Content uploaded by Ali Gökhan Gölçek
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ali Gökhan Gölçek on Dec 25, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi
XXXIV / 2, 2019, 567-594
DOI: 10.18513/egetid.661608
AN ECONOMIC OVERVIEW OF OTTOMAN STATE RECORD OF
TAXES: TEMETTUAT (PROFIT TAX) REGISTERS OF NİĞDE
SANJAK (1844-1845)
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK* – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ**
Öz
Osmanlı Devleti Vergi Kayıtları Üzerine Ekonomik Bir Bakış:
Niğde Sancağı Temettüat Tahrirleri (1844-1845)
Osmanlı Devleti’nde gerileme dönemi sonrası görülen yönetimsel ve mali bunalımların etkilerinin
silinmesini amacıyla, 1839 yılında Tanzimat Fermanı ilan edilmiş ve ferman ile bazı reform
uygulamaları da hayat bulmuştur. Bu anlamda devletin vergileme sistemi değiştirilerek, mali
bunalımdan çıkması amaçlanmıştır. Tanzimat sonrası tutulmaya başlanan Temettüat Tahrirleri,
mikro ölçekte bölgelerdeki hane-halkının sosyoekonomik durumuna ilişkin ayrıntılı bilgiler
veren; emlak, arazi, hayvanat ve temettü üzerinden alınan vergilerin tek bir defterde tutulmasını
sağlayan kayıtlardır. Çalışmanın konusunu Karaman Eyaleti, Niğde Sancağına bağlı Kalkanlı
Kazası Bâzirgân Karyesi ile Anduğu Kazasına bağlı Ortaköy Karyesinin temettüat defterlerinde
yer alan bilgiler ışığında, söz konusu kazalardaki gelir dağılımı ve göreli yoksulluk
oluşturmaktadır. Yapılan hesaplamalar neticesinde ilgili kazalarda, Gini Katsayısı 0.3477 ve
göreli yoksulluk oranı ise %24 çıkmıştır. Bu bağlamda vergi uygulamalarının, gelir dağılımda
eşitsizliği tetiklediği ve regresif sonuçlar verdiği tespit edilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Temettüat Tahrirleri, Niğde Sancağı, Göreli Yoksulluk, Gelir Dağılımı.
Abstract
In 1839, the Imperial Edict of Gülhane was declared to erase the impacts of the administrative
and financial crises following the Ottoman Regression period. In this sense, the taxation system of
the state was changed and it was aimed to overcome the financial crisis. Temettüat (profits tax)
registers started to be kept after the Imperial Edict of Gülhane are the records that keep the taxes
on micro-scale of the socioeconomic status of the households in the region provides detailed
* Research Assistant, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative
Science, Niğde. E-mail: aligokhangolcek@gmail.com, ORCID: 0000-0002-7948-7688
** Assoc. Prof., Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Political Science, Konya. E-mail:
altugmkoktas@gmail.com, ORCID: 0000-0002-0911-2143
(Makale Gönderim Tarihi: 29.04.2019 - Makale Kabul Tarihi: 09.12.2019)
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
568
information; real estate, land, zoological and profit in a single book record. The subject of the
study consists of the income distribution and relative poverty in the light of the information in the
dividend books of Kalkanlı District, Bâzirgân Karyesi and Ortaköy Karyesi of Anduğ District that
were connected to Niğde Sanjak, Karaman Province. As a result of the calculations, Gini
Coefficient was 0.3477 and relative poverty rate was 24% in these districts. In this context,
taxation practices are found to be triggering income distribution inequality and yielding
regressive consequences.
Key Words: Temettuat (Profit tax) registers, relative poverty, income distribution.
Introduction
The study aims to examine the results of the regulatory reforms in Niğde
Sanjak of Karaman province and to determine the extent to which the Ottoman
Empire succeeded in the financial crises that first noticed in the 16th century1.
As a reformist movement after the Imperial Edict of Gülhane; a population
census was taken by the Ministry of Finance between 1844 and 1845, only for
once. As a result of the population census taken, the annual income of the
people in that region, the tax that they paid, agricultural products and livestock
were identified. The population census was recorded in the books called
Temettuat Tahrirleri (Temettuat -Profit Tax- Registers). Besides socioeconomic
implications on the region studied in micro-scale by means of these books, the
extent to which the system worked efficiently throughout the whole empire at
macro-scale was rendered measurable. Although the Ottoman Empire survived
many political and financial crises throughout its entire lifespan of six centuries,
the industrialization of Europe by spreading new economic systems had changed
and deepened the crisis experience. Besides external cyclical movements, the
system failure that had been functioning in the country made the financial
depression became a chronic disease regarding the Ottoman State. Despite all
efforts and struggles in seeking a way out of the depression via reform
movements, the Ottoman State became an economic market for foreign countries.
The main topic of the study is comprised of the socioeconomic status of
two separate villages regarding Temettuat (Profit Tax) Registers of Niğde
Sanjak. In this context, the importance of temettuat registers is mentioned, and
the information about the socioeconomic status of those villages is examined.
The obtained findings within the scope of temettüat registers on real estate,
land, livestock, and dividend are presented, and the Gini coefficients of
Bâzirgan and Ortakoy villages of Niğde Sanjak are calculated. In this context,
information on how the revenues were distributed and the relative poverty rate
is mentioned the last part of the study. Consequently, it is examined how far tax
reform following the Imperial Edict of Gülhane could have been applicable and
1 For the financial crisis of the Ottoman State, please see: Sakal and Gölçek 2017.
An Economic Overview of Ottoman State Record of Taxes: Temettuat (Profit Tax)
Registers of Niğde Sanjak (1844-1845)
569
the tax rates are found not to be determined fairly among the households.
Evaluations are made in the light of archival documents and auxiliary sources
within this study that examines the results of the tax reform carried out by the
Ottoman State in particular for Niğde Sanjak.
1. Niğde Sanjak in the Ottoman Empire
Niğde, located at an altitude of 1,190 meters above sea level in the
southern part of the Melendiz Mountains, had been ruled by the
Karamanogullari Principality following the collapse of the Anatolian Seljuk
State2. Following the foundation of the Ottoman Empire, Niğde joined the
Ottoman lands in 1397 after Yildirim Bayezid defeated the Karamanids
Principality at the Battle of Akcay. However, after a while, the Anatolian unity
was destroyed along with the Battle of Ankara which took place in 1402, and
Niğde was left to the Karamanids Principality once again3.
In the following years, with the help of the unity in Anatolia, Niğde
became a sanjak of Karaman Province under the reign of the Ottoman Empire in
1470. The first information related to the administrative structure of Niğde
Sanjak was placed in the population census documents dated 1576. According
to these documents, there were two counties in the sanjak, namely the Central
Niğde and Urgup. Later on, Karahisar-i Develi, as one of the neighbours of
Urgup county, was accepted as the third county. There were twenty-nine
neighbourhoods and 731 households in Niğde according to the population
census records of the 16th century. While 674 of these were Muslim; fifty-seven
were non-Muslim. Niğde had a population of approximately 4,000-5,000
residents in that century4. Throughout the 16th century, the population of Niğde
Sanjak had been gradually increasing5.
The first population census was carried out in 1831 except for avarız tax
registers in the Ottoman Empire. However, the population census of 1831 does
not contain very reliable outcomes6. Because the census had been made only on
the males who were taxpayers and women-children and non-Muslims (reaya)
were not included. According to this census, there were 3,353 Muslims and
14,703 non-Muslim subjects in the city of Niğde. It is not clear to whom exactly
the concept of reaya is met in the census. However, it was determined that there
2 Oflaz 2007, 33, 93; Selçuk 2013, p. 1264.
3 Oflaz 2007, p. 93; Öztuna 1997, p. 306; Uzunçarşılı 1995, pp. 309-310.
4 Oflaz 2007, p. 93.
5 Metin 2016, p. 37.
6 Akbal 1951, pp. 618-619; Karpat 2003, p. 38.
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
570
be 895 residents in villages and 41,025 residents in the sanjak. Therefore, the
total number of male taxpayers in Niğde Sanjak was recorded as 60,176.
