562

LIFE AND WORKS OF MARIUS MICHEL
IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY OTTOMAN EMPIRE

This thesis deals with the life and career of Marius Michel, who led the lighthouse
construction movements in the late Ottoman period. The need for infrastructure to
support global mobility such as ports, warehouses, railways, and lighthouses arose
due to the steam technologies, industrial revolution and the increase in maritime
transport and travel, witnessed by the nineteenth century. Marius Michel managed
the lighthouse construction activities, first as the Director of the Ottoman
Lighthouses Administration, and then through the Michel et Collas company, which
had the privilege of building and managing the lighthouses he founded. In addition to
this, since 1879, he received the title of Pasha and was referred to as Michel Pasha, in
addition to the medals he received for his outstanding services. In 1890, he signed
the Eminönü and Galata dock construction concession agreement as the founder of
the Dersaadet Rıhtım, Dock and Warehouse Company. Between 1892-1900, the
construction of these two piers was carried out under the direction of Michel Pasha.
Bernard Collas, the other partner of Michel et Collas company, obtained the Jaffa-
Jerusalem railway construction concession through Société du Chemin de Fer
Ottoman de Jaffa à Jérusalem et Prolongements / Ottoman Jaffa to Jerusalem
Railway and Extensions Company, the railway was put into service in 1892. To
conclude, this thesis examines the infrastructure construction process to serve this
increase in the nineteenth century, when global connections and maritime transport
increased, through Marius Michel's Life and Works.
v
ÖZET
On Dokuzuncu Yüzyıl Osmanlı Devleti İçinde

Bu tez geç Osmanlı dönemindeki deniz feneri inşaatı hareketlerini yönetmiş olan
Marius Michel’in hayatı ve kariyerini ele almaktadır. On dokuzuncu yüzyılın tanıklık
etmiş olduğu, buharlı teknolojileri, endüstriyel devrim ve buna bağlı olan deniz
taşımacılığı ve seyahatlerin artışına bağlı olarak limanlar, antrepolar, demir yolları ve
deniz fenerleri gibi küresel ölçekteki hareketliliği destekleyecek altyapı ihtiyacı
doğmuştur. Marius Michel önce Osmanlı Fenerler İdaresi Müdürü olarak, sonra da
kurduğu fenerlerin inşaat ve yönetim imtiyazına sahip olan Michel et Collas şirketi
üzerinden deniz feneri inşaat hareketlerini yönetmiştir. Bunun yanı sıra 1879 yılından
itibaren, üstün hizmetleri nedeniyle aldığı nişanların yanı sıra Paşa unvanını almış ve
Michel Paşa olarak anılmıştır. 1890 yılında Eminönü ve Galata rıhtım inşaatı imtiyaz
sözleşmesini Dersaadet Rıhtım, Dok ve Antrepolar Şirketinin kurucusu olarak
imzalamıştır. 1892-1900 yılları arasında bu iki rıhtımın inşaatı Michel Paşa
yönetiminde gerçekleşmiştir. Michel et Collas şirketinin diğer ortağı Bernard Collas
ise Yafa- Kudüs demiryolu inşaat imtiyazını Société du Chemin de Fer Ottoman de
Jaffa à Jérusalem et Prolongements / Osmanlı Yafa'dan Kudüs'e Demiryolu ve
Uzantıları Şirketi aracılığı ile elde etmiştir, demir yolu 1892 yılında hizmete
girmiştir. Sonuç olarak, bu tez global bağlantıların ve deniz taşımacılığının artışa
geçtiği on dokuzuncu yüzyıl sürecinde bu artışa hizmet etmek üzere yapılan altyapı
inşaat sürecini Marius Michel’in Hayatı ve Çalışmaları üzerinden incelemektedir.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor Ahmet
Ersoy for his guidance, understanding, and support. This thesis would not have been
possible without his insightful comments. I am very grateful to have an advisor who
inspired me and shared my excitement for this thesis.
Additionally, I would like to thank my jury members, Paolo Girardelli and Namık
Erkal, who came together for me in a short time regardless of these unprecedented
times.
I want to thank Ceren Bilgin for her comments, notes, believing in me when I cannot,
and reminding me it is okay to take breaks. Also, I want to thank Ceren for creating a
study environment by doing her studies with me every day. Her existence made this
process so much better.
In May 2017, I lost my father; four days later, I found out that I have accepted to this
master's program. This rather dramatic start could be harder on me if I did not have
Pelin with me. Your constant love and support are invaluable to me. Your existence
made every day of this journey an adventure. Pelin, you are my north star, my
Polaris, providing me guidance in the darkest times. Thank you for being there for
me.
At Boğaziçi University, I have met delightful people; they amazed me with their
thoughts and ideas; thank you all. I want to thank Ayşe Tuba Silahtar Subaşı, Burcu
Arıkan, Ekin Can Göksoy, Halil İbrahim Binici and Özge Nur Yıldırım for listening
to me, discussing ideas for thesis with me and of course for their wonderful
friendship. The discussions I did with them ended up as the foundation of my thesis.
vii
I should thank my lovely friends from the Hisartüstü community, Abdullah Furkan
Turan, Mehmet Tiryaki, Ömer Ali Güneş, and Zehra Fatma Çetin, for their
companionship.
I also wanted to thank my friends who read my thesis and generously provided me
commentary, Zeynep Ece Şahin, Hazal Özdemir, Alican Mertan. Also, I should
especially thank my cousin Mehmet Deniz Öcal for his suggestions.
I also want to thank my co-workers in SALT Research, especially the Reşat Ekrem
Koçu Project team Cansu Yapıcı and Sinan Çetin, for the fun work environment they
created and their understanding.
I want to thank my family, starting from my late father Kemal Nalbant, for his
inspirational personality, teaching me how to think, pushing me forward even when
he cannot be with me. I miss you every single day. I am also grateful for my mother,
Nehare Nalbant, who bears with me during a very stressful time, and for her
compassion. And my sister Zeynep Nalbant your support and love, you mean the
world to me. I love you more than oceans.
Last, I wish to thank all Boğaziçi University students who do not accept and do not

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
1.1 Blaise Marius Michel ...................................................................................... 3
1.2 Literature Review ............................................................................................ 7
1.3 Sources .......................................................................................................... 14
1.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 15
1.5 Road Map ...................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 2 NINETEENTH CENTURY TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS
REGARDING THE STEAMSHIPS AND LIGHTHOUSES .................................... 22
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 22
2.2 Steamship Technology Leading to Global Connections ................................ 23
2.3 Companies and Aspects of Global Connections ............................................ 29
2.3.1 Mail-Postal Service ..................................................................................... 37
2.3.2 Passenger Travel ......................................................................................... 39
2.3.3 Material ....................................................................................................... 41
2.4 From Steamship to Its Infrastructure: Lighthouses ........................................ 43
2.5 The History of Lighthouses Before and After Nineteenth Century
Technology ................................................................................................................. 47
2.6 The Crimean War and the Paris Agreement ................................................... 55
CHAPTER 3: WORK OF MARIUS MICHEL IN OTTOMAN EMPIRE
DURING 1855-1860 .................................................................................................. 58
x
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 58
3.2 Marius Michel and His work at Messageries Maritime until 1855 ................. 59
3.3 Marius Michel, the General Director of Ottoman Lighthouses ...................... 61
3.3.1 The agreement signed between the General Director of the Ottoman
Lighthouse Administration, Michel, and Engineer Lepaute ...................................... 63
3.3.2 The Necessary Equipment and Its Purchase ............................................... 64
3.3.3 Lighting of Sulina Strait and Zmiinyi Island ............................................... 66
3.4 1856 tariffs ..................................................................................................... 67
3.5 The lighthouse construction until the arrival of Collas .................................. 70
3.6 Collas meets Marius Michel leading to the 1860 Contract of Lighthouse
Concession ................................................................................................................. 71
3.6.1 Bernard Camille Collas ............................................................................... 72
3.6.2 Discussions of the 1860 Contract of Lighthouse Concession ..................... 72
3.7 Lighthouse Concession Contract of August 8/20, 1860 ................................ 74
3.8 The Société Collas et Michel ......................................................................... 76
CHAPTER 4 WORK OF MARIUS MICHEL IN OTTOMAN EMPIRE DURING
1860-1879 ................................................................................................................. .78
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 78
4.2 Aftermath of 1860 Contract in terms of Construction Work ......................... 80
4.2.1 Ilanname ........................................................................................................... 85
4.2.2. The Lighthouse Lines Listed in the Ilanname Documents ............................... 87
4.2.3 A Matter of Longitude ..................................................................................... 90
xi
4.2.4 Imposing the Contract and Tariff of 1856 ....................................................... 92
4.3 Navigational Developments and Lighthouses ..................................................... 94
4.4 The 1850-1870 Period Regarding Lighthouses .................................................. 99
4.5 The Suez Canal ................................................................................................. 104
4.6 The Second Concession Agreement in 1879 .................................................... 107
CHAPTER 5 WORK OF MARIUS MICHEL IN OTTOMAN EMPIRE DURING
1879-1890. ............................................................................................................... 109
5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 109
5.2 1879 and 1890 Concession Agreement of the Istanbul Quays and its
Repercussion ............................................................................................................ 113
5.3 Investments of Bernard Collas .......................................................................... 117
5.3.1 Haydarpaşa Attempt ....................................................................................... 118
5.3.2 Jaffa-Jerusalem Railroad ................................................................................ 120
5.4 The 1870-1890 Period Regarding Lighthouses ................................................ 123
5.4.1 Lighthouse Construction in the Red Sea ........................................................ 124
5.4.2 Lighthouse Construction in Between Second and Third Concession
Agreement ................................................................................................................ 125
5.4.3 General Evaluation of the Construction and Use of the Lighthouses Between
1870-1890 ................................................................................................................ 126
5.5 The Third Concession Agreement in 1894 ....................................................... 131
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 133
APPENDIX A :TARIFF OF LIGHTHOUSE FEES OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
xii
OF 1 SEPTEMBER 1856……………………………………………………….…139
APPENDIX B : LIGHTHOUSE CONCESSION CONTRACT OF AUGUST 8/20,
1860………………………………………………………………………………..140
APPENDIX C: TRANSLATION OF LIGHTHOUSE CONCESSION CONTRACT
OF AUGUST 8/20, 1860………………………………………………………..…147
APPENDIX D : İLANNAME DOCUMENTS FROM 1861-1879 PERIOD…..…151
APPENDIX E : MAP OF LIGHTHOUSES AT BLACK SEA SHORES IN 1899.161
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 162
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Lighthouse of Alexandria miniature in Moğmal-ot-Tavārīḫvaʾl-Qaṣaṣ
ca.1475……………………………………………………………………………..48
Figure 2 Fresnel lens and lighthouse light system illustration………………..…....52
Figure 3 Plan and section of Fresnel Burners…………………………….…….….53
Figure 4 Comparative Statement of the Coast-lights according to the countries in the
years 1860 and 1885 respectively……………………………………………….…54
Figure 5 Lighthouse in Rhodes Island…………………………………..…………84
Figure 6 Mediterranean and Indian Ocean Lighthouses in 1850 and 1870……….101
Figure 7 General maritime movement of the Ottoman Empire (in tens of thousands of
tons of register) and total income of the Lighthouses (in thousands of francs)…...104
Figure 8 Port Said Lighthouse in the entrance of Suez Canal……………..……...106
Figure 9 Suez Canal……………………………..……………..………………….106
Figure 10 View of the Galata Quay ………………………………………...…….115
Figure 11 Project drawing of Galata Quay………………………………..……....116
Figure 12 Chemin de fer de Jaffa a Jerusalem…………………….……………...122
Figure 13 Mediterranean and Indian Ocean Lighthouses in 1870 and 1890…..….128
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The nineteenth century is known to the world as the era of technology and
innovation. A significant part of this era of development is, undoubtedly, steamships,
which directly influenced maritime trade, travel, communication, and naval
activities. Throughout the nineteenth century, marine transportation experienced an
enormous transformation. The development in steam technology first allowed
steamships to set sail on rivers, then created a global flow of people, mail and cargo
in the oceans. The built environment of the shores changed radically, as the reflection
of the intensifying maritime traffic manifested itself in the newly erected lighthouses,
quays, and railroads connecting lands to ports. A transformation on such level
required an infrastructural web of different types to support and facilitate this flow.
This web included the first and the most modern quays; otherwise, the steamships
could not approach their arriving points. Other infrastructural networks include
railways, telegraph lines, lighthouses, etc. This study will focus on establishing the
lighthouse network in the Ottoman Empire throughout the nineteenth century. The
Atlas of Coulier, dated 1844, lists 24 lighthouses on the shores of the Ottoman
Empire. In the year 1879, the number of lighthouses along the coastlines of the
Ottoman Empire was 110.1
The person behind these constructions was Blaise Marius Michel, Empire's
General Administrator of Lighthouses and one of the founders of the company
1 Thobie, “L’ administration Générale Des Phares del’ Empire Ottoman et la Société Collas Et Michel
(1860— 1960) ”, 39-41.
2
Société Collas et Michel.2 This company had a concession contract with the Ottoman
government to construct and manage the lighthouses on the Ottoman shores. The
agreement briefly proposes to cover construction costs to gain 78% of the earnings
later on. He was director of Société Collas et Michel, as well as the director of
Société des Quais, Docks et Entrepôts de Constantinople, the construction company
of the Eminönü and Galata Quays. The other owner of Société Collas et Michel, B.
C. Collas, was the first president of Ottoman Railway Company from Jaffa to
Jerusalem.3 The concessionaires of the lighthouses, also investing in the quays and
railways, suggested an interlinked global infrastructure network, which included the
lighthouses. To put it in another way, I claim that the increasing number of
lighthouses and the creation of a web of lighthouses should not be read as a singular
concept. The establishment of the lighthouse network should be discussed together
with other infrastructural projects such as the railroads and quays. I will focus on the
building activity of the lighthouses along the shores of the Ottoman Empire, through
the lens of Marius Michel’s life and career. I will also argue that the Ottoman
lighthouse web was integrated into a global infrastructure network containing the
quays, telegraph lines, canals and railroad lines, which facilitated the intensification
of maritime travel. This intertwined infrastructure network was made of different and
“unequally formed” webs of infrastructures. Drawing upon Kentel’s take on
unequally formed assemblages, where he recommends “…treat[ing] environmental
and urban spaces as parts of a complex and unequally formed assemblage”, I
consider the intertwined infrastructure network as an assemblage in the global scale.4
2 Hastaoglou-Martinidis,“The Cartography of Harbour Construction in the Eastern Mediterranean
Cities: Technical and Urban Modernization in the Late Nineteenth Century”, 78-99.
