An Overlooked Jewish Community: The Jews of Rodoscuk in the 17th Century

Abstract

This article addresses the intercommunal relations between the 17th century Jewish community of Rodoscuk and other social groups. It examines the community’s social structure, housing distribution and economic activities, placing particular emphasis on its interactions with Muslims in areas like trade, religious practices and social dynamics. By drawing on local court records, particularly the Qadi Registers, this article reveals how these interactions were shaped by the legal and social frameworks of their day, highlighting the complexities of coexistence in those contexts. In doing so, it evidences not only that Rodoscuk’s Jewish community took part in vibrant economic exchanges with its Muslim neighbors but also that it engaged with common social and religious contexts. Via a detailed analysis of these records, this study offers new insights into the nature of intercommunal relations in Rodoscuk. It challenges the often-assumed narrative of segregation and conflict in Ottoman society by testing existing claims in the literature through the case of the Jews of Rodoscuk. It concludes that Jews in this region in fact lived in relative harmony with Muslims and other groups in their vicinity.

1. Introduction

Jewish communities have been integral to the administrative and social life of the Ottoman Empire since its foundation. Over time, and particularly following the Ottoman conquests and the Spanish–Portuguese exile of 1492 to 1496, these communities diversified both in nature and number. While Ladino-speaking Sephardic Jews dominated the central and provincial regions of the Empire, significant populations of Karaite and Greek-speaking Romanyot Jews were also present (Epstein 1980, p. 54; Bali 1998, p. 206). Sephardic Jews, who arrived in Ottoman lands primarily after the Spanish–Portuguese exile, settled in Istanbul, amongst various other cities across the Balkans, Western Anatolia and the Arab territories.

Those Jews that settled in Ottoman cities quickly integrated into Ottoman society. The religious and cultural autonomy granted by the Ottoman administration allowed Jews to manage their internal affairs under the leadership of their religious authorities. By the 16th century, the Jewish population, which numbered in the hundreds of thousands, had become significant contributors to trade, crafts and medicine across various parts of the empire (Kurt 2023; Basel 2004; Sharon 1992).

The socio-cultural and economic conditions of Jews in the Ottoman Empire have long attracted scholarly attention. This has resulted in a substantial body of work; particularly work analysing Ottoman archival documents (Benbassa and Rodrigue 2001; Cohen 1984; Akyalçın 2003; Emecen 1997; Eroğlu 1996; Eryılmaz 1992; Braude and Lewis 1982; Hathaway 2014; Ben-Naeh 2008; Avigdor 1994; Avigdor 2002; Rozen 2011). A predominant focus of such studies has been on Jewish communities in major cities, like Istanbul, Thessaloniki, Edirne, Avlonya, Bursa, Manisa, Izmir, Jerusalem, and Safed (Ben-Naeh 2014, pp. 177–97; Rozen 2002; Karagedikli 2014, pp. 305–7; Hacker 2017, pp. 831–63; Emecen 1997; Molho 1993, pp. 75–89). Scholars often characterise the 15th and 16th centuries as a “Golden Age” for Ottoman Jews, while the 19th century is viewed as a time of progress characterised by the community’s involvement in the empire’s modernisation efforts and the establishment of educational institutions by the Alliance Israélite.

The first half of the 20th century was a challenging period for the Jewish community, a fact that has generated a substantial body of literature (Karabatak 1996, pp. 68–80; Bali 2012, pp. 339–41; Şimşek 2009, pp. 45–57). By contrast, the 17th and 18th centuries have often been viewed through a lens of decline, both of the empire and its Jewish communities, having been overshadowed by the more prosperous eras both before and after this period (Karagedikli 2014, pp. 305–7). It is against this backdrop that the present article examines the 17th century Jewish population of the city of Rodoscuk (modern-day Tekirdağ), focusing on its trade and production activities, as well as interactions with the state and other communities. This examination will refer to Sharia registers (local court records) as its primary historical sources.

