–3).

¹⁹ Concerning mübayaa, compare the section on iṣtira in Güçer, , Hububat, pp. 115–137,Google Scholar and also Svoronos, N., Le commerce de Salonique au XVIIIième siècle (Paris, 1956), pp. 398–399.Google Scholar

²⁰ MD 21, p. 121, no. 296 (980/1572–3).

²¹ Ankara Etnoğrafya Müzesi Kayseri kadi sicilleri (hereafter KKS), 101, pp. 53, 142, 153, 170 (1106/1594–5).

²² MD 21, p. 192, no. 464 (980/1572–3). Akdağmadeni is located between Sivas and Yozgat, and in the sixteenth century formed part of the sancak of Bozok.

²³ KKS 101, p. 53.

²⁴ KKS 99, p. 72.

²⁵ MD 21, p. 121, no. 296 (980/1572–3).

²⁶ For this manner of financing the upkeep of camels belonging to the state compare Ongan, Halit, Ankara'nin İki Numarali, Seriye Sicili …, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan XIV, 4 (Ankara, 1974), pp. 95–96.Google Scholar

²⁷ KKS 101, p. 142.

²⁸ Baṣbakanlik, Arṣivi, Istanbul, Maliyeden müdevver (hereafter MM), 9841, p. 13.Google Scholar For the equivalents of the kile and kantar see Hinz, Walther, Islamische Masse und Gewichte: Umgerechnet ins metrische System. Handbuch, der Orientalistik, Erg., band I, Spuler, I Berthold, ed. (Leipzig, 1955), pp. 24 f. and 41 f.Google Scholar

²⁹ Mr. Muammer Kurṣuncu, during World War II lieutenant in the Erzak Kolu of the Turkish army and as such in charge of camels, informs me that in the nineteen forties a katar consisted of 6 camels. For a katar of 7 camels, compare Tavernier, Les six voyages, p. 122.

³⁰ Turkish army camels during World War II were fed less barley, only 2 kg a day. On the other hand, they were given as much hay or straw as they would eat. In order to make the camel units easier to maneuver, during World War II the animals were deliberately given very light loads (100 kg for females, 125 kg for males). In the seventeenth century, on the other hand, camels were sometimes expected to carry up to 200 kg. This difference in loading practice may also partly account for the lower barley rations of the nineteen forties.

³¹ On akçe and guruş during those years compare Halil, Sahillioğlu, “XVII Asrin İlk Yarisinda Istanbul'da Tedavüldeki Sikkelerin Raici,” Belgeler, I, 2 (1964), 228–233,Google Scholar and idem, “Osmanli Para Tarihinde Dunya Para ye Maden Hareketlerinin Yeri (1300–1750),” Türkiye İktisat Tarihi üzerine Araṣtirmalar (Geliṣme Dergisi, 1978 special issue), 36–37. Since no document could be located which gives the rate of exchange guruṣ/akçe for 1065/1654–5, the figure for 1050/1640–1 given by Sahillioğlu has tentatively been used. Part of the discrepancy mentioned above must have been caused by this approximation. Moreover, exchange rates as applied in the provinces sometimes differed appreciably from those recorded in the capital (in 1654–5, payments were made by the defterdar of Tokat).Google Scholar

³² Güçer, , Hububat, pp. 69–92.Google Scholar

³³ MD 27, p. 198, no. 455 (983/1575–6).

³⁴ MD 73, p. 212, no. 494 (1003/1594–5).

³⁵ Ibid., p. 325, no. 718 (998/1589–90). It seems surprising that the camels should have spent the winter and not the summer in the uplands of central Anatolia, but they were probably on their way to or from Syria.

³⁶ MD 71. p. 65, no. 133 (1002/1593–4).

