Counterfeiting in Ankara

Author(s): Suraiya Faroqhi

Source: Turkish Studies Association Bulletin , SEPTEMBER 1991, Vol. 15, No. 2
(SEPTEMBER 1991), pp. 281-292
Published by: Indiana University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43385270

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Turkish Studies Association Bulletin

This content downloaded from

193.140.111.37 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:06:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Counterfeiting in Ankara

SURAIYA FAROQHI
Ludwig-Maximilians University

Although are
areknown
known thieves,
to a widetovariety
a wideofrobbers,
human variety
societies,murderers, of human arsonists societies, and the counterfeiters conditions
the conditions
under which crimes are committed are quite specific. This observation
lies behind the ( pre-perestroika ) debates on how to write a convincing
detective story in a central-European socialist setting, and is well-
known to historians who have studied the abandonment of new-born
babies in seventeenth-century France, or arson in nineteenth-century
rural Bavaria.1 All societies using money will produce counterfeiters.
And yet the motivations and conditions of work of a counterfeiter ac-
tive in Ankara around 16 00, manipulating silver wire and dies, will
differ from those of his/her late-twentieth-century counterpart, who uses
a photocopying machine. Thus the aim here is comparable to that of a
police procedural by Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö, to describe tensions
within a society using the account of a crime as a starting point.2

Two Cases

The story was recorded in the kadi registers of Ankara in Muharrem

1008/July- August 1599.3 In those summer days, a group of people from
the quarter of Sabuni, who preferred to remain nameless, appeared be-

1 Günter Ebert, Männer die im Keller husten. Ansichten zur Kriminalliteratur . (Berlin/GDR: Das
Neue Berlin, 1987), pp. 102ff., attempts to pinpoint socially revealing crimes in the pre-1989
GDR. That the author is too optimistic and omits a whole range of relevant crimes is beside
the point here; important is the posing of the question. On the widespread abandoning of
infants in early-modern France, see Pierre Chaunu and Richard Gascon, Histoire économique et
sociale de la France , vol. 1.1 (Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1977), p. 422. On arson in late-
nineteenth-century rural Bavaria and the arsonists' motivations see Regina Schulze, "Feuer im
Dorf," in Räuber, Volk und Obrigkeit, Studien zur Kriminalität in Deutschland seit dem 18.Jahrhun -
dert, ed. Heinz Reif (Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1984), pp. 100-52.
2 The detective stories of Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö are explicit in describing the frustrations
of both policemen and down-and-outs in Stockholm during the late 1960s and 1970s. Com-
pare The Laughing Policeman, trans. Alan Blair (New York: Vintage Books, 1977).
3 Ankara Kadi Registers (henceforth AKR) 6, p. 88, n. 526.

This content downloaded from

193.140.111.37 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:06:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 282 F aroqhi

forethe court to c
whom they accused
responded with a f
town, his lieutena
kadi of Ankara wa
theological school (
prised Abdi at hom
the contents of a s
two hammers, a si
for pulling wire, a
Abdi tried to expla
the incriminating i
of Kütahya. But a
smith's furnace, h
silver coins (guru§
Upon this discover
asked where he ha
counterfeited, he d
duly questioned, b
with her. She did
tice to pull the silv
have thrown incri
apprentice yielded
not think it worth
plenty of enemies
mation that he had
or four times alread
of the law. Althou
feiter, they had to
facture fake coins.
together with the
tion were laid out i
they had been foun
to the testimony o
thing.
Upon demand of the deputy governor, all this information was en-
tered into the kadi registers. In fact, in the extant register there are two
entries concerning this issue, separated by fifty unrelated items. Since

4 Similar demonstrations were common on Turkish television during the 1970s and 1980s.

This content downloaded from

193.140.111.37 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:06:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Counterfeiting in Ankara 283

the second version contains some details abse

bly was written to incorporate the testimon
ously had been overlooked, and to correct err
wife, previously anonymous, was now called
gypsy from Kütahya province was described
of §eyhli, and the incriminating material n
ished akçes and low-grade (zuyuf) silver pie
wards remains unknown; and we can only gu
to save himself yet again, or this was the def
counterfeiter and maybe even of his life.
When interpreting this story, we can use a
which is almost contemporary (§evval 10 10/
man apprehended while in possession of div
have received them from a certain Ruhi
house of Mansur in Bursa's Igneci quarter. W
searched, the owner apparently had fled,
apprehended, and counterfeit coins found,
destined for the manufacture of guru§ , a ha
dividers and (presumably steel) pens. In this
came from the head of the local mint, in the p
person sent by the kadi of Bursa; the gover
dence.

