Author's note: Comments by Sevket Pamuk, Roger Owen, Donald Quataert, Angel Kwollek-Folland, Linda Nieman, and Harold Cordry are acknowledged with thanks.

¹ Examples are Roger, Owen, The Middle East in the World Economy 1800–1914 (London: Methuen, 1981);Google ScholarWilliam, R. Polk and Richard, L. Chambers, eds., Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East: The Nineteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968);Google ScholarHasan, M. S., “Foreign Trade in the Economic Development of Iraq, 1869–1939,” Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford University, 1958;Google ScholarMohammad, Sa⊂id Kalla, “The Role of Foreign Trade in the Economic Development of Syria, 1831–1914,” Ph.D. dissertation, American University, 1969;Google ScholarCharles, Issawi, The Economic History of the Middle East 1800–1914: A Book of Readings (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966);Google Scholar idem, The Fertile Crescent 1800–1914 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988);Google ScholarHuri, Islamoglu-lnan, ed., The Ottoman Empire and the World-Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987);Google ScholarSevket, Pamuk, The Ottoman Empire and European Capitalism, 1820–1913: Trade, Investment and Production (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

² Dominique, Chevallier, La Société du Mont Liban à l'epoque de la revolution industrielle en Europe (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1971);Google ScholarKenneth, Brown, People of Sale: Tradition and Change in a Moroccan City 1830–1930 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976);Google ScholarLeila, Tarazi Fawaz, Merchants and Migrants in Nineteenth-Century Beirut (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983);Google ScholarOwen, E. R. J., Cotton and the Egyptian Economy 1820–1914: A Study in Trade and Development (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969);Google ScholarAbdul, Karim Rafeq, “The Impact of Europe on a Traditional Economy: The Case of Damascus, 1840–1870,” paper presented at the II^e Congrès International d'Histoire Economique et Sociale de la Turquie, Strasbourg, 06 1980;Google ScholarZeynep, Celik, The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman City in the Nineteenth Century (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1986).Google Scholar

³ Faruk Tabak and Donald Quataert provide thoughtful revisions of the way in which the Ottoman Empire was incorporated into the world economy. Faruk Tabak, “Local Merchants in Peripheral Areas of the Empire: The Fertile Crescent during the Long Nineteenth Century”; Donald, Quataert, “Ottoman Handicrafts and Industry in the Age of Imperialism,” both in Çağlar, Keyder, ed., Ottoman Empire: Nineteenth-Century Transformations, special issue of Review 11 (1988).Google Scholar

⁴ For two excellent works on the importance of regional economies, see Hala, Mundhir Fattah, “The Development of the Regional Market of Iraq and the Gulf, 1800–1900,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1986;Google ScholarResat, Kasaba, The Ottoman Empire and the World Economy: The Nineteenth Century (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988).Google Scholar

⁵ Quoted in Douglas, L. Patton, “Ulema in Atabeg Mosul,” Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1982, p. 19.Google Scholar

⁶ Claudius, James Rich, Narrative of a Residence in Koordistan (London: James Duncan, 1836), Vol. 2, pp. 2, 4, 19, 25, 62–63.Google Scholar Great Britain, Public Record Office, Foreign Office (hereafter cited as FO) 195/647 Rassam, to Istanbul, , 29 05 1858.Google ScholarCharles, Issawi, The Economic History of Turkey, 1800–1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), pp. 219–20.Google ScholarDoreen, Warriner implied that shallow plows and other traditional methods may have some benefits for local conditions, Land and Poverty in the Middle East (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1948), pp. 2–3, 8.Google Scholar Great Britain, India Office Letters, Political and Secret Department (hereafter cited as L' P&S) 10/ 368 page 21. FO 368/470 “Notes on possible openings for British Trade in Machinery in Mesopotamia,” 11667 6 June 1910. FO 195/2243. Administration Report 1919, p. 20.Google Scholar