In what follows, this article also seeks to explore the extent to which Rodoscuk’s Jewry integrated into 17th-century Ottoman society, as well as whether they forged international connections and engaged in overseas trade as Port Jews did. It will further assess the applicability of the decline paradigm that has often been deemed to characterise the 17th and 18th centuries. The paper evaluates the accuracy of claims in the literature that Ottoman courts were biased against non-Muslims in the context of Rodoscuk. Having done so, we contend that the Jews of Rodoscuk established strong economic and social ties with other communities, coexisting harmoniously without experiencing marginalisation. They were not, we will argue, subjected to bias from Ottoman courts—findings that align with existing literature on Jewish communities in other localities.

Furthermore, this article indicates that Rodoscuk’s Jewry did not exhibit the traits typical of a Port Jewish community in the 17th century. The Jews of Rodoscuk primarily maintained a local character, aside from their interactions with Istanbul and the neighbouring cities. While the paradigm of Jewish decline is of some relevance to the Jews of Rodoscuk, the 17th-century crisis had distinct impacts on Jewish communities in both major urban centers and provincial towns, like Rodoscuk.

By drawing on 17th-century sharia registers, this study addresses the scholastic oversight of the social and economic lives of small, provincial Jewish communities within the context of Ottoman Jewish history. Previous research has predominantly concentrated on Jews in major cities, such as Istanbul, Edirne, Bursa, Thessaloniki, and Jerusalem, as well as in medium-sized cities like Manisa (Galante 1941; Heyd 1953, pp. 299–314; Ilan 2011; Rozen 2002; Yerasimos 1995, pp. 101–34; Bali 1998, pp. 205–25; Karagedikli 2018, pp. 650–92; Karagedikli 2014, pp. 305–7; Lewkowicz 1999; Mazover 2005; Molho 1991; Barnai 1992; Cohen 1984; Emecen 1997; Jennings 1993, pp. 143–46; Jennings 2011, pp. 695–717).

To date, there has been no comprehensive research on the Jews of Rodoscuk, a small yet strategically important town situated on key commercial and military routes and serving as a port for Istanbul.¹ The scarcity of primary sources on the Jews of Rodoscuk is mitigated by the analysis of sharia registers, which provide extensive insights into the socio-economic and daily lives of Ottoman Jews in the 17th century. This study thus not only sheds light on this population’s lives but also critically assesses existing literature on Ottoman Jews during this period with a focus on a specific case study from a smaller provincial town.

Having employed both qualitative and classical descriptive methods, the present paper is organised into four sections: The first section outlines the general context and provides an overview of the Rodoscuk district and its Jewish community during the period in question. The second section examines the interactions between the Jewish community and other groups, including Muslims and Armenians. The third section delves into the reflections of Rodoscuk’s Jewish community in court records, which serve as the primary source for this research, analysing their social status and limitations as reflected in these documents. The final section, titled “The State and Jews of Rodoscuk”, examines the community’s cooperation with the state in official and administrative matters, exploring the boundaries and developments of this cooperation.

2. Rodoscuk and Its Jewish Community

Rodoscuk’s status as a bustling port strategically located on major commercial and military routes is notable (Şahiner 2023, pp. 69–71). Especially after the conquest of Istanbul, Rodoscuk port was increasingly utilised, facilitating the transport of goods from different parts of the empire to meet the needs of both the palace and the people of Istanbul. The Rodoscuk also functioned as a warehouse where many goods were brought overland from Edirne and the Balkans, and subsequently transferred to Istanbul by sea (Faroqhi 1981, p. 139; Berov 1975, pp. 74–98; Ortaylı 1999, pp. 215–17).

From a social perspective, the coexistence of people from diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds, including Muslims, Armenians, Greeks, Jews and Roma, was a distinctive characteristic of Rodoscuk. Following the conquest of the city and its surroundings, the Greek population remained, while Turks began to settle in the region. Armenians, who constituted the third largest group during the period in question, began to arrive in Rodoscuk toward the end of the 16th century (Ateş 2011, pp. 359–62).

