1 Introduction
This chapter deals with the case of the Ottoman port of Chania, Crete, in the nineteenth century, a so far unexplored maritime community dominated by the Muslim element of the port population. The main focus is twofold: firstly, to highlight the role and function of the port of Chania in comparison with other big ports of Crete (Heraklion, Suda) within the economy of the Ottoman Empire, and in the south-eastern Mediterranean during the transition from sail to steam navigation in the second half of the nineteenth century. Secondly, to analyse the effects of improvements in navigation through the use of steam, for local communities, whose economic and everyday life was tightly connected with the port. More specifically, the chapter explores how the two largest communities of the city of Chania, those of Christians and Muslims (though there was also a small Jewish presence), were affected by the changes that were brought about by the use of steamships in commerce and shipping.
In general, there are several scholarly works on Ottoman ports, however, the emphasis is typically on the urban space of the most important ports of the Ottoman Empire, like Thessaloniki, Smyrna, and Alexandria, and their transformation (including the effects on port communities).1 Some researchers focus on “cosmopolitanism” as a means of indicating co-existence at these port-cities.2 However, there have been some recent works that focus on a more economic approach to port cities, emphasising commercial and shipping activities.3 Furthermore, the topic of human labour in Ottoman studies is rarely explored, but in recent years there has been an effort to re-evaluate this topic.4 There are even fewer works focusing on maritime labour, in particular, sailors and dockworkers.5
Maritime labour on the island of Crete, and specifically the port city of Chania, has not been widely examined thus far. Some research has focused on the economy of Crete, with reference to ports, commerce, and shipping, but concentrating mainly, on the early modern period.6 There are also some works on the commercial activities of the communities of Heraklion (Ott. Kandiye) during the early modern period.7 The focus during this research is on the port city of Heraklion (as it was the capital of the island until the nineteenth century), where a concentrated group of military households of janissaries resided, engaging in commerce and shipping.8 These janissaries and other Cretan Muslim merchants developed commercial activities among them was well as with French shipowners.9 The dominance of Muslims in the ship owning of Heraklion is also attested by sources from 1751, pointing out that the greatest percentage of ship owners were Muslims, while captains were Christians.10
The only recent research focusing on Cretan ports is that of Perakis, who considers the advent of steam navigation at the ports during the final part of the long nineteenth century.11 In his article, Perakis addresses the impact of steam navigation on the commerce of the ports, however, he did not examine the effects of this transition on the lives of the port communities, that is, merchants, shipowners, sailors, and dockworkers. By focusing on the port of Chania, this chapter will endeavour to shed light on this aspect that has often been overlooked in the past.
2 The Port of Chania (Ott. Hanya) and Its Role in the Nineteenth Century
2.1 The First Steamship Connections of Crete
From the late eighteenth century, the port of Chania in western Crete held a primary role in the island’s trade with western Europe, including integration into the international economy. Chania connected Crete to the market of Marseilles through the export of olive oil and soap for the emerging industries of France at that time.12 In eighteenth-century Crete, the transport of olive oil and other products were mostly performed by French ships as part of the caravane maritime; these were chartered by Muslim and non-Muslim merchants on the island.13 However, there were also local Muslim ship owners, who together with Greek orthodox captains, mostly engaged in the internal commerce of the empire.14
Almost all of the Ottoman ports in that period were integrated into the international economy via the export of a diverse range of products—in many cases raw materials—for the newly advanced industries of western Europe. In return, the empire was also importing manufactured goods, mostly from Britain and France. This economic pattern led to the stabilisation of free trade between the Ottoman and British Empire, through the Anglo-Ottoman Treaty of Baltan Liman in 1838. This accord removed all restrictions on the exportation of products previously imposed upon Ottoman trade by the Sublime Porte.15 Among the key ports of the eastern Mediterranean that experienced considerable demographic and economic growth were Smyrna, Thessaloniki, Alexandria, and of course Istanbul, the Ottoman capital.16 Prior to the first half of the nineteenth century, Chania became the seat of political authority in Crete, while the port became the centre of commercial activity on the island, experiencing steady demographic growth, along with the rest of Crete.17
Steam navigation, as a technological development of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, affected the manner in which sea transportation was taking place. Although the transformation from sail to steam was a slow process, due to the fact that sailing ships remained dominant in maritime transport, while steamship investment was a costly endeavour, gradually the advantages of steam navigation became clear. Trade became faster and safer, and the amounts of products being shipped increased, and trips became more regular.18 Of course, this new reality also affected the human factor on board, as incrementally, steamships encouraged the division and specialisation of labour, adding specialties like those of fireman and engineer, which did not exist on sail ships.19
In the case of Crete, Chania was already a nodal point for steam navigation from the 1830s, in the itineraries of the Austrian Lloyd Steam Navigation Company, between Syros and Alexandria in Egypt.20 It seems that Crete was seen as an important hub in trade routes between Europe and Asia.21 At that time, the government made capital investments to improve Cretan ports, focusing on the port of Chania.22 As Perakis has demonstrated, the subsequent decades were crucial for the transition from sail to steam, and the effects on the economy of the island. At first, it was connected with Trieste and Alexandria by the liner steamships of Austrian Lloyd, which soon connected Crete with Syros, transferring passengers, mail, and some products.23 Post 1858, the Hellenic Steam Navigation Company was included on the Syros-Crete route, creating antagonism between the two companies.24 After the 1880s, the connections between Crete and other ports were complemented by the participation of more steamship companies, for example, Ottoman Kurci, and Idare-i Mahsusa. During the period of the Autonomous State of Kritiki Politeia (1898–1913) on the island, connections by Ottoman companies were replaced by Greek companies, while new links also emerged, such as with the Russian Steam Navigation and Trading Company, connecting the port of Suda with Egypt.25
2.2 Steamships and Sailing Ships at Cretan Ports
In 1869, in both the ports of Chania and Suda,26 steamship arrivals numbered 118, and sailing ships numbered 651, while the total tonnage was balanced at: 56,176 and 59,742 tons respectively. In the same year, at the port of Heraklion, steamship arrivals numbered 98 (44,883 tonnage), while sailing ships numbered 449 (23,247 tonnage). The flag that prevailed was firstly Ottoman, secondly Greek, and thirdly Austrian.27 After the 1880s, the appearance of steamships in Cretan ports became more constant and their tonnage outnumbered that of sailing ships. For example, in 1885, the British consul recorded 828 sailing ships of 24,250 tons arriving in the port of Chania,28 and 233 steamships of 107,268 tons. In the same year, in the port of Heraklion, 1,112 sailing ships arrived with 27,365 tonnage, while steamships numbered 228 of 101,942 tons. It is evident that the total tonnage of steamships was already significant from the 1880s, and increased through the years.29 It seems that this predominance of steamships in total tonnage was a general trend in almost all the Ottoman ports in 1892–93.30
In 1897–98, in the total volume of shipping in Ottoman waters, sailing ships amounted to 6.37% while steamships were 93.63% of the total tonnage. In the case of the Ottoman ports of the Mediterranean, of the Aegean, and of the Red Sea, Ottoman sailing ships amounted to 78.96% of the total tonnage, while foreign steamships were 84.21% of the total tonnage of the steamships arriving to these ports. It seems that sailing ships continued to deal with the internal commerce of the empire, despite the appearance of steamships that dominated long-distance trade.31
An 1892 source provides information concerning the connections of the port, and the transportation of various goods. It seems that local sailing ships from Chania were sailing mainly towards North Africa (Libya), while steamships were primarily visiting key Ottoman ports following Chania.32 However, it is reasonable to assume that local sailing ships, North African destinations apart, must have connected also to Cretan ports.