3 Thobie, “L’ administration Générale Des Phares del’ Empire Ottoman et la Société Collas Et Michel
(1860— 1960) ”, 39-41.
4 Kentel, “Assembling “Cosmopolitan’ Pera: An Infrastructural History of Late Ottoman Istanbul”, 5
3
Moreover, this assemblage is made of different types of infrastructure webs that are
unequal in terms of complexity of the construction process. Maritime travel became
regular and intensified as a result of the developing steamship technology throughout
the nineteenth century. In addition, after the trade treaties with major European
nations in 1838 and 1839, the Ottoman Empire's foreign commerce more than
quintupled between 1840 and 1870. Despite this, the absence of infrastructure spelled
difficulties for foreign merchants. As a result, the building of new infrastructure
elements such as railroads and ports were also critical for economic reasons.5 Before
discussing the relative literature, sources, and methodology, I will introduce Marius
Michel’s biography, as he plays a key role in my investigation of the network of
modern Ottoman lighthouses.
1.1 Blaise Marius Michel
Marius Michel, or in his full name Blaise Marius Michel, was born on July
16, 1819, at Sanary, in south of France. At that point in time, Sanary was called St.
Nazaire. Marius Michel was descendent of a sailor. His father was a lieutenant in the
royal navy of Louis Philippe, and his mother's lineage is that of a mariner’s. His
mother Josephine’s grandfather on her mother’s side was a long-distance captain; her
grandfather on her father’s side was an artillery captain on the king's ships. At age of
16, Marius Michel joined his father on one of his military missions, as a low-rank
sailor. He raised in ranks and became a first-class officer in 1839 at the age of 20.
For the following four years, he took part in several campaigns as a first-class
officer. He requested to be released from active service to enter the State merchant
navy, on April 22, 1843. He was assigned to the benefit of the steamboats serving the
5 Geyikdağı, “French Direct Investments in the Ottoman Empire before World War I”, 525-561
4
Near East. By the ministerial decision of May 15, 1843, he obtained the title "captain
of long course".6 He sailed the Marseille-Proche-Orient line for ten years, with a few
variations.First as a lieutenant, then as first mate, and finally as acting commander.
These repetitive trips throughout ten years provided Marius Michel with significant
navigational knowledge on the eastern Mediterranean coastline. This knowledge also
gave him a perception of the most favorable lighthouses and different routes
followed by the regular couriers. In his book L’administration Générale Des Phares
de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et Michel (The General Administration of
Lighthouses of the Ottoman Empire and the Collas and Michel Company) Thobie
explored the descriptive narrative of the lighthouse building and the Collas and
Michel Company in depth. He states that, these repetitive trips on more or less the
same course allowed Marius Michel to observe the lack of lighting in the Eastern
Mediterranean. This suggested the need for a systematic approach to lighthouse
construction in order to establish a network of lighthouses in the Eastern
Mediterranean. During the years he spent in the postal service, he also worked on a
systematic survey of the shores of the Ottoman Empire and drew up a marking plan
of considerable precision.7
Meanwhile, the postal service that Marius Michel worked with underwent a
profound transformation. This service was formerly a part of the French navy and in
1851, it was transformed into the company of Messageries Maritimes. While it was
commercialized, the company nevertheless aided worked in tandem with the French
government during the Crimean War.8
6 Office de Tourisme de Sanary-sur-Mer, “Exposition Michel Pasha”.
7 Thobie, “Le rôle de Michel Pacha dans l’administration générale des phares de l’Empire ottoman”,
61-85.
8 Uygun, “Osmanlı Sularında Rekabet: Mesajeri Maritim Vapur Kumpanyası (1851-1914)”, 40-45.
5
While these maritime campaigns were taking place in the Black Sea, in a
sudden turn of luck, the General Count de Montebello, aide-de-camp of Napoleon
III, embarked on Marius Michel’s boat, since the ship on which he was supposed to
return to France had just been shipwrecked in the Black Sea. The Count was on his
way to return from his mission to France, to report on the Crimean War to Napoléon
III. During the trip to France, Marius Michel presented the Count Genaral his idea
and designs concerning the lighthouses for the Eastern Mediterranean. Count de
Montebello was highly impressed by Marius Michel’s navigational knowledge of
regional routes and his practical knowledge and expertise in the field. Arriving at
Marseilles on January 5, 1855, General Count de Montebello took Marius’ brief to
presentation it to the emperor. The Admiralty Council, comprising of Admiral Bruat,
and the Allied Admirals, Sir Edmund Lyons and Ahmet Pasha, received the project
favorably. On August 1, 1855, as per the proposal of Napoleon III, Blaise Marius
Michel was appointed General Director of the Ottoman Empire Lighthouses by
Sultan Abdulmecid.
Marius Michel managed the Ottoman Lighthouse Directorate for five years as
a civil servant of the Ottoman Empire. After this period, the management of the
Lighthouses was transformed into a 19-year concession (continuously renewed until
the fall of the empire). The same year, Société Collas et Michel was formed to
acquire the privilege of constructing lighthouses located in the Ottoman Empire and
their operation under the conditions accepted by Collas and Michel and the Ottoman
government. The duration of the concession was set at 20 years from the day on
which the work was to be completed on all lines. The two head offices of the
company were located in Paris and Constantinople, the former overseeing
administrative matters and the latter attending to management. For the operation of
6
this concession, Major Michel joined forces with Camille Collas, a deputy of the
French National Assembly (of May 1849) and intermediary mainly for the shipment
in the Levant of equipment purchased in France. The first lighthouse concession
contract was granted, a commitment was made on August 8/20, 1860, to increase the
number of lighthouses from 22 to 96 in 3 years. In 1879, the contract was extended
for 20 years, then in 1894 for another 25 years. The construction of the Ottoman
lighthouses would become the lasting source of immense fortune for the two
partners.9
During the nineteenth century, Ottoman Empire was experiencing an increase
in foreign commerce and integration to the global market. This volume is related to
both new market searches the European countries experienced during the industrial
developments and the easing in the maritime transportation. To facilitate the
maritime connections and trade activities, foreigners had to construct new roads,
railroads, quays, telegraph lines and lighthouses. These building activities were done
with the direct investments of foreigners. Marius Michel was one of these
entrepreneurs who was directly interested in, first and foremost, lighthouses, but also
quay structures. Moreover his partner in the lighthouse business, Bernard Collas was
also interested in investing in infrastructure projects besides lighthouses. Marius
Michel’s career path is central to the global maritime trade and mobility
developments.
Apart from this work for two terms, Marius Michel was the mayor of Sanary-
Sur-Mer. During his first term as mayor (1865 - 1872), Marius Michel became
interested in maritime issues, which he knew well from his experiences on the shores
of the Bosphorus. His first period as the mayor of Sanary-Sur-Mer in 1865-1876,
9 Thobie, “L’ administration Générale Des Phares del’ Empire Ottoman et la Société Collas Et Michel
(1860— 1960) ”, 11-15.
7
Marius Michel initiated quay construction in his town. From 1892 to 1894, he spared
no effort to modernize it and make the city a tourist attraction. He died on January 6,
1907, in his Château du Manteau, in Tamaris-sur-Mer.10
1.2 Literature Review
To go over the literature for the lighthouses in the nineteenth-century
Ottoman Empire, I should look through the secondary literature regarding the
increase in maritime traffic as well as maritime trade at a global level with respect to
steamship technology. During such literature scan, I considered the literature of
“port-cities” (especially in the Eastern Mediterranean during the nineteenth century,
and global trade within the nineteenth century Ottoman realm. To this end, I
separated the secondary literature into three groups alongside studies that consider
the spatial historiography of the Eastern Mediterranean: The first part involves
steamship technology on a global scale with consideration of material and
environmental impact. The second concentrates on steamship technology
applications in the Ottoman Empire. Lastly, I will consider the literature on ferry
services in the Ottoman Empire within the navy. In the literature drawing upon the
narratives for the nineteenth-century global scene concerns the steamship
technology, including the Ottoman realm. On Barak’s recent work, Powering
Empire: How Coal Made the Middle East and Sparked Global Carbonization,11and
Name? Searight’s book, Steaming East: The Forging of Steamship and Rail Links
between Europe and Asia,12 are central for this study. Searight’s study is critical to
provide the foundation of prominence and increasing use of steamship in global scale
10 Office de Tourisme de Sanary-sur-Mer, “Exposition Michel Pasha”.
11 Barak, “Powering Empire: How Coal Made the Middle East and Sparked Global Carbonization”.
12 Searight, “Steaming East: The Forging of Steamship and Rail Links between Europe and Asia.”.
8
and evaluating steamship and rail links together. Barak’s work is more recent and
significant in terms of the richness of his approach. It revolves around the use of coal
for the steamships during the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries.
Moreover, his work draws level with current trends in environmental approaches to
Ottoman history. He considers the requirement of coal for maritime dynamism
involved in the changes in steamer technology, and at the same time investigates
networks of depots organized for easy access coal. This depot network is not
separated from the infrastructure networks of lighthouses, telegraphy and ports
supporting maritime dynamism. Names? Galvin and Green present a collection of
essays in Global Muslims in the Age of Steam and Print, focusing on steam and print
technology in the same period. Among these works, it occupies a different position
since the presented studies in this collection consider different technological and
navigational advancements simultaneously within the global mobility in the
nineteenth century.13
The literature concerning the application of steamship technology in the
Ottoman navy has an overall descriptive approach. Regarding the use of steamship
technology in the navy, the works of Names? Düzcü and Bal were helpful for this
study. Their studies, regarding the adaptation of the advancements in steamship
technology in the Ottoman realm, are mainly limited to the military realm.14 The
governmental institutions of steamships functioning for civilian passengers, cargo
transportation within the main naval arsenal of the Ottoman Navy Tersane-i Amire,
are covered in Names Koraltürk and Güleryüz’s works.15 Their works are important
13 Gelvin and Green, “Global Muslims in the Age of Steam and Print.”.
14 Bal, “XIX. Yüzyıl Buharlı Gemiler Dönemi: Osmanlı Bahriyesi”, Düzcü, “Yelkenliden Buharlıya
Geçişte Osmanlı Denizciliği (1825-1855).”.
15 Koraltürk, “Şirket-I Hayriye (1851-1945).”, Koraltürk, “Haliç’teUlaşımveHaliçVapurlarıŞirketi,
1909-1941”, Koraltürk, “BuharlıVapurlardan Deniz Otobüslerineİstanbul’da Deniz Ulaşımı.”,
Güleryüz, “Istanbul vapurları (Istanbul ferries)”.
9
to understand the utilization of ferries in passenger transportation and situating their
institutional ties with the Tersane-i Amire. These works focus on the Ottoman case,
and they do not discuss the passenger transportation with respect to the global
framework of civilian steamship use. Due to their military focus these works fall
short in considering the development of Ottoman Maritime trade. In addition to these
works, I should mention Süleyman Uygun’s book on the French steamship company
Messageries Maritimes, which is the steamship company Michel worked for, prior to
his mission as the General Director of the Ottoman Lighthouses, and its relationship
with the Ottoman state.16 This book was beneficial for my study in several aspects.
Firstly, it formulates the relationship between the Ottoman State and a foreign global
steamship company, and discusses the efforts regarding the routes the company
sought to add steamer trips within the Ottoman shores. Secondly, it displays the
position of Marius Michel as a captain in a steamship company, and describes his
work in the Thessaloniki lines; demonstrating Thobie’s argument about the
knowledge on the Eastern Mediterranean that Marius Michel acquired.
As a general trend, the increasing maritime traffic on a global scale during the
nineteenth century and its spatial reflection in the Ottoman realm are more
commonly read from the perspective of the ports and port cities rather than
infrastructures.17 There are several studies concerning concessions of buildings and
16 Uygun, Süleyman “Osmanlı Sularında Rekabet: Mesajeri MaritimVapur Kumpanyası (1851-
1914)”.
17 For recent examples and further reading : Jens Hanssen, Fin de Siècle Beirut: The Making of an
Ottoman Provincial Capital (Oxford; Oxford University Press, 2005), 3-4, Sibel Zandi-Sayek,
Ottoman Izmir: The Rise of a Cosmopolitan Port 1840/1880 (Minneapolis; London: University of
Minnesota Press, 2012), 3-4.Özyüksel, Murat. The Berlin-Baghdad Railway and the Ottoman Empire:
Industrialization, Imperial Germany and the Middle East. Library of Ottoman Studies 47. London: I.B.
Tauris & Co. Ltd, 2016.lhamKhuri-Makdisi, The Eastern Mediterranean and the Making of Global
Radicalism, 1860– 1914 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010), Biray Kolluoğlu and
MeltemToksöz, “Mapping Out the Eastern Mediterranean: Toward a Cartography of Cities of
Commerce,” in Cities of the Mediterranean: From the Ottomans to the Present Day, ed. Biray
Kolluoğlu and MeltemToksöz (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010), Reşat Kasaba, “Izmir 1922: A Port City
Unravels,” in Modernity and Culture from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, 1890-
1920,MeropiAnastassiadou, Tanzimat Çağında Bir Osmanlı Şehri Selanik (1830-1912).
10
operating activity infrastructures facilitating maritime trade. Conrad explains the
correlation of networks and globalization as follows: “globalization process is
characterized by a fundamental reconfiguration of power and space that in its
outlines resembles a network”. 18 There is a growing body of literature that
recognizes the conceptualization of "network" within global history. Faruk Tabak’s
article “Imperial rivalry and port-cities: a view from above” was one of the most
prominent examples of this approach and his work considers the Eastern
Mediterranean geography. His work claims that port-cities and their dynamism
during the nineteenth century should be explained with respect to the world-system
from the 1870s to the 1920s, instead of as singular histories of Ottoman maritime
cities. The mentioned world-system also leads to a new level of connections which I
elaborate throughout this thesis as intensified maritime transportation:
To some, the interconnectedness among different parts of the
globe at this time was much more sophisticated than its present-day
reincarnation. During this period, capital, labour, and commodities
criss-crossed frontiers with enviable ease, and in growing magnitudes.