Benjamin de Tudela, who visited the city in the 12th century, reported there to be around 400 Jews (Ortaylı 1999, p. 218). The earliest record of a Jewish presence following the city’s incorporation into the Ottoman Empire dates back to the mid-16th century. Although there are Tahrir Defter (tax books) available from the 15th and 16th centuries, their lack of detail on the origins of Rodoscuk’s Jewish population, their numbers or the neighbourhoods they lived in, can be attributed to the relatively small size of the community.

The first comprehensive information about Rodoscuk’s Jews is found in an Avarız Defteri (extraordinary taxes book) from 1661 (Sahillioğlu 1991, pp. 108–9). At this time, the Jewish community’s population was recorded (for the first time) to number around 260 individuals. The Avarız Defteri of 1695 shows that this number subsequently increased to over 500. It is believed that towards the end of the century this community spread from Rodoscuk neighbourhoods such as Hacı Hürmüz and Behram Reis, located at the upper part of the pier, to the areas such as Dizdarzade and Leb-i Derya. While the documents do not specify the reasons for the population growth between 1661 and 1695, it is speculated that this increase may be associated with increased commercial activity.

Whilst Rodoscuk’s Jewish community lived in and around the city port, they could not be characterised as “Port Jews” in the traditional sense of that term (R.Ş.S. No: 1602, p. 2b-2; R.Ş.S. No: 1602, p. 2b-2; R.Ş.S. No: 1619, 73/336; R.Ş.S. No: 1594, p. 45a-3; R.Ş.S. No: 1594, p. 55b-3; Lehmann 2005, pp. 51–76; Danon 2020; Trivellato 2004, pp. 31–48; Frangakis-Syrett 1985, pp. 149–162; Cesarani 2014; Fuhrmann 2020; Keyder et al. 1993, pp. 519–58). The commercial activities of the Jewish community in Rodoscuk were primarily confined to Istanbul and its hinterland, offering clear insights into their commercial profile. Their trade activities retained a local character whilst regionally they also managed the port’s Gümrük Mukataası (custom tax farm) (Bosworth and Gerber 2012, p. 508) and serving the needs of major cities like Istanbul and Edirne (İbicioğlu 2016, p. 320; R.Ş.S. No: 1594, p. 74/a; R.Ş.S. No: 1612, p. 169/b).

In tending to religious affairs, the presence of two rabbis is noteworthy: the Avarız Defter of 1585–1586 refers to two rabbis, named Salome v. Ilya and Musa v. Harun, though offers no further details about them (BOA TT. No: 816, p. 206). Documents from this period do not mention any structures or places where the community worshiped in Rodoscuk, such as synagogues or havras. It can nevertheless be inferred that residences were used for this purpose, and the first synagogue was constructed in the first half of the 19th century (Çevik 1949, pp. 80–82).

3. Intercommunal Interaction: Jewish Relations with Muslims, Greeks, and Armenians

According to Ottoman law, which was shaped by Islamic principles, the Ottoman Empire’s non-Muslims with dhimmi status² were permitted to acquire property and engage in trade across various sectors (Cahen 1991, pp. 227–31). Records indicate that the Jewish community in Rodoscuk were primarily traders, dealing in goods such as leather, wheat, salt, cheese and cloth with both Muslim and non-Muslim populations. They also established companies with Greeks and Armenians (R.Ş.S. No: 1619, p. 73/a; Akbulut 2019, pp. 95–99, 343; Şahiner 2023, p. 183; Bostancı 2010, pp. 174–173; İbicioğlu 2016, pp. 34–37).

In addition to commercial agreements, Jews frequently appear in records related to sales and debt judgments (Bayındır 2015, pp. 35–36)³. It is evident that Jews were both sellers and buyers in these transactions. Whilst they sold some vineyards to Muslims and Greeks as well as to one another, they primarily occupied the position of buyer, purchasing numerous vineyards from both Muslims and Greeks (R.Ş.S. No: 1552, p. 25/a; R.Ş.S. No: 1599, pp. 265/b–266/a; R.Ş.S. No: 1594, p. 71/b; R.Ş.S. No: 1594, p. 72/a; R.Ş.S. No: 1594; R.Ş.S. No: 1602, p. 10/b; R.Ş.S. No: 1602, p. 11/a; R.Ş.S. No: 1602, p. 21/b; R.Ş.S. No: 1602, p. 22/a; R.Ş.S. No: 1602, p. 23/a; R.Ş.S. No: 1602, p. 23/b; R.Ş.S. No: 1602, p. 25/a; R.Ş.S. No: 1602, p. 62/a; Bostancı 2010, p. 171). The number of documents concerning house sales is more limited, though as with vineyards, Jews were both buyers and sellers (Şahiner 2023, p. 138; R.Ş.S. No: 1599, pp. 259/b–260/a; Aras 2019, p. 368). The registers contain no information regarding the sale of houses between Jews themselves.