Aksaray county was not included in these figures, and it was considered as a
sanjak at the population censuses7.
Niğde, which appeared as affiliated to Konya Province in 1840, was
included to the Liva of Nevsehir with the administrative arrangement made in
1847. Niğde acquired the status of sanjak again in 1849, and it was comprised
of six counties by the year 1887. Those counties were the Central Niğde,
Nevsehir, Urgup, Aksaray, Bor and Hamidiye/Ulukisla. According to Konya
Province Almanac (Salname) dated 1900, Arabsun (Gulsehir) and Maden
(Camardi) counties were added to Niğde Sanjak in 1903. Niğde, which acquired
the status of an independent sanjak during the II. Constitutional Monarchy,
became a province in the Republican period8.
The majority of the residents that lived in the central county of Niğde
Sanjak were administrators, tradesmen, and craftsmen9. Rug weaving,
carpentry, and coppersmith were some of the crafts that existed in the city. In
the villages, agriculture and livestock were heavily exercised, and most of the
population was farmers.
In Bor, as one of the important counties of Niğde, had 35 thousand
hectares of agricultural land and about half of this land was planted, and crops
such as wheat, barley, rye were grown in Niğde Sanjak10. Nevertheless, the fact
that it was not located on trade routes had caused the underdevelopment of trade
in the city11.
Mining, which is an important area for both monetary system and defence
industry in the Ottoman Empire, also occupied an important place in Niğde
Sanjak. Especially the presence of silver and saltpeter mines in the region was
crucial to the operation of these mines both economically and as a contribution
to the defence industry. In particular, along with the use of saltpeter as raw
material for gunpowder, heavy industrial movements in military terms had
started in Niğde Sanjak12.
The most important saltpeter producing region of Anatolia where 13
(thirteen) production facilities existed was Karaman Province as of the second
7 Kaya 2006, p. 197.
8 Oflaz 2007, p. 95.
9 Akşit 2009, p. 26.
10 Galanti 1951, pp. 68-69.
11 Aktüre 1975, p. 15.
12 Tabakoğlu 2014, p. 341.
An Economic Overview of Ottoman State Record of Taxes: Temettuat (Profit Tax)
Registers of Niğde Sanjak (1844-1845)
571
half of the 16th century. In the following years, the saltpeter had been
extensively produced in Aksehir, Icil, Konya, Niğde, Aksaray, Kayseri, and
Kirsehir sanjaks as well as places such as Kilisehisar, Develi, Larende, Sarkisla,
Sarimsak, Bozok, Cirlavuk, Kemerhisar, Kochisar, Budak Ozu and Urgup.
Furthermore, the most important gunpowder production center was located in
Bor county of Karaman Province13. In this context, it is seen that the Niğde-Bor
region was an important place in meeting the needs of the Ottoman army14.
2. Temettuat (Profit Tax) Registers: 1844-1845
Temettuat Registers had the quality of basic sources that indicate the
economic and social history of the 19th century Ottoman Empire including the
layout for the settlement of the population living in the Empire, the wealth of the
households, the agricultural activities and the amount of the taxes paid most
comprehensively. However, there were some points at which Temettuat Registers
were insufficient. For instance, since these records were only kept on a specific
date, they allow stationary analyses. Because no censuses were held neither at the
beginning nor the end of the 19th century. Another issue on which they were
inadequate was that not all the elements of the people’s wealth were included to
the census. Indeed, only income-yielding wealth such as vineyards, orchards, and
farming lands as well as rent-yielding estates such as inns, bathhouses, shops,
grinding mills, and livestock were subjected to the census. Whereas the houses in
which one lived, the shops where tradesmen and merchants had performed their
occupation, the money, debts, possessions, tools and merchandise stocks were
excluded from the census. In addition to these inadequacies, Temettuat Registers
have given healthy results in terms of income distribution. Rich, poor and middle-
income households in the examined region/province and tax burdens, pre-tax and
after-tax income of those households can be evaluated15.
The new taxation method which aims to levy an annual tax of 3% on
income resembles a declaration- based tax system. This method, in which the
taxpayers do not declare their incomes that are registered by the government
officials in the related books, takes all kinds of agricultural activities and real
estate elements that would be obtained along with the specific characteristics of a
household into consideration. Therefore, the application of a “declaration-based
income” is introduced16. Accordingly, name/nickname, amount of property, land,
13 Agoston 2006, pp. 138-191.
14 Güven 2004, p. 403.
15 Güran 2014, pp. 198-202.
16 Şener 2007, p. 118.
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
572
livestock and an annual income of everyone in every neighborhood would be
estimated without exception. In this context, “not a single penny’s worth of tax
would be levied by determining to what extent everyone is obligated to pay taxes
in one year”17.
Temettuat Registers are haused in the Ottoman Archives of the Prime
Minister’s Office. The archive comprises over 17,000 notebooks. Most of the
books date back to the period between 1260-1261 (1844-1845). Those belong to
Ankara, Aydin, Bolu, Cezayir-i Bahr-i Sefid, Edirne, Erzurum, Hudavendigar,
Konya, Nis, Rumeli, Thessaloniki, Silistre, Sivas, Skopje, Vidin and various
other regions18.
The main features of the tax in the notebooks are basically under the
household registry name records. The names were often written in the form of
“oglu”, “bin” or “veled.” In some records, such qualities as medium-sized,
black-bearded or pilgrim (haci) and chief (aga) were found. Secondly, the
occupations of household heads were recorded. According to this, the notebooks
include such occupations as farmer, blacksmith, merchant, tanner, miller,
tinsmith, sipahi, imam, tailor, painter, shepherd and grocer. Those without
regular income (or with no income at all) were commonly referred to as
basibos, mecnun, duskun, divane, hatun or muhtac. Besides presenting the
general characteristics of the household head, temettuat registers appear to
record the land, livestock and real estate under their possession in detail.
Accordingly, once the acreage or the number of vineyards, orchards, allotments
and similar real estate were calculated, the annual obtained revenues were
estimated. The notebooks in which the cultivated fields were recorded as “mezru
tarla” also indicated the fields that were rented or left empty. Nonetheless, the
number of crops produced by of the household heads was written down in detail
due to the tithe tax to be paid. In Temettuat Registers, the livestock are placed
after the real estate. In this context, it is easy to determine which and how many
livestock were to be raised in the area where the notebook belonged. Various
characteristics of the livestock, if any, were also featured. For instance,
qualifications such as milch cow, female cow, inseminated cow, male water
buffalo, milch goat and barren goat were encountered in Niğde Province’s
notebooks. Later, the annual revenue from the livestock was shown separately.
Another title that is seen in Temettuat Registers is the taxes. According to
this, following the household information, “meslek” (profession), “vergi-i
mahsusa” (special tax), “öşür” (tithe) are written down vertically respectively.
17 Kaynar 1991, p. 241.
18 Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi Rehberi (Ed. İ. Genç and others.), İstanbul 2010, p. 248.
An Economic Overview of Ottoman State Record of Taxes: Temettuat (Profit Tax)
Registers of Niğde Sanjak (1844-1845)
573
The amount of tax paid is reported to be “collected in the previous year.” Tithe
tax, as another financial obligation that was reported to be “collected in the
previous year,” indicates the values levied on such elements as wheat and barley.
3. Data and Methodology
Temettuat Registers that consist of real estate, land, livestock, and
dividends are placed in the Financial Revenues catalogues (BOA, ML, VRD,
TMT.d) of Ottoman Archives of the Prime Ministry’s Office. Totally 17,747
notebooks pertaining to the years 1256-1261 (1840-1845) are present the nine
catalogues, and it is estimated that approximately 1.1 million households were
included in the temettuat censuses. Nonetheless, some of the books are
classified as in Kamil Kepeci and Maliye Mudevver Notebooks19.