The appearance of steamships in Cretan ports was growing, and this can be demonstrated by twice the number of steamships counted at the port of Chania in 1905 (503), in comparison to 1885 (233). Simultaneously, the total tonnage of steamships increased even more markedly, reaching 447,115 tons, while in 1885 it was only 107,268 tons. The predominance of steamships is also evident by examining the number of sailing ships. In 1905, numbers sharply decreased, with only 271 sailing ships docking in the port of Chania, while twenty years earlier, 828 sailing ships had docked.
Aspect of the port of Chania with sailing ships between 1886 to 1901
Source: Historical Archive of Crete, Chania
If consideration is given to the transportation connections of the port of Chania, these would involve the main Ottoman ports (Smyrna, Thessaloniki, Istanbul), and Greek ports, like Syros, and those in the Adriatic Sea (Trieste). The main flags entering Cretan ports up until the end of the nineteenth century were Ottoman, Greek, and Austro-Hungarian respectively. For imports, until the 1850s, products were sourced through ports based in the eastern Mediterranean, while subsequently, western and central Mediterranean ports became more dominant. Similarly, for exports, where in the 1850s the main ports were Ottoman, by the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, western and central European ports increased sharply.33
2.3 Problems in Port Infrastructure and the Role of the Port of Suda
One of the key issues that hindered the further development of Chania, and other Cretan ports, was infrastructure. The estimations of the size of ships that could enter the port of Chania varied from 100 to 300 tons in 1837.34 During that period, Austrian Lloyd, following an agreement with Crete, decided to dispatch smaller steamships in order to enter the port.35 In the case of Chania, the three most important issues were size, depth, and winds at the entrance to the port. One of the first responses from the central Ottoman state was an attempt to clean the port (which often filled with sand from the northern winds) in order to facilitate larger steamships. This order was issued for the three larger ports of Crete, Chania, Heraklion, and Rethymnon.36 In general, the initial pressure for infrastructure work at ports (in any location) was usually from shipping companies, who carried mail, passengers, and light cargo.37
Port problems were also evident among the press. In an article from 13 November 1882, it was argued that Crete could have been a superior commercial centre due to the geographical position of the island. However, the lack of infrastructure meant the relegation of Cretan ports, and an increase in the cost of shipping for various products. The journalist gives the example of Izmir and Patras, and proposes an extra tax burden on the population of the island so that port infrastructure be repaired.38 During the year in question, foreign merchants refused to pay taxes that were due for infrastructure works—this caused a budget gap for repair funding at Chania quay.39 These problems increased sailing ship freight, simply as a result of a lack of safety for steamships given the difficulty of approaching the port. Unfortunately, shipwrecks occurred frequently.40
Besides these issues, the road network of Crete was also problematic, and the absence of railways caused the local population to transfer goods to smaller ports with small sailing ships.41 In the 1880s, Austrian Lloyd began to deal with coastal shipping in Crete, while in the 1890s, foreign companies operated together with local investors, such as Cretan businessman Alepoudelis-Sfakianakis who bought two steamships and operated along the Cretan coast on a weekly basis.42 From indications in the local press referencing shipwrecks of small vessels at the beginning of the century, the study can assume that small sailing ships coexisted alongside steamships, either foreign or local, carrying products during times when steamships could not reach Cretan ports.43
However, it seems that the need for infrastructure work was widespread in order to keep up with technological changes.44 The increase in the volume of trade illustrates the need for the construction of safer ports along with a railway system.45 In the case of the Ottoman Empire, industrialisation and technological change appeared in a period when the state faced serious financial problems following large expenditure during the Crimean War. The outcome was the establishment of the Ottoman Public Debt Administration for the control of debt owed to western European powers.46 In this way, investment in port facilities and railways was expedited by an influx of foreign capital into the Ottoman economy. German businessmen were in charge of the railways in the inner Ottoman territories, and French businessmen were in charge of reforming the old and suffering ports of the empire.47 In the case of Smyrna, the infrastructure works at the port commenced in the 1860s, while in the port of Thessaloniki, the works started in the 1880s.48 In the case of Crete, the inability to invest in infrastructure works was a consequence of the financial situation in Crete, alongside the internal political turmoil apparent in the second half of the nineteenth century.49
The problems at other Cretan ports increased the importance of the port of Suda. Already from the 1860s, Suda appeared as a natural port that could replace Chania and Heraklion as the main port of Crete, although it was only used as a port for emergencies in bad weather conditions.50 The port of Suda in 1872 had its own custom office and some storage rooms, which assisted the commercial role. It also continued to remain as a naval base.51 The commercial interests of merchants at other ports, along with Suda usage as a naval base, were the basic obstacles to the transformation of Suda into the main port of Crete.52 A further problem was the insufficient internal road network, and the associated transportation costs; there were suggestions for construction of a railway, but this never managed to materialise.53
View of the port of Chania from the Venetian Arsenal, 1919
Source: Frederic Daniel Boissonnas Baud-Bovy. Des Cyclades en Crète au gré du vent, Geneva, Boissonnas & Co, 1919
The use of Suda assisted the trade of western Crete as it facilitated commerce with specific areas like southern Russia. In 1910, only one Russian steamship arrived at the port of Chania, while in the same year 23 Russian steamships arrived at Suda. One year earlier, in the records of both Chania and Suda, Russian steamships numbered 29.54 In 1909, the port of Chania and Suda together had 43% of the import trade of Crete, while the same amount flowed through the port of Heraklion. As far as exports are concerned, 40% came through the port of Heraklion, while 28% went through the ports of Chania and Suda.55 Although Suda did not replace Chania as the main port of Crete, it started to work as a supplementary port, assisting the commercial activities of Chania, which continued to face problems with infrastructure.56
3 The Communities of Crete and the Investment in Trade and Shipping during the Transition from Sail to Steam Navigation