The Jews frequently borrowed and lent money both between themselves and to/from members of other communities. In lending money, lenders usually registered their transaction with the courts and in cases of non-payment, the creditor would sometimes seek the court’s assistance to recover the debt. An analysis of the documents related to debt cases shows that the majority of these disputes were resolved favourably (R.Ş.S. No: 1561, p. 8/b; R.Ş.S. No: 1561, p. 95/b; R.Ş.S. No: 1572, p. 52/a; Şahiner 2023, pp. 121–23; İbicioğlu 2016, p. 215; Gerber 1981, pp. 100–18).

4. Jews in the Rodoscuk Court

As the Ottoman legal system was based on Islamic law, the functioning of its courts resembled that of earlier Islamic states. The court’s head—the qadi—was not only its judicial authority, issuing judgements in line with law, but also played the role of judicial–administrative official. As such, he was tasked with executing orders from the central government, including edicts on tax collection, military recruitment and combating banditry, as well as managing municipal affairs and performing notarial duties (Ortaylı 2001, pp. 72–73; Tyan and Káldy-Nagy 2012, pp. 373–74). All cases and proceedings within the Ottoman legal system were conducted publicly under the supervision of the qadi, and the court’s doors were open to members of all religions. Although some researchers claim that non-Muslims faced discrimination (Kuran and Lustig 2012, pp. 631–66), it is generally acknowledged that the Ottoman courts were as impartial as possible in administering justice (Rozen 2002, p. 26).

Each case brought before the court was documented in registers called Şer’iyye Sicili or Kadı Sicili (sharia register or qadi register). These records contained the names of defendant and plaintiff, their districts of residence, their religious affiliations, the subject matter of the case, and the evidence presented. These details facilitate a better understanding of the nature of disputes among non-Muslims and their relations with Muslims.

There are 244 Rodoscuk qadi registers preserved in the Ottoman archives overall. Of these, this study examined 33 of 90 registers dating back from the 17th century. Some of these registers had been transcribed as part of master’s theses at various universities, while others were partially published in scholarly works. The remainder were thoroughly analysed by the authors of this article.

In some of the court registers examined, no instances relating to Jewish community members were identified. In others, multiple documents on the same subject/case were found and were thus evaluated as a single document. Taking all of these factors into account, the total number of relevant documents analysed for this paper was 122.

As in any society, various legal cases arose in Ottoman society and were brought before the courts. These cases offer valuable insights into the legal relationship of Jewish individuals with the state. They enable us to investigate and question the commonly held belief that Ottoman courts were biased against non-Muslims.

Some of the cases documented in the court records pertain to judicial and law enforcement matters. For instance, one case involves a baker, named Mehmet bin Abdullah, who applied to the court on 4 September 1613 on the grounds that a Jewish individual had insulted him; another involves two Jewish peddlers who were beaten by three Greek shepherds; yet another concerns a Jew named Yasef who was injured with a knife by a man named Mustafa while sitting in front of his shop in the bazaar called Araba Pazarı; and there is also a case where unnamed Jews were stopped and robbed by Roma near Rodoscuk. In all but one of these cases, the perpetrators were not Jewish (R.Ş.S. No: 1561, p. 30; R.Ş.S. No: 1608, p. 10/b; Şahiner 2023, p. 112; Figure A3). Although the available data is limited, it suggests that Jews were largely law-abiding and thus less involved in criminal activities. Furthermore, cases relating to interactions between Jews and state officials offer an opportunity to test T. Kuran’s claim that the courts, due to their subordination to the Sultan, displayed bias in favor of state officials and against non-Muslims (Kuran and Lustig 2012, pp. 631–66).