The Ottoman port-cities flourished in this propitious conjuncture.19
The discussions in the book “Property as Contested Domain”, written by Huricihan
İslamoğlu, should be definitely mentioned especially in the topic of correlation
between spatiality and the market:
“... “the order of the market,” or capitalism as a generalized
system of commodity production and exchange, belonged to a
historically specific moment—to a terrain of specific power
configurations. Its development has been inseparable from the
ordering of social relations by centralized states that represented such
a terrain.”20
Her study is influential not only in terms of space-market relations but also to
understand the ordering of the property relations in the state centralization process
18 Conrad, Sebastian. What Is Global History? Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016.
19 Tabak, “Imperial rivalry and port-cities: a view from above,” 85.
20 İslamoğlu, “Property as Contested Domain,” 13-14.
11
with administrative rulings and codes. Her evaluation of the Mecelle-i Umûr-ı
Belediyye in this sense was very helpful for me for both understanding
Mecelle(collection), which is the Ottoman civil code, and examining the concession
agreements in a similar manner. Furthermore, her work examines the mentioned
relations in the Ottoman realm while referring to the great transformations of
nineteenth century in the global level.
The literature on the history of infrastructure in the Ottoman world is focused
mainly on railroad implementations in the late nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire.21
A small number of cross-sectional studies suggests an association between different
infrastructure networks. For example, railway building activity is rarely evaluated in
connection to the construction of port structures.22 So far, little attention has been
paid to the role of lighthouses as infrastructure elements contributing to the material
aspect of Ottoman modernization. Even less attention has been paid to investigating
the associations between railroads, quays, and lighthouse constructions as part of an
interlinked history of globalizing infrastructure networks in the nineteenth century.
Thobie provides a descriptive narrative of lighthouse building activity in nineteenthcentury
Ottoman Empire and later in the Republic of Turkey until 1960. Thobie’s
work, published in 2004, was the first study covering lighthouses, but it did not deal
with their interaction with other infrastructures. I wish to introduce the web of
lighthouses as an essential part of the networks of infrastructure centered around
improving steamship technology as part of an understanding of the Eastern
Mediterranean in the context of global history. This study focuses on seas and oceans
as transnational spaces, and is conversant with narratives of alternative spatial
21 Özyüksel, “The Berlin-Baghdad Railway and the Ottoman Empire: Industrialization, Imperial
Germany and the Middle East”.
22 Fawaz, Leila Tarazi, C. A. Bayly, and Robert Ilbert, eds. Modernity and Culture: From the
Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.
12
interactions such as the history of commodities. Of course it benefits from recent
studies that conceptualize the issue of “networks” within the context of global
history.
The closest work considering the infrastructures in a global scale together in
the Ottoman world is Zeynep Çelik’s work Architecture, and the City: French-
Ottoman Encounters, which defines networks of railroads, ports and telegraph lines
as connectors of different parts of the imperial land.23 Furthermore, Wolfgang
Schivelbusch’s study, The Railway Journey: Industrialization of Time and Space in
the 19th Century, is concerned with the nature of transportation as it transforms with
the coming of steam engine technology and its affiliated activites. His work
established the base to articulate the idea of the intensification of transportation,
explaining the spatial and temporal impact of steam engines.24 This study is mainly
focused on the impact of the railway from a Eurocentric perspective. Hence, none of
these studies cover the infrastructural histories of the nineteenth century from a
global angle, and fail to provide insights on the case of lighthouses in the eastern
Mediterranean and the Black Sea.
The development of other infrastructural elements such as the telegraph lines,
railroad, and port network and their correlation with facilitating the maritime trade is
already discussed above; however, little attention has been paid to lighthouses. I
relate my own reading of the lighthouse building activity in the nineteenth-century
Ottoman realm to that of Jacques Thobie who discusses the technological
development of steamships and their influence in terms of the increasing frequency
of maritime travel, making further connections with other infrastructural projects.
His work provided me the basic terminology for this study. The literature on the
23 Çelik, Zeynep. Empire, Architecture, and the City: French-Ottoman Encounters, 1830-1914.
24 Schivelbusch, “The Railway Journey: Industrialization of Time and Space in the 19th Century”.
13
lighthouse construction in the nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire is central in two
works: Firstly, Thobie’s work, which is centered around the lighthouse construction
in the Ottoman Empire from 1860 to 1960. However, this extensive study, focusing
on lighthouse administration in the nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire, applies only
a descriptive approach. Secondly, lighthouse construction in the nineteenth-century
Ottoman Empire is included in Barak's recent work, which revolves around the
element of coal in the nineteenth century, investigating the coal corridor stretching
from London to Bombay as a part of the infrastructure network facilitating
navigational security.25 The studies I have consulted consider the globalization
process in the nineteenth century in relation to the technological innovations of the
steamers, and some explain the application of these advancements within the limits
of the applications in the Ottoman Empire. So far, in the literature, spatial aspects of
maritime dynamics and global mobility are studied only in relation to “port city”
development in the nineteenth century. These studies touch upon the integration of
Ottoman Empire to the world market / capitalist world system, and concentrate on
East Mediterranean port city histories during the nineteenth century. While they
make use of concepts such as “interconnectedness” and “network”, they fall short in
the material sense. In other words, the material and infrastructural history aspects are
missing in existing Eastern Mediterranean port city histories. If the study is not a
mostly insular work of the port city as a single entity and has a global angle it lacks
the material connections. Or, in the reverse sense, the infrastructural histories of
25 In addition to these there were two restoration theses regarding the conservation of the lighthouse
edifices in Turkey, Ay, İstanbul Boğazındaki Deniz Fenerleri ve Tahlisiye Yapılarının Koruma ve
Değerlendirilmesi and Yerlikaya, İzmit Körfezi’ndeki Tarihi Deniz Fenerlerinin Mimari Analizi ve
Koruma Önerileri. Also, there is an article about Establishment and Development of Lighthouses in
Turkey: Koca, Y. N. “Denizlerimizi Aydınlatanlar: Türkiye’de Fenerlerin Kuruluşu ve Gelişimi”,
103-117.
14
nineteenth-century Eastern Mediterranean port cities are singular histories, lacking
an insight into global connections.
As I was going through these studies, I realized that Michel Pasha was a
prominent actor and a central character to the ongoing issues of nineteenth century
and there are no studies with focus on his life. The journey of his life and career
displays connection among the different types of infrastructure projects; furthermore,
these links become concrete as one traces his investments. Therefore, in order to
trace and explore the multilayered relationships among the maritime dynamics,
global mobilization and trade and construction activities of global scale infrastructure
facilities such as lighthouses, railways, and quays, I benefited from Marius Michel’s
life and works as a lens. This thesis is a preliminary study centered around Marius
Michel’s career path, leading to becoming of Michel Pasha in order to revealing the
complexities of infrastructure projects in nineteenth century with respect to steam
engine technologies. While doing so, this study considers both the differences and
similarities of these infrastructure webs constituting the intertwined infrastructure
network in global scale.
1.3 Sources
The official state documents of the Ottoman Empire about Michel Pasha and
B. C. Collas are my main primary sources on the subject of lighthouses. These
include the ilanname documents which are the records that present foundation date
of the lighthouses, the locations they were firstly illuminated, features of their light,
and the concession contracts which are found in the Ottoman State Archives in
Istanbul. I have used the ilannames covering the period of 1861-1879.26 In addition
26 COA, HR. İD. 916
15
to the archival documents I used, a book about Turkey, "La Turquieen 1864,"27
written by B. C. Collas in 1864 about the Ottoman Empire and the memoir of
Ferdinand de Lesseps Recollections of Forty Years(1887),28 the concessions holder
for constructing the Suez Canal, written by himself. Additionally, there are various
books written during the nineteenth century about the implantation and construction
of lighthouses to inform about the development of lighthouse technology.29 On top of
all this, I used Zihni Bilge’s account titled İstanbul RıhtımlarınınTarihçesi (The
History of Quays of Istanbul: The Quay, Dock, and Warehouse Company) (1955),
regarding the quay companies of Istanbul.30 Also, I utilized a central source
regarding the concession agreements, the fifth volume of the Mecelle-i Umur-i
Belediyye, a reference work written by Osman Nuri Ergin, a bureaucrat at the
Istanbul Municipality at beginning of the twentieth century.31 Lastly, I used the
Hamidian Visual collecting in order to provide lighthouse, Suez Canal and Istanbul
Quay photographs. These photographs are useful for thesis to display the concrete
part of the discussed networks.
1.4 Methodology
The second half of the 19th century is a period of great change in terms of the
steam engine technology and period of great development of infrastructure. Marius
Michel’s life and works during the nineteenth century Ottoman Empire is a very
useful frame to trace this change and development. Later, I decided to form my study
27 Collas 1864’te Türkiye: TanzimatsonrasıDüzenlemelerveKapitülasyonların Tam Metni.
28 De Lesseps, Recollections of Forty Years.
29 Stevenson, Lighthouse Construction and Illumination, Davenport, The Story of Our Lighthouses
and Lightships: Descriptive and Historical.
30 Bilge, İstanbul RıhtımlarınınTarihçesi.
31 Ergin, Mecelle-iUmûr-ı Belediyye, 2275-3035
16
around Michel Pasha’s career, in terms of his works in nineteenth century Ottoman
Empire, I started to formulate my initial questions founding around the key concepts
of my thesis. My questions are: Were the infrastructures such as quays, canals,
railways, and lighthouses directly related with the technological developments in
nineteenth century, especially the steam engine innovation? How much of this
relation was correlated with the increased maritime trade in global scale and the
situation of Ottoman Empire in this global market? Considering that the existing
connections between the first two questions I have searched, does the lighthouse
construction activity really have a role in these connections or how the role of
lighthouses in the Ottoman shores during nineteenth century situate within this
complex network of maritime flows and infrastructure? Since my questions are quite
intertwined, I had already decided to revolve my thesis around Michel Pasha’s career
as a lens to understand this process. I have selected Marius Michel because his works
in Ottoman Empire could be used as an example foreign direct investment of
infrastructure for maritime trade during the nineteenth century which can
demonstrate the links I searched for in my questions.
In order to answer these questions, other than tracing the life and career of
Marius Michel as the frame of reference, I have also revisited the interconnectedness
created during the nineteenth century and its grounds. These grounds included but
were not limited to the steam engine technology and the increased maritime traffic.
The reasons of global connectivity in the nineteenth century Ottoman realm also
correlated with foreign direct investments. These investments are typically concerned
with the link with infrastructure development and marine trade. While I examined
Marius Michel’s life and career, I aimed to also reveal the concession process and
making of these infrastructures as a part of general trend in Ottoman Empire
17
scattered in global scale with the main focus of lighthouses. In order to do that I have
used various types of sources together; the concession agreements to understand
conditions of such arrangements, the ilanname documents and maps to trace the
construction activity itself and the profit tables of the concession holder company to
demonstrate the outcome. Simultaneously, I provide some background historical
information for the improvements on the steam engine technology as well as the
concession and construction process of other major infrastructures which also
accommodated the intensified maritime transportation.
1.5 Road Map
In the second chapter, I give the necessary contextual framework in order to
trace the lighthouse construction activity in the coastlines of the Ottoman Empire and
the correlation of this activity with the increased maritime traffic on a global scale.
To this end, I begin with the global development of steamship technology during the
nineteenth century. Later, I cover the applications of this technological development
in the Ottoman Empire, mainly in the context of the Ottoman Navy. Then, I provide
examples concerned with the use of steamship in areas other than the navy.
Moreover, I discuss the Ottoman and foreign steamship companies; some of which
were connected with the navy. I evaluate these companies under three major themes:
mail, passenger, and cargo. After providing foundational data on the increase in the
global intensity and variety maritime transportation, I move on to discuss the role of
infrastructures that were required to facilitate increasing naval traffic. At this point, I
investigate material technological innovations effecting the development of
lighthouses in the nineteenth century. To conclude, this chapter establishes a
18
background for lighthouse technology and management of steamship services in the
Ottoman Empire inside Ottoman marine forces.
In chapter three, I narrate Marius Michel’s early life and his career in the
postal ship of Messageries Maritimes. Later, I cover the events which occurred
during the Crimean War and led to Marius Michel presenting his idea regarding the
potential of lighthouse construction in the Eastern Mediterranean to Olivier Lannes
de Montebello, a personal friend and aide-de-camp of Napoleon III. Count de
Montebello brought this idea to Napoleon III, leading the way to Marius Michel
becoming the General Administrator of Ottoman Lighthouses. Later, I discuss his
career as General Administrator of Otttoman Lighthouses between 1855-1860. This
section includes publishing the lighthouse fees tariff to be collected from ports and
the backlash it faced. I finalize the third chapter with the establishment of Société
Collas et Michel, and the first lighthouse construction and management concession
agreement signed in 1860.
In chapter four, I comprehensively cover the lighthouse construction activity.
I focus on the lighthouse construction activity as the aftermath of the first signed
concession agreement of lighthouse building and management in 1860-1879. I
examine the establishment of the lighthouse network within the coastlines of the
Ottoman Empire. To that end, I benefit from the ilanname documents. Ilanname
documents note the illumination dates. They state the dates of lighthouses beginning
operations with locational information of the lighthouse and the attributes of the
light. In ilanname documents, together with the location in longitude and latitude, the
elevation of light from the ground and the range of light reflection on the ocean are
stated.
19
In this chapter I dwell on the lighthouse line, which is the planned route of a
series of lighthouses to be built, categorized according to the shore lighthouses
located. I discuss the lighthouses listed in these documents according to the
lighthouse line they belong to. In addition, I discuss the issues regarding the building
process of lighthouses as an edifice. I also cover the navigational developments
occurring at the beginning of the century, the second concession agreement, and the
inauguration of the Suez Canal in the fourth chapter. The Suez Canal is considered
one of the most significant infrastructure projects of this century in the maritime
world, and the integration of the lighthouse network with the Suez project is
articulated within the illumination of the Red Sea shores. This connection became a
part of the renewal of the first lighthouse concession agreement in 1879. Between the
Suez Canal and the second lighthouse concession agreement, I include an analysis of
the lighthouse construction and use activity with the help of the table of Collas and
Michel’s net profits and the maps of lighthouses in the Mediterranean, the Indian
Ocean, and the Red Sea in the year 1850 and year 1870 prepared by Barak.
In the fifth chapter, I start from 1879, two months after the second concession
agreement with Marius Michel receiving the title of Pasha. I focus on construction
activity at the other infrastructure in the investments of the holders of lighthouse
building and operated concession together with the continuing lighthouse
construction work. While I illustrate the connections among different types of
infrastructure webs, at the same time I aim to demonstrate their peculiarities. These
peculiarities are related to the complexities of the construction process of different
types of infrastructure and their level of integration with the existing settlements.