Although agricultural mechanization was gradually introduced into the province before the First World War, it was not common until the middle of the 20th century. One mechanical reaper was imported from America in 1894, and others were imported before the war. In 1909, a Mosuli returning from the United States tried to sell machinery, including irrigation pumps, but his success was limited. According to Donald Quataert, the neighboring province of Diyarbakir ordered £220 worth of agricultural machinery in 1905, but Mosul seems to have shown less interest than its neighbor in mechanization. Although British vice consuls, worried about competition from both France and America, encouraged British firms to sell machinery to the area, their interests were not rewarded. Donald, Quataert, “Ottoman Reform and Agriculture in Anatolia,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1973.Google Scholar Ministère des affaires étrangères, Correspondance consulaire, cornmerciale: Mossoul (hereafter cited as CCC) 2:420. L/P&S 10/368 page 21. FO 368/470 922, 1167. Young to Marling, 19 December 1909, FO 195/2310. FO 368/338 14759, 17442. Ramsey, to O'Conor, , 16 09 1907,Google Scholar FO 195/2243. John, Joseph, Muslim–Christian Relations and Inter-Christian Rivalries in the Middle East: The Case of the Jacobites in an Age of Transition (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 108. A British firm was established in 1921 to try to practice large-scale mechanized farming in the area. “Report by HM's High Commissioner on the Finances, Administration, and Condition of the ⊂lraq of the period from October 1st 1920 to March 31st 1922,” Great Britain, Colonial Office 696/4 page 13.Google Scholar

⁷ According to Ottoman tax records for 1845–46, dry-farmed winter grain crops accounted for 60 percent of the tithe collected. Most important of the irrigated summer crops were rice (12.5%), cotton (8%), sesame (7%), grapes (5%), and tobacco (4%). Olives, fruits, lentils, chick peas, maize, millet, and vegetables accounted for very small parts of the tithe. This is partly because the products of gardens were taxed differently. Melon and cucumber gardens, called sharuk in this area, paid a separate tax. Ottoman Archives, Başbakanlik Arşivi, İradeler, Meclis-i Vala 1670. In 1845, the tithes of the Mosul district, according to the British consular agent, accounted for p 1,685,000, of which 74 percent was from wheat and barley, 11.9 percent from cotton, 4.7 percent from rice, 2.7 percent from sesame, 4.7 percent from raisins, and 1.8 percent from tobacco. Rassam to Canning, 27 April 1845, FO 194/228. In 1919, a similarly high proportion of the tithe was from winter grains (87%); 9 percent came from summer grains, and 4 percent from fruits and vegetables. Great Britain, Administrative Report of the Mosul Division for 1919, Appendix.

⁸ Grattan, Geary, Through Asiatic Turkey: Narrative of a Journey from Bombay to the Bosphorus (London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, and Rivington, 1878), vol. 2, p. 27.Google ScholarFrancis, Rawdon Chesney, The Expedition for the Survey of the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1850), p. 32.Google Scholar

⁹ Dina, Rizk Khoury, “The Political Economy of the Province of Mosul: 1700–1850,” Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University, 1987, pp. 174–76.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Roderic, H. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire 1856–1876 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 80.Google ScholarRoger, Owen, “The Development of Agricultural Production in Nineteenth-Century Egypt: Capitalism of What Type?” in Udovitch, A. L., The Islamic Middle East. 700–1900 (Princeton, N.J.: The Darwin Press, 1981), p. 532.Google Scholar According to Quataert, the railroads connected Ankara with the world market, increasing grain prices from p 6.5 to 14.25 per kilo between 1887 and 1893, “Ottoman Reform,” p. 189.Google ScholarIssawi, , Economic History of Turkey, p. 37, saw a similar increase in prices with mobilization for the Balkan and Italian wars, revolution and strikes, and emigration in 1908.Google Scholar

¹¹ Roger, Owen, The Middle East and the World Economy 1800–1914, p. 111.Google Scholar