Three examples in the registers examined challenge Kuran’s thesis. Firstly, in a case from 1600, an individual named Yakub v. Hayim, who had previously served as a Gümrük Emini (customs officer) at Rodoscuk port, was forcibly detained on the grounds that he owed money to the state. With the intervention of state, Yakub v. Hayim’s grievance was resolved in his favour (Aras 2019, pp. 354–55).

Another example concerned a Jew named Moses who was unjustly harassed by local officials using fabricated evidence and false witnesses, claiming that he owed them money. Recognising that this case could not be resolved at the provincial level of Rodoscuk Court, the case was referred to the Divan-ı Hümâyûn (imperial council), a higher court.

The final example pertains to money improperly taken from certain Jewish community members by the Subaşı (commander) of Rodoscuk. In the decree issued in response to the consequent petition for relief from this wrong, it was found that the Subaşı of Rodoscuk had indeed forcibly taken 35 kuruş (Ottoman currency) from each Jew. The decree further instructed that the matter be investigated and the money returned to the Jews in question (Bostancı 2010, pp. 268–69; R.Ş.S. No: 1612, p. 184/b; R.Ş.S. No: 1610, p. 128/a).

As these three examples demonstrate, the view that the state always ruled in favour of its officials in cases involving non-Muslims does not appear to have held true for Rodoscuk. Although the number of such cases is limited, these documents indicate that, contrary to what is often claimed, the rights of Jews were protected in the courts on several occasions, and state officials were often found at fault. Indeed, no documents in the registers analysed for this paper indicated that conflicts between state officials and Jews had been ruled in favour of the former.

Further traces of a Jewish presence appear in Rodoscuk court records in the form of testimonies. These testimonies reflect the legal status accorded to Jews, offering insights into how a Jewish individual’s status was protected, maintained and limited. Under Ottoman law, a non-Muslim person could not testify against a Muslim. However, the testimony of non-Muslims was admissible in cases where they themselves were the defendant. Three documents in Rodoscuk’s records involved Jews who provided testimony in court.

The first document involved two Armenians granting each other power of attorney, with one Muslim and one Jewish witness. The second document features two Jewish individuals testifying against a Greek individual, while the third document pertains to a commercial dispute (R.Ş.S. No: 1594, p. 28/b; Bostancı 2010, pp. 46, 174). In the latter case, after hearing from all parties involved, the qadi ruled in favour of the Greek individual who filed the lawsuit, relying on the testimonies of two Jewish witnesses. Notably, none of the examples cited involve a non-Muslim testifying against a Muslim. Jews were, however, allowed to be witnesses in favour of Muslims or in cases between non-Muslims. These examples thus showcase how the Ottoman courts adhered to the rules of Islamic law regarding testimony.

Moreover, these examples align with Barkey’s description of Ottoman society and its non-Muslim population operating within the framework of “social boundaries”, as well as with Cohen’s “marginality theory”. The central point of both these approaches is that social relations in Ottoman society were structured around the status of dhimmi or dhimma that this status was consistently maintained (Barkey 2008, pp. 109–19, 277–97; Cohen 1994, pp. 107–29; Cahen 1991, pp. 227–31).⁴

As Barkey points out, social boundaries in Ottoman society were delineated by religious communities, and individuals had a clear understanding of their own religious identities as well as those of others. Additionally, the prevailing social structure ensured that everyone was aware of the expectations placed upon them. The aforementioned Rodoscuk court testimonies exemplify this dynamic to the extent that the state extended trust and privilege to qualified Jews in commercial and administrative affairs while carefully maintaining social boundaries.

5. The State and the Jews of Rodoscuk

Despite their non-Muslim status, the Jews of Rodoscuk occupied roles like tax collectors and trade officials, reflecting their acceptance in society and by state. It is evident that Rodoscuk’s Jewish community was integrated into the state’s commercial affairs, with the state maintaining a largely favourable attitude towards them.