³⁷ MM 9841, p. 107 (1065/1654–5). Compare also MM 7527, p. 36, and Tavernier, , Les six voyages, pp. 131–133.Google Scholar According to Mr. Kurṣuncu, the same treatment was applied to Turkisḥ arṃy camels. See also MD 24, p. 180, no. 483 (981/1573–4). For equivalents: Hinz, , Islamiche Masse, pp. 5, 24.Google Scholar

³⁸ MD 24, p. 196, no. 522 (981/1573–4). Karak was probably not considered a sancak for long, in 1595–6, the area was divided into two nahiyes forming part of the sancak of Aclun. Compare Wolf Hütteroth, D. and Abdulfattah, Kamal, Historical Geography of Palestine. Transjordan and Southern Syria in the late 16th Century (Erlangen, 1977), pp. 171 ff.Google Scholar

³⁹ Güçer, , Hububat, p. 32.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid., pp. 80–81.

⁴¹ ömer, Lütfi Barkan, “The Price Revolution of the Sixteenth Century: A Turning Point in the Economic History of the Near East,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 6 (1975), 3–28.Google Scholar

⁴² Busbecq, de, Letters, p. 47.Google Scholar

⁴³ MD 21, p. 160, no. 391 (980/1572–3). For the wagons of the Nogai Tatars, see Tavernier, , Les six voyages. p. 386.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Dernschwam, , Konstantinopel, p. 184.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Tavernier, , Les six voyages, p. 120.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ MD 24, p. 201, no. 533 (981/1573–4).

⁴⁷ Braudel, Fernand, Civilization matérielle. économie et Capitalisme, XV^e-XVIII^e siècle, vol. II, Les jeux de l'échange (Paris, 1979), p. 133.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ MD 28, p. 379, no. 984 (984/1576–7).

⁴⁹ MD 24, p. 17, no. 48 (981/1573–4).

⁵⁰ MD 21, p. 511, no. 214 (980/1572–3).

⁵¹ MD 5, p. 557, no. 1530 (973/1565–6).

⁵² Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü (Ankara), Kadime, Kuyudu, no. 60, p. 213 a (977/1569–70).Google Scholar

⁵³ Compare for instance MD 71, p. 48, no. 99 (1001/1592–3).

⁵⁴ MD 71, p. 403, no. 754 (1002/1593–4).

⁵⁵ MD 21, p. 327, no. 772 (981/ 1573–4).

⁵⁶ MD 71, p. 139, no. 274 (1002/1593–4), and p. 92, no. 192 (1002/1593–4).

⁵⁷ Dernschwam, , Konstantinopel, p. 238.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Compare Tayyib, Gökbilgin, XV–XVI, Asirlarda Edirne ve Paṣa Livasi, Vakiflar Mülkler Mukataalar, Iü. Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayinlarindan no. 508, (Istanbul, 1952), pp. 308, 536.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ MD 21, p. 7, no. 36 (980/1572–3).

⁶⁰ MD 71, p. 412, no. 772 (1001/1592–3).

⁶¹ MD 24, p. 287, no. 779 (982/1574–5).

⁶² MM 7527, p. 55 (1055/1645–6).

⁶³ Such roads did not necessarily have to be very elaborate. See in this context the remark by Gertrude, L. Bell, Amurath to Amurath (London, 1911), p. 344.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Braudel, , Civilization matérielle, II, 306.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ For the price of camel transportation as reported by European observers, see Steensgaard, , Asian Trade, p. 31 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Concerning the interaction of this sphere with the market, compare Steensgaard, , Asian Trade, pp. 111–113.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ On the yürük of Rumeli compare Tayyib, Gökbilgin, Rumeli'de Yürükler, Tatarlar ve Evlad-i Fatihan, Iü Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayinlarindan no. 748 (Istanbul, 1957), pp. 1–52.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ For gun carriages sent from Bağdad to Lahsa (Bahrein) compare MD 28, p. 175, no. 407 (984/1576–7). However, it is likely that in this case the carriages were sent by boat. Tavernier, , Les six voyages, p. 146, refers to a stabilized road on which he traveled part of the way between Iskenderun and Aleppo, and which had been built to facilitate the transportation of cannons and ammunition to Bağdad and Basra.Google Scholar