Samuel Dolbee, New York University
The management of a vast imperial space required careful consideration of the interests and functions of a wide variety of actors. Related to this point, the documents here touch on some themes familiar to Tozlu Evrak's loyal readers: foreigners behaving more or less problematically within the Ottoman domains, the commercial networks of Ottoman religious minorities, and the role of animals in imperial governance. We will focus on this last point in this post, exploring how animals fit into the deliberations of empire. As is evident in these documents, which deal with licit and illicit animal export from Ottoman Libya, a careful consideration of local ecologies - even if not explicitly termed as such - figured prominently in Ottoman administrative practices. Throughout both documents, variations of zarar, or damage, attest to the cost-benefit nature of these environmental analyses.
The first document describes animal export in the Libyan town of Tarablus (more familiar as Tripoli in English). In this coastal outpost in 1906, Austrians, Italians, and some local Jews had been collecting live lizards and chameleons for export to foreign countries, presumably as pets. The Ottoman authorities, however, found this practice meriting their review since the exported animals were not simply harmless (zararsiz) but moreover useful. As "eaters of insects" (akilülhavamm), the ever camouflaged chameleons and their reptilian relatives destroyed "the worms and bugs that are damaging (muzirr) to planted areas and sown fields." Thus, the creatures were "rather useful to agriculture" and their continued capture and displacement "would lead to local agriculture's damage (zarar)." And so the Ottomans banned their export.
Less beneficial animals, meanwhile, didn't merit the same degree of Ottoman animal protectionism. Around the same time, Richard Asturg, an Austrian Jew and zoologist, had also caught the interest of officials in Tarablus by collecting 5,000 franks worth of "snakes, scorpions, country rats, insects, and the like" for "dissection and scientific study" in conjunction with an Austrian museum (referred to as a muzehane, not to be confused with mevzehane, which is spelled the same but would mean banana house) and scientific institution. The trade of these orgnaisms apparently ran up against the Ottoman ban on animal exports. But the Ottoman stance was ultimately modified after consideration of the usefulness of these particular creatures. Since the export of these "harmful animals" (hayvanat-i muzirra) did not pose any "harm" (zarar) to the Ottoman domains, but, on the contrary, would be a "benefit" (fayda), the complete ban on animal export was rescinded.
Although it is difficult to ascertain how effective these measures were, it is nevertheless clear from these documents that the Ottoman Empire's self-defined title of memalik-i mahruse - well-protected domains - extended far beyond the human realm.
Source: BOA, DH-MKT 1074/14 (4 Ra. 1324)
No comments:
Post a Comment