In analysing sharia registers, documents related to the imposition of taxes on Jews describe the relationship between the Jewish community of Rodoscuk and the state. Like earlier Islamic states, the Ottoman state levied jizya taxes on non-Muslim subjects. Thirteen of the documents analysed deal with the collection of this tax, whose subjects were categorised into three groups: the rich, the middle class and the poor. For instance, one document, dated 12 December 1688, indicates that of 28 Jewish taxpayers in Rodoscuk, two were wealthy, five were middle class and the remaining 21 were poor (R.Ş.S. No: 1616, p. 117/a).⁵

A second type of tax levied on all Ottoman subjects regardless of religious affiliation was the Avarız tax. Collected since the foundation of the Ottoman Empire until the Tanzimat period, this tax was initially imposed to cover expedition expenses, but from the 17th century onwards became a cash tax collected regularly each year. The tax was collected from all property owners, though state officials, known as Askeri, were exempt (Barkan 1979, pp. 13–18). Court documents reveal that, with few exceptions (R.Ş.S. No: 1608, pp. 129/b–130/a; R.Ş.S. No: 1608, p. 27/a),⁶ the Jews of Rodoscuk paid these taxes regularly.

The final type of tax to which Jews could be subject was Resm-i üsârâ (slave tax), a tax levied on slaves and concubines owned by non-Muslims (Ben-Naeh 2006, pp. 73–90). After the conquest of Istanbul, a 1453 covenant granted the residents of Galata the rights to freedom of worship and travel, to own places of worship, to engage in trade and to protect their properties, as well as the right to own slaves and concubines. Crucially, slaves and concubines could not be Muslims (Uluskan 2024, pp. 352, 364). Three records on this subject were found in the court registers examined for this paper (R.Ş.S. No: 1594, p. 50/a; R.Ş.S. No: 1608, p. 136/a; R.Ş.S. No: 1610, p. 108/b). Although it is unclear how many Rodoscuk Jews owned slaves or concubines, the records offer some insights into these relationships. One document, dated 26 April 1661, reveals that the owner of a Jewish concubine stole her bracelet and sold it (Bostancı 2010, p. 80). Additionally, a Jewish woman in 1665 and a Jewish man in 1669 are reported to have freed their concubines without compensation (R.Ş.S. No: 1602, p. 54/a; Sarı 2019, pp. 196–97).

Under the Ottoman tax system, two entities were used to collect taxes: (1) salaried civil servants and (2) individuals acting as private entrepreneurs under certain conditions that allowed for the delegation of tax collection powers. Given their expertise in trade and finance, Jews played a significant role in the collection of various taxes both as Emin and as Mültezim (tax collectors) (Genç 2000, p. 154; Göçek 1989, p. 551). In the 15th and 16th centuries, Jews were especially indispensable figures in this sector, though by the second half of the 17th century, they had begun to lose their influence (Ben-Naeh 2008; Genç 2000, p. 156)⁷.

Numerous court documents highlight the role of Jews in serving as Emin and Mültezim in Rodoscuk. One such document is particularly noteworthy in highlighting their skill at tax collection. On 29 July 1600, a Ferman (imperial edict) addressed to the qadi of Rodoscuk stated that several people had previously been appointed to manage the Mukataa (fiscal unit) of Rodoscuk pier customs, which was connected to Istanbul’s Customs Office, but that these individuals had caused a drop in revenues. The edict stated that a Jewish resident of Rodoscuk, named Yakut, had been offered the role but refused it; it requested that Yakut nevertheless be appointed Emin, even if coercion was necessary. According to the document, Yakut had previously worked for Rodoscuk customs for 15 years and performed a valuable service. It emphasised that Yakut’s appointment would likely increase revenues and protect the state from significant losses (Aras 2019, p. 512; Figure A1).