The subject of the work is the Temettuat Registers of Kalkanli County,
Bâzirgân Village of Niğde Sanjak located within Karaman Province and
Ortakoy Village within Andugu County. Temettuat Registers of Bâzirgân
Village consists of 36 pages, 17x49 in size, without marbling and binding cover.
This notebook is logged at the Financial Revenues catalogue with BOA. ML.
VRD. TMT.d.10558 sequence number in the Ottoman Archives of the Prime
Minister’s Office. The last two pages are empty, and there are 94 households in
this book. The notebook of Ortakoy Village within Andugu County is
comprised totally 20 pages, 21x58 in size, without marbling and binding cover.
There exist 38 households recorded in this notebook which is logged at the
Financial Revenues catalogue with BOA. ML. VRD. TMT. d.15982 sequence
number in the Ottoman Archives of the Prime Minister’s Office. In this context,
the study covers a total of 132 households in both regions. The 1260-1261
(1844-1845) temettuat registers belonging to both settlements were obtained
from the Ottoman Archives of the Prime Minister’s Office and were translated
into contemporary Turkish. These two notebooks, which have not been subject
to scientific research before and have not been translated in this context,
constitute the original aspect of the study.
The data obtained from the notebooks indicate names, occupations,
annual incomes, real estate, lands, livestock of the households as well as
financial obligations they were subject. The financial obligations to be paid,
besides an-cema’tinatin (commodity tax), levied as dividend tax, were aşar,
rusumat and adet-i agnam.
19 Güran 2000, pp. 76-79.
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
574
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Observation Mean
Stand.
Dev.
Min.
Max.
Household
132
66.5
38.24918
1
132
Income
132
1160.78
711.5369
0
3.100
Vergi-i Mahsusa (Special Tax)
132
154.0265
121.0215
0
720
Aşar ve Rusumat (Tithe Tax and
Duty Charges)
132 49.25758 36.13277
0 148
Adet-i Agnam (Small Ruminant
Tax)
132 0.5530303 1.542351
0 12
The descriptive statistics obtained from temettuat registers are shown in
Table 1. Accordingly, incomes of totally 132 households recorded in the
notebook were classified as agricultural and non-agricultural. It is determined
that the average income per household was 1,160,78 kurus while the lowest
income was 0 and the highest income was 3,100 kurus. There were totally five
households with no income in the record books. The first one of these was
Hasan, the son of Yusuf who resides in Ortakoy Village and was registered with
household number 29 in the notebook. It is found that the following entries were
made for that individual: “Aforementioned individual has no real estate and
land other than his households so that he subsists on alms from others” and
“Aforementioned individual is old and ill, the tithe and commodity tax payment
he made in the last year: 0 kurus”. The second household was Ibrahim, the son
of Seyf, who lived in the same place with household number 34. Since he had
no income at all, it is written that he had not made any tax payments and “he
owned nothing other than his house.” The third person with no income was
Mecnûn Osman, who had been living in the same place with household number
38. The following entry states that this individual had no income:
“Aforementioned individual has no object except for his house.” The fourth
individual without any income was Sabi Halil, the son of Yunus Sipahî who
was residing in Bâzirgân Village with household number 51. The following
entry indicates that this person had no income since he was just a child:
“Aforementioned infant has no real estate or land.” The fifth and last person
was Calik Mehmed, who also lived in Bâzirgân Village with household number
93. After specifying the absence of any taxes paid within a year, the following
entry was recorded: “Aforementioned individual has no property, real estate or
land and he subsists on alms from others.” In this context, it is determined that
there be no financial obligations of five persons due to the absence of any income.
An Economic Overview of Ottoman State Record of Taxes: Temettuat (Profit Tax)
Registers of Niğde Sanjak (1844-1845)
575
It is determined that the commodity tax (an-cema’tin) levy as dividend
tax, which was brought in parallel with the changing taxation mentality of the
Imperial Edict of Gülhane, was not paid by five households in total.
Nonetheless, despite having a certain level of income from the agricultural
activity, it is determined that two households did not have a tax record and one
household was exempted due to the service of muhtar (village headman).
It can be considered that there had been an error in the household records.
On the other hand, similar errors are detected in records and simple
mathematical mistakes such as addition are corrected. For instance, the income
items of the richest households mentioned above were listed as 1,560 kurus for
agricultural activity and 1,540 kurus for extraordinary items. Considering the
household average of taxes, it is seen that approximately 154 kurus worth of tax
per household had been paid. The highest amount of tax payment belonged to
the individual named Sari Huseyin who resided in Bâzirgân Village with
household number 75. It is noteworthy that this household, which engaged in
agricultural activities, had incurred the highest taxpayer’s payment in
accordance with the new taxation levied on income although it did not earn the
highest amount of income. This brings to mind the problems experienced by the
tax collectors similar to the previous applications.
In the case of tithe and duty charge payments, which were other financial
obligation, the average payment was approximately 50 kurus per household. It
is determined that the highest amount of payment was 148 kurus and that it was
made by Mehmed Efendi, the son of Hasan Efendi who resided in Bâzirgân
Village household number 58, and Osman, the son of Hâfiz with household’s
number 69. Similarly, it can be considered that the calculation of these financial
obligations would also be a problem when the income from agricultural
activities of the both households was estimated to be 2,435 kurus and 2,050
kurus, respectively. On the other hand, except for the muhtars, it is discovered
that 11 households had not made any tithe or duty charge payments, even
though they had earned income from the agricultural activities.
4. Findings
There are 94 households in the temettuat registers of Bâzirgân Village,
and 38 households in the notebooks of Ortakoy Village within Andugu County.
The scope of the study in this context is comprised of totally 132 households
located in both regions. Given the general characteristics of the households, it is
seen that the vast majority of them had maintained their subsistence through
agricultural activities. According to this, 91% of the households were farmers.
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
576
The rest of the households were as follows: three worker households, one
soldier household, one muhtar household, two divane (insane) households and
one elderly household. The professions and the sources of subsistence for other
two households were not mentioned. The divane, the elderly, and the soldier
households had not been found to have any financial obligation to pay since no
income had been recorded for them.
Table 2. Distribution of the Households According to Profession Groups (unit)
Farmer
Worker
Soldier
Divane
Muhtar
Others
Household
120
3
1
1
1
6
The average agricultural income per household is calculated as
approximately 605 kurus upon the examination made on the agricultural activity
incomes earned by the households. 53% of the households had their agricultural
earnings below the average. The household with the highest income of 1,935
kurus from agricultural activities belonged to Mehmed Efendi, the son of Hasan
Efendi, who had been residing in Bâzirgân Village with household number 58.
In total, there were six households with no agricultural earnings. However, even
though it was written as a farmer in the notebook records, one household is
detected to have no agricultural or any other income. In the notebooks, the
obtained agricultural earnings were recorded with the expression such as “of
agriculture experts.”
If the household head had any income other than that, they are also
referred to such definitions as “Zuhûrât temettuʻâtı (Contingency Earnings)”
(Household number 35), “Kereste ve hatab katʻından zuhûrât temettuʻâtı
(Contingency Earnings from Lumber and Wood)” (Household number 94),
“Kereste naklinden zuhûrât temettuʻâtı (Contingency Earnings from Lumber
Transportation)” (Household number 39) and “Destbânlıktan ve zuhûrât
temettuʻâtı (Contingency Earnings from Protection of the Cultivated Lands)”
(Household number 47).
The average income per household is determined as 1,160 kurus with the
inclusion of other incomes. In this case, it is seen that 53% of the households
had incomes below this amount. The richest household living in the region (a
total income of 3,100 kurus) belonged to Hasan, the son of Deli Ali, who
resided in Bâzirgân Village with household number 62. As mentioned earlier,
the five households did not have any income, neither agricultural nor other.