Why Counterfeit?
During the last decades of the sixteenth and
teenth centuries, counterfeiting was particul
was depreciating, coins of different weight
money was in high demand,7 even as the pur

5 AKR 6, n. 576.
6 Bekir Sitki Baykal, "Osmanli Imparatorlugunda XVII ve
zeniyle Ilgili Belgeier," Belgeier. Türk Tarih Belgeleri De
ment in question is on pp. 88-89.
7 On the late sixteenth-century inflation compare Omer L
of the Sixteenth Century: A Turning Point in the Econ
International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 6(1975):
revolution' im osmanischen Reich während der zweiten Hälf
erte' oder intern verursachte Inflation? (Zu einer These
42 ( 1983): 169-81; Cemal Kafadar, "Les troubles monétaires
de conscience ottoman du déclin," Annales ESC 46.2(19
"Money in the Ottoman Empire, 1326 to 1914," in The S
Ottoman Empire , eds. Halil Inalcik and Donald Quataert
Press, forthcoming). I thank Çevket Pamuk for allowing m

This content downloaded from

193.140.111.37 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:06:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 284 Faroqhi

man coinage decl

American h mines
prices of goods. P
mand for food gr
circulation increas
off to pay for sil
official devaluatio
and yet failed to
previously minted
issues, many peop
good. Thus the m
quality money wa
feiters plied thei
mints were of po
counterfeit coins.
Money was in hig
increasingly mon
and gold coin. Th
sought for possib
Losses inflicted o
further increased
obtain officially a
actions to earn th
out most of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Ottoman
government used the copper currency which circulated in everyday trans-
actions as a source of revenue. While the treasury did not accept copper
in payment for taxes, the service of exchanging akçe for copper was
farmed out to the highest bidder, who proceeded to collect silver coins
from the public in exchange for the divisionary currency.9 The metallic
value of these copper coins lay considerably below that of the akçe and
gwru$ which taxpayers were forced to relinquish. The effect was the
same as in the case of the premium on good-quality coins; market trans-
actions and the velocity of money circulation increased, creating addi-
tional inflationary pressures.10
Taxation contributed to the market orientation of the economy in
yet another fashion, which has been discussed by Indianist historians

8 Halil inalcik, "Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire," The Journal of Economic History
19(1969): 97-140, particularly pp. 135ff.
9 Cüneyt Olçer, Nah§h Osmanu Mangirlan, The Ornamental Copper Coinage of the Ottoman
Empire (Istanbul: n. p., 1975), pp. 9ff.
10 Kafadar, "Troubles monétaires, p. 388.

This content downloaded from

193.140.111.37 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:06:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Counterfeiting in Ankara 285

but to date largely ignored by Ottomanists.1

ernment demanded a large amount of cash
when the timar system still functioned, and
supplanted the timars. Most regions of the
no local supplies of silver, and even the R
profitable due to the competition from che
were closed down one by one.12 This defi
trade was the ultimate source of the silver
into the administration's coffers; but many
with foreign merchants. Thus within a short
jewelry would have found their way to Ista
means of earning money through internal tr
ing caravans, wove cotton cloth for urban m
children to town as wage laborers, while to
oriented toward the market economy.13 Ind
ices produced in this manner benefited the
particularly members of the Ottoman centr
the latter held the largest supplies of cash.
also meant an increase in trade, both foreign
hard pressed for cash "bought back" the mon
Istanbul in previous years.
Quite possibly counterfeiters such as Abdi
profit from coins that were only slightly be
of scarcity the tax collector would accept su
counterfeiters could collect the premium wh
for good quality coins. But even low grade fa
takers, for otherwise the large-scale import
pean coins into the seventeenth-century O
main inexplicable.14 Ottoman townsmen m
after having been cheated once or twice, th
poor quality coin. These coins found takers