3.1 The Demographics of Occupations Related to the Sea
Ports were not the only sectors that were impacted by the introduction of safer and faster steam navigation. It also had an impact on people, whose occupations were strongly attached to the economy of the port. More specifically, the term “maritime communities” refers to the people whose financial activities were closely related to the sea, and their survival depended upon it, such as shipping, shipping-related industries, and fishing.57
In the case of Crete, the political situation on the island during the nineteenth century also affected the share of occupations, and the economic activities of the communities on the island.58 The political situation, and the continuous conflicts between the two large communities (Christian and Muslim), negatively affected the demographic position in Crete, and forced the Muslim population to reside in cities, thus relying on urban occupations. Simultaneously, the majority of Christians resided in the rural areas of Crete. Following the Greek War of Independence (1821), and subsequent impact on Crete, a large contingent of local agas departed Crete in order to reside in other parts of the Ottoman Empire—this phenomenon helped Christians acquire aga properties. When some of those Muslims returned some years later, they decided to work in urban occupations in city centres.59
Information on the occupations of Cretan communities were found in official sources, for example, censuses, however, it is not abundant.60 The first source of such information, which related to employment at sea comes from 1813, and an estimation of the French traveller François Pouqueville. He records 2,300 sailors in Crete, which is most likely an exaggeration. At the same time, he numbers 5,400 seamen in Spetses, 2,700 sailors in Hydra, and 4, 400 sailors in Psara; all important maritime communities of the period.61 The second important source for this issue is a report by the American diplomat Edmund Flagg, who provides the following information for Crete: in 1852, there were 146 merchant ships with 653 crew members.62 The study can observe that the difference in numbers is enormous, in comparison with the Pouqueville report. In addition, Flagg estimates 166 fishermen out of the 653 total; it is unclear whether these fishermen worked occasionally as sailors. According to information from the census of 1857, the total number of residents in Crete was 280,000, and in the case of the city of Chania the population was 7,655.63 The research can observe that seamen were a small part of Crete’s population at this time. However, it may be that this information is related only to sailors working on ships, and not those who were unemployed ashore.
In relation to the origin of sailors, the study found that the majority were Cretan natives, while a small percentage were Africans; for example, 25 sailors at Chania and 24 at Heraklion were of Arabic origin. In the report by the Giornale del Lloyd Austriaco in 1845, there is a reference that indicates that most sailors in Crete were Cretan Muslims, while some were of African and Aegean Islands Christian origin.64 The Africans mentioned (in the two relevant sources) are probably those known as Chalikoutes, of North African origin (Libya or Sudan), who were transferred as slaves in the period of Mehmet Ali (1830–40) to work in new public works commenced by the state.65 It is reasonable to suppose that some of them, residing in urban centres, were working as sailors for local shipowners.
In 1881, Muslims on the island numbered 73,234, while Christians numbered 205,284. Only 16.3% of the total population resided in cities, out of which 71.5% were Muslims. This meant that Muslims were often involved in urban occupations and those related to the sea, for example, sailors, ship-owners, boatmen, and port workers.66 There are indications that Muslims were experienced sailors, but also important ship owners.67 In general, the occupations that dominated the urban space of Chania were those of craftsmen, merchants, and workers. In the category of sailors, of 1,183 sailors in the three big ports, 953 were Muslim, and 230 Christian.68 In the districts of Chania and Heraklion there were almost equal numbers of seamen, 365 and 369 respectively. However, if one excludes Sfakia (73 seamen), which is a village in the south of the Chania region, the city of Heraklion had a larger number of seamen, who were mostly Muslims (315 out of 365).69 The total number of sailors in the city of Chania consisted of 2.76% of the male population, while in the city of Heraklion this figure was 3.21%.70 However, it is not clear if, among the calculation of sailor numbers, whether captains, owners of small coastal vessels (kayik), and fishermen, were included. The study assumes that boatmen were included in this category.71
In the census of 1881, 6,475 workers were recorded, out of which 4,013 were Christians, and 2,432 Muslims.72 However, it should be borne in mind that in this category, the census officials included every worker and not specifically those working at the ports. The category does not refer to industrial workers, since Crete was not an industrialised region at this time. Unfortunately, the analysis cannot be sure of how many of these workers were employed at Cretan ports. However, it is known that some of the workers in the port, mostly porters, were Muslims from North Africa.73 Their case was almost unique among the Ottoman port-cities, while in larger ports like Thessaloniki, which was well known for its Jewish community, the port workers were mainly Jewish.74 In the case of Cretan merchants, it seems that both Christians and Muslims shared this occupation, with 1,956, and 1,858 respectively out of a total of 3,814. However, it can be assumed that both large and small merchants were included in this category. In 1881, Cretan olive oil merchants numbered 44: 34 were Muslim, seven were Christian, and three Jewish.75 If one observes the most important merchants (négociant) of Chania, in 1885, from 32 examples, Muslim and Christian share an equal number, while two are of foreign origin, and two of local Jewish origin.76 In 1894, from an Ottoman register of the port authorities of Rethymnon, merchants engaged in the important carob and acorn trade, in regions such as the Black Sea (Odessa, Braila), were both Muslim and Christian.77