¹² Government agents collected provisions in the Siirt, Bitlis, and Mus provinces for the use of the army, inducing a fear of increased prices in those areas, while in Mosul, , “grain of all description is exceedingly cheap here.” FO 195/394 Rassam to de Redcliffe, 1 08 1853. Christian Rassam, the British consular agent in Mosul from the 1840s until the I870s, was a Christian notable whose family had by that time been involved in the city and its politics for decades. As a merchant, landowner, and part-time moneylender, Rassam's despatches to the British Embassy in Istanbul are particularly valuable for understanding the economic history of this area. These letters are essentially a description of economic transactions and political events in Mosul as seen through the eyes of a member of the urban elite. Because of that, they are both more useful than most consular records, in that they provide a local perspective and detailed financial information, and require more caution, because they reflect the views of a notable deeply involved in all local political conflicts.Google Scholar

¹³ FO 195/228 Rassam, to Wellesley, , 31 10 1846.Google Scholar FO 195/394 Rassam, to de Redcliffe, 17 07 1854.Google Scholar FO 195/2096 Rassam, , 9 04 1901.Google Scholar FO 195/2309 Ramsey, , 23 09 1909.Google Scholar⊂Abbās, al-⊂Azzāwū; Tārūkh al-⊂Irāq bayna ihtilālayn (Baghdad: Iraq Printing Office, 1935–1956), vol. 5, p. 82.Google Scholar Sources for Figure 1: FO 195/301 Rassam, to Canning, , 19 03 1849, 28 05 1849.Google ScholarRassam, to Wellesley, , 10 07 1846.Google Scholar FO 195/394 Rassam, to de, Redcliffe, 16 05 1857.Google Scholar FO 195/603 Rassam, to Bulwer, , 19 09 1859.Google Scholar FO 195/949 Rassam, to Elliot, , 15 04 1872.Google Scholar FO 195/2096 Rassam, 9 04 1901. CCC 2:305. Layard Papers, British Museum Add. 38,941, 28 April 1851.Google Scholar

¹⁴ If the insects matured early enough, they could devour the grain crops. If they developed their wings later, they might prevent the planting of summer crops, or destroy them. The British consular agent claimed that locusts had destroyed much of the crops from 1856 to 1863, and that prices had doubled during that period as a result. A pound of cotton, which had cost p 2 before the insects, cost p 4.4–5.4 in 1863. Before the locusts, over 800 tons of cotton had been produced annually, while he estimated that fewer than 100 tons were harvested in 1863. Cotton required an extended growing season, averaging seven or eight months. The appearance of locusts in the spring delayed planting until June: before it was ripe it was destroyed by the winter weather. Rassam, to Istanbul, , 4 08 1863,Google Scholar FO 195/771. Ann, Foley Schuering, ed., A Guidebook to Calfornia Agriculture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), p. 129.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The availability of animals was crucial for continued production. In 1907, British consular agent Nimrod Rassam worried that if the vali really did requisition 1,000 mules from the villages as threatened, “the cultivators will be put to serious loss apart from the fact that their ploughing will be delayed,” FO 195/2243.

¹⁶ Sarah, Shields, “The Impact of Intra-Regional Trade on the Post-1838 Economy: A Case Study,” at “The Impact of the 1838 Anglo–Turkish Convention: Anatolia and Egypt Compared,” conference sponsored by Fernand Braudel Center for the Study of Economies, Historical Systems, and Civilizations, State University of New York at Binghamton, 10 1988.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Much has been written about the effects of the land reforms on the south of Iraq. Because the reliance on irrigation and the tribal situation were unique to that region, it is not possible to extrapolate that conditions were the same in the north. On land tenure in Iraq, Saleh, Haider, “Land Problems of Iraq,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1942.Google ScholarAlbertine, Jwaideh has discussed the impacts of Ottoman land reform on Iraq in a fascinating series of articles, “Aspects of Land Tenure and Social Change in Lower Iraq during Late Ottoman Times,” in Tarif, Khalidi, ed., Land Tenure and Social Transformations in the Middle East (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1984);Google Scholar “Midhat Pasha and the Land System of lower Iraq,” St. Antony's Papers 16 (1963): 106–36;Google Scholar“The Saniyya Lands of Sultan Abdul Hamid II in Iraq,” in George, Makdisi, ed., Arabic and Islamic Studies in Honor of H. A. R. Gibb (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965).Google Scholar