11 C. A. Bayly, Rulers , Townsmen and Bazaars : North Indian So

1 770-1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 198
12 Halil Sahillioglu, "Osmanli Para Tarihinde Dünya Para
1 750)," Türkiye I ktisat Tarihi Üzerine Ara§tirmalar. Geli§me
particularly p. 14.
13 Suraiya Faroqhi, "Sixteenth-Century Periodic Markets
Hamid, Karahisar-i Sahib, Kütahya, Aydin and Mente§e," J
History of the Orient 22(1979): 32-80.
14 Robert Mantran, Istanbul dans la seconde moitié du XVIIe
économique et sociale , Bibliothèque archéologique et histori
ogie d'Istanbul (Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1962), pp. 26

This content downloaded from

193.140.111.37 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:06:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 286 F aroqhi

monetization had
manufactured by A
counterfeit Europe

Local Mints, the

The Ottoman cent
trouble procuring
Ankara, the sultan
recently a currency
taking the place of
futile in the long r
not acquire the ne
the late sixteenth c
practiced in Ankar
meters away.16 Lo
scouring neighbour
number of compet
for which there w
to their home town
competitors, since
Anatolian goats wa
a market in Polan
Ankara merchants'
elsewhere, and the
equitable distribut
This aim probably
officially assigned
European silver en
and Iran.19 Theref

15 Baykal, "Para," pp. 94

A mint had operated in A
ger, Osmanische Numisma
1922 [Braunschweig: Kli
16 Özer Ergenç, "XVI Yii
Bilgiler," Türiäye Iktisa
86-97.
1 7 Baykal, "Para," p. 94
18 Ozer Ergenç, "1600-1
Türiäye I ktisat Tarihi Sem
Ünal Nalbantoglu (Anka
60.
19 Kafadar, "Troubles monétaires, p. 384.

This content downloaded from

193.140.111.37 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:06:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Counterfeiting in Ankara 287

others brought silver to the mint, and thos

from other provinces were, if anything, enc
In addition, supervision being more difficu
outside Istanbul frequently turned out debas
easier for counterfeiters like Abdi b. Murad
their workshops.20 Thus the reopening of th
counter to the trend of the seventeenth cent
were closed down one by one, and Ottoma
make payments largely in foreign coins. The
ably did not continue to operate for very lon
If provincial mints turned out substandard
least had a pecuniary interest in preventing
by private enterprise. It is not a matter of chan
feiters and mint officials competed for scan
employees were supposed to collect old and su
ing, and also had the right to search merchan
Ankara.21 If the latter did not spend their m
cials were supposed to forcibly exchange their s
akçes ; unminted silver was measured by the
(worth 880 akçes at the official rate of 1626
of silver vessels also were required to sell onl
which must have forced silversmiths to pay h
shop.22 Counterfeiters could not coerce as co
probably offered better prices to the owner
"seekers of silver" (gümü} arayicisi ), who w
counterfeiters as part of their official duties, a
bly came from mint revenue, had a persona
of counterfeiters.

Manufacturing Counterfeit Coin

Ottoman coins of the early-modern period
ally, and the processes employed rather resem

20 Sahillioglu, "Para," p. 16.

2 1 Baykal, "Para, p. 96.
22 These regulations closely resemble their predecessors fr
queror (145 1-81 ); however the latter's edicts allowed for fi
ers were permitted to acquire, a concession not found in th
(Robert Anhegger and Halil înalcik (eds.), Känünäme-i sultã
Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine ait Yasaknãme ve Kānūnnām
1956) pp. 5, 9, 13, 14, and 16.