However, in the period leading up to the beginning of the twentieth century, the percentage of Muslims on the island rapidly decreased, for example, approximately 30,000 Cretan Muslims were forced to leave following the end of the Greek-Ottoman War of 1897.78 In the census of 1900, the total number of people listed in the category of ship owners, sailors, and boatmen in Crete, numbered only 634, almost half the number compared to the census of 1881. However, this decline was probably related to the distinct categorisation of fishermen at this time. If one adds the number of the fishermen, the total number is 1,005, a slight decrease in comparison to the 1881 census. It should be noted that the municipality of Chania counted 293 sailors, Sfakia 63 sailors, and Heraklion 161 sailors. In the category of fishermen, Chania counted 211, Sfakia 22, Heraklion 79, and Rethymnon with 20. Although the decline was small, in some areas it was more evident. For example, the number of seamen at Spinaloga, Merambelo, in the eastern part of Crete in 1881 stood at 173, but reduced to seven in the next census.79 This indicates a mass departure of people involved in seafaring professions during the Muslim exodus at the end of the century. In the following years, this new reality is more evident. In the election catalogues of Chania in 1906, sailors and fishermen numbered only 56, which shows a very different picture of occupations related to the sea. The decline is more and more evident as steamships begin to acquire a more important position in transportation in Chania, and Crete more generally. The final blow for these occupations would be 1923, when the Muslim population of the island were forced to leave, and the Christian Orthodox people who arrived on the island, were mostly farmers.80
Ottoman map of the western part of Crete in the nineteenth century
Source: Historical Archive of Crete, Chania
3.2 Ship Ownership in Crete
In the eighteenth century, according to an analysis of ships registered in Heraklion, in 1751, 39 out of 48 ships belonged to Muslims, while almost all captains were of Greek Orthodox origin.81 This analysis also indicates that in Chania, in 1761, the French consul reported that the Muslims of Chania used to construct their ships in Sfakia, a well-known maritime region, and assign command to Greek orthodox captains of local origin.82 Following the insurgencies of the Greek War of Independence (1821), many Christians departed Crete for Syros, and commenced occupations related to the sea—this was due to the fact that Syros was in the process of becoming the most important maritime centre in the newly-established Greek state.83 This led to the concentration of the Crete Muslim population in the three big urban areas of the island (Chania, Rethymnon, Heraklion), and the engagement of Muslims in new occupations, among them, those related to the sea. Along with the parallel decline of Sfakia as a maritime region in the nineteenth century,84 there is evidence to suggest Muslims started to become captains of vessels.
In the nineteenth century, Cretan Muslims could be found as captains and ship owners. For example, from the tables of the Greek consulate of Chania (1858), which recorded ship arrivals at Cretan ports, it is noticeable that Ottoman ships arrived at the port of Chania. Among them, there were ships with Cretan Muslim captains, for example, the golet of Captain Ahmet Arnautakis (75 tons), and the brig of Captain Musa Arapakis (125 tons), both arrived from Alexandria carrying wheat and other products.85 It is evident that these ships were engaged in the internal commerce of the empire, transporting products to various Ottoman ports. In the merchant registers of 1866–70 there are many Cretan Muslim captains in ships like brigs connecting Crete with Alexandria. A similar situation can be found in the register of 1877–82, where information is present on Cretan Muslim captains carrying commodities between Thessaloniki and Chania, in small coastal vessels (kayik).86
Generally speaking, it is difficult to find information regarding ship ownership in Crete. The first set of information comes from the Giornale de Lloyd Austriaco from 1845.87 In this report, 106 ships were registered, with a total tonnage of 3,705, out of which, ten were brigs of approximately 75–200 tons, twenty were golets of 25–75 tons, and 76 small ships of between 10–25 tons. The research does not have information for each port, but can conclude that this includes Chania and Heraklion mainly. According to the information supplied by Edmund Flagg some years later, there were 146 ships of a total of 4,721 tons, with a total crew of 653 men.88 Out of these ships, ten brigs of 1,500 tons and 90 men, sixteen schooners of 800 tonnage and 76 men, twenty small coasters of 100 total tons and 60 men, and finally 25 fishermen boats of 20 tons with 60 men, were registered in Chania.89 This data indicates that there was an increase in larger ships, as in 1852 there were 22 brigs, while seven years earlier, only ten were recorded. As Flagg mentions, the ships were engaged with internal shipping for the empire, while eight transported fruit from Syros.90
At the same time, Flagg provides information on merchant shipping for other regions, such as the island of Hydra, which had 533 ships with a total of 19,702 tons; Piraeus, 365 ships with a total of 11,745 tons; Syros, 568 ships with a total of 83,501 tons; and finally Galaxidi, 288 ships with a total of 28,950 tons.91 It is evident that Crete, and especially Chania, were not an equivalent maritime power as those other important maritime communities of the eastern Mediterranean of the mid-nineteenth century. For the following years there is no information on the total number of merchant ships from Crete or their ship owners, apart from a reference concerning a statistical survey completed by Sultan Abdulaziz (1861–76), who counted 360 sailing ships belonging to Cretans, mostly Muslims.92 Although this testimony cannot be confirmed, it is possible that the number is exaggerated. During 1871, via British consular correspondence, there is reference to 28 small ships belonging to Cretan Muslims, suggesting a possible decline in ship ownership by the local population during the year.93
However, a clearer picture of those investing in shipping during this period comes from the sened-i bahri (maritime certificates).94 Data of around 30 cases from 1852–62 indicates that ship owners were Cretans, almost all were Muslims. The type of sailing ship present were brigs and golets, which were among the first choice for Greek shipowners at this time, but also generally across the Mediterranean, North Atlantic, and North Sea.95 In some instances, the ships were constructed in Crete (with no references provided as to where exactly), while some evidence exists of Cretan ship construction on the island of Kasos in the Dodecanese.96 Cretans also constructed brigs in Syros, which was the main shipbuilding centre of the Aegean; for example, fourteen Muslims (eight from Chania) appeared in the records between the years 1830–80.97
In most of these cases, the captain of the ship was a Cretan Muslim, while there are some fewer cases where the captain was a Christian.98 Usually the religion of the ship owner was the same as that of the captain.99 In one example, the sened-i bahri, the ownership of the ship was divided into shares (pare), a total capital of 40 shares. However, in most examples, ownership was divided into two or three shareholders. It is worth bearing in mind that in most examples, the captain owned a share of the ship, in fact, it is more than likely that captains of ships recorded by the Greek consulate, would own a share.100 There are of-course, shareholders who owned a ship outright, for example, Giridli Ibrahim Halil,101 who purchased the brig Göl Bahri (7,700 keyl; around 180 tons) from Greece.102 However, in an example from 1856, a brig (8000 keyl; 206 tons) was owned by seven Muslim shareholders.103 In this instance, it is not clear if all the Muslims were Cretan.