In the first half of the 16th century, the most important Mukataa in Rodoscuk were observably operated by Jewish Mültezim. For example, in 1612, the Mültezim of the Beytülmal Mukataa of Rodoscuk (treasury tax farm) was a Jew named Arslan. The following year, Yehuda b Mayer assumed this position, and his deputy was also Jewish (R.Ş.S. No: 1561, p. 23/a; R.Ş.S. No: 1561, p. 28/a). In 1624, the coffee Mukataa in Rodoscuk was taken over by two Jewish individuals and, on 23 December 1650, the Mültezim of Rodoscuk customs was also a Jew (İbicioğlu 2016, p. 320; Figure A2). Again, in 1686, the Mukataa of Masdariyye (perpetual income) in Rodoscuk was granted jointly for one year to two Jews, Yako and Salomon (R.Ş.S. No: 1612, p. 169/b). The active involvement of the Jewish community with Rodoscuk’s harbour, a crucial economic hub for the city, and the substantial support they received from the state, reflect a deep level of collaboration between the two parties. Additionally, the Jewish community’s control over the coffee Mukataa, a significant revenue stream during that period, serves as compelling evidence of their prominent presence at the harbour and their authority over key financial resources within the city.

6. Conclusions

The Ottoman Empire served as a refuge for Jews expelled from Europe. The Empire’s favourable attitude toward the Jewish population facilitated their smooth integration into Ottoman society. As the empire expanded from a small principality in northwestern Anatolia, it incorporated Jews from the conquered lands and granted them various rights in accordance with their dhimmi status. Particularly in the 15th and 16th centuries, Jews fleeing from Europe sought refuge in cities like Istanbul, Edirne and Thessaloniki. Rodoscuk, a town located on the northwest coast of the Marmara Sea near Istanbul, was one such settlement. Its proximity to Istanbul and Edirne, along with its strategic location on trade routes, enhanced its significance. This study has thus analysed the situation of 17th century Rodoscuk Jews—a situation often overlooked in the literature. Drawing on local court records, it reveals the relations of the Jews of Rodoscuk with the state, their commercial activities, and their interactions with Muslims, Armenians, and Greeks.

According to the documents uncovered during this paper’s examination of 17th court records, Jews managed various tax sources, actively participating in commercial life and living in harmony within Ottoman society. This study highlights the importance of local court records in reconstructing the experiences of Jewish communities in smaller Ottoman towns, offering insights that challenge the dominant narrative of decline and marginalisation during the 17th century. Reflecting subtle interactions of co-operation and coexistence, the Jewish community in Rodoscuk presents as a compelling example of how Jewish people contributed to the socio-economic structure of the Ottoman Empire.

Based on the findings of this paper, it is evident that the Jews of Rodoscuk established robust economic and social relations with other groups and coexisted in relative harmony. The state’s reliance on the Jewish community for commercial and administrative affairs, its protection of Jewish individuals in legal disputes with state officials, and the recognition of their testimonies in court within the framework of social boundaries and the status of Jews, all demonstrate their successful and positive incorporation into the political, commercial, legal and social lives of Rodoscuk. These findings not only support the existing literature but also challenge certain assumptions about Ottoman social life in the context of Rodoscuk.

Notably, the phenomenon of “Port Jews”, typically observed as engaging in international trade from large port cities like Livorno, Amsterdam, London, Izmir, Thessaloniki and Istanbul, does not apply to the Jews of Rodoscuk, despite their active engagement in the port’s commercial activities. Indeed, a striking finding of this study is that the Jews of Rodoscuk, while economically influential in Rodoscuk and its harbour, and benefitting from the advantages offered by the port’s hinterland, maintained a predominantly local—as opposed to international—outlook.

As the Ottoman Empire began to lose its political, military and economic power over the 17th century, the Jewish community, like other communities, found itself affected. Wars and debasements, particularly after late 16th century, deeply affected the Ottoman economy, causing a decline in people’s purchasing power—a trend that continued into the 17th century. An Avarız Defteri of the 1685–1686 period notes that Rodoscuk, once a prosperous town, was devastated by wars and a significant plague epidemic, resulting in the deaths of at least 1,400 people. The town’s Jews experienced the consequences, with many becoming widowed and orphaned—a fact that led to an increase in the number of families living in rented accommodation and struggling to pay taxes. Thus, another finding of this study is that the 17th century crisis had negative repercussions for the Jewish community in Rodoscuk, though the evidence does not appear to support a “dark age” or “collapse paradigm” for 17th century Ottoman Jews in the town. Indeed, the community managed to preserve its existence to a significant extent, both in terms of relations with the state and in terms of its social and commercial standing.