Another issue that attracts attention in notebooks is that all three workers were
not placed at the end of income distribution. For example, Ali, the son of Biyikli
who lived in Bâzirgân Village with household number 20 had a total income of
An Economic Overview of Ottoman State Record of Taxes: Temettuat (Profit Tax)
Registers of Niğde Sanjak (1844-1845)
577
675 kurus obtained from lumber transportation (600 kurus) and livestock (75
kurus). The income distribution according to the 20% quintiles calculated by
considering the total incomes of the households are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. The Share of Income of the Population in Andugu ve Kalkanli Counties
concerning 20% Quintiles (%)
Income Quintiles
The Share of Income
(%)
Cumulative Total
(%)
The First 20% Quintile
4.3
4.3
The Second 20% Quintile
11.7
16
The Third 20% Quintile
20
36
The Forth 20% Quintile
27
63
The Fifth 20% Quintile
37
100
As a result of calculating the total amount of the incomes obtained by the
households, the table indicates the distribution of incomes by 20% quintiles, so
that the households in the first poorest quintile could have only taken 4.3% of
total income. In this quintile where 27 households were located, the average
total income per household is calculated as 248.48 kurus. In this context, the
income levels of aforementioned households were below the previously
calculated average income per household. Nine of the households consisted of
divane, soldiers, elders and workers mentioned earlier, while the others were
farmers. The fifth poorest households had no income and no financial obligation
to pay. The households of the second 20% quintile had 11.7% of the total
income. In this quintile in which totally 26 households were located, the average
income per household was 683 kurus. Therefore, the income level of the
households in the second quintile was also below the average income level.
Household heads in this quintile were farmers, except for a muhtar and a
worker. The richest household of the second quintile belonged to Osman, the
son of Yerik Ahmed who lived in Bâzirgân Village with household number 36.
The households of the third 20% quintile seem to have received 20% of the total
income. The households in the third quintile of the income distribution were all
farmers and the average income per household was 1,127 kurus. However, all of
the households in this quintile had extraordinary income items besides
agriculture. Haci Yusuf, the son of Mustafa who lived in Bâzirgân Village with
household number 52, was the richest individual of this quintile along with a
total income of 1,415 kurus. It is determined that the fourth quintile of 20%,
which is calculated by considering the share of income, earned 27% of total
income. The average income of these farmer households was 1,584 kurus. Besli
Mehmed from Bâzirgân Village with household number 88 was the wealthiest
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
578
individual of the aforementioned quintile along with a total income of 1,580
kurus. When it comes to the households in the richest and the fifth quintile of
20%, it is determined that the quintile received 37% of the total income. The
average income of the farmer households in the fifth quintile was 2,200 kurus.
As mentioned earlier, the richest individual among the households located in
both regions was Hasan, the son of Deli Ali, who lived in Bâzirgân Village with
household number 62.
The Gini coefficients and the relative poverty rates were also calculated by
using the total income levels obtained by the households. According to the
general level of the society, an individual or household with a level of income or
expenditure below a certain limit is considered to be poor in a relative sense20
(Ravallion, 1998). In this context, the relative poverty line is found by using 50%
of the median income. Hence, those that have a level of income below the limit
are relatively poor. On the other hand, the level of income inequality is
determined by Gini coefficient. Accordingly, the Gini coefficient is obtained by
proportioning the area between the Lorenz Curve and the absolute equilibrium
line to the area under the absolute equilibrium line. Table 4 indicates those values.
Table 4. Gini Coefficient and Relative Poverty Rate of Andugu and Kalkanli Counties
Value
Gini Coefficient
0.3477
Relative Poverty Ratio
0.24
Figure 1. Lorenz Curve for Niğde Sanjak
20 Martin Ravallion, 1998.
4.3
16
36
63
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
020 40 60 80 100
Cumulative
Total Income
Cumulative Total Population
Lorenz Curve
An Economic Overview of Ottoman State Record of Taxes: Temettuat (Profit Tax)
Registers of Niğde Sanjak (1844-1845)
579
According to the relative poverty analysis conducted on half of the
median income, by taking the total income of the household resided in Andugu
and Bâzirgân Villages of Niğde Sanjak into account, it is determined that 24%
of the households be poorer than the other households. The households below
the poverty line were the ones with one muhtar and two workers, as well as
other five households without any income. The other third household was above
the poverty line.
5. Tax Applications
It was determined that the financial obligations collected in both
settlements consist of vergi-i mahsusa (special tax), aşar ve rusûmât (tithe tax
and duty charge) and âdet-i agnâm rusumu (small ruminant tax). Because of the
changing taxation mentality with the the Imperial Edict of Gülhane, an-
cema’tin (commodity tax) levied and collected as dividend tax on income is
explained in detail earlier. Until the Imperial Edict of Gülhane, the Ottoman tax
system was gathered under such two main headings as shar’i taxes and
customary taxes. Shar’i taxes are known to be based on religion, and they are
divided into subheadings with different kinds and names such as zekât,
ciftbozan, cizye, öşür, agnam, harac and ihtisap. Of the tax types mentioned
above, the one that created the most burden on the reaya (non-Muslim subjects)
was öşür.
The tax levied on the product is known as “harac-i mukaseme,” while the
agricultural and livestock taxes are notable as the items of this heading.
Agricultural taxes are usually collected under the name of öşür at a rate of
around 10%21. The meaning of the word “öşür” means “one-tenth”22. In
practice, however, the rate of tithe (öşür) had varied from one-tenth to one-fifth
in different places, depending on the proportion of pre-existing taxes and the
yield of land in different regions23. Tithe, originally known to be collected from
Muslims as zekât of the crops of lands24, was about four times as much as the
Ottoman State’s tax revenues25. It was levied not only on the grain but also on
all the soil products, gardens, vineyards and even hives26.
21 Kazıcı 2014, p. 111; Tabakoğlu 2007, pp. 299-300.
22 Başdemir 2015, p. 43; Devellioğlu, 2015, p. 996; Kütükoğlu, 1994, p. 531; Pakalın 1983, p.
746; Kamus-i Türki, p. 727; Tabakoğlu, 2007, XXXIV, p. 100.
23 Kazıcı 2014, p. 112; Özbek 2015, p. 39; Pamuk 1990, p. 44; Şener 1990, p. 120.
24 Süleyman Sudi 2008, p. 39.
25 Eldem, 1994, p. 173; Varcan, 2000, p. 20.
26 Pamuk 1990, p. 44.
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
580
During the periods when the Timar system was not deteriorated, the tithe
was collected by the reaya at the harvest season to be either stowed in the sipahi
warehouse or taken to the market place upon request of the sipahi. Along with
the deterioration of the economic conditions, the Timar system was rearranged
according to the iltizam (land tenure) procedure, and the collection of the tithe
was provided by the multezim (tax collectors). However, this situation had
resulted in excessive financial burden inflicted on the reaya by the multezim for
the sake of their personal interests. In fact, due to the high inflation experienced
since the second half of the 16th century, it was seen that the multezim entered
into the usury activities by selling the agricultural products they collected as
tithe on behalf of the State to the merchants at higher prices27. Nevertheless, in
case of the good intentions of the multezim, agricultural losses appeared. That is
because the multezim had not been able to collect the tithe at once, so they had
tried to collect them in turns. In that case, the producers could have not
harvested their crops because of the collection of the tithe, and they had to wait
long periods. As a result, the agricultural product had been degraded due to
external factors (rain, pests, birds, etc.) and the farmers had been in financial
difficulties.
Along with the Imperial Edict of Gülhane, the rate of the tithe is fixed as
one-tenth in accordance with the principle of equality. As a result, the
productivity of tithe as an important tax item had decreased due to the
deterioration of the land system and the efficiency was reduced. Finally, it was
abolished by a law issued in 1925 following the Declaration of the Republic28.