It also appears that in some cases one shareholder was a merchant, usually a hayriye merchant, who were Muslim merchants granted privileges from the Ottoman state during the first years of the nineteenth century—this would be in addition to Christian “merchants of Europe”.104 In the case of the sened-i bahri of the brig Yıldız (Star), constructed in Kasos in 1856, the captain and owner of a share in the ship was Emirakis Hüseyin, son of Osman from the kaza of Ierapetra in Heraklion. A further five people owned shares in the ship, among them a hayriye merchant called Mustafa Ağa from Heraklion. Another case is a golet constructed in Kasos in 1856, the captain was Hamitoglu Halil from Heraklion; it had seven shareholders. Among these shareholders was the merchant Haci Ali Efendi from Chania, who lived in Smyrna.105 There is also an example of a brig (4000 keyl—around 100 tons) from 1852, whose captain was Giridli (Cretan) Musrinogli Hüseyin.106 This ship was divided into five shares owned by the captain, fifteen shares by Giridli Ramazan Ağa, and twenty shares by a merchant from Tunis, Tunusli Haci Ali Ağa, who resided in Smyrna. These examples indicate the networks of Cretan Muslim merchants and ship owners, together with other Muslims outside Crete, and the extent of business cooperation within the Ottoman Empire. It also demonstrates that, as for the whole Mediterranean, the collaboration between merchants and ship owners was uniquely important, in order to fulfil an investment in a ship.107 Ship shareholding was a common practice in both the Ottoman Empire and Europe prior to the nineteenth century.108 However, the fact that Cretan Muslims invested smaller than anticipated shares in ships, indicates there was a lack of capital investment.
During this period, joint ship ownership was also an important characteristic in Greece, mainly because of a lack of capital, and the inherent risks of the sea. In the 1870s, a different scenario emerged with the transition from the combined profession of merchant and ship owner, to the specialisation of ship ownership.109 Unfortunately, sources are fragmentary and do not provide a stable picture of the situation. Nevertheless, in the case of Crete, it can be assumed that shareholding continued until the end of the nineteenth century. On the 24 May 1885, in the Greek-speaking newspaper Άμυνα [Defence], in Chania, a reference is made to an auction of an Ottoman flag ship, the Hüdavend, weighing 97 tons, with a Cretan captain, Ahmet Tsarkaki. The captain had a 15/40 share, a merchant from Chania, Rebeb Hacaki, had a 20/40 share, and Tusun Bey Kirkisizade (probably not a Cretan), had a small 5/40 share. The ship was sold to Ali Bey Vekilagadaki for 35,000 kuruş.
4 Conclusions
This chapter attempts to illustrate the interconnectedness of the ports of Crete, especially Chania, with the activities of local (mostly Muslim) communities in the shipping environment during the second half of the nineteenth, and the first years of the twentieth century. The paper demonstrates how the transition from sail to steam, and the new realities of the shipping industry, affected the port of Chania—and more widely, the ports of Crete—together with the lives of the local community, who were economically dependent on the function of the port.
It is clear that the port of Chania continued to attract steamships until the beginning of the twentieth century, while simultaneously, sailing ships declined, causing important changes in Cretan trade. The port of Suda operated as a supplementary port, and opened a new connection with Russia, through the Russian Steam Navigation and Trading Company. However, the basic problems with infrastructure at the port of Chania, and the disagreements regarding whether to transfer the main port of the island to Suda, created obstacles for the further development of shipping activities in Crete. While in other ports, these problems were overcome, in the case of Crete, they remained present until the inter-war period.
During the nineteenth century, the local communities of Crete were engaged in shipping activities as sailors and shipowners. There was local investment (mainly by Muslim investors) in popular ship types, for example, brigs and golets, transferring goods for the internal commerce of the empire, while also transferring goods from Syros, in order to be subsequently exported to western Europe. It can be assumed that gradually, investment and general engagement in shipping declined due to specific reasons. Firstly, the emergence of steamships (mainly foreign), which connected the ports of Crete with foreign ports, but also with those of the Ottoman Empire (in which routes the Cretan ships were operating). Gradually, the presence of sailing ships declined. Simultaneously, internal political conflicts between the Christian and Muslim population of the island created a period of transition into a new political reality—that of an autonomous state, and eventually to the union of the island with the Greek state—which affected the demographics of the local population, forcing some of the Muslim population to leave. This also created a difficult financial situation for the local Muslim population in Chania and in Crete generally, affecting, as a result, investment in shipping activities.110 These reasons were crucial, and profoundly affected local communities, causing difficulties concerning steamship investment during the period studied.
Sotiris Dimitriadis, The Making of an Ottoman Port-City: The State, Local Elites and Urban Space in Salonika 1870–1912 (PhD diss., University of London, 2013); Sibel Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir: The Rise of a Cosmopolitan Port, 1840–1880 (Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 2012); Jens Hanssen, Fin de Siècle Beirut: The Making of an Ottoman Provincial Capital (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005).
Malte Fuhrmann, “Cosmopolitan imperialists and the Ottoman port cities. Conflicting logics in the urban social fabric,” Cahiers de la Méditerranée, no. 67 (2005): 1–12; Hans Driessen, “Mediterranean port-cities: cosmopolitanism reconsidered,” History and Anthropology, no. 16.1 (March 2005): 129–141; Athanasios Gekas, “Class and cosmopolitanism: the historiographical fortunes of merchants in eastern Mediterranean ports,” Mediterranean Historical Review, no. 24.2 (2009): 95–114. Edhem Eldem, “Istanbul as a cosmopolitan city: myths and realities,” in A Companion to Diaspora and Transnationalism, eds. Ato Quason, Girish Daswani (New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 212–230.
Eldem, Sophia Laiou, Vangelis Kechriotis, The Economic and Social Development of the Port Cities of the Southern Black Sea Coast and Hinterland, Late 18th–Beginning of the 20th century, vol. 5 (Corfu: Black Sea History Project Working Papers, 2017).