Since this thesis revolves around Marius Michel’s life and career path, I will focus on
20
the diverse qualities of the lighthouses and quays which were Marius Michel’s
prominent works in the Ottoman Empire during the nineteenth century.
These investments are of different infrastructures, that are part of the
infrastructure network facilitating the increase in maritime activity. Marius Michel
also financed the concession of the construction and management of the Eminönü
and Galata Quays. The investments of the other concessionary holder, Collas,
consider two rail lines for investment. One of the lines was the Haydarpaşa-Izmit-
Ankara railroad project, which also included the Haydarpaşa Quay. The other project
considered for investment was the Jaffa-Jerusalem railway line to transport Hajj
travelers arriving with the steamships after Hajj travel shifted mainly from land to
sea. After displaying how these infrastructures facilitate the maritime traffic, much
like lighthouses did for the maritime travel after the steam engine technology, I go
back to the lighthouse building activity after the second concession agreement in
1879. This chapter includes a comprehensive evaluation of the lighthouse
construction between the years 1870-1890. In this analysis, I benefit from the table
showing the collected lighthouse fees and distributing these by country and other
infrastructure projects. I end this chapter with the third concession agreement signed
in 1894.
To wrap up, I aim to deliver an account of Marius Michel's career regarding
the lighthouse construction and operation in the Ottoman Coasts during the second
half of the nineteenth century, and how he became Michel Pasha with his works in
the Ottoman Empire. While doing so, I also aim to trace other fragments of essential
developments considering infrastructural development and lighthouse technology, I
will attempt to deliver a broader image, which claims that maritime activity is
directly correlated with lighthouse construction. Moreover, the lighthouse network is
21
part of the interlinked infrastructure network and an essential one, as an element of
navigational practices
22
CHAPTER 2
NINETEENTH-CENTURY TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS
REGARDING THE STEAMSHIPS AND LIGHTHOUSES
2.1 Introduction
This chapter will discuss two powerful frameworks to provide a proper context of the
technological developments regarding steamships and lighthouses during the
nineteenth century. These frameworks include the increased connections, in terms of
both variety and frequency, of maritime routes due to technological developments;
and, as a result of the first, the increase in the construction of lighthouses. Each
frame will be considered on a global scale, and later the Ottoman narrative will be
placed on the global scene. Before delving into these frames, I will provide a short
introduction about how steam technology became part of the travel industry. I will
also introduce the development of the steamboats and the arrival of the technology in
the Ottoman Empire. This chapter will narrate why and how lighthouses were a
significant necessity for steamship technology and an indispensable part of the
infrastructure. Since lighthouses were both a byproduct of technological
developments (steamship technology) and experienced technological developments
themselves, the steamship technology and how much it shortened the distances and
made the world smaller and more accessible is a vital underlying element in this
study. Therefore, I would like to begin with steamship technology and its two
significant outcomes: shortened distances and the new temporal framework that
emerged with the technology, as travel was no longer seasonal, possibly extending to
24/7 availability. The main issue I will address is the intensified regularity of
steamship transportation in the nineteenth century. I will also include the lighthouses
23
and their technological development to provide infrastructure for security and enable
better navigation along the shores. In the first section of this chapter, I will
investigate the technical development of steamships, emphasizing the temporal
advantages they provided. Following, I will talk about the steamship companies from
both the Ottoman Empire and other countries to show how maritime travel frequency
increased globally and how this technology was used regularly from daily life to
urban transportation in the Ottoman capital and provinces. My examination will be
threefold in the global scale section: mail, passenger, and material transportation.
Here, I will also mention Marius Michel, emphasizing his work as the Near
East Postal Service captain at Messageries Maritimes. After establishing the facts
about frequent and intensified maritime transportation, I will move on to lighthouses'
history and technological development. After a brief introduction to the history of
lighthouses, from ancient times to their use in the nineteenth-century Ottoman
Empire, I will touch on optical technology and the development of illumination
source technology during the nineteenth century. I will conclude this chapter with the
Crimean War since it was considered the event that led to an enhanced understanding
of the importance and the superiority of steamships. Moreover, the Crimean War
marks the beginning of the process leading to the contract to take Marius Michel into
service as the General Director of Ottoman Lighthouses and the Ottoman
government.
2.2 Steamship Technology Leading to Global Connections
The nineteenth century was dominated by the strong influence of technological
developments, especially in steam technology, which led to a more connected world.
Eric Hobsbawm considers steam as one of the most significant technological
24
triumphs of the first phase of industrialization, providing new modes of
transportation through the railway and the steamship while being a medium of
industrial expansion in terms of material trade and export.32 The first studies in steam
technology were conducted in 1775 by James Watt, which played a crucial role in the
industrial revolution. At the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the
evolution of the steam engine was at its peak with Oliver Evans' high-pressure
engine. The high-pressure steam engine enabled maximum performance with
minimum equipment. This allowed mobile use on land and sea in the forms of
locomotive and steamship, respectively.33
This technology changed modes of travel significantly. The distances
shortened; thus, travel became a different experience. To start with, new sources of
power were needed to enable fast travel, as Mikhail remarks:
Ways were eventually found to replace water and wind with the energy of
steam, but steam power was comparatively expensive and did not replace
waterpower for all uses. While wind and water were free goods, fuel was
required to produce steam.34
The travel experience transformed entirely after the invention of the steamship.
Maritime travel was described in the late eighteenth century as so challenging that
Dr. Johnson, a traveler, compares ocean travel in the days of sail before steamers
with "being in a jail with the chance of being drowned." Another guide book from
the second half of the nineteenth century, after the invention and proliferation of the
steamer (or liner, named after the line like routes steamships travel), described travel
as a posh experience with the following words: "The rush and worry of modern life
has prompted the creation of luxurious floating hotels on the sea … excellent for the
32 Hobsbawm, “The Age of Capital, 1848-1875”.
33 Schivelbusch, “The Railway Journey”, 22-33.
34 Mikhail, “Water on Sand: Environmental Histories of the Middle East and North Africa”, 59.
25
health of the healthy as well as for that of invalids."35 On the increased speed, Nile
Green comments on the new modalities of travel as "regulators of the space and
time."36 In his book On Time, On. Barak remarks on this issue in terms of both the
space-time compression created by the technological development 37: "In less than
two decades, between the late 1820s and the mid-1840s, travel time between England
and India had shrunk to one month, and the distance between these two places
imploded."38 Moreover, he formulates this outcome of fast travel in two levels, in
terms of change in the temporal understanding. The first level considers the
introduction of the timetables and fixed departure and arrival times. The second level
considers the time in which sea travel is possible, temporality no more depending on
the wind and seasonal changes:
Like coal, wind was wedded to a particular temporality. Not unlike coal, it
could be micromanaged with translations into money, space, and time. Yet
such translations, for example the word monsoon, derived from the Arabic
word for seasons (mawasim), reveal the difference in scale between calculi of
wind and coal. The monsoon winds did not make sailing a whimsical matter;
on the contrary, since the fifteenth century, careful registration of weather
conditions dictated fixed schedules and itineraries. The monsoon weather
system allowed sailing through the Indian Ocean in the spring and fall,
compelling ships and merchants to wait in ports in between.14 Steamers, by
contrast, could move year-round. Yet there was nothing inherently superior in
the incessant (and by 1870, faster) motion of the steamer, compared to the
significantly cheaper and more spacious sailing ship. As we now know, the
competition was settled after the 1869 inauguration of the Suez Canal, which
put the Mediterranean in direct contact with the Indian Ocean.39
The first known continuous steam-powered boat was the Clermont, which Robert
Fulton started operating on the Hudson River in 1807.40 The first steamship to run on
the open ocean was in 1816; it operated along the English Channel, between England
35 Searight, Steaming East: The Forging of Steamship and Rail Links between Europe and Asia,128.
36 Green, Spacetime and the Muslim Journey West: Industrial Communications in the Making of the
‘Muslim World.’, 401–429.
37 For further reading on the space-time compression concept: Warf, Barney. Time-Space
Compression: Historical Geographies. London; New York: Routledge, 2008.
38 Barak, On. On Time: Technology and Temporality in Modern Egypt. 22
39 Barak,Powering Empire, 26.
40 Müller-Wiener, İstanbul Limanı, 78.
26
and France.41 Steamship technology was improving continuously throughout the
century. The propeller of SS Archimedes, the first wooden ship equipped with a
propeller, was invented by Francis Smith in 1838-39, and its spreading accelerated in
1863. Propeller-type technology allowed inserting the engine, which meant a ship
could have both sails and an engine.
Furthermore, with this technology in the ships, after the placement of the
engine, there would be enormous left-over space, which enabled the transportation of
more oversized cargos and many passengers. The manufacturing of the first propeller
ferries started in England after 1842. In England, in 1843, a trial of a propeller
warship called Rattler was made. In France, the propeller ship named Napoleon was
constructed in the same year, and the United States put the propeller ship named USS
Princeton up for trial a year later.42 During the Crimean War, the propeller was
accepted by the Ottoman naval bureaucracy. In the field of war, the speed of the
propeller ferries surpassed the speed of the paddle ferries.
This technology arrived in the Ottoman Empire in less than 20 years
following operations on the Hudson River in 1807. The first steamboat in the
Ottoman lands was the ship named Swift, purchased from England in 1827. Due to
its steam, local people called it buğ, which means "steam" in Turkish. This steamship
was later primarily used for the travels of Mahmud II. The steamship was later
renamed Sürat, which means "speed" in Turkish. It was also used in warfare during
the Crimean War in 1853.43
41 Kuran, XIX. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde Deniz Ulaşımı: İdare-I Mahsusa’nın Kuruluşu ve
Faaliyetleri, pp 159.
42 Rippon, Evolution of Engineering in the Royal Navy. 1827 - 1939.
43 Tutel, Seyr-iSefain: Öncesi ve Sonrası, 14.
27
The first steamship built within the Ottoman Empire was called Eser-i Hayır,
which was built in 1837 at the Tersane-i Amire (Main Naval Arsenal). It was
followed by the ships Mesr-i Bahri and Tahir-i Bahri in 1839. They both became the
property of the new Sultan Abdülmecid. Tahir-i Bahri was used mainly for the
service of Sultan Abdülmecid.44 Later on, the ships Mesr-i Bahri and Eser-i Hayır
were used for carrying passengers and cargos. Mesr-i Bahri and Eser-i Hayır
steamships operated in Istanbul and in the Marmara sea respectively, working
between Istanbul, Bandırma, Izmit and Tekirdağ.45
The arrival of the steamships was conducted by, and therefore dependent on,
the Ottoman navy. Some naval steamers carried civilian passengers as well as
military personnel, but the ships were still predominantly destined for warfare. These
steamships were part of the Hazine-i Hassa Vapurlar İdaresi, founded in 1844 under
the Ottoman Navy and the Tersane-i Amire.46
The steamships owned by the Ottoman Empire between 1852-1856 were
sailboat-wooden ships with propellers mounted on their stern. The first boat
considered for this application was the wooden Peyk-i Zafer Galleon, built in 1841 at
Sinop. However, this idea was declined due to the technical difficulties of installation
on a pre-built ship. Later, Şadiye and Fethiye galleons were constructed for this
purpose. Their construction started in 1853.47 These two galleons, which were built
in accordance with the placement of the machinery and the propeller, were sent to
England for the assembly of the machine, boiler, and propeller after the construction
process was completed and returned to Istanbul after the engines were mounted on
44 Tutel, Seyr-iSefain, 29
45 Koraltürk, Buharlı Vapurlardan Deniz Otobüslerine İstanbul’da Deniz Ulaşımı. 18.Langensiepen,
Güleryüz, and Cooper, The Ottoman Steam Navy, 1828-1923, 2.
46 Koraltürk, Buharlı Vapurlardan Deniz Otobüslerine İstanbul’da Deniz Ulaşımı, 23.
47 Bal, XIX. YüzyılBuharlıGemilerDönemi: OsmanlıBahriyesi, 51.
28
the ships by Yani Bey. Considering propeller ships became widespread in England in
the 1850s, the Ottoman Navy was not significantly behind.48 The effect of the
Crimean War regarding steamship technology is very significant since it
demonstrated the importance of steamships. Even in the land battles, the troops were
carried out with steamships. The Crimean War is also regarded as one of the most
transforming events in the Ottoman Empire during the 1850s. In addition, the
Crimean War was the first occasion when two major European powers, Britain and
France, fought on the side of the Ottomans against the Russians.49 This interaction
affected the Ottoman Empire in many aspects, including maritime technology.
Steamships with propellers were replacing steamships with wheels. This is
considered to be the leading development in maritime transportation. This was
because the propeller offered a variety of advantages to steamers. To begin with, a
propeller-type engine enabled inserting, which means a ship can have both sails and
an engine. Furthermore, propellers took less space compared to the wheels in the
ship, which permitted the transportation of a more significant number of passengers
and goods. This meant that steamships could include naval cannons and be used for
military purposes as well.
On the other hand, the propeller enabled the transformation of existing sailboats into
steamboats. Equipment such as machinery, boilers, and propellers, required by steam
technology, could be mounted on sailboat galleons, frigates, corvettes, and schoonertype
ships. Most states showed great interest in this mode of transformation. The
process of replacing the sail ships with steamships started in the 1840s and continued
in the second half of the nineteenth century.50 Finally, propellers offered more speed,
48 Düzcü,YelkenlidenBuharlıyaGeçişteOsmanlıDenizciliği (1825-1855)127.
49 Badem, The Ottoman Crimean War (1853-1856), 1-45.
50 Düzcü, Yelkenliden Buharlıya Geçişte Osmanlı Denizciliği (1825-1855) 59.
29
which made for a more connected world and radically decreased spatial distance.
Schivelbusch observes on this issue:
A given spatial distance, traditionally covered in a fixed amount of travel
time, could suddenly be dealt with in a fraction of that time; to put it another
way, the same amount of time permitted one to cover the old spatial distance
many times over. In terms of transport economics, this meant a shrinking of
space.51
This connectedness was visible in several aspects; Mail, Passenger, and Material
transportation. I will talk about each of these aspects and their correlation with how
steamboat travel intensified with the technological developments.