Adet-i agnam (small ruminant tax), however, is derived from the plural
form of the word “ganem (sheep)” which was synonym for “agnam resmi
(small ruminant duty charge)” as one of the Sar-i taxes as well as “resm-i
merai”, “resm-i ganem” or “koyun resmi” mentioned in some laws of the
Ottoman Empire29. Although agnam, as a Shar’i tax, was permissible to be
collected on horse and cattle according to Shar’i ahkâm (legal provisions), it
was also appropriate that these animals’ due to their use in agriculture and
transportation should had not been taxed on in the Ottoman State.
This duty charge collected on sheep and goats (including their lambs and
kids) was paid a one akce per two-heads by the reaya breeders regardless of
their settlements and religions.
27 Kütükoğlu 1994, p. 532; Pamuk 1990, p. 104.
28 Kütükoğlu 1994, p. 532.
29 Çakır 2012, p. 52; Emecen, 1988, I, p. 478; Kazıcı 2014, p. 134; Kütükoğlu 1994, p. 538;
Pamuk 1990, p. 44.
An Economic Overview of Ottoman State Record of Taxes: Temettuat (Profit Tax)
Registers of Niğde Sanjak (1844-1845)
581
Although it had been collected as one akce per three sheep during the
reign of Fatih Sultan Mehmed (the Conquerer), later on it was arranged as one
akçe per two sheep30. Agnam resmi had differed according to the number of tax-
payers (locals, nomads, or soldiers) or regions31.
However, there were two types of agnam in the Ottoman financial
structure. The first one was “adet-i agnam” that had been collected since the
Fatih era, and the other was the “decimal agnam” which started in 182632.
“Adet-i Agnam,” despite its zekât qualities shown in the beginning, was
combined with the “agil resmi” and collected in cash per small ruminant. On
the other hand, “decimal agnam” that was coined during Mahmut the Second
period, had been collected to meet the meat demands of the army and the capital
city. This duty charge had been collected annually by authorized officers before
the end of each fiscal year in cash or the in-kind equivalent of one-tenth of the
existing sheep and goats. After presenting the basic characteristics of a
household, the temettuat registers define the financial obligations of that
household by describing the profession of the household head with the help of
such statements as “the amount of special tax paid in the last year” and “the
tithe tax and duty charge paid in a year.”
In doing so, the household’s income obtained from the livestock and
other incomes along with the real estate and land incomes are registered in
detail. These registers are like the “Household Budget Survey” studies being
conducted by TSI.
In the analysis of tax payments made on income, it is seen that eight
households in total did not pay any taxes. It is known that the five of these were
exempted because of the absence of income and the fact that one of them was
muhtar, as mentioned earlier. The remaining two households were recorded not
to be paying taxes even though they had income. The notebook entries of the
residents with household numbers 41 and 91 who lived in Bâzirgân Village are
shown in Table 5.
30 Kazıcı 2014, p. 135; Kütükoğlu 1994, p. 538.
31 Sayın 1999, p. 27.
32 Kazıcı 2014, p. 137; Sayın 1999, p. 28.
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
582
Table 5. Temettuat Registry of the Households Resided in Bâzirgân Village with
Numbers 41 and 91
Molla Halil oglu Mustafa’nın Serîki Huseyin Aga’nın emlâk ve temettuʻâtı:
Karye-i mezbûr ahâlîsinden idigi
Bir senede tahmînen temettuʻâtı kurus: 305
Halil’in Serîki Hasan Efendi’nin emlâk ve temettuʻâtı:
Bir senede tahmînen temettuʻâtı kurus: 360
Source: BOA. ML. VRD. TMT. d. 10558
As it can be seen in Table 5, there is no recorded tax payment although
both households had incomes. Even though income items were written on real
estate and dividends, the absence of tax amount can be thought to be caused by
the spelling error as well as from the exemption that the households had.
Nonetheless, the highest tax rate on income was determined to be paid by Sari
Huseyin, who resided in Bâzirgân Village with the household number 75. Table
6 indicates the temettuat registers of that household.
There exists extraordinary income of 400 kurus as well as 660 kurus
which were obtained from the agricultural activities of the household. The
amount of tax paid by the household which earned a total income of 1,040 kurus
was recorded as 720 kurus along with the statement “the amount of special tax
paid in the last year.” However, since the household acquired cultivated fields,
the sum of the tithe tax and duty charges levied on the obtained crops was 64
kurus. The household belonged to the third quintile when its place on income
distribution is considered. In this context, it can be argued that the application of
tax be unfair, given that the tax burden of the household was estimated at about
68%. As a matter of fact, the tax burden arising from the inclusion of the paid
tithe taxes and duty charges in the total financial liabilities reaches
approximately 74%.
Whether or not the commodity tax application which aims the fair
distribution of taxation in society is eligible for this purpose can be determined by
considering the distribution of tax burden in the society. Accordingly,
determining what percentage of the income obtained is taxed and how the income
is distributed among the income groups would determine the success level of the
application. In this context, the amount of taxes paid by all the households and the
ratios of those taxes to their income are shown in the appendix table.
An Economic Overview of Ottoman State Record of Taxes: Temettuat (Profit Tax)
Registers of Niğde Sanjak (1844-1845)
583
Table 6. Temettuat Registry of the Household Resided in Bâzirgân Village with
Number 75
Sarı Huseyin’in emlâk ve arâzî ve temettuʻâtı:
Zirâʻat erbâbından idigi
Sene-i sâbıkada vergi-i mahsûsadan bir senede vermis oldugu kurus: 720
AʻSâr ve rusûmât olarak bir senede vermis oldugu kurus:
Hınta keyl: 4
(Kıymet 10 = 40)
Saʻîr keyl: 4
(Kıymet 6 = 24)
Yekûn 64
Mezraʻa tarla dönum: 10
(Hâsılât-ı senevî: 640 kurus 60 senesi + 500 kurus
ber-vech-i tahmîn 61 senesi = 1140 kurus)
Gayr-ı
mezraʻa
tarla dönum:
10
Merkeb
reʼs: 1
Sagman
inek reʼs:
1
(Hâsılât-ı
senevî
kurus: 20)
Bir senede tahmînen temettuʻâtı kurus:
660
400
Kereste ve hatab katʻından ve
zuhûrât temettuʻâtı
1040
Source: BOA. ML. VRD. TMT. d. 10558
Given the tax rate calculated on the basis of income, it is seen that in
practice, the tax rate of three percent, previously stated by Şener33, had not been
realized in practice. As a matter of fact, the total income of Hasan, the orphan son
of Haci Ahmed who resided in Andugu Village Karyesi, was 320 kurus while the
tax he had paid was 165 kurus. Therefore, the average tax rate for that household
was 51.5%. Nevertheless, it can be argued that taxation be a regressive structure
when it is considered that the household was located in the first poorest quintile of
the income distribution. Similarly, the average tax rate for Ali from the household
number 4, the son of Haci Aga, who belonged to the first poorest quintile, was
35%; while it was 23% for Topal Ahmed who lived in Bâzirgân Village with
household number 17 as a worker. When all the households are taken into
consideration, the average tax rate applied is calculated as 13.3%. When the
income and tax amounts of the households in the first poorest quintile of the
income distribution are considered, the aforementioned unfair tax can be
understood more clearly. For instance, Ismail, the son of Cin Osman who resided
in Andugu Village with household number 36, had earned a total income of 306
kurus and paid 15 kurus as tax, while İbrahim, the son of Kasim who resided with
33 Şener 2007, p. 118.
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
584
household number 26, had earned a total income of 110 kurus, and yet he also
paid 15 kurus as tax.
Regarding the amount of taxes paid by the total incomes of the fifth richest
quintile of income distribution, the regressive tax practice is detected again. In
this context, Table 7 shows the taxes paid and the calculated average tax rates
along with the total income levels of the households in the fifth richest quintile.