Donald Quataert, Erik Jan Zürcher, Workers and Working Class in the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic, 1839–1950 (London and New York: Tauris, 1995); M. Erdem Kabadayı, Kate Elisabeth Creasy, “Working in the Ottoman empire and in Turkey: Ottoman and Turkish labor history within a global perspective,” International Labor and Working Class History, no. 82 (Fall 2012): 187–200; Can Nacar, Labor and Power in the Late Ottoman Empire: Tobacco Workers, Managers and the State, 1872–1912 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019); Leda Papastefanaki, Kabadayı eds. Working in Greece and Turkey: a Comparative Labour History from Empires to Nation-States, 1840–1940 (New York: Berghahn Books, 2020).
Shai Srougo, “The Jewish longshoremen in the Ottoman and Greek periods: cultural practices and shifting values in the port labor market of Thessaloniki, 1900–1925,” Journal of Modern Greek Studies, no. 38.2 (October 2020): 501–532; Idem, “Professional characteristics of the Jewish guild in the Muslim world: Thessaloniki dockers at the end of the Ottoman era,” Mediterranean Historical Review, no. 26.2 (December 2011): 115–133; Can Nacar, “Free trade or an alternative path: the queue system and struggle over the conditions of work in Ottoman ports, 1900–1910,” Middle Eastern Studies, no. 52.5 (2016): 772–786.
Yolanda Triantafyllidoy-Baladie,
Molly Greece, Kandiye 1669–1720: The Formation of a Merchant Class (PhD diss., University of Princeton, 1993).
For the janissaries of Crete, see Yannis Spyropoulos,
For a bibliography on French shipping in the eastern Mediterranean, see Daniel Panzac, “International and domestic maritime trade in the Ottoman empire during the 18th century,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, no. 24.2 (May 1992): 189–206.
Vassilis Kremmydas, “
Manos Perakis, “Structural shipping transformation under radical political changes on the island of Crete, 1877–1913,” International Journal of Maritime History, no. 25.1 (June 2013): 127–148.
Greene, Kandiye 1669–1720; Triantafyllidou-Baladie,
For the caravane maritime, see Panzac, “International and domestic maritime trade,” 197; Gilbert Buti, “Aller en caravane: le cabotage lointain en Méditerranée, XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles,” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, no. 52.1 (2015): 7–38.
Kremmydas, “
For the Ottoman-British Treaty of 1838, see Şevket Pamuk, The Ottoman Empire and European Capitalism, 1820–1913 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987); Necla V. Geyikdayi, Foreign Investment in the Ottoman Empire: International Trade and Relations 1854–1914 (London: I.B. Tauris 2011).
Reşat Kasaba, Çağlar Keyder, Faruk Tabak, “Eastern Mediterranean port-cities and their bourgeoisies: merchants, political projects and nation-states,” Review, no. 10.1 (Summer 1986): 121–135.
Charles Ronchfort Scott, Rambles in Egypt and Candia with Details of the Military Power and Resources of those Countries and Observations on the Government, Policy, and Commercial System of Mohammet Ali, vol. 2, (London: H Colburn 1837), 260–261; Manos Perakis,
Sarah Palmer, Politics, Shipping and the Repeal of Navigation Laws (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1990); John Armstrong, “Technological advance and innovation: the diffusion of early steamships in the United Kingdom, 1812–1834,” The Mariner’s Mirror, no. 96.1 (2010): 42–61; Idem and David M. Williams, “The steamboat, safety and the state: government reaction to new technology in a period of laissez-faire,” The Mariner’s Mirror, no. 89.2 (2003): 167–184.
Eric Sager, “
Konstantinos Papathanasopoulos,
Manos Perakis,
Panagiotis Krokidas,
For the Austrian Lloyd Steam Navigation Company, see the chapter by Matteo Barbano in the present volume.
For the Greek (or Hellenic) Steamship Company, see Konstantinos Papathanasopoulos,
Perakis, “Structural shipping,” 137; For the regular connections of Cretan ports through liner shipping companies, see idem, Table 2, 137; and Salname-I Vilayet-i Girit (Provincial Yearbook of the vilayet of Crete), (1891), 225. For the two steamship companies see, Evridiki Sifneos, “P.M. Courtgi and the birth of the Greek-Ottoman Liner Company. The Aegean Steamship Company,” in Following the Nereids. Sea Routes and Maritime Businesses 16th–20th centuries, eds. Maria Christina Chatziioannou and Harlaftis (Athens: Kerkyra Publications, 2006), 121–136; Davut Hut, “Buharlı Gemiler Çağında Osmanlı Deniz ve Nehiryolu Ulaşımı,” in Osmanli’da Ulaşım. Kara—Deniz—Raylı, eds. Vahdettin Engin, Ahmet Uçar, Osman Doğan (Çamlıça, Istanbul 2011), 71–102; Hande Yüce and Ahmet Güleryüz (eds.), Şirket-i Hayriye’nin Boğaziçi Vapurları (Istanbul: Denizler Kitabevi, 2002); Anna Sydorenko, “
Suda is a natural port almost 7 km south-east of the city of Chania.
Report by Consul Dennis on the Trade and Commerce of the Island of Crete for the Year 1869, 314–316.
The table separates Chania from Suda, which has 176 sailing ships with 5,726 total tonnage, and 56 steamships with 14,276 total tonnage. However, it is not clear if short distance sailing ships are included in these statistics.
However, in his work, Perakis reports that in the period 1882–86 the proportion of the total tonnage of sailing ships reaching Cretan ports was 84.3%, while the tonnage of steamships was 15.7% of the total. Perakis, “Structural shipping,” 136.
In the categorisation it can be seen that there are ports such as Smyrna, Thessaloniki, Beyrut, and Chios with a total tonnage of more than 700, then there are some Ottoman ports from the Black Sea, such as Samsun and Inebolu which have a total tonnage of around 400. Some ports of the northern and south-eastern Aegean, such as Gallipoli, Mytilene, Mersin, and Tripoli of Syria belong in the same category. Then there is a smaller category with ports with around 300 total tonnage, such as the bigger ports of Crete (Heraklion, Chania), Tripoli of Libya, Samos, Rodos, Alexandroupoli, and Sinop and Eregli from the Black Sea. However, if we add the numbers from Chania and Suda the number increases a lot: Cozzonis Effendi, Bilan de l’exercice 1892–1893 from the Administration Sanitaire de l’empire Ottoman (Istanbul: Typographie et Lithographie Osmanié, 1893).