2.3 Companies and Aspects of Global Connections
The steamships, especially after the emergence of the steam-propeller, became
widely used in transportation. In his dissertation on Railway Projects and Urban
Architecture of Balkan Cities in the Late Ottoman Period, Tozoğlu highlights the
speed and impact of steam technology as such:
The new invention not only provided the opportunity of carrying incredible
amounts of passengers and goods in a short time between stations, but also
enabled European countries to complete internal political, economic and
military territorialization and standardization processes and set up new
economic affairs with their surroundings and with overseas.52
After the invention of the propeller in 1838, more steamship companies were
founded. In 1837, Austria and in 1839, Great Britain established regular commercial
routes for postal and holding service companies. The Lloyd Company and The
British Peninsular and Oriental (P&O) Company structures comprised the first
examples; thus, they became models for all commercial steam navigation
51 Schivelbusch, The Railway Journey, 50.
52 Ahmet Erdem Tozoğlu, “Actors of Change: Railway Projects and Urban Architecture of Balkan
Cities in the Late Ottoman Period,” 32.
30
companies.53 The French company (Messageries Maritimes) was established later in
1851 because, unlike other countries, the Navy handled the postal administration for
a long while. Since the state was handling this, a French Steamship company was not
needed. Russia was the last among the French, English, Russian trio to establish a
steamship company, with Russian Steamship and Trade Company (Russkoe
Obschestvo Parohodstvai Torgovli-Русское Общество Пароходства И
Торговли).54
The issue of the founding of the Ottoman Steamship Company is relatively
more complex. Much like the French case, the Ottoman Navy provided the majority
of the civic transportation, and all steamships were built and bought through the main
naval arsenal. There were several companies and attempts for steamship
transportation. Firstly, I will discuss the steamships' functioning for the civilian
passenger, cargo transportation, and the transformation of this governmental
institution within the main naval arsenal, Tersane-i Amire. Then, I will include the
cases of the private companies, their operation areas, and some attempts to found
private steamship companies. The Hazine-i Hassa Vapurlar İdaresi was established
within the main naval arsenal as a governmental institution connected to the Naval
Ministry. The first lines were between Istanbul, Izmit, Gemlik, and Tekirdağ piers
operated in 1843. Later on, steamships operated on the Sirkeci-Adalar (Princes’
Islands), Sirkeci-Yeşilköy and Sirkeci-Pendik routes starting from 1846. In 1863, the
Hazine-i Hassa Vapurlar İdaresi became independent from the Ministry of Navy and
was renamed Fevaid-i Osmaniye to operate under the Tersane-i Amire, providing
civil shipping services (the steamships Eser-i Cedid and Eser-i Hayır were part of the
53Uygun, “Osmanlı Sularında Rekabet: Mesajeri Maritim Vapur Kumpanyası (1851-1914),” 40-47.
54 Mesut Karakulak, “Russian Steamship and Trade Company (ROPIT) and Ottoman-Russian
Commercial Relations (1856-1914),” 1-19.
31
fleet with twenty steamships acquired from Hazine-i Hassa Vapurlar İdaresi, as it
was renamed Fevaid-i Osmaniye). Güleryüz summarizes the operation areas of the
Fevaid-i Osmaniye in three distinctive groups:
I- To neighbouring, shores (Sevahil-i Mücavere) covering the routes between
Üsküdar, Kadıköy, Beşiktaş, the Princes Islands and Sirkeci. This included
what we call today the "City Lines" or "Urban sea transportation". To these
activities were added in 1851 the regular scheduled trips (4 times per day )
between Üsküdar and Beşiktaş, served by the ships "Girit" and "Vasıta-i
Ticaret". In the same year of 1851 a new organization, the "Şirket-i Hayriye"
company (roughly: the Propitious Company) was founded, to which the
Bosphorus Service was assigned. With the exception of the Üsküdar and
Beşiktaş routes, which stayed with "Şirket-i Hayriye", all other routes to the
neighbouring shores were assigned to Fevaid-i Osmaniye. Under the heading
of neighbouring shores are to be mentioned the shipping routes between
Köprü-Kadıköy, Köprü-Princes' Islands, which are even today among the
most important sea routes of the city. Regular services on these routes were
started in 1846.
II- To near shores (Sevahil-i Karibe), covering the routes to İzmit, Gemlik,
Tekirdağ, Bandırma and Gelibolu on the shores of the Marmara Sea.
III- To distant shores (Şevahil-i Baide). Under this heading are included the
routes to the Aegean sea, mainly to Izmir and Selanik (Thesaloniki), and to
the Black Sea, the ports of Varna, Samsun and Trabzon. In the year 1860,
Fevaid-i Osmaniye was operating on the following routes : Istanbul - İzmit,
Istanbul - Mudanya - Gemlik, Istanbul - Silivri - Tekirdağ - Gelibolu, Istanbul
- Midilli - İzmir, Istanbul - Selanik (Thesaloniki), Izmir - Sakız - Rodos,
Izmir Girit - Sana- İskenderiye (Alexandria) and Beyrut.55
In 1871, the Fevaid-i Osmaniye was renamed İdare-i Aziziye as a tribute to Sultan
Abdülaziz, who cared deeply about sea transportation. In 1878, it was renamed the
İdare-i Mahsusa under the reign of Sultan Abdülhamid II. In 1909, the İdare-i
Mahsusa was purchased by a British company, but this purchase was canceled
shortly afterward, and the institution became Osmanlı Seyr-i Sefain İdaresi (Ottoman
Navigation Administration) in 1910 and sustained its services until 1923.56 There
were several attempts to establish steamship travel detached from the Navy. 57
55 Güleryüz, İstanbul Vapurları(Istanbul ferries),26.
56 Koraltürk, Buharlı Vapurlardan Deniz Otobüslerine İstanbul’da Deniz Ulaşımı88.
57 Güleryüz, İstanbul Vapurları (Istanbul ferries),23-26.
32
The Peyk-i Şevket steamship was the first attempt to provide steamship
service between Istanbul and Izmir. The ship was built in France at the port city La
Ciotat, more specifically at the arsenal of the Chantier Benet in 1836. Peyk-i Şevket
was a "wooden bulled side paddler ship" built to carry both passengers and charges.
It operated for 14 years on the Istanbul-Izmir line and, at some unknown point,
worked for the postal service of the Princes' Islands.58
The Ottoman steamship company Şirket-i Hayriye, aiming to provide
transportation and to set an example as the first private company of the Ottoman
Empire, was founded in 1851. It was founded by the undersecretary of the vizier
(sadaret müşteşarı) of the time Fuad Paşa, and the previous minister of justice
(Adliye Nâzır-ı Esbakı) CevdetPaşa.59 The steamships of the Şirket-i Hayriye
operated along the Bosphorus. The company Şirket-i Hayriye ordered its first ships
from England. These ships were named Rumeli, Tarabya, Küçüksu, Beylerbeyi,
Tophane and Beşiktaş. As soon as the four of these six requested ships reached
Istanbul, they set out on a voyage in April 1852. The first voyages were carried out
to Üsküdar. During this period, ships did not approach the shore; as there were no
quays to go onboard. Passengers, who could cross a distance close to the coast with
the ferries, were transported to the coast by boats or barges.60 Other than
transportation along the Bosphorus, the company offered military support to the
Empire by supplying troops with materials during times of war.61 One of the issues
brought up about the establishment of the Şirket-i Hayriye was the possibility of
confusion between the company and the Fevaid-i Osmaniye. The solution for this
58 Koraltürk, Buharlı Vapurlardan Deniz Otobüslerine İstanbul’da Deniz Ulaşımı24.
59 Ergin, Mecelle-I Umûr-ı Belediyye. 2288.
60 Levent Kaya Ocakaçan, “BirinciDünyaSavaşı’ndaŞirket-iHayriye,” 20.
61 Ahmet ErdemTozoğlu, “Actors of Change: Railway Projects and Urban Architecture of Balkan
Cities in the Late Ottoman Period,” -46.
33
issue was to separate the operational areas.62 The Fevaid-i Osmaniye would operate
on the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, while the Şirket-i Hayriye aimed only to
provide ferry transport along the Bosphorus. Kadıköy and Pendik, the Anatolian side
of the Istanbul and distant Rumelian settlements onshore such as Yeşilköy and the
islands were left to the Fevaid-i Osmaniye.63
Other companies were worth mentioning, such as the İdare-i Nehriye, the
Hamidiye Ferry Company, and the Haliç Ferry Company. The İdare-i Nehriye was
established in 1863 by Midhat Pasha, who was appointed as the Governor of the
Danube during the reign of Abdülaziz to carry out transportation on the Danube
River. Since it was a private company, it carried passengers and freight without any
assistance from the state.64 Shortly after, the voyages started with two ferries, and
then two more steamers were added. Seven ferries were operating with the order of
two postal ferries from Vienna in 1869.65 The Hamidiye Ferry Company was
established in 1884 by granting a concession to Yahya Efendi, a merchant from
Izmir, for operating ferries in the Gulf of Izmir. According to the contract, consisting
of twenty articles, the concession of operating ferries among Old and New Foça in
Izmir Bay, Alaybeyi, Osmanzade, Donanmacı, Karşıyaka, Izmir, Karataş, Islahhane,
Göztepe, Abdullah Ağa Farm, Kilizman, Urla, Karaburun piers and regular
passenger transport to Çeşme, Ilıca outside the gulf is given to Yahya Efendi. Yahya
Efendi was granted a concession for thirty years to build the piers and pontoons that
needed to be constructed. In 1884, six months after the concession was granted,
62 Koraltürk, Buharlı Vapurlardan Deniz Otobüslerine İstanbul’da Deniz Ulaşımı 24.
63 Koraltürk, Buharlı Vapurlardan Deniz Otobüslerine İstanbul’da Deniz Ulaşımı 21.
64 Kızıldemir, İlk Buharlı Geminin Türkiye’ye Gelişi ve Türk Deniz Ticareti Resmive Özel Kuruluşları,
32.
65 Kütükoğlu, “Osmanlı Buharlı Gemi İşletmeleri ve İzmir KörfeziHamidiyeŞirketi.” in
ÇağınıYakalayanOsmanlı! OsmanlıDevleti’nde Modern HaberleşmeveUlaştırmaTeknikleri, ed.
Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu and Mustafa Kaçar.
34
Hamidiye Company ferries started their voyages. The voyages of the company
consisted of two parts: in-gulf and out-of-gulf. The company tried to continue these
expeditions until the beginning of the Tripoli War in 1911.66 The Haliç Ferry
Company, on the other hand, was founded in 1856 by Ahmed Fethi Pasha, the
Marshal of the Imperial Arsenal (Tophane-i Amire Müşiri). Ahmet Fethi Pasha is
also considered to be the founder of the Ottoman Imperial Museum. In 1846, Ahmet
Fethi Pasha established the Ottoman Empire's first museological presentation of
imperial collections. The two collections owned by the Sultan were displayed in the
chambers around the atrium of the former Church of Hagia Irene. This collection is
considered the foundation of the first Ottoman Imperial Museum.67 Ahmed Fethi
Pasha received a concession for operating ferries on the Golden Horn for twenty
years. Ahmed Fethi Pasha started to work with three ferries. With his death in 1857,
the privilege of the company passed to his son Mahmut Celalettin Pasha. Another ten
years of concession was granted later. It was given fifteen years before the first
concession was to end. The company was integrated into the Istanbul Municipality in
1935.68
Moreover, there were two other companies, which ended up as mere attempts;
yet, they are nonetheless worth mentioning. These are the Osmanlı Şirketi (the
Ottoman Company) and İdare-i Umman-ı Osmani (Ottoman Administration of
Oman). The former was established by Midhat Pasha, like the İdare-i Nehriye, in
1869, after Midhat Pasha was appointed as the Governor of Baghdad. However, this
company did not survive after Mithat Pasha left the position.69 There was another
66 Kütükoğlu, “OsmanlıBuharlıGemiİşletmelerive İzmir KörfeziHamidiyeŞirketi.”.
67 Shaw, Possessors and Possessed: Museums, Archaeology, and the Visualization of History in the
Late Ottoman Empire, 46.
68 Koraltürk, Haliç’teUlaşımveHaliçVapurlarıŞirketi, 1909-1941, 18. Ergin, Mecelle-iUmûr-ı
Belediyye, 2288.
69 Tutel, Seyr-İ Sefain, 82.
35
attempt to start a steamship company on Lake Van. In a late (after the first efforts)
report on this issue in 1887, the benefits of the ferry are stated. These benefits
concern shortening of the travel time, with exact time differences. The report stated:
A ferry is strongly needed in order to facilitate the transportation of all kinds
of goods and supplies from the towns and districts of Gevaş, Bitlis, Ahlat,
Adilcevaz, Erciş and Bargirli, on the coast of Lake Van, to and from Van to
said districts. The inhabitants of the mentioned towns and districts;
passengers and caravans traveling from Erzurum to Van and vice versa;
soldiers and police soldiers dispatched from Van all stated that they went half
the seventy-two hour trip for basically no reason. However, if the ferry were
to operate, the thirty-six and sometimes forty-hour distance from Van to
Adilcevaz or Ahlat towns would be passed in less than half the time. Thanks
to its operation, they would come close to each other and each one will
develop in a short time.70
This report explained the significance of steamship technology in terms of how it can
shorten travel time. Moreover, this time difference did not occur on an entire
maritime travel, but happened on a small web of otherwise land routes, which has an
enormous lake in the center. The steamship technology could influence the inland
provinces by cutting half of the travel time. The efforts for the company were started
in 1878 by two Armenians called Artin Sarrafyan Efendi and Abraham Haffafyan
Efendi. They presented a petition concerning a company operating on Lake Van to
transport passengers and materials with steamships to the Public Works Department
of the Council of the State on April 6, 1878. Upon this, the required agreement and
conditions (şartname) were sent to the Ministry of Public Works. On August 4, 1879,
this "mukavelename ve şartname" was read in the Meclis-i Mahsus, stating a 40
years long concession for the operation of the ferries on Lake Van made it a
condition for the state to approve the internal regulations of the company, named the
Ottoman Company.
70 Abdulvasi Çetkin, “Van Gölü’nde Osmanlı Şirketinin Vapur İşletmeciliği Teşebbüsleri.” 5-13.
36
However, Çetkin points out that this company has never officially operated
according to the archive documents. This is also visible considering the state's
constant delaying of this work. The only reason for the delay was the approval of the
company's bylaws. Consequently, the operation could not start. According to Çetkin,
the government postponed the work intentionally because the benefits of running
ferries on Lake Van should have been under the state's name. As a matter of fact, this
situation can be understood from the statement in the sixteenth article of the contract
signed between the company owners and the state: "If the Government deems
appropriate for their needs, it shall have the right and authority to operate ferries on
Lake Van." This article shows how the state brought certain limitations to the
concession granted. Since the operation of ferries on Lake Van could not be activated
by the concessionaires, the government focused on this issue and decided that the
state should carry out the operation of ferries on Lake Van. After 1887, the
concession was ended, as if to prove Çetin's view.