Table 7. The Average Tax Rates for the Households in the Fifth Richest Quintile
Household Occupation
Agricultural
Revenue
Other
Revenues
Total
Revenue
Tax
Average Tax
Rate
116
Farmer
865
900
1765
26
0.014731
107
Farmer
1550
500
2050
118
0.057561
40
Farmer
925
1000
1925
130
0.067533
32
Farmer
1190
800
1990
165
0.082915
100
Farmer
1560
1540
3100
276
0.089032
65
Farmer
860
1000
1860
194
0.104301
96
Farmer
1935
500
2435
272
0.111704
43
Farmer
870
1700
2570
290
0.112841
106
Farmer
1580
630
2210
250
0.113122
2
Farmer
886
1700
2586
310
0.119876
104
Farmer
760
1240
2000
250
0.125
87
Farmer
880
1100
1980
252
0.127273
84
Farmer
1170
1500
2670
350
0.131086
108
Farmer
1100
1100
2200
290
0.131818
82
Farmer
960
940
1900
256
0.134737
39
Farmer
660
1340
2000
280
0.14
66
Farmer
1000
1500
2500
350
0.14
72
Farmer
940
900
1840
258
0.140217
120
Farmer
700
1370
2070
292
0.141063
112
Farmer
1160
1500
2660
376
0.141353
81
Farmer
990
910
1900
272
0.143158
61
Farmer
1220
1500
2720
390
0.143382
95
Farmer
1330
1120
2450
365.5
0.149184
56
Farmer
780
1000
1780
298
0.167416
83
Farmer
1420
600
2020
354
0.175248
44
Farmer
845
1160
2005
370
0.184539
As shown in the table above, the average tax rates for the households in
the fifth richest quintile range from 1.5% to 18.5%. This situation is completely
contradictory to the fair tax practice required to be introduced by the Imperial
Edict of Gülhane. For example, Hasan, the son of Deli Ali, who was the richest
An Economic Overview of Ottoman State Record of Taxes: Temettuat (Profit Tax)
Registers of Niğde Sanjak (1844-1845)
585
household with 62 household number, had a total income of 3,100 kurus, while
the dividend tax he paid was 276 kurus and the average tax rate was only 9%.
This is supported by the fact that the average tax rate for the households in the
first poorest quintile was up to 68%, and that the tax burden of the households
in the fifth richest quintile was quite low. For example, following the exclusion
of Hasan, the son of Cavus who resided in Bâzirgân Village with household
number 78, from the tax-free households, he is found to have the lowest tax
burden among 132 households, even though he occupied the fifth richest
quintile. In this context, tax practices seem to be unfair in large measure.
The application of other financial obligations, such as the tithe tax and
duty charges levied on crops, directly affects the total tax burden of the
households. The tithe tax, which was to be paid in kind at 10% of the obtained
product, essentially had a structure independent of income. In the study
conducted on the tithe tax to be collected at 10% of the crops produced in both
settlements, it is determined that in only eight households had paid tithe tax at
10%, while eight households had paid tithe tax at a rate higher than 10%. It is
determined that six households had not paid any tithe tax due to the absence of
any agricultural activity and the remaining 110 households had paid tithe tax at
rates lower than 10%. On the other hand, it is determined that 12 households
had not paid any tithe tax even though they engaged in agricultural activities.
The household with the highest amount of tithe paid was Haci Aga, the son of
Ali who also resided in the household number 4. In other words, it is estimated
that aforementioned household had paid 52.5 kurus as tithe tax, although the
amount of the agricultural income he earned was 130 kurus. Therefore, it is
quite striking that the household number 4 had paid both the dividend and the
tithe tax at higher rates. The lowest rate among the tithe tax-payers is
approximately 0.5%. As a matter of fact, when all the digits are taken into
consideration, it is calculated that the applied average ratio is 8%.
Conclusion
The 19th century was full of intertwined phenomena such as struggles,
crises, defeats, changes, and reforms for the Ottoman State. On the one hand,
the weakening of the state administration, the battles with heavy defeats, the
worsening of the economy; on the other hand, the beginning of the debate on
the idea of reform and radical changes rendered the 19th century as the most
devastating period regarding the Ottoman State.
The worsening of the fiscal system and the chronicity of the crises, which
corresponded to the decline of the state, has brought the State to the stage of
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
586
disintegration. The main reason underlying the change process that caused the
Ottoman Empire to be degraded from “Devlet-i aliyye-i ebed-muddet (Great,
ever-lasting state)” to the “sick man of Europe” was the weakening of the fiscal
system.
The incidence of corruption, bribery, and favoritism has increased
steadily with the lack of prudent statesmen in state administration, and some
reformist practices have finally come to fruition. Among these, the declaration
of the Imperial Edict of Gülhane had the greatest impact both in administrative
and financial terms. To prevent the tax losses in the presence of the financial
system with this edict, the commodity tax was applied, and all tax items were
kept in a notebook. The socioeconomic status of Bâzirgân and Ortakoy Villages
within Andugu and Kalkanli counties of Niğde Sanjak in Karaman province
was analysed in the context of these records, which were called “Temettuat
Tahrirleri” (Temettuat -Profit Tax- Registers).
Within the scope of the study, income distribution and relative poverty
rates of 132 households are determined. There are 38 households in the
notebooks belonging to, Ortakoy Village within Andugu County; while there
are 94 households in Bâzirgân Village within Kalkanli County. The temettuat
registers, belonging to both settlements between the years 1844-1845, are
obtained from the Ottoman Archives of the Prime Minister’ Office.
In the study conducted on a total of 132 households, the average income
per household was 1,160,78 kurus, while the lowest income was 0 and the
highest income was 3,100 kurus. Generally, the earned incomes are obtained
from agricultural activities and livestock breeding. There are also five
households in the notebooks with no income at all. Upon examining the
household according to the profession groups, there were 120 farmers, three
worker households, one soldier household, one divane household, one muhtar
(village headman) household and six households with other professions.
When agricultural incomes obtained by the households are examined, the
average agricultural income per household is calculated as approximately 605
kurus. The agricultural gains achieved by 53% of the surveyed households were
below the average. However, when the 20% distribution quintiles are
considered, the households in the first poorest quintile can only take 4.3% of the
total estimated income registered in temettuat registers. A total of 27
households were identified in the first poorest quintile. Nevertheless, the fifth
richest quintile is found to be 37% of total income, and the average income was
2,200 kurus.
An Economic Overview of Ottoman State Record of Taxes: Temettuat (Profit Tax)
Registers of Niğde Sanjak (1844-1845)
587
Consequently, 24% of the households are found to be poorer than the
other households in accordance with the relative poverty analysis performed on
the half of the median income by considering the total income of the households
resided in Andugu and Bâzirgân Villages of Niğde Sanjak. The Gini coefficient
calculation for the aforementioned settlements is determined as 0.33477.
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
588
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archival Sources:
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi Rehberi (Ed. İ. Genç
and others.). İstanbul: Başbakanlık Basımevi 2010.
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, ML. VRD. TMT. d. 10558.
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, ML. VRD. TMT. d. 15982.
Published Sources and Works:
Agoston 2006 Gabor Agoston, Barut, Top ve Tüfek (Translated by T. Akad).
İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.
Akbal 1951 Fazıla Akbal, “1831 Tarihindeki Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda
İdari Taksimat ve Nüfus”, Belleten, XV, 60, pp. 617-628.
Akşit 2009 Ahmet Akşit, “Akmedrese Vakfiye: Historical Sources About
Niğde City”, Journal of Turkology Research, 26, pp. 21-28.
Aktüre 1975 Sevgi Aktüre, “17. Yüzyıl Başından 19. Yüzyıl Ortasına
Kadarki Dönemde Anadolu Osmanlı Şehrinde Şehirsel Yapının
Değişme Süreci”, M.E.T.U. Journal of The Faculty of
Architecture, I, 1, pp. 1-28.
