1. For an overview of recent works on Ottoman labor history, see our introduction to this special section: Karin Hofmeester and Jan Lucassen, “Shifting Labor Relations in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey 1500–2000: an Introduction.”

2. To better understand the diverse forms of labor relations worldwide, the International Institute of Social History (IISH) in Amsterdam set up the Global Collaboratory on the History of Labour Relations. This project aims to draw up a worldwide inventory of all types of labor relations, in all their facets and combinations, in different parts of the world at five cross-sections in time: 1500, 1650, 1800, 1900 (and, for Africa, 1950, too), and 2000. This project has been made possible by generous grants from the Gerda Henkel Stiftung in Düsseldorf, as well as from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). See Hofmeester and Lucassen, “Shifting Labor Relations.” For more information on the project and its background, see: Karin Hofmeester, Jan Lucassen, Leo Lucassen, Rombert Stapel, and Richard Zijdeman, “The Global Collaboratory on the History of Labour Relations, 1500–2000: Background, Set-Up, Taxonomy, and Applications” (2015) http://hdl.handle.net/10622/4OGRAD.

3. Coşgel, Metin M., “Ottoman Tax Registers. (Tahrir Defterleri),” Historical Methods, A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 37 (2004): 87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 87–88. From the same author also see: “Efficiency and Continuity in Public Finance: the Ottoman System of Taxation,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 37 (2005): 567–586 and “Agricultural Productivity in the Early Ottoman Empire”, Research in Economic History 24 (2007): 161–187.

4. For a recent overview of developments in using tahrirs for demographic issues, see Özel, Oktay, “Population Changes in Ottoman Anatolia during the 16th and 17th Centuries: the ‘Demographic Crisis’ Reconsidered,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 36 (2004): 183–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. Next to the literature mentioned in Coşgel, “Ottoman Tax Registers,” 88, see the literature mentioned in Özel, “Population Changes,” 184.

6. For more information on the data and how they and we processed them, see Appendix 1.

7. This corresponds with the observations made by Özel, “Population Changes” 187 on population pressure, the development of dense settlements and the expansion of arable land.

8. The size of a çift varied from 60 to 150 dönüms usually. One dönüm is 1.000m². Haim Gerber, The Social Origins of the Modern Middle East (Boulder, etc., 1987), 14. The amount of tax to be paid depended on the size or number of çifts.

9. Özel, “Population Changes,” 198, ref. 8. Migrants were surveyed separately and separate registers were kept, though at times they were included in regular tahrirs.

10. İnalcık, Hilal and Quataert, Donald (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914. Volume I (Cambridge, 1997), 225Google Scholar follows Barkan's 10 percent of tax exempts; Faroqhi in her Kultur und Alltag im osmanischen Reich. Vom Mittelalter bis zum Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts (München, 1995), 55 and 325 also uses the 10 percent rule. Recently, in her Travel and Artisans in the Ottoman Empire, Employment and Mobility in the Early Modern Era (London etc, 2014) 102 she wrote about the tax-exempt part of the population (households headed by widows, the garrison, and representatives of officialdom) in Bursa in 1487: “It has become customary to assume that these people may have made up about 20 per cent of any large Ottoman city,” thus arriving at 40,000 inhabitants in 1487 when there were 6,457 tax paying heads of households, representing 32,000 inhabitants. According to Aksan, Virginia, “Mobilization of warrior populations in the Ottoman context, 1750–1850,” in: Zürcher, Erik-Jan (ed.), Fighting for a Living. A Comparative History of Military Labour 1500–2000 (Amsterdam, 2013), 331–351Google Scholar, 339–340, citing Hülya Canbakal, Society and politics in an Ottoman Town: Ayntab in the 17^th century (Leiden, 2007), the tax-exempt askeri class in Ayntab 1697 covered 36 percent of all households. There, apart from janissaries, sipahis (members of the fief-holding cavalry), and auxiliary troops they consisted also of a number of non-military inhabitants, in particular all those on stipends (like preachers, scribes, and tax collectors) and those who had acquired a certificate from the center (descendants of the prophet and those providing special services like falcon-raisers, mountain pass guards, bridge-keepers, messengers, share-croppers on state land, etc.). For Bursa, Gerber found sources that indicate 33 percent and 36 percent: Gerber, Haim, Economy and Society in an Ottoman City: Bursa, 1600–1700 (Jerusalem, 1988), 10Google Scholar. The growing group of askeri consisted mainly of propertied men. Also see Hülya Canbakal and Alpay Filiztekin, “A very long-term perspective on wealth inequality in Ottoman Lands; the case of Bursa (1460–1920),” Unpublished paper for the European Social Science History Conference (Valencia, March 2016; cited with permission).