The Governor of Van, İbrahim Halil Efendi, clearly expresses the necessity
for state-owned steamboat management on Lake Van in his report submitted to the
Ministry of Internal Affairs on May 31, 1887. After the report, a commission
examined the situation and decided to cancel the concessions. As cancellation
compensation, the commission chose to pay for the concession holders and operate
two military ships on Lake Van. A year later, the Governor of Van, Halil Bey, sent a
telegram to the Sublime Port, stating that the military shipments were also slow and
the interruption of commercial activities since ferry transportation was not activated
due to the suspension of the state. Upon this, a commission consisting of İbrahim
Mahmut Hamdi, Rıza, Esseyyid İsmet and Esseyyid Muhammed Efendi was
established, and as a result of the investigations, the following decision was reached:
37
"Considering the benefits of ferry transportation on Lake Van, it is more
appropriate to operate two ferries previously intended for military shipment, rather
than granting concessions to a company." This certificate presented by the
commission was accepted on September 16, 1888.71
The aftermath of steamship technology became more prevalent with the
establishment of commercial routes. The steamship companies can be thought of in
several categories. Karakulak categorizes the trade and economic aspects as
transportation of mail, passengers, and passengers' large charges of materials
(cargos) for the case of the Russian Steamship Company and Ottoman State
interaction. This classification can also be considered for the other steamship
companies. I will use these categories to illustrate the intensity of maritime
transportation as the outcome of steamship technology.72
2.3.1 Mail-Postal Service
Steam technology had a vast effect. The effect was initially visible on the postal
service. Mail transportation also has chronological links to the early technology of
the steamboat as, due to the size of the first steam engines, only mail could have been
transported with steamships. Aside from the speed advantage, steamships had some
carriage limitations, so they were initially only used for postal services. These
limitations were related to the volume of the steam power structure, which only
enabled the transportation of mail. Until the arrival of the steam-propeller, mentioned
above, the main focus of steamship transportation was postal services. Uygun
71 Abdulvasi Çetkin, “Van Gölü’nde Osmanlı ŞirketininVapur İşletmeciliği Teşebbüsleri.” 38-49.
72 Mesut Karakulak, “Russian Steamship and Trade Company (ROPIT) and Ottoman-Russian
Commercial Relations (1856-1914).” 1-19.
38
emphasizes the importance of mail transportation in the context of the technological
revolution and quotes the French Minister of Economy of the time in 1835:
The journey by sailboats from Marseille to Istanbul would normally take 40
to 50 days, now a steamboat from Marseille to Istanbul would complete its
round trip in 28 days. In other words, the reply of a letter sent to Istanbul
came on the 29th day. On the other hand, thanks to this revolution in the
postal ships, diplomatic and commercial relations with the Levant were
becoming more regular and tighter.73
This comment was not a coincidence; the steamship travel with the Levant indeed
became more frequent after the first successful voyage of the company was to the
Levant and Istanbul. Eastern Mediterranean voyages were the main focus of the
Messageries Maritimes Company. Connections aimed mainly at Alexandria, Beirut,
Mersin, Izmir, Thessaloniki, and Istanbul. I would like to highlight the Thessaloniki
line because one of the captains on this route will be a central point later in this
study. With the agreement made with the Greek government by the Messageries
Maritimes Company on April 15, 1852, a regular connection was established
between all Greek shores/ports and France. According to this agreement, the
Messageries steamers would make regular voyages, once a month, between Chalcis,
Naples, Maratosino, Kalamata, Piraeus, and the Ottoman port of Thessaloniki,
departing from Marseille. Messageries Maritimes Company made its first voyage to
Thessaloniki with its steamer named Eurotas under the command of Marius
Michel.74
Kobe can constitute another example of how fast the connections were made
with routes with an increasing number of stops. Furthermore, through the Kobe
example, I can display the point steamship reached on a global scale. The mail
company also had the first ship from Europe (named Iris, departing from Hamburg)
73 Uygun, Osmanlı Sularında Rekabet, 33.
74 Uygun, Osmanlı Sularında Rekabet, 56-67.
39
in the late 1860s, which arrived at Kobe. After Pacific Mail Company added Kobe to
its steam service two months after the first ship, between Shanghai & Yokohama and
from there across the Pacific to San Francisco, the importance of the steamship
increased significantly, and it was more commonly preferred for passenger
transportation.75 The maritime travel reached the furthermost places, and the
frequency of the steamship services grew rapidly.
2.3.2 Passenger Travel
Hobsbawm points out that "The middle of the nineteenth century marks the beginning
of the greatest migration of peoples in history." He also divides long-distance
passengers into two main categories: travelers and migrants.76 Gelvin and Green
point out the relation between the rise of steam power and the increase in passenger
transportation: "Rail and steam enabled the expansion of trade and migration to a
degree never achieved. In the 1830s, it took forty-eight days to travel from Liverpool
to New York under sail and thirty-six days to return. With steam, the voyage took
fourteen days each way."77
In addition to globetrotters and a minor stream of merchants, another aspect
was the hajj and the transportation of the pilgrims to the holy cities in the Hijaz. This
section will focus on traveling and globetrotting since their byproducts provide
sources to illustrate the connections of technology and transportation with the spatial
nodes and infrastructures on a global scale. Again, Gelvin and Green suggest this
connection with the following words: "The advent of railroads and steamships also
made Muslim societies accessible to European adventurers, missionaries, settlers,
75 Green, Terrains of Exchange: Religious Economies of Global Islam, 242-247.
76 Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, 1875-1914,228-244.
77 Gelvin, and Green, “Introduction” in Global Muslims in the Age of Steam and Print, 1-25.
40
scholars, and tourists (a term coined in the second decade of the nineteenth
century)."78 In the same book, printing technology and steam engine technology are
discussed together. As a part of passenger transportation and travel, related
productions such as photography and print (in this case, the travelogues as well as the
travel guide books) increased significantly. Printing and photography are two other
technological developments to consider in line with steam technology. In order to do
so, I will provide three examples of travel byproducts: the printed texts and
photographs concerning traveling such as travel guidebooks and travelogues and
touristic photographs; one of which will be from the book edited by Gelvin and
Green. All three creatively illustrate how steam technology rendered long-distance
traveling a more common activity. The first example is from the book Age of Print
and Steam, the chapter of Prestholdt, which includes a travelogue that discusses the
centrality of Zanzibar: "By the mid-1860s, ships from virtually every western Indian
Ocean port could be found at Zanzibar, alongside others from the United States,
Egypt, Turkey, Portugal, Denmark, France, Britain, Germany, and even Argentina."
This quote clearly illustrates the level of connectivity in the mid-1860s.79
Pérez Gonzalez suggests that the increase in steamship travel, especially in
the form of tourism, is also visible through the rise of photography studios in port
cities. She claims that since port cities were the arrival points of the steamships, they
were also photography centers. She sets Egypt along with Japan and China as one of
the many examples of this. The case of Egypt begins to be visible in the aftermath of
the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. This period is also considered to be the
golden age of photography in Egypt. I would like to add here that one of the three
78 Gelvin, and Green, “Introduction” 1-25.
79 Jeremy Prestholdt “From Zanzibar to Beirut: Sayyida Salme Bint Said and the Tensions of
Cosmopolitanism.” 185-204.
41
photographed lighthouses in the Abdülhamid Collection is the lighthouse of the Port
Said. Pérez Gonzalez's study also contains critical information regarding the
increasing intensity of the steamship routes.80 She presents travel guidebooks as a
source to trace this increase. One aspect is their timelines, especially two publishing
houses of travel books in nineteenth-century England: John Murray and Karl
Baedeker. Another aspect to track is the timetables and route maps narrated and
illustrated in the guidebooks throughout the nineteenth century.81
Travelogue of Europe (Avrupa Seyahatnamesi) consists of travel notes of a
medical doctor, writer, and historian Hayrullah Efendi in Europe, where he visited
twice, in 1862 and 1864. In this travel book, Hayrullah Efendi narrates his travel in a
very detailed manner; he even mentions alternative companies to choose from and
their timetables. For example, on his trip to Paris, he narrates:
It is a journey from Lyon to Paris, Lyon with a journey from Istanbul to
Marseille. If you go to Marseille, the journey from Istanbul is like a trip to
Trieste. However, the ferries to be related to are not the Llyod company of
Austria, but the Méssagéries company of the French.82
2.3.3 Material
The transportation of large cargo is a fundamental element of maritime transport.
Evidently, the transportation of large cargos is a necessity due to its strong
correlation with trade. In Mikhail's book, Nature and Empire in Ottoman Egypt,
another aspect of the steamships and increasing travel is stressed: the infrastructure.
Arrangements for constructions and materials are required for a steamship to board
the land. Steamboats need modern quay infrastructures in order to approach any
80 Pérez González, From Istanbul to Yokohama: The Camera Meets Asia, 1839-1900, 27-48.
81 Pérez González, From Istanbul to Yokohama: The Camera Meets Asia, 1839-1900, 27-48.
82 Hayrullah Efendi, Avrupa Seyahatnamesi,61.
42
settlement, which requires ample amounts of wood for their construction.83 The
wood obliged for quays was brought with the very same steamships that required the
quay. Other than wood, steamships also carried stones from quarries for quay
constructions. For the Istanbul quays, the first Galata Quay construction started in
April 1892, and later at Eminönü Quay, construction began in 1894 and quarries
were opened. The quarries are located in Istanbul (Fındıklı, Kağıthane, and Silahtar)
and its surroundings (Kınalı, Hayırsız, and Burgaz Islands) to supply marine filling
material. During the construction of the quays of Istanbul, along with the need for
stones from quarries, tugboats were ordered to transport material from the quarries
nearby. The construction of the Galata docks started in 1892 under the rule of M.
Duparchy and M. Diricq.84 Construction sites included stone processing workshops
and warehouses, which were established in Fındıklı, Kağıthane, and Silahtar. The
company also caused urban change with the quarries it operated in Istanbul.
However, the environmental damage and air pollution during the operation of the
quarries, especially in the Princes' Islands, caused an increase in complaints.85 These
complaints tell us that the stones from the quarries on the nearby islands were
transported via steamships. The problems that arose between the Rıhtım Company
and the Ministry of Pious Foundations (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun) regarding the mines
operated in Kınalı, Hayırsız and Burgaz Islands were referred to the court, and the
case that continued for a long time resulted in the company offering peace to the
custody in return for 5,000 Ottoman liras. Indeed, these ships were vital to the
Ottoman Empire since they carried construction material, commercial goods, and
food. This section concludes how the aftermath of steamship technology led to an
83 Mikhail, Nature and Empire in Ottoman Egypt: An Environmental History, 170-201.
84 Bilge, Zihni. İsranbulRıhtımlarınınTarihçesi,12.
85 Örenç, Modern İstanbul Limanı’nın İnşası Sürecinde Galata ve Eminönü Semtlerinde Kentsel
Değişim, 205-258.
43
intensity of travel routes and the transportation of goods, passengers, and mail. In the
next section, I will focus on the frame regarding the developing lighthouse
technology until the nineteenth century. I will explore the links between global
connections and the establishment of the infrastructure network of lighthouse lines to
support the increased maritime traffic. At the same time, I will discuss the
technological development of the lighthouses themselves.
2.4 From Steamship to Its Infrastructure: Lighthouses
There is a major increase in maritime transportation in terms of both intensity and
variety, starting mid-nineteenth century. So far, I have described how steam
technology has led to extensive innovations in transportation and its outcomes in
various aspects. In this section, I would like to start by illustrating the increase in
ownership patterns and steamships with three examples of figures. The first one is a
table demonstrating steamship ownership of Britain, France, and Russia between
1835 and 1860. It is shown in this table (Table 1) that in 25 years, Britain, France,
and Russia had a drastic increase in the number of steamships they owned. The
decrease in numbers for Britain and France occurs between 1850-1855, probably due
to the Crimean War (1853-56). This table also supports the idea that the Crimean
War created an understanding of the importance of steamships, especially in warfare.
Sarah Searight claims the importance of steamships in warfare concerned the naval
forces and all of the military forces since these steamships transported soldiers as
well.
44
Table 1 Number of Steamships Owned by England, France and Russia86
In year 1835 1840 1845 1850 1855 1860
Number of Steamships
that Belonged to Britain
10 7 78 127 96 616
Number of Steamships
that Belonged to France
9 3 82 105 91 353
Number of Steamships
that Belonged to Russia
1 6 18 19 36 116
Steamships were used not solely for military purposes but also for commerce,
especially after the steamships became more regularly used during the second half of
the nineteenth century. Iordachi, in his study, examines this frequency and the
increasing establishment frequency of global commerce networks in the case of
Danube and demonstrates the improvement with figures:
The internationalization of the Danube and the major improvement in naval
conditions resulted in a rapid growth of commercial activity. According to the
statistics of the commission, 3,015 ships exited the river in 1862, transporting
a total of 450,014 tons of goods; 3,099 ships exited in 1863, carrying 519,332
tons of merchandise; 3,448 ships exited in 1864, with 585,894 tons. In 1866,
the fleet of riparian states had an important share in the total trade activity,
such as Turkey with 437 ships and 36,785 tons of carried goods; Russia with
103 ships and 20,910 tons; and the United Principalities with 53 ships and
6,096 tons. Apart from the riparian states, the most important fleets belonged
to Greece, with 1,053 ships and 136,922 tons of goods; England with 243
ships transporting 82,679 tons; Italy with 205 ships transporting 50,035;
Austria with 204 ships and 60,932 tons; Norway with 37 ship and 12,196
tons; and France with 40 ships and 5,104 tons, followed by Sweden, Prussia,
Serbia, and Denmark. In the same year, 361 ships carrying 133,934 tons
transited the port city of Sulina, indicative of the city's importance for the
Danubian trade. Under the direct jurisdiction of the Commission, Sulina
obtained in 1870 the status of portofranco, meaning that all merchandise
exported was exempt from taxes. This policy resulted in an impressive
growth of the amount of goods exported, from 3,761,167 tons in the period
86 Düzcü, “A Maritime Example of the Ottoman Transition to the Industrial Age: Main Parameters of
the Transition to Steamship (1828-1856),” 113-127.