This study has highlighted the value of research into Jewish communities living in smaller settlements outside of the major Ottoman cities, enriching our understanding of regional variations in Jewish experiences and their broader contribution to Ottoman society. Further such research is thus encouraged by the outcomes of this paper. Indeed, such study has the capacity to further illuminate the complex interactions between different ethnic and religious communities within the empire and provide a more comprehensive and nuanced portrayal of Ottoman social history.

Author Contributions

Both authors contributed equally to all sections of the article. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Notes

1. Two exceptions can be mentioned in this regard: firstly, Hacer Ateş’s doctoral thesis outlines where Jews came from, their settlements and their population, in a section devoted to the Jews of Rodoscuk (Ateş 2009, p. 157); secondly, in his subsequently published master’s thesis, Yakup Şahiner uses Sharia registers as a principle source in a short section about Jews living in Rodoscuk between 1640 and 1648.

2. The term “dhimma” is used to denote an indefinitely renewable type of contract, according to which members of other Abrahamic religions are granted hospitality and protection by the Muslim community, provided they accept the supremacy of Islam. Those who benefit from dhimma are called dhimmis, collectively known as “ahl al-dhimma” or simply dhimmis.

3. Hüccets, documents comprising a significant portion of court records, are a kind of document issued for the sale or transfer of property such as houses, shops, vineyards, fields and animals. Typically prepared by qadis, who also serve as notaries, these documents record the consent of the parties involved in the transaction. They serve as crucial evidence in potential disputes that may arise in the future.

4. Another important phenomenon for 17th century Ottoman Jews was Sebatay Sevi and the Sebatayist movement. However, there was no reflection of the Sebatayist movement in the court records examined (save one conversion example, which does not allow us to comment on the issue).

5. The existence of only 28 taxpayers should not be read to indicate that the Jewish population in Rodoscuk was small. Research on jizya highlights that the adult male population constituted approximately one-third of the total population in pre-industrial agricultural societies. Thus, in this case, it would be correct to multiply the number 28 by 3. Moreover, some people were exempted from this tax for various reasons. When those who were exempt are added to this figure, we can estimate that the total Jewish population of Rodoscuk is much higher (Özel 2000, p. 44; Karagedikli 2014, pp. 315–16).

6. On 16 April 1679, prominent figures from the district of Rodoscuk, comprising Muslims, Greeks, Armenians and Jews, applied to the court requesting additional time to pay their taxes as they were unable to meet the deadline (R.Ş.S. No: 1608, p. 27/a). Less than a month later, on 12 May 1679, a 105-day extension was granted to the people of Rodoscuk facing similar difficulties in paying their taxes (R.Ş.S. No: 1608, pp. 129/b–130/a). Both examples illustrate that it was not only Jews, but all ethnic and religious groups who struggled with tax payments.

7. The situation described stems largely from the military’s complete control over the farming sector, which began to consolidate around 1650. Prior to this period, there was a significant number of non-Muslims involved in this domain, but their near-total disappearance can be attributed to the outcomes of this process (Genç 2000, p. 156).

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

References

Archival Sources

• Ottoman Archive

• Rodoscuk Qadi Registers (R. Ş. S)

• R.Ş.S. No: 1552; R.Ş.S. No: 1599; R.Ş.S. No: 1591; R.Ş.S. No: 1620; R.Ş.S. No: 1594; R.Ş.S. No: 1602; R.Ş.S. No: 1562; R.Ş.S. No: 1561; R.Ş.S. No: 1572; R.Ş.S. No: 1561; R.Ş.S. No: 1612; R.Ş.S. No: 1610; R.Ş.S. No: 1604; R.Ş.S. No:1619; R.Ş.S. No: 1612; R.Ş.S. No: 1608; R.Ş.S. No: 1610; R.Ş.S. No: 1616.

• Tahrir Registers

• BOA TT 816.