This content downloaded from

193.140.111.37 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:06:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 288 F aroqhi

temporary Europe
degree of fineness,
reached the necess
obtained was too la
traces of which re
ansed by firing, a
copper to evacuate
why coins normally
Afterwards the sil
found too light we
filed to the required
metal were turned
the coin surface sh
ers had coins deco
teenth century, di
The lists of impl
that he used a diff
our counterfeiter t
(for him). He proba
which he then fas
addition Abdi b. M
casting. If the latt
with the mirror
Hüseyin possessed
presumably to appl
simultaneously. W
silver wire remain
quired higher temp
forge.

Social Relations

In both the stories of Abdi b. Murad and Ruhi b. Hüseyin, relations

between family members, apprentices and neighbors played a crucial
role. Abdi b. Murad employed an apprentice as a helper in his clandes-
tine business. Since he kept his counterfeiter's implements in his house
and not in his workshop, the apprentice must have been admitted to his
home. This was not unusual; the legend of the dervish saint Piri Baba of

23 Schaendlinger, Osmanische Numismatik , pp. 13-14, gives an account of the technical side of
Ottoman minting.

This content downloaded from

193.140.111.37 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:06:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Counterfeiting in Ankara 289

Merzifon, which was recorded in the sevente

an apprentice running errands for his mast
living in his master's house.24 But since Abd
flight before he could be questioned, we d
have defended himself, or what he knew abo
In both the Bursa and the Ankara cases, w
Bursa it was Fatma, wife of Mansur, the own
Hüseyin lived, who was arrested along with
was Abdi's wife Baci b. Boyaci Dede; Abdi
daughter of a fellow craftsman. Abdi made
himself by claiming that his wife was respo
coins. Perhaps she had assisted him; one doe
her labors were not limited to her household
nothing the investigators found worth recor
In his desperate attempt to escape convictio
b. Murad also accused a gypsy from the prov
gypsies of this period have been little studie
concerning them is the k anunnameA kibtiy
and complied in 937/1530.25 As a legal text,
tells us more about the aims and assumption
racy than about the gypsies themselves. Th
period were partly Muslims and partly unb
know whether by the latter term, the comp
people practicing the ancient beliefs of the R
teenth-century Dutch tended to repulse gyp
tized, Ottoman officials drafted rules to en
remained Muslims; those who persisted in r
pany of non-Muslims were to be punished,
demanded from non-Muslims.26 Legally the
restricted to the district ( kadilik ) in which
individuals or families were not allowed to
which they officially formed a part. This r
the punctual payment of taxes, but prob
control measure, since the compilers of the

24 Suraiya Faroqhi, "The Life Story of an Urban Saint in

Merzifon," Tarih Dergisi 32(1979): 653-678, particularly p
25 Orner Lûtfi Barkan (ed.), XV ve XVIinci Asirlarda Osmanl
Hukuki ve Mali Esaslan (Istanbul: Istanbul University, 19
26 Barkan, Z irai bkonommin Hukuki ve M ali bsaslari, p. ¿5U.
The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch
Collins, 1987), pp. 595-96.

This content downloaded from

193.140.111.37 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:06:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
290 Faroqhi

of the virtue of g
case, his accusati
framework of ass
The counterfeiter
more prominent
neighborhood. Inh
to the attention o
production of the
uted information
habitual criminal.
ing either fear or
neighbors were
mint official. How
hood were recruit
Neighbors were o
cause otherwise th
crime had been c
find the criminal
in the same mann
robbers or rebels
obliged to formal
find sureties wou
guarantee was inv
ple intensely to s
plaining about Ab
find counterfeit
coins were not vi
must have taken
courtyard. They
four times but al
point to the count
ful men in the ci
and his men had

27 Uriel Heyd, Studies in

1973), pp. 238ff.
28 Özer Ergenç, "Osm
Ara§tirmalan 4( 1984): 6
Ottoman town quarter

This content downloaded from

193.140.111.37 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:06:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Counterfeiting in Ankara 29 1

century Anatolia, such an association may ex

tempt for Abdi.29
As Ottoman kadi registers rarely relate a jud
whether this general blackening of Abdi's ch
the Ottoman court proceedings, the question
was a first offender or else a hardened crimin
up, and must have been significant when dete
in a case recorded in the registers of Çorum
who had been caught red-handed produced a
show that he had not been known as a thief i
reputation, Abdi must have been in deep trou
any, had their work cut out for them.