Edhem Eldem, “Scanning the Ottoman Black Sea in 1900 through the Revue Commercial du Levant,” in Istanbul and the Black Sea Coast. Shipping and Trade (1770–1920), eds. Edhem Eldem and Sophia Laiou (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2018), 80–81.
This is a public custom office register, which has three categorisations of ships: kayik (caique), sefine (sailing ship), and vapur (steamship). Historical Archive of Crete, Turkish Archive, AAK 1908, (1892). (AAK is the number of the documentation of each register.)
Perakis,
John Purdy, The New Sailing Directory for the Mediterranean Sea, the Adriatic Sea, or Gulf of Venice, the Archipelago and Levant, the Sea of Marmara, and the Black Sea (London: R.H. Laurie, 1926), 220; Lewis Cass, An Historical, Geographical and Statistical Account of the Island of Candia, or Ancient Crete (London: Thomas W. White, 1839), 8.
Perakis, “Structural shipping,” 140.
Frank Broeze, “
Manos Perakis, “Capitulations: abolition attempts in Crete during the Halepa Regime (1878–1889),” in Contemporary Research in Turcology and Eurasian Studies. A Festschrift in Honor of Professor Tasim Gemil on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, eds. Stoica Lascu, Melek Fetisleam (Cluj: Cluj University Press, 2013), 505–518. A similar case appeared in Mytilene when western European merchants established themselves there, and refused to pay the dues for the construction of the quay; this worsened a conflict between local and foreign merchants: Elena Frangakis-Syrett, “The western Anatolian coast and the Aegean Islands in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: an economic survey,” in The Port-City in the Ottoman Middle East at the Age of Imperialism, ed. Elena Frangakis-Syrett (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2017), 158–159.
In Crete, they were shipping goods on small sailing ships to various small ports of Crete, such as Kissamos, Selino, etc. AAK 1908, (1892), HAC, Chania.
Perakis, “Structural shipping,” 145.
Indicatively, see Broeze,
Katerina Papakonstantinou, “Transport and communication in southeastern Europe in the nineteenth century: the impact on trade,” in The Economic Development of Southeastern Europe in the 19th century, eds. Edhem Eldem, Socrates Petmezas (Athens: Historical Archive of Alpha Bank, 2011), 349–395. For railways in the Ottoman empire, see Murat Özyüksel, The Hejaz Railway and the Ottoman Empire. Modernity, Industrialization and Ottoman Decline (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2014).
Edhem Eldem, “Ottoman financial integration with Europe: foreign loans, the Ottoman Bank and the Ottoman Public Debt,” European Review, no. 13.3 (July 2005): 431–445.
Geyikdağı, Foreign Investment. According to Pamuk, the 1838 Anglo-Ottoman Treaty, the external loans due to the Crimean War, and finally the construction of railroads by foreigners, were the three most important turning points in the European penetration of the Ottoman economy: Pamuk, The Ottoman Empire and European Capitalism, 134.
Dimitriadis, “The making,” 114–151; Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 115–150.
Perakis, “Structural shipping,” 138–142.
Report by Mr. Consul Dickson, 1868, 224.
Kallia Kalliataki-Mertikopoulou,
Perakis, “Structural shipping,” 141–142.
For a discussion about the railways in Crete, see Manolis Arkolakis, “
Report on the Trade, Shipping and Agriculture of Crete for the year 1910 by Mr. Acting Vice-Consul Hubbard, Annual Series, No. 4776, 1910, 16–17.
Report on the Trade of Crete for the Year 1909 by Mr. Acting Vice-Consul Peckham, Annual Series, No. 3603, 1909, 5.
This is evident in the British consular reports, which in some cases count together, the ships arriving in the port of Chania and Suda. See for example those of 1869 and 1905.
For the term “maritime communities,” see Gelina Harlaftis, “Maritime history: a new version of the old version and the true history of the sea,” The International Journal of Maritime History, no. 32.2 (2020): 395; Katerina Galani, “From traditional maritime communities to maritime centres. Urbanisation, social hierarchies and the labour market in the age of steam. The case study of Galaxidi, 1850s–1910s,” in the present volume.
For the rebellions in Crete, see Nikos Andriotis, “
Perakis,
In the nineteenth century, the Ottoman state tried to establish an organised census in its territories. Their first efforts began in the 1830s, they planned to count all the male population for military and tax reasons. However, it was only at the end of the century when the nüfus tezkeresi was introduced, a document that certified someone was involved in a census and could carry the document as his own identity card. This document had information about the occupation of each citizen. However, this measure was not implemented in Crete, as the status of the island was identified as autonomous. This limits the research information for occupations in Crete: Kemal H. Karpat, Ottoman Population 1830–1880. Demographic and Social Characteristics (London: University of Wisconsin, 1985); Şervet Mutlu, “Late Ottoman population and its ethnic distribution,” Turkish Journal of Population Studies, no. 25 (2003): 3–38.
Athanasios N. Vernardakis,
Edmund Flagg, Report on the Commercial Relations of the United States with all Foreign Nations, vol. 4 (Washington: A.O.P. Nicholson, 1857).
Anonymous, La verité sur les événements de Candie (Paris: E. Dentu, 1858), 9.
Giornale del Lloyd Austriaco (1845), vol. 5, 2.
For more information on Chalikoutes, see Charidimos A. Papadakis,
Perakis,
Konstantinos Fournarakis,
Nikolaos Stavrakis,
Stavrakis,
Ibid., 4 and 146.
For boatmen in Ottoman ports, see Can Nacar, “Free trade or an alternative path: the queue system and the struggle over the conditions of work in Ottoman ports, 1900–1910,” Middle Eastern Studies, no. 52.5 (2016): 772–786.
In this case, many different occupations were probably included, for example, port workers, various carriers, and other ad hoc jobs, which did not include a stable salary.