11. Canbakal and Filiztekin, “A very long-term perspective on wealth inequality in Ottoman Lands”, 8. See also Hülya Canbakal and Alpay Filiztekin, “Slavery and Decline of Slave-Ownership in Ottoman Bursa, 1460–1880”, in the current special section, 57–80.

12. Coşgel, Metin M., “The Ottoman Empire”, in: Monson, Andrew and Scheidel, Walter (eds.), Fiscal Regimes and the Political Economy of Premodern States (Cambridge, 2015), 404–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 408. For the explanation of the ҫift tax see footnote 6. Adult males were supposed to pay taxes, the amount was amongst others determined by their marital status, bachelors paid less than married men, see: Coşgel, “Efficiency and Continuity in Public Finance”, 571.

13. Hofmeester and Lucassen, “Shifting Labor Relations”, 6–27.

14. Gilles Veinstein, “On the Ottoman Janissaries (Fourteenth-Nineteenth centuries”, in: Zürcher (ed.), Fighting for a Living, 115–134, 124, 126–127.

15. Also see Coşgel, Metin M., “Agricultural Productivity in the Early Ottoman Empire”, Research in Economic History 34 (2007), 161–187Google Scholar, 184. Deviant from this unanimity is Erdem, Y. Hakan, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire and its Demise, 1800–1909 (Houndsmill, etc., 1996), 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar quoting H. Özdeğer, 1463–1640 Yılları Bursa Şehri Tereke Defterleri (Istanbul, 1988), who arrives at three inhabitants per household in Bursa.

16. Here, again we follow Barkan and Coşgel, who assume that one household member would be non-working. See Coşgel, “Agricultural Productivity,” 184. Not included in the total number of children are the in-living bachelors since they were counted separately.

17. Suraya Faroqhi, “Labor Recruitment and Control in the Ottoman Empire (Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries),” in: Donald Quataert (ed.) Manufacturing in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, 13–58, 22; for taxes see Çịzakça, Murat, “A Short History of the Bursa Silk Industry (1500–1900)”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 23 (1980): 142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 144.

18. İnalcık and Quataert (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Volume I, 237.

19. Suraiya Faroqhi, Making a living in the Ottoman lands 1480 to 1820 (Istanbul, 1995), 34–36; for the importance of religious teachers and students in Bursa until the eighteenth century (when Istanbul became the center of the Empire including the religious center) Faroqhi, Kultur und Alltag im Osmanischen Reich, 88, 244–246.

20. Halil İnalcık, “Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire,” The Journal of Economic History 29 (1969): 97–140, 118; İnalcık and Quataert (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Volume I, 225–229; Suraiya Faroqhi, “Crisis and Change, 1590–1699,” in: İnalcık and Quataert (eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Volume II (Cambridge, 1997), 459, 490; Suraiya Faroqhi, Artisans of Empire. Crafts and Craftspeople Under the Ottomans (New York etc, 2011), 39.