45
between 1871 and 1875 to 15,806,932 tons in the period between 1906 and
1910, thus multiplying more than fourfold in 35 years.87
The overall maritime commerce grid reveals dramatic figures; the merchant fleets of
the world had a capacity of 9 million tons in 1850. Sixty years later, in 1910, it
almost quadrupled with a capacity of 34.5 million.88
The technology meant another level of connection. Four-month journeys
came down to two months. The number of routes increased in terms of intensity and
variety; carrying mail, large charges, and passengers. As a result, the necessities of
maritime transportation became more apparent. The steamships required navigation
and an arrival point. Thus, the quays and lighthouses, in the modern sense, became
more of a prerequisite. The quay projects and lighthouses were interlinked with the
growing volume of international sea trade, fueled by the technological development
of the steamships. As a result of this intensity of transport, certain problems and a
need for infrastructure arose.
Quay and lighthouse construction projects constituted the infrastructural
background for the intensifying network of steamship routes. The ports were the
nodes of this network, acting as the places of departure and arrival. The lighthouses,
along with the quays, were equally integral fragments of port infrastructures. The
network of railroads also complemented ports. Lighthouses were a part of this
interlinked structure; furthermore, they provided safety for steamship transportation.
This was, thanks to the lighthouses, both enabling navigation and preventing
accidents in the sea. Lighthouses were a necessity for maritime transportation
because they were essential to the infrastructure for securing the oceans.
87 Iordachi, “Global Networks, Regional Hegemony, and Seaport Modernization on the Lower
Danube.”168.
88 Michael Pearson, The Indian Ocean, 193.
46
The impact of infrastructure played a significant role in providing global
connections. It influenced both economic and strategic terms. In the Ottoman case,
the economic impact goes further than just facilitating the maritime trade; it was a
part of the integration of the global economy since construction processes included
foreign direct investments to the Ottoman Empire. Foreign direct investments were
an additional dimension. European companies started to found enterprises within the
borders of the Ottoman Empire (These European companies appealed to the Ottoman
government to obtain the necessary concessions.) This continued from the 1850s up
to World War I, and the total investment was roughly 75 million British pounds.
Interestingly, two-thirds of this, minus the foreign debt of the Ottoman state,
was invested in railway companies. Ninety percent of the investments went into other
infrastructural elements, both physical, such as ports and municipal services, and
institutional, such as banks.89 The infrastructures on the global scale emerged as
powerful platforms for enabling maritime trade, tourism, and cultural interactions
and strategic importance for the military, providing connections.
Metaphorically, the railway network became the creator of relation-network
among actors. The relation network defined here is much more intricate,
complex and dynamic than the physical railway network.90
At this point, I would like to draw a relatively more general frame of the network
mentioned by explaining the different aspects of this dynamic and providing a
background of the arrival and the diffusion of steamship technology. After this point,
I aim to focus on a specific technology that supported and provided infrastructure for
this network, enabling it to expand and work better: lighthouses.
89 Pamuk, Uneven Centuries: Turkey’s Economic History since 1820, 117.
90 Ahmet ErdemTozoğlu, “Actors of Change: Railway Projects and Urban Architecture of Balkan
Cities in the Late Ottoman Period.”, 10.
47
2.5 The History of Lighthouses Before and After Nineteenth-Century Technology
"In a parallel process [to railroads], construction of high-capacity harbors and
availability of steam-engine freight ships increased maritime traffic volume higher
than ever before."91 Steamships were a major part of the industrial revolution, linked
to maritime transportation and the Navy. Sea transport, like coastal security and
lighthouses, was of course not a new development. The increasing amount of
lighthouse construction was an expression of industrial development, in a similar
fashion, to the other infrastructural developments. For example, the Bell Rock
lighthouse, which sits off the coast of Scotland in the North Sea, is considered one of
the seven wonders of the industrial world.92
The oldest lighthouse in history is believed to have been built in Sigeion
(Kumkale) at the junction point of the Dardanelles Strait to the Aegean Sea, in the
7th century BC.93 The first lighthouse mentioned in documents was the Pharos of
Alexandria, erected during the reign of King Ptolemæus Philadelphus around 280
BC.94
The Lighthouse of Alexandria was mentioned in the Iliad: "As to men o'er the
wave borne The watch-fire's light which, high among the hills, Some shepherd
kindles in his lonely fold."95 It is also illustrated in Moğmal-ot-Tavârîhva’l Qasas
manuscript in ca. 1475, now at the Heidelberg University Library.
91 Schivelbusch, The Railway Journey, 22-33.
92 I have come across with such expression in dissertation of Hannah Collway; “Illuminating Science:
The Lighthouse as Public Good and The Role of the Scientific Expert in Nineteenth-Century British
Lighthouse Reform” 2015. The other wonders are: The Transcontinental Railway, The Brooklyn
Bridge, Bazalgette's London sewers, The Great Eastern, The Panama Canal and The Hoover Dam.
93 Davenport, The Story of Our Lighthouses and Lightships: Descriptive and Historical, 1-31.
94 Davenport, The Story of Our Lighthouses and Lightships: Descriptive and Historical, 1-31.
95 See the passage in Homer ("Iliad," xix. 375)
48
Figure 1 Lighthouse of Alexandria miniature in Moğmal-ot-Tavārīḫvaʾl-Qaṣaṣ ca.
147596
Davenport, in his study on lighthouse history, also mentions an early
description of a lighthouse in Constantinople, from the work of Dionysius of
Byzantium (2nd Century AD), called Byzantiou Anaplous Bosporou, which portrays
the Bosporus and the city of Byzantium:
Dionysius of Byzantium describes a celebrated lighthouse planted at the
mouth of the river Chrysorrhoas, where the latter mingles its waters with
those of the Thracian Bosphorus (the modern channel of Constantinople).
"On the crest of the hill," he says, " the base of which is washed by the
Chrysorrhoas, may be seen the Timean tower, of an extraordinary height; and
from its summit the spectator beholds a vast expanse of sea. It has been built
for the safety of the navigator, fires being kindled for their guidance; which
was all the more necessary because the shores of this sea are without ports,
and no anchor can reach its bottom.97
The Anatolian and Rumelian lighthouses were also mentioned in the account of
Istanbul by Pierre Gilles in 1544.98 According to the account of Kömürciyan in
96 Moğmal-ot-Tavârîhva’lQasas, ca 1475, Universitatsbibliothek Heidelberg. MS.Cod. 118/0550,
fol.273a.
97 Dionysius, Dionysius, of Byzantium, and Carolus Wescher. Dionysiou Byzantiou Anaplous
Bosporou. Parisis E Typographeopublico, 1874. Quoted in Davenport, The Story of Our Lighthouses
and Lightships: Descriptive and Historical.
98 Gilles. Anaplus Bosphori Thracii, 165-166.
49
seventeenth-century Istanbul, the first lighthouses were Rumelian lighthouses,
Anadolu Lighthouse and Fenerbahçe Lighthouse. According to his account, depiction
of the Fenerbahçe lantern is as follows:
The field extending from Kadiköy to Fenerli garden (Fenerbahçe) is covered
with vineyards that caress the eyes. Here, in front of the mansion, the text
thrown into the sea is like a monolithic statue on a foundation. The lantern is
burning on the top of the tower. Garden and pavilion can be seen from half a
day's distance is remembered with the name of this lighthouse. Lantern, to
protect ships from crashing into rocks, every night in the morning shines up
like a star. Opposite this Sultan's garden full of sycamore and cypress trees,
there is a beautiful mansion that stretches into it and can be seen from all
sides. Coming from the Mediterranean and Izmit and All the ships going to
Istanbul are contacted by this garba mansion. Falling on the back of the
lantern the coastal road is the Izmit road.99
The lighthouses became more relevant during the eighteenth century, and the first
footsteps of the modern lighthouses were being felt. The first stage in the
development of lighthouse technology was replacing the wooden materials with
stone. The Eddystone Lighthouse, built dated 1759 in Cornwall, England, is
considered to be the first modern lighthouse in the open sea in a stone lattice. It has
had several modifications and eventually became the Bell Rock.100 The lighthouse
technology was developing during the beginning of the nineteenth century.
In 1822, a French engineer called Augustin Fresnel invented the reflective
lens, which made it possible to extend the reach span length of light. Traditional
lighthouses were basically beacon fires, which lit at night on high towers along the
shores of the sea, aiming to guide mariners at nighttime and to provide safe travel.
Modern lighthouses as we know them originated with Fresnel's innovation in
illumination. This innovation was made while Fresnel was in the French lighthouse
commission of Napoleon III. He was added to this commission's ranks due to his
experiments on the wave theory of light. Although Christiaan Huygens first brought
99 Kömürcüyan, XVII. Asırda İstanbul, 14.
100 Stevenson, Lighthouse Construction and Illumination, 13
50
the theory in the late seventeenth century, it was overshadowed by Newton's
corpuscular theory of light (1704). This was until 1802, when Thomas Young
conducted the double-slit experiment (also known as the interference experiment,
one of the earliest studies to consider the wave theory of light over Newton's
corpuscular theory of light, if not the first). Fresnel conducted his experiments
between 1814-1818, which were initially focused on diffraction. Continuing his
work, he introduced the concept of wavelengths, deriving from the Huygens
principle, and articulating the mathematical framework for diffraction intensity
calculations.101
Fresnel became a part of the lighthouse commission in 1818. He worked on
the lens while serving in this commission. His model is widely used in modern
lighthouses today, known as the Fresnel lens, invented between 1819-1825. His work
is a continuation of Georges de Buffon's idea in 1748 that only the outer surface of a
lens is needed for the bending of light, which could lower the cost of the traditional
two-sided lenses. Two-sided lenses were very large and heavy, as well as expensive.
Fresnel devised multi-part lenses to operate in lighthouses.102 In 1823, the first fullscale
test was conducted in Paris on the Arc de Triomphe. The light was visible from
25 kilometers away, which surpassed all expectations103
His invention was a particular system of lenses which was then called the
echelon or lighthouse lens. It is called the Fresnel lens today. This arrangement
consists of a plano-convex lens made of eight or ten glass halos. Several mirrors are
placed over and under these halos. This system transmits the light in great amplitude.
Moreover, Fresnel arranged these lenses in the form of an octagonal glass prism, in
101 Basdevant, “Famous Optician: Augustin Fresnel and the Wave Theory of Light,”18–22.
102 Basdevant, “Famous Optician: Augustin Fresnel and the Wave Theory of Light,”18–22.
103 Basdevant, “Famous Optician: Augustin Fresnel and the Wave Theory of Light,”18-22.
51
order to reflect light all-around with eight points of the horizon. (fig 258) M. Soutter
constructed this model, and it was exhibited at the Paris Universal Exhibition in
1855. At the bottom of the figure, the mechanism enabled the rotating motion,
separating the lighthouse's light from an accidental beam of light from a fire or a
star.104 This discovery extended the use of lighthouses and became a significant
development in maritime navigation. Illumination sources were part of the lighthouse
technology, together with the lenses. Stevenson states in his work "Lighthouse
Construction and Illumination" three crucial attributes for lighthouse design:
The problem of lighthouse illumination is threefold and involves to some
extent both physical and geometrical optics; but the fundamental principles
on which most of the combinations depend, rest really on two or three simple
elementary laws of catoptrics and of dioptrics. Our attention must be given,
1st, to the source of the light itself, which should produce a flame of constant
intensity, and which should, as we shall afterwards see, be of the smallest
possible bulk.
2d, Given the source of light, optical apparatus must be designed to collect
the greatest possible number of rays coming from the flame, and to direct
them to certain parts of the horizon and the sea; and
3d, when lights are multiplied on the same line of coast, it becomes further
necessary to introduce distinctions in their character, so that they shall be at
once recognizable from each other.105
104 Ganot and Atkinson,Natural Philosophy for General Readers and Young Persons. 327-331.
105 Stevenson, Lighthouse Construction and Illumination, 45-46.
52
Figure 2 Fresnel lens and lighthouse light system illustration106
The earliest recorded source concerning the fuel used for illumination in lighthouses
is Hakluyt's Voyages. From this account, Stevenson notes about the use of oil, in
1595, on the shores of the Bosphorus;
“In Hakluyt's Voyages, vol. ii. p. 448, it is stated that "at the mouth of the
Bosphorus there is a turret of stone upon the mainland, 120 steps high, having
a great glass lantern in the top, four yards in diameter and three in height,
with a great copper pan in the midst to hold oil, with twenty lights in it, and it
serveth to give passage into this Strait in the night, to such ships as come
from all parts of those seas to Constantinople.”107
106 Ganot, A., and E. Atkindon. Natural Philosophy for General Readers and Young Persons, 327.
107 Stevenson, Lighthouse Construction and Illumination, 204-213.
53
Figure 3 Plan and section of Fresnel Burners108
Oil was used for a long time as a light source in lighthouses, even after the first use
of coal gas for the Salvore Lighthouse of Trieste, in 1817. A burner structure is a
necessity for both coal gas and oil. Stevenson lists several design alternatives of
burners, including Fresnel's burner design. The drawing shows the plan and sections
of the Fresnel burner, with concentric wicks, in-between spaces enabling air to pass
in the inner wicks. The marked C, C', C" and C'" are the handles for moving the
wicks up and down. The part marked A-B runs oil to the wicks. Other burner types
are the Argand burner, the Maris burner, and the Doty burner. The use of electric
light in lighthouses was first tried at the Trinity House in London in 1857.