Papadakis,
Shai Srougo, “Professional characteristics of the Jewish guild in the Muslim world: Thessaloniki dockers at the end of the Ottoman era,” Mediterranean Historical Review, no. 26.2 (2011), 115–133.
Iosif Chatzidakis,
Annuaire Oriental du commerce, de l’industrie, de l’administration et de la magistrature (Istanbul: Cervati Freres, 1885), 471.
AAK 3292, 87b (1894–95), HAC, Chania.
Perakis,
Election Catalogue of Chania, 1906, HAC, Chania. For the occupation by Muslims of various territories of Greece at 1912–23, see Giannis Glavinas,
Kremmydas, “
Ibid., 16, footnote 10.
Manolis Peponakis,
However, there were still Sfakians involved in shipping. See, for example, the commercial court AAK 521 (1878), n. 46, HAC, Chania.
Port Traffic Inventory by Consular Authorities (1859–1862), General State Archives (GAK), Athens. They also seem to have imported grain into Crete from Alexandria, as Crete had a chronic shortage of cereal production: Triantafyllidou-Baladie,
AAK 2901, (1866–1870), AAK 1161, (1877–1882), HAC, Chania. Due to the private character of such books, it is difficult to extract relevant information. There is no reference to the ship owner or the tonnage of the ship, for example.
There is also a reference from 1813 that contains information about 40 ships of 13,000 total tonnage, which seems exaggerated: Verdardakis,
Flagg, Report on the Commercial Relations, 411.
When Flagg refers to schooners, he means American golets, so in that case there was no change in the ship types as presented in the Giornale del Lloyd Austriaco in 1845. The golets of Syros, at the same time, have a larger tonnage (73.65), while Cretan golets are more closely related to Canadian ships for the period 1820–79. However, in the case of Crete, it is not known to which period this number refers: see Apostolos Delis,
Flagg, Commercial Relations, 411.
Ibid., 432.
Fournarakis,
It is not clear whether this refers to the ships of shipowners from Chania, or from the whole of Crete: Kalliataki-Mertikopoulou,
Sened-i Bahri were maritime certificates that were provided to Ottoman ship owners under the Ottoman flag, between the Greek War of Independence and the Crimean War. This research managed to find only a few examples, maintained in the BOA, Istanbul. For more information on the Sened-i Bahri, see Murat Çizakça, “The Ottoman empire: recent research on shipping and shipbuilding in the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries,” in Maritime History at the Crossroads: a Critical Review of Recent Historiography, ed. Frank Broeze (Research in Maritime History 9) (St. John’s Newfoundland: International Maritime Economic History Association, 1995), 216–217; Ekin Mahmuzlu, An Institutional Analysis of the Ottoman Shipping Sector in the Black Sea Region Between 1829 and 1861: Merchants and Ships (MA diss., University of Istanbul, 2009).
The brig was the main type of ship used by Greeks of the period. See also the average tonnage of brigs in Liguria and Provence: Apostolos Delis, Mediterranean Wooden Shipbuilding: Economy, Technology and Institutions in Syros in the Nineteenth Century (Leiden and Boston: Brill 2015), 140–141. However, the tonnage of Greek ships was greater than of those belonging to Muslims: Mahmuzlu, “An institutional analysis,” 100.
Also, during this period registered ships in Syros or Kasos, like brigs, were constructed on the island of Kasos. There are also examples from ships registered in Crete: for example: eds Harlaftis and Nikos St. Vlassopoulos,
According to a reference by Chatzidakis in 1881, they constructed ships of 80–120 tons (sometimes larger) at the port of Chania: Chatzidakis,
It is interesting that there were Muslim captains present, as this was not so widespread given the dominance of Orthodox Christians in shipping: Gelina Harlaftis, A History of Greek-Owned Shipping: the Making of an International Tramp Fleet, 1830 to the Present Day (London/New York: Routledge, 1995); Idem (ed.),
This is not the case with the brig Hüdavend, the captain, Giridli Ibrahim Musadaki had a share in the ship along with two Christians, Giridli Giorgis Belakis, and Alkis Psaroudakis.
Fournarakis indicates that in most cases Cretan Muslims owned sailing vessels alone, or in shares with others engaged in the export and import trade of the island: Fournarakis,
In most of the cases in the sened-i bahri, the owners are mentioned as Giridli (Cretan) and not as Hanyali (from Chania) or Kandiyeli (from Heraklion).
BOA, A.DVN.173.78 (1861). Keyl was used as a means of measurement, 20 okkas was equal to 25,6 kg. For the Ottoman measures, see Halil İnalcık, “Introduction to Ottoman metrology,” Turcica, no. 15 (1983), 311–348.
BOA, A.DVN.121 (1856).
For the merchants of Europe and Hayriye merchants, see Ali İhsan Bağış, Osmanlı Ticaretinde Gayri Müslimler: Kapitülasyonlar, Avrupa Tüccarları, Beratlı Tüccarlar, Hayriye Tüccarları 1750–1839 (Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi, 1983); Bruce Masters, “The Sultan’s entrepreneurs: the Avrupa Tuccaris and the Hayriye Tuccaris in Syria,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, no. 24.4 (November 1992), 579–597; Sophia Laiou, “The Ottoman Greek ‘merchants of Europe’ at the beginning of the 19th century,” in Festschrift in Honor of Ioannis P. Theocharides. Studies on the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, eds. Evangelia Balta, Georgios Salakidis, Theoharis Stavrides (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2014), 313–331.
BOA, A.DVN.121 (1856).
BOA, A.DVN.85.15 (1852).
Delis, “
Murat Çizakça, “The Ottoman empire: recent research on shipping and shipbuilding in the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries,” Research in Maritime History, no. 9 (December 1995), 224–225; Idem, A Comparative Evolution of Business Partnerships. The Islamic World and Europe, with Specific Reference in the Ottoman Archives (Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 1996), 91–94. For the Black Sea region, see especially Mahmuzlu, “An Institutional Analysis”. An example of the endurance of this system is the case of Camogli and the carati (share) system, as presented by Leonardo Scavino, “Camogli as a maritime community in the age of transition (1850s–1914),” in the present volume.
Harlaftis, History of Greek-Owned Shipping, 141–142.
See, for example, the case from the commercial court in 1876 of the bankruptcy of shipowner Ibrahim Kotsakis at Chania: AAK 3174, n. 30, HAC, Chania.