Penalties

In the absence of evidence concerning Abdťs fate, we can only trace

what should have happened to him according to the Ottoman criminal
law as codified in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Laws concern-
ing mining and mints dated back to the reign of Mehmed the Con-
queror, and decreed that counterfeiters were to be executed.31 Since
Abdi denied it and there were no witnesses, it is difficult to say whether
a kadi's court would have found him guilty of this crime. At the very
least, though, he should have been punished for the possession of instru-
ments suitable for counterfeiting, for the penal code of Süleyman the
Lawgiver, compiled by the ni§anci and historian Celalzade Mustafa Pa§a,
recognized such possession as a separate crime. However the code does
not specify the "severe punishment" to be meted out in such cases.32
Possibly Abdi was not tried by the Ankara kadi's court at all, but sent to
Istanbul so his case could be decided in the sultan's Council. In the late
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries counterfeiters were some-
times imprisoned in a fortress.33 But we know so little about crime and

29 Suraiya Faroqhi, "Political Activity among Ottoman Taxpayers and the Problem of Sultanic
Legitimation ( 1570- 1650), "Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient (Forthcom-
ing).
30 Çorum Kadi Sicilli n. 1, until recently located in the Çorum Kütüphanesi, Çorum. I used a
microfilm made for Middle East Technical University, Ankara. Compare f. 56A (according to
variant pagination f. 45b).
3 1 Anhegger and Inalcik, Kãnãnname, pp. 5 and 9. However, lesser penalties were also inflicted
(compare Heyd, Studies, p. 270).
32 Heyd, Studies , pp. 83 and 121.
33 Ne§eErim, "Osmanli Imparatorlugunda KalebendlikCezasi vebuçlarin bininandirilmasi Uze-
rine bir Deneme," Osmanli Ara§tirmalan 4( 1984): 79-88.

This content downloaded from

193.140.111.37 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:06:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 292 F aroqhi

repression in the e
gauge the likelihoo

Conclusion

A cursory reading of sultanic decrees and kadi registers dating from the
years around 1600 suggests that robbery by real or alleged servitors of the
state was the most socially visible, and possibly also the most frequent,
crime of the period. Irregular soldiers attacked private homes, stole what
they could carry and destroyed what they could not. Others descended
upon hapless villages and demanded a host of legal or illegal contribu-
tions, often misusing the fines which constituted an important part of
the Ottoman system of penalties.34 Historians have stressed that war-
making and state-making in early-modern Europe show many features
we associate with organized crime; and in this respect as well as many
others, the Ottoman polity was an early-modern state.35
Young Anatolian villagers of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth
centuries had little difficulty in obtaining a musket and joining the
mercenaries; but this response to official spoliation was not available
to - among others - older townsmen.36 Moreover most townspeople
were less likely than villagers to be robbed by provincial dignitaries'
mercenaries, unless they traveled, or experienced an occupation of their
city by a large group of irregulars. Nevertheless, "some rob you with a
shotgun, some with a fountain pen," and as townspeople were more
involved than villagers in the money economy, they particularly were
victimized by the monetary instability and price increases of the times.
Under these circumstances quite a few responded by attempting to ma-
nipulate the currency, even if they did not actually counterfeit. The
filing of coins certainly was a mass phenomenon. Seen from this point
of view, the activities of Abdi b. Murad or Ruhi Hüseyin indicate the
social tensions of their period, just as the smuggling of narcotics or the
use of violence against foreign immigrants delineate the fault lines of
our own society.

34 Halil Inalcik, "Adaletnâmeler," Belgeler 2.3-4( 1965): 49-145, particularly pp. 75-84.
35 Charles Tilly, "War Making and State Making as Organized Crime, in Bringing th¿ State Back
In, eds. Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985), pp. 169-91.
36 Halil Inalcik, "Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700, Ar-
chivům Ottomanicum 6( 1980): 283-337, see particularly pp. 292-95.

This content downloaded from

193.140.111.37 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:06:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms