Cengiz Kırlı

THE EFFECT OF HEMŞEHRI (SHARED-

HOMETOWN) TIES ON IMMIGRANTS’
EXPERIENCES IN ISTANBUL
Istanbul has been a center of migration throughout its history. In parallel
with political developments affecting the demographic structure of the city,
the population of Istanbul, excluding the last years of the Byzantium period,
the post-conquest period, and a short period following the establishment of
the Republic of Turkey, has continuously increased, surpassing the rate of
natural increase (birth rate minus death rate) primarily due to migration.
Most migration was not voluntary. Examples of forced migration include the
transfer to Istanbul of devshirme (young Christian men, mostly from the
Balkans, recruited for the Janissary army) in the 14th through 17th centuries,
1

and of families from various parts of the empire, brought in to raise the
city’s dramatically low population in the post-conquest period. The
settlement in Istanbul of thousands of Jews forced to leave Spain at the end
of the 15th century, and Muslims leaving the Balkans as the empire
contracted in the second half of the 19 th century, can be considered semi-
forced migration.2

Apart from these exceptions, migration to Istanbul was basically the

personal choice of all migrants beyond economic or political reasons. As the
capital of Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire, and functioning as an
economic and political center even during the Republican period when it
was no longer the capital, Istanbul emerged as a place of shelter, livelihoods,
and employment for people fleeing political turmoil in rural areas, wars, and
financial difficulties.

During the Ottoman period, migration to Istanbul occurred despite efforts by

the state to discourage it. One of the most frequently used methods to
prevent migration to Istanbul was the practice of surety. To be allowed to
migrate to Istanbul, people had to prove that there were Istanbul residents
prepared to serve as their guarantors, and those who had already migrated
or were living in the city were compelled to give guarantees during periodic
censuses and controls. Those who were unable to avoid these controls or to

1
find guarantors were sent back to their hometowns. In the mid-19 th century,
the practice of surety was replaced with a system requiring a mürur
tezkiresi (certificate of transit or internal passport). Under this system,
anyone wishing to visit Istanbul temporarily or move there permanently had
to inform the authorities in their hometown about the purpose of the move
and the identity of their guarantors. The number of 17 th-century archival
records documenting state efforts to prevent migration to Istanbul
demonstrate both the state’s concern about this issue and its failure to
prevent migration. State opposition to migration was based on economic
concerns, such as decreasing rural tax revenues and subsistence problems
associated with Istanbul’s increasing population, but also on political
concerns. To the authorities, single migrants were disrupters of
neighborhood life and potential criminals, but (in Istanbul as in a number of
large European cities) they were also necessary for the daily cycle of
production and consumption—a dilemma that was undoubtedly one of the
most important challenges faced by early-modern political authorities.

State efforts to prevent migration, and even more importantly the fact that
migrants had to leave their familiar lives and embark on a difficult and often
confusing path, promoted solidarity and the formation of a common identity
among migrants and inhabitants. In sociological terms, family, kinship, tribe,
community, religion, and ethnicity can all contribute significantly to such a
common identity. Nevertheless, in the light of available data, it is possible to
assert that the most widespread common identity and solidarity pattern in
Ottoman and Republican Istanbul was based on geographical origin. This was
called hemşehrilik (sharing the same hometown).

Reliable data on migration and hemşehrilik in the Ottoman Empire exist in

archival documents, most of which date back to the 18 th and 19th centuries.
Migration to Istanbul increased to an unprecedented extent in the
18th century, and in parallel with the deepening economic and political crises,
it began to be defined as a serious social problem by Ottoman political
authorities. As a result of this concern, detailed records and counts were
kept on the working population and migrants in Istanbul.

One of the early enumerations was a 1752 register of the bathhouses

(hamams) of Istanbul, which was prepared to identify Albanians and remove
3

them from Istanbul, since the main actor behind the 1730 Patrona Halil
Rebellion was an Albanian hamam attendant and many Albanians were
employed in hamams. According to this register, migrants constituted 90%
2
of the 2,400 employees working in the 177 hamams of Istanbul at the time.
Of these migrants, 70% came from Rumelia. 38% of Rumelian migrants were
from Avlonya (Vlorë), and 24% from Istarova (Pogradec). Smaller numbers of
migrants came from cities that are near each other in what is now southern
Albania, including Görice (Korçë), Opar, Berat, Elbasan, and Permedi
(Përmet). In other words, two-thirds of hamam attendants in Istanbul in the
mid-18th century came from a few geographically close cities. The 4

connection of this region with Istanbul hamams probably dates back to

earlier periods. For example, Evliya Çelebi, visiting the city of Berat in 1670,
noted that members of the peasant population of the city migrated to
Istanbul and worked in hamams. 5

A series of esnaf kefalet defteri (artisan surety registers) prepared in the

1790s enable comprehensive observations not only about hamams but also
about migration and hemşehri relations in the entire working population of
Istanbul. Encompassing nearly 45,000 people employed in shops, gardens,
6

and docks in Istanbul, many entries label inhabitants as local or indicate their
hometown. The records reveal that 55% of those working in stores and
gardens and 77% of those working as boatmen or porters were migrants.

A cursory examination of these registers suggests that different religious

communities specialized in different occupations. Register entries for
occupations with a substantial number of workers indicate that a large
majority of grocers and garden workers were Rum (Orthodox Greek), bakers
and potters were Armenian, and people working in coffee shops, barber
shops, and hamams were Muslim. Barbers, leather dealers, toy makers,
ironsmiths, and tinsmiths were generally Muslim, while Greeks worked as
coarse-wool weavers, makersdiary workers, candle makers, and furriers,
Armenians as locksmiths, tailors, and tobacco dealers, and Jews as silk
dealers, doctors, and tinsmiths. Some occupations were practiced by
members of more than one community. For example, Muslims and Jews
worked as herbalists; Greeks and Jews ran taverns; Greeks, Armenians, and
Muslims worked as cooks; and Muslims, Jews, and Greeks worked as
butchers and greengrocers. Shop owners and their journeymen and
apprentices generally belonged to the same religious community. This was
especially true of small businesses such as grocery stores, tobacco shops,
barbershops, and coffee shops; in businesses with more than five or six
employees, such as bakeries, hamams, pottery factories, and

3
slaughterhouses, owners and workers often belonged to different religious
communities.

An exclusive focus on ethnic and religious divisions of labor would, however,

ignore other potential ties among Ottoman artisans that could have played a
major role in shaping the choice of occupation and use of labor. In this
respect, hemşehrilik ties are worth special mention. Considering the vast
territories of the empire and high rates of immigration at the end of the
18th century, it is remarkable that migrants to Istanbul came from a limited
number of places—mainly (1) the central Balkans and Macedonia, (2) west
of the Black Sea, and (3) the central and western parts of eastern Anatolia.
This pattern was no doubt related to the structure of the migration chain
connecting emigrant-sending places to Istanbul. Hemşehrilik ties were the
strongest connection between earlier and more recent migrants to Istanbul.
The registers indicate that the most decisive aspect of migration was the fact
that migrants not only had the same occupation as their hemşehris but also
worked at the same location. It was rare for masters, journeymen,
apprentices, or even boatmen or porters from different hometowns to work
at the same place. This pattern provides insight into the relations between
employers and employees. Considering the fact that a significant number of
workers also slept in the workplace, it is conceivable that business owners
hired fellow townsmen and paid them low wages but provided them with
shelter.

To illustrate, in the approximately 500 grocery stores in Istanbul, while the

majority of owners and employees were Rum, most of their hometowns
were in Grebene (Grevena) and Agrafa in the Balkans and İncesu in central
Anatolia. Migrants from Grevena worked, apart from grocery stores, only in
gardens, especially those along the Bosphorus. Even more strikingly, almost
all migrants from Agrafa who settled on the Bosphorus, but none of those
who settled in the Haliç (Golden Horn), worked as grocers. This suggests that
immigrants’ choices of occupation and settlement area were not arbitrary or
coincidental. Rather, the connections they built with their hemşehris either
before or after their arrival in Istanbul had the greatest influence on these
choices. This network of relations explains the absence of grocers from
Agrafa and the plentitude of grocers from Grebene in the Haliç, and the
small number of grocers and great number of gardeners from Grebene on
the Bosphorus.

4
Not only grocers but also most gardeners were Rum. Almost all gardeners
working as tenants in nearly 550 gardens owned by Ottoman elites were
migrants, and the emigration percentages indicate that they arrived in
Istanbul from neighboring Albanian and Macedonian regions, such as
Përmet, Ohri (Ohrid), Grevena, Manastır (Monastir), Avlonya (Vlorë), and
Yanya (Ioannina). Nearly all of those who arrived from Ohrid, 95% of those
from Përmet, and more than half of those from Monastir did not work in any
other occupation except gardening.

Approximately 75% of Istanbul’s 100 bakeries and mills were run by

Armenians, and almost the entire labor force in these businesses was
composed of migrants. A considerable number of bakery and mill workers
were Armenian; Muslims also had a substantial presence. All workers,
whether Armenian or Muslim, migrated from geographically proximate
towns such as Ağın, Karahisar, Kuruçay, Erzurum, Sivas, and Divriği, which
suggests that hemşehri ties were stronger than religious affiliations.

Most employees of Muslim hamam owners in the mid-18th century were

Muslims who had migrated from one of several cities in southern Albania. By
the end of the century, state efforts to ward off hamam employees of
Albanian origin must have been successful, since people emigrating from
Anatolia were employed in hamams as well. Whether Muslim or Armenian, a
large majority of Anatolian migrants came from Sivas.

Almost all of those who migrated from Kalifer (Kalofer) were involved
in aba (cloak) making, whereas more than half of those who migrated from
Sakız (Chios) worked as lemon sellers. A considerable number of those who
came from Kayseri performed jobs such as lumbering, stone cutting, and nail
making.

Hemşehri solidarity was one of the most determinant factors for workers on
Istanbul’s docks, in particular porters and boatmen. In addition to job
preferences, hemşehri relations formed at a local level served as the main
determinant factor for porters and boatmen, nearly all of whom were
unskilled workers. To illustrate, all 87 back porters (arka hamalı) at the docks
of Ahırkapı, seven of the eight horse porters (at hamalı), and 30 of 92
registered boatmen were migrants from Kemah. Of the 51 back porters at
the docks of Büyük and Vezir in Bahçekapı, 31 were from Ürgüp, and 10 of
these porters were from Çankırı; nearly all 71 back porters at the Eminönü
Hasır docks came from Çankırı and Divriği; 63 of the 74 back porters at the

5
docks of Çatladıkapı were from Erzincan or Kemah. A great majority of
porters at the docks of Kereste in Odunkapısı migrated from Sivas, whereas
most of the boatmen at the docks of Tulumba came from Kırili in Konya.
More than half of the 122 back porters at the docks of Kumkapı and all of
the lumberjacks were from Harput; a large majority of porters and boatmen
at the docks of Samatya were from Sivas and Kastamonu, respectively; 39 of
the 52 back porters at the docks of Davutpaşa came from Arapkir, and 11
were from Divriği, which is near Arapkir; 25 of the 27 back porters at the
docks of Cibali came from Sivas; 70 of the 131 back porters at the docks of
Unkapanı came from Tokat; 48 of these and half the boatmen were from
Kastamonu and Erzincan, respectively; 54 of the 59 back porters at the docks
of Balat came from Çankırı or Sivas. The situation was similar outside the
Istanbul city walls. All 22 back porters at the Eyüp Defterdar docks were
from Sivas and Divriği, and most of the horse porters came from Ağın;
almost all mavnacıs (barge workers) in Hasköy came from Van or Kemah,
and more than half of the sakas (water carriers) were from Erzurum or
Karahisar; the majority of porters at the docks of Tophane came from
Kuruçay; all porters at the docks of Çavuşbaşı in Tophane came from Sivas.
Horse porters at the docks of Fındıklı came from Erzurum or Kuruçay; 37 of
the 48 back porters and 39 of the 120 boatmen at the docks of Beşiktaş were
from Sivas and Taşköprü in Kastamonu, respectively. All 15 porters at
Beyoğlu Firuzağa came from Ağın; 16 of 20 yedekçi (towing workers), who
helped boats pass Akıntıburnu in Arnavutköy, were from Karahisar, and four
of these were from Boyabat; all 10 manure boatmen at the docks of
Büyükdere came from Boyabat; nearly all the porters at the docks of
Üsküdar were from Tosya in Kastamonu, a significant majority of boatmen
were from Çankırı-Çerkeş, and a relative number from Abana in Kastamonu;
31 of the 52 sırık hamals (porters using poles) at the docks of Ayazma came
from Kastamonu, and 12 of these came from Sivas; 26 of
29 merkepçis (porters using donkeys) at the docks of Çöplük came from
Kayseri; 12 of 14 gardening boatmen at Anadolu Kavağı came from Filibe
(Plovdiv) or Tırnovo (Tarnovo); a large majority of the fishermen at the docks
of İncirköyü came from the geographically proximate towns of Kızanlık
(Kazanlak) and Plovdiv.

All of the instances above demonstrate that rather than an emigrant’s

individual decision, it was the hemşehri relationship that served as the
determinant factor for migration to Istanbul’s fiercely competitive labor
market. These ties not only determined occupational specialization but also

6
played a key role in defining artisans’ identities and affiliations. In other
words, since an emigrant’s occupation was almost always acquired following
migration rather than at the place of origin, it was determined to a
significant extent without recourse to the individual’s preferences. Patterns
of occupational specialization did not remain steady over the years, and
changes in these could determine the occupations of later emigrants. For
instance, emigrants from Ağın, who, at the end of the 18 th century, were
generally bakers and to a lesser extent butchers, become mostly butchers by
the mid-19th century. Emigrants from Arapkir, Ağın, and Divriği, largely
7

settled in the Kasap İlyas neighborhood in Davutpaşa, took up different

occupations; unlike at the end of the 18th century, in the 19th century they
began to work as manav küfecisis (grocery porters) or as civil servants, which
was a new occupation in this period. 8

Hemşehri ties affected people’s choices of occupation and neighborhood in

Istanbul to a remarkable extent. These ties existed even in the Janissary
Corps at the beginning of the 19 th century; for instance, members of the
9

25th regiment (cemaat) were from Erzurum and Van, while those of the
56th regiment were mostly from Gerede.

State efforts to prevent migration to Istanbul using the surety system

or mürur tezkiresi ceased by the 20th century, and transportation improved.
Particularly in the 1950s, Turkey experienced a tremendous increase in
migration as the country industrialized and job opportunities expanded and
diversified. However, migrants to Istanbul in Republican Turkey experienced
difficulties and hardships similar to those of the Ottoman period. Without
the formal and informal social networks that connected their home region to
Istanbul, it would not have been possible for migrants to meet basic needs
such as employment and housing. For this reason, hemşehri ties still played
an indispensible role.

There are many examples of the way the urban production system of the
17th century—which was built on hemşehri solidarity and under which
workers provided cheap labor, loyalty, and trust in exchange for surety,
work, and a place to live—continued in 20 th-century Turkey. A study of labor
in Kağıthane district in Istanbul at the beginning of the 1970s noted that a
majority of employees in factories with fewer than 50 employees
were hemşehris of the factory owners. 10

7
Studies of job seeking and the demographic features of squatters and new
neighborhoods formed as a result of rapid urbanization have identified not
only the facilitating impact of hemşehri solidarity on migration to Istanbul
but also its consolidating effect on hemşehri ties. A myriad of settlements
emerged as a result of chain migrations to Istanbul in the 1950s, and these
places were named after the migrants’ city or region of origin. This
demonstrates the continuing and intensified urbanization trend since the
Ottoman era. Moving together into new neighborhoods in Istanbul
established through hemşehri ties, these new migrants demanded services
from local and central authorities and were able to present themselves as
organized interest groups based on a common hemşehri identity rather than
as detached and alienated individuals. At least 15 mayors voted into office
11

during the 2007 municipal elections were born in one of the 10 cities that
sent the most migrants to Istanbul, demonstrating the continuing impact
of hemşehri ties on politics. 12

Today, 10% of the associations active throughout Turkey

are hemşehri associations. In 2007, approximately half of the 7,384
existing hemşehri associations were located in the city that receives the
most migration, Istanbul. Today, unlike 200 years ago when it received
13

migrants from only a few regions, Istanbul welcomes immigrants from all
over Turkey. However, chain migration and old hemşehri ties continue to
bring forward the most migrant-sending Anatolian cities. For example,
approximately 79% of hemşehri electorates were not registered in Istanbul,
and nearly 40% of these were made up of migrants from 10 cities. Sivas and
14

Kastamonu were the two cities with the highest rates of migration to
Istanbul, as they were at the end of the 18 th century, which suggests the
stability of chain migration based on hemşehri ties.

FOOTNOTES
1 Translator’s note: “Devshirme System [Gravure],” in Children and Youth
in History, Item #464, http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/464
(accessed July 18, 2014).

2 Cem Behar, A Neighborhood in Ottoman Istanbul: Fruit Vendors and Civil

Servants in the Kasap İlyas Mahalle, Albany: State University of New
York, 2003, p. 95.
8
 3 Nina Ergin, “The Albanian Tellāk Connection: Labor Migration to the
Hamams of Eighteenth-Century Istanbul Based on the 1752 İstanbul
Hamāmları Defteri”, Turcica, 2012, vol. 43, pp. 231-256.

4 Ergin, “The Albanian Tellāk Connection”, p. 246.

5 Ergin, “The Albanian Tellāk Connection”, p. 247.

6 For a general introduction to these registers and their catalogue

numbers in the archives, see Cengiz Kırlı and Betül Başaran, “18. Yüzyıl
Sonlarında Osmanlı Esnafı”, Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Esnaf ve
Ticaret, ed. Fatmagül Demirel, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2012,
pp. 7-20.

7 Zeki Arıkan, “Tanzimat Döneminde Eğin Yöresinden İstanbul’a

Göçler”, Tanzimat’ın 150. Yıldönümü Uluslararası Sempozyumu,
Bildiriler, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1994, pp. 467-481.

8 Behar, A Neighborhood in Ottoman Istanbul, pp. 113-120.

9 Câbî Ömer Efendi, Tarih, ed. Mehmet Ali Beyhan, Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu, 1992, p. 440, 502.

10 Alan Dubetsky, “Kinship, Primordial Ties, and Factory Organization in

Turkey: An Anthropological View”, IJMES, 1976, vol. 7, issue 3, pp. 433-
451.

11 Ayşe Güneş-Ayata, “Gecekondularda Kimlik Sorunu, Dayanışma

Örüntüleri ve Hemşehrilik”, Toplum ve Bilim, 1990-1991, issue 51-52, p.
89.

12 Nail Yılmaz, Hemşehri Kimliği: Kastamonulular Örneği, Istanbul: Beta,

2008, pp. 42-43.

13 Yılmaz, Hemşehri Kimliği, p. 34.

14 Yılmaz, Hemşehri Kimliği, p. 41.

This article was translated from Turkish version of History of Istanbul with some editions to be published in
a digitalized form in 2019.

SHOW ALL IMAGES

9
SUBTITLES

FOOTNOTES

1- A Levend (a handsome, strong youth) (Costumes L’Empire Turc)

10
2- An Albanian (Costumes L’Empire Turc)

11
3- An Egyptian (left) and Turkish woman (Thomas Shaw)

12
4- An Albanian in his local attires (Miller)

13
5- A Greek woman with her child (Miller)

14
6- A Syrian Arab (Miller)

15
7- A Turk in fur robe (Miller)

16
8- A Tatar (Miller)

17
9- Greek and Armenian women (M. Fuad)

18
10- A Bosnian man (Miller)

19