¹⁸ On the importance of tax farming for the merchant groups, see Resat, Kasaba, “Was There a Comprador Bourgeoisie in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Western Anatolia?” in Çağlar, Keyder, ed., Ottoman Empire: Nineteenth-Century Transformations, special issue of Review 11 (1988): 215–28.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Philip, Khoury claimed that in the period after 1860 Damascene notables rose to power based largely on their tax farms, and he described this new power in Urban Notables and Arab Nationalism: The Politics of Damascus 1860–1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 12, 19, 27–28, 31, 44–45.Google Scholar Fawaz spoke of powerful families near Beirut taking advantage of land holdings, Merchants and Migrants, p. 90.Google Scholar In 1907, British consular agent Nimrod Rassam claimed that the Mosul vali was “taking oppressive measures to force the farmers of the tithes to make larger offers than the lands can bear. He reports that the Vali is trying to make the landed proprietors farm the taxes, under threat of depriving them of their proprietary rights if they decline,” FO 195/2243 Rassam, to O'Conor, , 5 08 25 1907.Google Scholar

²⁰ Rassam, to Canning, , 9 08 1845, 6 09 1845,Google Scholar FO 195/228. Rassam, to Alison, , 10 07 1858,Google Scholar FO 195/603. “Correspondance between Mr. Rassam and the Pasha of Moossul 1858,” FO 195/603:495–505. Rassam, to Bulwer, , 23 07 1860, FO 195/603.Google Scholar

²¹ lndeed, Inalcik and Owen have both shown that changing land ownership need not alter the methods of production. Referring to the increasing alienation of state lands beginning at the end of the 16th century, Inalcik wrote, “The change in the legal status of the land and labor on it, however, did not in most cases entail change in the organization of production,” “The Emergence of Plantation-like Ciftliks: State, Landlords and Tenants,” Department of History, University of Chicago, photocopy, pp. 2–3. Similarly, according to Owen, in spite of increasing production of cotton for export in 19th-century Egypt, “there was little change in the actual organization of agricultural production” (“The Development of Agricultural Production,” p. 521).

²² CCC 1:66–68, 2:324.

²³ Other areas of the empire also concentrated on textiles which appealed to local taste. See for example Dominique, Chevallier, Villes et travail en Syrie du XIXe au XXe siècle (Paris: G. P. Maisonneuve et Larose, 1982), chap. 4.Google Scholar

²⁴ CCC 1:66–67.

²⁵ CCC 2:421.

²⁶ Bowring, continued, “All the twist consumed in Aleppo is consumed by these looms, and all the silk retained for use here is retained for them. The richer stuffs are not manufactured to nearly the extent that they once were, but th cheaper stuffs are decidedly increasing in consumption; and this may probably be one great cause of the decrease in the consumption of British manufactures, say printed goods, as they are used very much for the same purposes” (Report on the Commercial Statistics of Syria [New York: Arno Press, 1973], p. 84).Google Scholar

²⁷ CCC 2:337–38.

²⁸ F0 195/2243.

²⁹ Başbakanlik Arşivi, İradeler, Meclis-i Vala 6690 described evaluation of a copper mine in 1850–51, and Meclis-i Vala 27,817; 19,000; 19,554 deal with opening and stalling iron mines in this area in 1858–59.

³⁰ Salname-i Vilayet-i Musul, 1312 mentioned the gypsum and marble available in local quarries. Başbakanlik Arşivi, İradeler, Dahiliye 43,003 and 43,150 are detailed repair notebooks for two government installations in the province of Mosul which include material and labor costs for the projects in the 1870s.Google Scholar

³¹ William, R. Polk, The Opening of South Lebanon, p. 80Google Scholar (quoting Burckhart); John, Bowring, Report on the Commercial Statistics of Syria, p. 16.Google Scholar

³² Trade Reports, Aleppo, , 1860, FO 195/700.Google Scholar

³³ Sarah, Shields, “An Economic History of Nineteenth-Century Mosul,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1986, pp. 143–49.Google Scholar M. S. Kalla noted the importance of animal products in exports from Syria during the 19th century, especially after 1883–87. He ascribes this to the “pacification of the desert tribes and the substitution of trade for raids.”“The Role of Foreign Trade in the Economic Development of Syria, 1831–1914,” Ph.D. dissertation, The American University, 1969, p. 20.Google ScholarChesney, F. R., The Expedition for the Survey for the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris, p. 108.Google Scholar

³⁴ Although illegal according to Islamic law, advancing money against a crop or other product was common practice: “La Commerce de la laine, qui est le principal article de l'exportation du pays, est organizé de telle sorte, qu'on ne peut s'y livrer qu'à l'aide de grands capitaux et eu courant des risques considerables. Des les premiers jours de Fevrier, à l'epoque ou les arabes remontent vers la haute Mesopotamie pour y chercher les pasturages nécessaires a leurs troupeaux, les courtiers des negociaux de Mossoul se repandent dans le desert et procédent à I'achat des toisons dont Ia tonte n'aura lieu qu'au mois d'avril suivant. Ce sont de véritables marches à livrer dont le prix est toujours payé d'avance et dont I'execution n'est garantie que par la bonne foi du vendeur, garantie de mince valeur …” Guys to Marquis de Moustier, 8 June 1862, FO 195/717.

³⁵ Sarah, Shields, “Nomads and the Urban Economy: Nineteenth-Century Mosul,” Middle East Studies Association Annual Meeting, 11 1985.Google Scholar

³⁶ Rassam, to Bulwer, , 3 03 1862, FO 195/7 17.Google Scholar

³⁷ Hobsbawm, E. J., The Age of Revolution 1789–1848, p. 55.Google ScholarCarlo, M. Cipolla, ed., The Fontana Economic History of Europe: The Emergence of Industrial Societies, part 1 (Great Britain: Fontana/Collins, 1973), p. 30.Google ScholarMitchell, B. P., European Historical Statistics 1750–1970 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978), p. 262.Google Scholar

³⁸ Khazanov, A. M., Nomads and the Outside World, trans. Julia, Crookenden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 203.Google Scholar

³⁹ The French reports of 1894–96 estimated totals for this Sort of trade, but did not itemize anything coming from or going to other places within the Mosul province.

⁴⁰ Vital, Cuinet, La Turquie d'Asie (Paris: E. Leroux, 1890–1895), vol. 2, p. 763.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Roger, Owen, The Middle East in the World Economy 1800–1914, p. 325; CCC 2:310–11, 323.Google Scholar

⁴² CCC 2, 28 06 1884.Google Scholar

⁴³ The merchants periodically lobbied the local government concerning policies toward the tribal confederations. Many of these involved pleas for the government to allow one or another confederation to be clearly predominant so that they could be assured of better protection in the desert. References to unsafe transport conditions are so ubiquitous in the literature of travel and in the consular reports that it is unnecessary to provide specific examples. Especially interesting, however, was the politically motivated closure of the roads between Kirkuk, Sulaymaniya, Baghdad, and Mosul by the Hamavand tribe. See Ely, Bannister Soane, To Mesopotamia and Kurdistan in Disguise (Boston: Small, Maynard and Co., 1912).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ CCC I Botty, to Guizol, , summer, 1841.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Hala, Fattah, “The Development of the Regional Market,” p. 19.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Resat, Kasaba, “Was There a Comprador Bourgeoisie?” p. 222.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Sevket Pamuk's conclusions about the fate of this Ottoman industry do not appear accurate for Mosul. Relying on foreign-trade statistics and estimates of minimal indigenous yarn production, he claimed that, in the years after 1910, four-fifths of all cotton textiles consumed were imported. Arguing on the basis of this industry, he concluded, “this is as striking an indicator as any of the extent of the decline of Ottoman handicrafts in cotton textiles, the destruction of the self-sufficient nature of the rural economy, and specialization in agriculture within the context of a world economy” (The Ottoman Empire and European Capitalism, p. 129).Google Scholar