21. Haim Gerber, “Social and Economic Position of Women in an Ottoman City, Bursa, 1600–1700,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 12 (1980): 231–244; Faroqhi, Making a living in the Ottoman lands, 132, 200–203; Faroqhi, “Crisis and Change,” 596; cf. Fariba Zarinebaf-Shahr, “The Role of Women in the Urban Economy of Istanbul, 1700–1850,” International Labor and Working Class History 60 (2001): 141–152.

22. See the article by Canabkal and Filiztekin, “Slavery and Decline of Slave-Ownership” in this special section, p. 57–80 on the relationship between slave-ownership and textile manufacturing.

23. Faroqhi, Making a living in the Ottoman lands, 125–128, 139–140; Faroqhi, “Crisis and Change,” 454, 596–598.

24. Faroqhi, Artisans of Empire, 96.

25. Madeline C., Zilfi, Women and Slavery in the Late Ottoman Empire (Cambridge, 2010), 194.

26. Canbakal and Filiztekin, “A very long-term perspective on wealth inequality in Ottoman Lands,” 8 see also our reference 10.

27. For the bureaucratization of the administration see Faroqhi, “Labor Recruitment,” 41.

28. H. Sahillioğlu, “Slaves in the Social and Economic Life in Bursa in the Late 15th and Early 16th Centuries,” Turcica 17 (1985): 43–112, 86–90, as quoted in Hakan Erdem, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, 16.

29. It is important to keep in mind that the slave ownership figures presented by Çanbakal and Filiztekin pertain to the Muslim population only.

30. For the heavily urban character of slaveholding in the region of Bursa, see Hülya Canbakal and Alpay Filiztekin, “Slavery and Decline of Slave-Ownership” in this special section, 57–80; Faroqhi, “Crisis and Change,” 551 states that in the period 1545–1659 more than 82 percent of all askeri lived in towns as illustrated for Edirne by Barkan. We may miss a number of rural askeri because we lack information on the nature of the timariot listed in this table. However, the far majority of them may have been city dwellers as well. (ibidem).

31. For the trade taxes see Coşgel, “Efficiency and Continuity in Public Finance,” 571–573.

32. More in general about this pattern in Anatolia see Özel, “Population Changes,” 187–188.

33. This pattern could also be found in other parts of Anatolia, see Özel, “Population Changes,” 178.

34. Gerber, Social Origins of the Modern Middle East, 20 and Faroqhi “Labor Recruitment and Control in the Ottoman Empire,” 15.

35. Pamuk, Sevket, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge, 2000), chapter 14Google Scholar.

36. Özel, “Population Changes,” 184–189.

37. See for an overview of the scarce demographic data Canbakal and Filiztekin, “A very long-term perspective on wealth inequality in Ottoman Lands,” 8–9 and Hülya Canbakal, “Wealth and Inequality in Ottoman Bursa, 1500–1840” paper presented at New Perspectives in Ottoman Economic History, Yale University November 9–10, 2012. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~egcenter/Wealth%20and%20Inequality%20in%20Ottoman%20Bursa-Canbakal.pdf, 11–12.

38. İnalcık and Quataert (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Volume I, 225; Bruce McGowan, “The Age of the Ayans,” in: İnalcık and Quataert (eds), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Volume II, 654, 781.

39. Faroqhi, Making a living in the Ottoman lands, 141; Faroqhi, “Crisis and Change,” 455, 505, Donald Quataert, “The Age of Reforms,” in idem, 891, 899–912; Faroqhi, Artisans of Empire, 96. In 1700, the estates of 105 artisans contained 109 looms Zarinebaf-Shahr “The Role of Women in the Urban Economy of Istanbul,” 145, suggesting some social inequality among weavers.

40. Faroqhi Making a living in the Ottoman lands, 134; İnalcık and Quataert (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Volume I, 355; Prasannan Parthasarathi, Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did not. Global Economic Divergence, 1600–1850 (Cambridge, 2011), 123–125. Faroqhi in her above mentioned title 1995, without further specification, also mentions “[….] or sackcloth makers of the Bursa region worked not only for the market, but supplied the janissaries, the Arsenal or the Ottoman palace with goods in lieu of taxes,” 78.