Başdemir 2015 Baykal Başdemir, Osmanlı Vergi Sisteminde Öşür. Adana:
Karahan Kitabevi.
Çakır 2012 Coşkun Çakır, Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı Maliyesi. İstanbul:
Küre Yayınları.
Devellioğlu 2015 Ferit Devellioğlu, Osmalıca-Türkçe Ansiklopedik Lügat.
Ankara: Aydın Kitabevi Yayınları 2015.
Eldem 1994 Vedat Eldem, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İktisadi Şartları
Hakkında Bir Tetkik. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Emecen 1988 Feridun Emecen, “Ağnam Resmi”, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı
İslam Ansiklopedisi, I, pp. 478-479.
Galanti 1951 Avram Galanti, Niğde ve Bor Tarihi. İstanbul: Tan Matbaası.
Güran 2000 Tevfik Güran, “19. Yüzyıl Temettüat Tahrirleri”, in Osmanlı
Devleti’nde Bilgi ve İstatistik (Ed. H. İnalcık & Ş. Pamuk).
Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü Yayınları,
pp. 73-94.
Güran 2014 Tevfik Güran, 19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Ekonomisi Üzerine
Araştırmalar. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
Güven 2004 Cemal Güven, “Niğde-Bor Bölgesinin 1794-1799 Yılları
Arasındaki Askeri Yükümlülükleri (387 No’lu Bor Şer’iyye
Siciline Göre)”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
Dergisi, 11, pp. 391-405.
An Economic Overview of Ottoman State Record of Taxes: Temettuat (Profit Tax)
Registers of Niğde Sanjak (1844-1845)
589
Kamus-i Türki Şemseddin Sami, Kamus-i Türki (Ed. R. Gündoğdu and
others), İstanbul: İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık, 2015
Karpat 2003 Kemal Karpat, Osmanlı Nüfusu (1830-1914). İstanbul: Tarih
Vakfı Yayınları.
Kaya 2006 Mehmet Kaya, “About the Population of Niğde Sancak at the
Beginnings of the 20th Century”, Journal of Studies in
Turcology, 19, pp. 193-210.
Kaynar 1991 Reşat Kaynar, Mustafa Reşit Paşa ve Tanzimat. Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
Kazıcı 2014 Ziya Kazıcı, Osmanlı’da Vergi Sistemi. İstanbul: Kayıhan
Yayınları.
Kütükoğlu 1994 Mübahat Kütükoğlu, “Osmanlı İktisadi Yapısı” in Osmanlı
Devleti ve Medeniyeti Tarihi I. İstanbul: İslam Tarih, Sanat ve
Kültür Araştırma Merkezi, pp. 513-547.
Metin 2016 Rafet Metin, “An Evaluation on the Demographic Structure of
Niğde Province in XVI Century”, The Journal of Academic
Social Science Studies, 45, pp. 35-52.
Oflaz 2007 Mustafa Oflaz, “Niğde”, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi, 33, pp. 92-95.
Özbek 2015 Nadir Özbek, İmparatorluğun Bedeli. İstanbul: Boğaziçi
Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
Öztuna 1997 Yılmaz Öztuna, Büyük Türkiye Tarihi I. İstanbul: Ötüken
Yayınevi.
Pakalın 1983 M. Zeki Pakalın, Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri
Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
Pamuk 1990 Şevket Pamuk, 100 Soruda Osmanlı-Türkiye İktisadi Tarihi
1500-1914. İstanbul: Gerçek Yayınevi.
Ravallion 1998 Martin Ravallion, Poverty Lines in Theory and Practice,
Washington: LMS Working Paper.
Sakal ve Gölçek 2017 Mustafa Sakal –Ali Gökhan Gölçek, “Financial Crisis and
Reform in the Ottoman State”, Sosyoekonomi, vol. 25, 34, pp.
11-32.
Sayın 1999 A. Vefik Sayın, Tekalif Kavaidi (Translated by F. H. Özkan).
Ankara: T.C. Maliye Bakanlığı Araştırma, Planlama ve
Koordinasyon Kurulu Başkanlığı Yayınları.
Selçuk 2013 Havva Selçuk, “First Population Census in Niğde (Shawwal
23, 1246 / April 6, 1831)”, The Journal of Academic Social
Science Studies, VI, 2, pp. 1263-1294.
Şener 1990 Abdüllatif Şener, Tanzimat Dönemi Osmanlı Vergi Sistemi.
Ankara: İşaret Yayınları.
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
590
Şener 2007 Abdüllatif Şener, Sona Doğru Osmanlı. Ankara: Birleşik
Kitabevi.
Sudi 2008 Süleyman Sudi, Defter-i Muktesid (Ed. M. Ünal). Isparta:
Fakülte Kitabevi.
Tabakoğlu 2007 Ahmet Tabakoğlu, “Öşür”, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi, XXXIV, pp. 100-103.
Tabakoğlu 2014 Ahmet Tabakoğlu, Türkiye İktisat Tarihi. İstanbul: Dergâh
Yayınları.
Uzunçarşılı 1995 İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi I. Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
Varcan 2000 Nezih Varcan, Osmanlı Maliyesi Hakkında İngiliz Raporları.
Ankara, T.C. Maliye Bakanlığı Araştırma, Planlama ve
Koordinasyon Kurulu Başkanlığı Yayınları.
Appendix: Income, Tax and Tithe-Duty Charge Records of the Households along with Average Tax Rate and
Total Tax Burden Rates
Househol
d
Agricultura
l
Revenue
Other
Revenue
s
Total
Revenu
e
Tax Tith
e
Small
Ruminan
t
Total
Financial
Obligations
Income
Quintil
e
Average
Tax
Rate
Total
Burden
79
305
0
305
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
91
475
0
475
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
129
360
0
360
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
89
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
131
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
128
400
600
1000
44
0
0
44
3
0.044
0.044
36
6
300
306
15
0
0
15
1
0.04902
0.04902
116 865 900 1765 26 74 0 100 5 0.014731
0.05665
7
122 20 680 700 50 0 0 50 2 0.071429
0.07142
9
20 22 350 372 35 1 0 36 1 0.094086
0.09677
4
6
165
200
365
35
1
0
36
1
0.09589
0.09863
5 205 250 455 45 1 0 46 1 0.098901
0.10109
9
63 960 650 1610 76 90 0 166 4 0.047205
0.10310
6
40
925
1000
1925
130
81
0
211
5
0.067533
0.10961
28 95 310 405 45 4 0 49 1 0.111111
0.12098
8
100 1560 1540 3100 276 100 2 378 5 0.089032 0.12193
6
An Economic Overview of Ottoman State Record of Taxes: Temettuat (Profit Tax)
Registers of Niğde Sanjak (1844-1845)
591
7 460 0 460 25 32 0 57 2 0.054348
0.12391
3
107 1550 500 2050 118 148 0 266 5 0.057561
0.12975
6
35
45
155
200
25
1
0