41. Bruce McGowan, “The Age of the Ayans,” 703, 719.

42. Donald Quataert, “The Ottoman Empire, 1650–1922,” in: Lex Heerma van Voss, Els Hiemstra-Kuperus, and Elise van Nederveen Meerkerk (eds.), The Ashgate Companion to the History of Textile Workers, 1650–2000 (Farnham, 2010), 477–495, 485. This downturn is strongly confirmed by Canbakal, “Wealth and Inequality in Ottoman Bursa,” 6.

43. Çịzakça, “A Short History of the Bursa Silk Industry,” 148–151.

44. İnalcık, “Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire,” 114.

45. Ibid., 109, 115.

46. Faroqhi, “Labor Recruitment and Control in the Ottoman Empire,” 38–39, Gerber, Economy and Society in an Ottoman City, 65.

47. İnalcık, “Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire” 114–115, 117.

48. Ibid., 114 and 116.

49. Gerber, Economy and Society in an Ottoman City, 68.

50. Based on Gerber, Economy and Society in an Ottoman City, 24–28.

51. İnalcık and Quataert (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Volume I, 160, 186–187.

52. Gerber, The Social Origins of the Modern Middle East, 31–33.

53. Idem, 37.

54. Faroqhi Making a living in the Ottoman lands, 74, 187; Quataert, “The Age of Reforms,” 851, 908; Faroqhi, Artisans of Empire, 96, 196; Quataert “The Ottoman Empire, 1650–1922,” 485.

55. Faroqhi, Artisans of Empire, 11.

56. Gerber, Social Origins of the Modern Middle East, 33.

57. Ibid., 28 and 30.

58. Idem, 32ff does not make this point, but it follows unavoidably from the social profile he gives of the urban investors in rural property.

59. Gerber, Social Origins of the Modern Middle East, 39, conversion into hectares is ours, based on idem, 30 and 32.

60. Idem, 35, his suggestion that the urban proprietor worked his farm in the countryside “himself, perhaps with some family help in peak periods” sounds extremely impractical given the distance between town houses and most fields extra muros. As Gerber (38–39) already supposes for the richest among them, stewards must played a much more general intermediate role between rural workers and urban owners.

61. Adjusted figures in idem, 28. Besides, around 10 percent of the village households were shopkeepers and artisans. We consider the figure of 56 percent landless in 1573 as exceptional.

62. As in more western parts of the Mediterranean, see Jan Lucassen, Migrant labour in Europe 1600–1900. The Drift to the North Sea (London, 1987).

63. Gerber, Social Origins of the Modern Middle East, 35, 37.

64. Idem, 33–36.

65. Roger Owen, The Middle East in the World Economy 1800–1914 (Oxford, 1981), 207. There certainly were large estates around Bursa, but how common these were is not clear.

66. Faroqhi Artisans of Empire, 144; Canbakal and Filiztekin, “A very long-term perspective on wealth inequality in Ottoman Lands” point to a crisis in the surrounding countryside in the second half of the sixteenth century as becomes clear from migration to the city and the subsequent cooperation of a number of the rural poor with Celali rebels, 9.

67. Çịzakça, “A Short History of the Bursa Silk Industry,” 151–152.

68. This goes certainly for Bursa district (kaza), but less so for Bursa province (sancak).

69. The nine other towns are Inegol, Yarhisar, Yenisehir, Gol, Yenicei Taraklu, Geyve, Akhisar, Goynuk, Beg Bazari. For 1487 the villages of the districts İnegöl, Yarhisar, Ermeni Pazari, Domaniç, Yenişehir, Söğüd, Göl, Yenice-i Taraklı, Geyve, Akyazı, Akhisar, Göynük, Beğ-Bazarı, are included. For 1521 and 1573 the villages of the same districts plus the villages of the Bursa district are included.