26
1
0.125
0.13
123 520 0 520 38 30 0 68 2 0.073077
0.13076
9
121 460 300 760 60 40 0 100 2 0.078947
0.13157
9
45 450 1200 1650 178 40 0 218 4 0.107879
0.13212
1
25 430 300 730 55 41.5 0 96.5 2 0.075343
0.13219
2
126 780 800 1580 150 60 0 210 4 0.094937
0.13291
1
58 75 600 675 90 0 0 90 2 0.133333
0.13333
3
32 1190 800 1990 165 101 0 266 5 0.082915
0.13366
8
27
50
150
200
25
2
0
27
1
0.125
0.135
51
250
0
250
34
0
0
34
1
0.136
0.136
26 10 100 110 15 0 0 15.5 1 0.136364
0.13636
4
86 625 295 920 79 48 0 127 3 0.08587
0.13804
4
19 378 250 628 55 31.7 0 86.7 2 0.08758
0.13805
7
22 45 800 845 115 2.5 0 117.5 2 0.136095
0.13905
3
125 440 980 1420 155 42 1 198 4 0.109155
0.13943
7
31 55 150 205 25 4 0 29 1 0.121951
0.14146
3
12 240 700 940 110 23.5 0 133.5 3 0.117021
0.14202
1
118
420
380
800
72
42
0
114
2
0.09
0.1425
92 240 380 620 65 24 0 89 2 0.104839
0.14354
8
43 870 1700 2570 290 80 0 370 5 0.112841
0.14396
9
65 860 1000 1860 194 74 0 268 5 0.104301
0.14408
6
8
420
1200
1620
210
24.5
1
235.5
4
0.12963
0.14537
2 886 1700 2586 310 64.5 3.5 378 5 0.119876
0.14617
2
94 850 800 1650 162 80 0 242 4 0.098182
0.14666
7
130 420 240 660 59 38 1 98 2 0.089394
0.14848
5
85 350 830 1180 144 35 0 179 3 0.122034
0.15169
5
37 346 1000 1346 175 30.5 0 205.5 3 0.130015
0.15267
5
24 430 400 830 85 41.8 0 126.8 2 0.10241
0.15277
1
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
592
50 740 720 1460 160 64 0 224 4 0.109589
0.15342
5
101 525 1000 1525 186 46 2 234 4 0.121967
0.15344
3
67 570 1000 1570 194 48 2 244 4 0.123567
0.15541
4
33 85 650 735 110 5 0 115 2 0.14966
0.15646
3
78 425 1000 1425 164 61 0 225 4 0.115088
0.15789
5
114 720 330 1050 96 70 0 166 3 0.091429
0.15809
5
117 540 410 950 99 52 0 151 3 0.104211
0.15894
7
52 355 900 1255 162 38 0 200 3 0.129084
0.15936
3
103 520 420 940 98 50 2 150 3 0.104255
0.15957
5
46 420 800 1220 156 40 0 196 3 0.127869
0.16065
6
105 765 900 1665 196 74 0 270 4 0.117718
0.16216
2
119
645
900
1545
194
52
5
251
4
0.125566
0.16246
57
20
300
320
52
0
0
52
1
0.1625
0.1625
99 1119 500 1619 170 94 0 264 4 0.105003
0.16306
4
110 370 200 570 60 30 3 93 2 0.105263
0.16315
8
104
760
1240
2000
250
74
3
327
5
0.125
0.1635
23 70 800 870 140 2.5 0 142.5 2 0.16092
0.16379
3
109 810 860 1670 200 74 0 274 4 0.119761
0.16407
2
14
95
1000
1095
175
8.5
0
183.5
3
0.159817
0.16758
84 1170 1500 2670 350 88 12 450 5 0.131086
0.16853
9
120 700 1370 2070 292 55 2 349 5 0.141063
0.16859
9
97 590 0 590 50 50 0 100 2 0.084746
0.16949
2
87 880 1100 1980 252 82 2 336 5 0.127273
0.16969
7
115
390
610
1000
138
32
0
170
3
0.138
0.17
102 880 700 1580 190 80 0 270 4 0.120253
0.17088
6
124 220 200 420 50 22 0 72 1 0.119048
0.17142
9
42 710 250 960 101 64 0 165 3 0.105208
0.17187
5
49
257
150
407
50
20
0
70
1
0.12285
0.17199
39
660
1340
2000
280
64
0
344
5
0.14
0.172
96 1935 500 2435 272 148 0 420 5 0.111704
0.17248
5
21 640 500 1140 135 62 0 197 3 0.118421
0.17280
7
An Economic Overview of Ottoman State Record of Taxes: Temettuat (Profit Tax)
Registers of Niğde Sanjak (1844-1845)
593
88 830 600 1430 178 70 0 248 4 0.124476
0.17342
7
106 1580 630 2210 250 136 0 386 5 0.113122
0.17466
1
75
720
1000
1720
231
70
0
301
4
0.134302
0.175
108 1100 1100 2200 290 98 0 388 5 0.131818
0.17636
4
11 265 500 765 110 25 0 135 2 0.143791
0.17647
1
59 780 500 1280 156 70 0 226 3 0.121875
0.17656
3
66
1000
1500
2500
350
96
1
447
5
0.14
0.1788
82 960 940 1900 256 84 0 340 5 0.134737
0.17894
7
54
975
750
1725
220
84
5
309
4
0.127536
0.17913
15
25
120
145
25
1
0
26
1
0.172414
0.17931
61 1220 1500 2720 390 100 4 494 5 0.143382
0.18161
8
9 489 900 1389 210 42 0.5 252.5 3 0.151188
0.18178
6
127 440 0 440 38 42 0 80 1 0.086364
0.18181
8
68 650 500 1150 152 58 0 210 3 0.132174
0.18260
9
112 1160 1500 2660 376 110 2 488 5 0.141353
0.18345
9
72 940 900 1840 258 80 0 338 5 0.140217
0.18369
6
30 130 500 630 110 6 0 116 2 0.174603
0.18412
7
132
240
560
800
124
24
0
148
2
0.155
0.185
77 840 500 1340 175 74 0 249 3 0.130597
0.18582
1
18 625 300 925 110 62.5 0 172.5 3 0.118919
0.18648
7
81 990 910 1900 272 87 0 359 5 0.143158
0.18894
7
76
690
210
900
108
63
0
171
2
0.12
0.19
90 615 800 1415 174 95 0 269 3 0.122968
0.19010
6
10 360 700 1060 175 27 0 205 3 0.165094
0.19056
6
98 980 740 1720 240 88 0 328 4 0.139535
0.19069
8
74 610 900 1510 231 58 3 292 4 0.15298
0.19337
8
13 300 400 700 110 25.5 0 135.5 2 0.157143
0.19357
1
95 1330 1120 2450
365.
5
116 0 481.5 5 0.149184
0.19653
1
17 290 150 440 55 31.5 0 86.5 1 0.125
0.19659
1
41 1130 560 1690 240 111 0 351 4 0.142012
0.20769
2
47 490 1010 1500 270 44 0 314 4 0.18
0.20933
3
Ali Gökhan GÖLÇEK – Altuğ Murat KÖKTAŞ
594
1 160 0 160 25 8.5 0 33.5 1 0.15625
0.20937
5
56 780 1000 1780 298 74 1 373 5 0.167416
0.20955
1
53 690 980 1670 290 62 3 355 4 0.173653
0.21257
5
64 750 0 750 90 70 0 160 2 0.12
0.21333
3
62
840
160
1000
150
64
0
214
3
0.15
0.214
70 120 500 620 120 15 0 135 2 0.193548
0.21774
2
73 700 760 1460 256 60 4 320 4 0.175343
0.21917
8
48
580
520
1100
184
58
0
242
3
0.167273
0.22
44 845 1160 2005 370 75 0 445 5 0.184539
0.22194
5
80
800
800
1600
286
80
0
366
4
0.17875
0.22875
55 20 320 340 78 0 0 78 1 0.229412
0.22941
2
3 530 0 530 45 77 1.5 123.5 2 0.084906
0.23301
9
83 1420 600 2020 354 126 0 480 5 0.175248
0.23762
4
71 750 650 1400 260 80 0 340 3 0.185714
0.24285
7
60 660 330 990 188 54 0 242 3 0.189899
0.24444
4
69 780 550 1330 280 76 0 356 3 0.210526
0.26766
9
111 0 600 600 120 74 0 194 2 0.2
0.32333
3
93 870 700 1570 676 70 0 746 4 0.430573
0.47515
9
16 120 200 320 165 0 0 165 1 0.515625
0.51562
5
113 660 400 1060 720 64 0 784 3 0.679245
0.73962
3
4
130
0
130
45
52.5
6.5
104
1
0.346154
0.8