The French experienced electricity as a light source at Cape La Heve in 1863,
and at Cape Grisnez in 1869, with the equipment produced by Messrs Sautter,
Lemonnier, and Company of Paris. These developments in lighthouse technology led
to an increase in lighthouse construction activity.109 The table from Davenport's book
on the history of lighthouses, written at the end of the nineteenth century, illustrates
this issue. He states that "We may note, in conclusion, that the coast-line of England
measures 2,405 nautical miles, that of Scotland 4,467 that of Ireland 2,518, and that
108 Stevenson, Lighthouse Construction and Illumination,181.
109 Stevenson, Lighthouse Construction and Illumination,181.
54
of France 2,763 nautical miles. In 1885 England had 339 lighthouses and 57
lightships; Ireland, 127 and 11; Scotland, 189 and 4, against France, 413 and 9."110
Figure 4 Comparative Statement of the Coast-lights according to the countries in the
years 1860 and 1885 respectively111
The number of lighthouses on Ottoman coasts was also increasing in the second half
of the nineteenth century. The Atlas of Coulier, in 1844, reports 24 lighthouses (5 on
the Black Sea, 7 for the Straits, seven on the Aegean Sea, and five on the
Mediterranean). In 1879 the number was 110, 14 more than the Ottoman government
had negotiated for in the first concession dated 1860. These constructions were part
of the Paris Agreement of 1857 after the Crimean War.112
110 Davenport, The Story of Our Lighthouses and Lightships: Descriptive and Historical, 37.
111 Davenport, The Story of Our Lighthouses and Lightships: Descriptive and Historical. 36.
112 Collas, 1864’te Türkiye. 376.
55
2.6 The Crimean War and the Paris Agreement
The Crimean War and its aftermath are thought to be the turning point for Ottoman
Maritime, especially naval development. The Crimean War is also considered one of
the most transformative events in the 1850's Ottoman Empire. Russia declared war
with the occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia on June 11, 1853, due to the issue of
the Christian Orthodox holy lands being in the Ottoman Empire territory. On January
4, 1854, British and French fleets entered the Black Sea coasts to support the
Ottoman Empire against the Russian Empire. These fleets were equipped with the
steamships of Peninsular and Oriental (P&O) Company and Messageries Maritimes
Company. At the beginning of the war, November 17, 1853, the first steamship battle
in history occurred:
At that time the Ottoman-Egyptian steamer Pervaz-ı Bahri was sent to Ereğli
for coal. On its way it fell in with the Vladimir on November 17 1853. In the
battle that followed, the Vladimir captured the Pervaz-ı Bahri, which lost 22
dead including the Egyptian captain Said Pasha and 18 wounded men and
officers. The Russians lost two dead and two wounded, however, one of the
dead was Lieutenant Zheleznov, Kornilov" s aide-de-camp.350 The Russians
returned to Sevastopol with their booty, which was renamed Kornilov. This
small battle can be considered as the first battle in history between
steamships.113
The war lasted until 1856 and had a massive influence on steamship technology and
maritime infrastructures due to the increasing need for steamships. For example,
some of the many early purchases of steamships from Britain were due to warfare
necessities. Nurcan Bal, in her study on steamship use in the Ottoman Navy, recites
an irade-i sense (imperial edict) about the purchase of steamships serving for war on
account of the increased necessity. In another petition document from the London
Embassy, it was stated that the contract for a 30-gun steam frigate was for £ 80000
and would be ready in March 1854; that there was no news of a frigate that could be
113 Badem, The Ottoman Crimean War (1853-1856), 118-119
56
purchased other than this frigate, and that a year was needed to build a new frigate.114
For another instance, the French secretary of the Navy, Theodore Ducos stated they
were not prepared for the war. The steamship fleet was not sufficient. As a result, the
Messageries Maritimes Company and the ministry of war signed an agreement
regarding the transportation of troops, ammunition, and the wounded from the fronts.
In return, the company received many concessions involving the extension of its
activity network to the Black Sea and Danube River. The French participation in the
Crimean War on the side of the Ottoman state provided many advantages other than
widening the lines of the Messageries Maritimes Company. One of the benefits was
receiving a concession for the lighthouses to be installed on Ottoman shores by
Marius Michel, who used to be the captain of a steamer that belonged to Messageries
Maritimes Company. As I have stated in the first chapter, during his mission at
Postal Service, he took the same repeated routes for many years, whereby he
acquired an excellent knowledge of routes and the security flaws in them. Towards
the end of the Crimean War, Marius Michel met Olivier Lannes de Montebello (aidede-
camp of Napoleon III) and present his study regarding the need for the lighthouse
due to security vulnerability.115 Before elaborating on this issue, I will address the
aftermath of the war and its impact on the growing importance given to the
lighthouses. In the Paris Agreement, which was signed on March 30, 1856, the end
of the Crimean War, the negations also emphasized the issue of coastal security and
navigation. For example, article 17 of the Paris Agreement, concerning the state
commission on the Danube coast, was established to provide navigation in the
Danube Straits and adjacent sea areas. Moreover, on June 10, 1857, other negations
114 Bal, XIX. YüzyılBuharlıGemilerDönemi: OsmanlıBahriyesi, 52.
115 Uygun, Osmanlı Sularında Rekabet, 56-62. Here also Uygun mentions that Messageries Maritimes
Company received an additional 5% discount on the lighthouse fees located along the shores of
Ottoman Empire.
57
to the Paris Agreement were issued. One of the five articles discussed in this
document refers to this article for a lighthouse in Zmiinyi Island (located in the Black
Sea, near the Danube Delta).116
The person behind these constructions is Jean Marius Michel, the Ottoman
Empire's General Administrator of Lighthouses and one of the founders of Michel
and Collas Company.117 This company had a contract with the Ottoman government
to construct and manage the lighthouses on the Ottoman shore. In a very brief
summary, the agreement proposes to cover the costs of construction to gain 78% of
the earnings (from the tax payment of any ship traveled on the route of the listed in
tariffs) later on. The taxes are collected according to the tonnage of the ship. Marius
Michel came from a family line of naval officials; his father was a lieutenant in the
Navy, and his grandfather was a navy official. Michel first worked in his father's
company, then joined the navy force to become a long course captain in 1843 for a
postal ship. His ship was to travel to the near east for the Messageries Maritimes
Company, a section of the increased transportation activity. The Crimean War was
the turning point of his life; in 1854, he traveled with general Olivier Lannes de
Montebello, who was responsible for reporting on the Crimean War to Napoléon III.
The ship survived very hazardous conditions, and coastal security, especially in the
Black Sea, attracted Marius Michel's attention. He saw this as an opportunity and
wished to manage the process.118
116Collas, 1864’te Türkiye. 376.
117Hastaoglou-Martinidis, “The Cartography of Harbour construction in the Eastern Mediterranean
cities: Technical and Urban Modernization in the Late Nineteenth Century,” 78-99.
118 Office de Tourisme de Sanary-sur-Mer, “Exposition Michel Pasha”.
58
CHAPTER 3
MARIUS MICHEL’S WORKS IN OTTOMAN EMPIRE DURING 1855-1860
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I will narrate Marius Michel’s life and career in three sections. The first
section is about Marius Michel’s life before he became the general director of Ottoman
lighthouses in 1855. The second part is about how he acquired this position and his
duty as general director of Ottoman lighthouses until the establishment of Collas &
Michel Company in 1860. Collas & Michel Company held the concession rights of the
building and the operation of Ottoman lighthouses. The last part is concerned with the
foundation and the structure of the French Collas & Michel Company after the arrival
of Bernard Collas, the investor and one of the company's partners.
In the previous chapter, I covered the impact of the Crimean War on steamship
technology and discussed how it provided Marius Michel an opportunity to present his
idea of illuminating the coasts of the Ottoman Empire. The first section covers the time
before the Crimean War and focuses on the Marius Michel’s career in the Messageries
Maritimes company. Later, I will go through the Crimean War events that led to
Marius Michel's appointment as general director of Ottoman lighthouses. These events
include but are not limited to Michel's presentation of his ideas and studies of
lighthouses to Olivier Lannes de Montebello, aide-de-camp of Napoleon III. In the
second section, I describe Marius Michel's first year in his new position as general
director, where I include a portion of the purchases of the lighting equipment for the
lighthouses he made in 1855 and ingredients of the purchased material. In addition, I
will explain the 1856 tariff of lighthouse fees. The tariff states the lighthouse fees to
be collected from the ship in the port, and the fee changes according to the port the
59
ship arrives at. The collection of lighthouse fees was significant because it was the
primary and only revenue source for the Ottoman Lighthouse Administration.
Furthermore, I will discuss issues surrounding the announcement and application of
the mentioned1856 tariff. In the final section, I will describe the Imperial Order he
received and Marius Michel’s works until the arrival of Bernard Collas, and the
concession agreement regarding the privilege of construction and management of the
lighthouses in the Ottoman Empire signed in 1860.
3.2 Marius Michel and His work at Messageries Maritimes until 1855
In the previous chapter, I discussed steamship technology's increase in use and the
growing significance of lighthouses as a critical infrastructural element for the steamer
mode of sea transportation, providing navigation services and ensuring the safety of
sea travel. I ended the chapter with Marius Michel and his encounter during the
Crimean War (1854) with a French general, Count Olivier Lannes de Montebello, a
personal friend, and aide-de-camp of Napoleon III. At this point, I would first like to
go back to the years Marius Michel spent in the postal service of the navy, which later
became the Messagaries Maritimes. Then I will continue with the beginning of 1854,
a crucial turning point in Marius Michel's life when he met with General Olivier
Lannes de Montebello in Constantinople.
On April 22, 1843, Marius Michel sought to be freed from active duty to join
the State merchant marine. He was tasked to serve in the Near East liners of the
merchant marine, which later became Compagnie des Messageries Nationales
(Messagaries Maritimes). For more than ten years, starting from 1843, Marius Michel
sailed on the lines of the Near East on the Post Office liners of the Messageries
Maritimes. During his service, because of the absence of modern lighthouses in this
60
region, Marius Michel undertook a systematic study of possible lighthouse locations
along Eastern Mediterranean coasts. He launched himself with passion into a
systematic survey of the shores of the Ottoman Empire and drew up a marking plan of
considerable precision during these ten years. The large number of readings he took to
find the most favorable position for each lighthouse allowed him to acquire an almost
perfect knowledge of the different routes followed by the regular couriers.119 This
knowledge of the routes enabled Marius Michel to present his studies to Olivier Lannes
de Montebello and impress him with his practical knowledge and expertise.
At the beginning of 1854, when the Crimean War was raging on, Marius
Michel was promoted due to his success in handling crises in different seas. Navigation
already became a significant problem at this point.120 During the Crimean War,
General Count de Montebello, Napoleon III's aide-de-camp, unexpectedly arrived on
the boat of Marius Michel because the ship he was meant to return to France on had
just been lost in the Black Sea. He returned from him to France's journey to inform
Napoleon III about the Crimean War.
They met on December 21, 1854, while Marius Michel’s ship was about to
leave Constantinople for Marseilles; Count Olivier Larmes de Montebello was
returning from an investigation of the situation in Crimea. To satisfy the general's
request to arrive in France as soon as possible, Marius Michel determined to take a
route that would take less time to arrive at their destination and was more dangerous.
This trip was an opportunity for Marius Michel to present the crucial problem of
worrying inadequacy of the illumination of these coasts and his studies upon it. Marius
Michel did more than explaining the situation and the opportunities that ensued; he
submitted to Count de Montebello the research he had made. As soon as he returned
119 Office de Tourisme de Sanary-sur-Mer, “Exposition Michel Pasha”.
120 Office de Tourisme de Sanary-sur-Mer, “Exposition Michel Pasha”.
61
to Paris, on January 7, 1855, the Count talked to Napoleon III about this issue. The
situation was beyond immediate military problems if France did not take the project;
another country such as England could have taken the initiative to build and operate
lighthouses on the Ottoman coasts. Moreover, the Crimean War was still raging on,
and the ever-growing list of ships supplying the French troops in the Crimea was
becoming victims of accidents at sea due to the lack of lighthouses.121 Napoleon III
invested twelve million francs in this project.
3.3 Marius Michel, the General Director of Ottoman Lighthouses
Considering the debilitating effects of the ongoing war, initiating lighthouse
construction went relatively swiftly and smoothly. On July 19, 1855, the Pericles (from
the fleet of Messageries Maritimes), moored in Constantinople. Marius Michel
received an order through the French ambassador, Antoine Thouvenel, to leave his
ship immediately and wait for instructions. On August 1, 1855, the French ambassador
and Sultan Abdülmecid signed an agreement that appointed Marius Michel as director
of the Lighthouses of the Ottoman Empire. The first objective of this directorate was
to develop the network of lighthouses on the Ottoman coasts. This network included
creating thirty-six in the Dardanelles and the Black Sea immediately and four at the
entrance to the Danube.122 On September 18, 1855, less than two months later, he
became the director of the Lighthouses of the Ottoman Empire; he arranged the first
contract to maintain the lighthouses.123
121 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960, 10-12.
122 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960,8-21.
123 COA, HR.SFR.1.4
Etre les Soussignés
62
This contract was signed between M. Michel as the General Director of the
Lighthouses of the Ottoman Empire and Michel Henry-Lepaute, as the engineer to the
constructor of lighthouses responsible for maintaining and repairing lighthouses. Here,
I think it will be helpful to demonstrate a summary of the life and works of Lepaute
before moving on to the details of the contract.
Lepaute, or in his full name Augustin Michel Henry-Lepaute, was a French
clockmaker to Louis-Philippe of France and Emperor Napoleon III. The first bearer of
the name "Henry-Lepaute," he was born Augustin Michel Adam Henry in 1800, in
Paris. He was the son of Pierre Henry, watchmaker, and Gabrielle Prevost. His father,
Pierre Henry, was descended from the Lepaute family by his mother and became the
King's watchmaker in Paris by associating with his uncles Jean André Lepaute and
Jean Baptiste Lepaute (brothers of Elisabeth Lepaute).124
Monsieur Michel, Directeur général des Phares de l’Empire Ottomanes préseutement a Parisi rue des
la Madeleice 49, agisseut eu vertée du contrat qu’il la passé avec la gouvrement Imperial Ottomanes
18 settembre 1855 .
Et H. Leapaute mecanicieur master des Phares actuellement au service de H leapaute engineur a
construeteur de phares rue de …. 44 a Paris.
Articles da contrat
M. michel choisira aussi en Europe deux mécasiciens pour la réparatiour et entretieur de phares les
coutrats qui fiairout leur salaine, leur frais de voyage la période de leur engagement serout faits avec
le consecoeurs et par L’entre services de la l'égalition de la Sublime Porte dans le paysa u ils serout
choisis
Le periode de leur service ne passera pas la durée de luiq aus et ils l’engagerment a appreudre leur état
et a former des éleves eures qui leur serount adjouits, et cette elase sera inséreé daus leurs contrats. Il a
été convenu ce quis suit.
1. H. Leapaute l’engage pour le counplede la eurquie en qualite de mecanieur mouteur de phares par
leur réparation et leur entretieu
2. Il s’engage aussi a appreudre son étuat de mécanieur monteur de Phares et a former de élevés Eures
qui lui serout adjouits dés son arrivéea son poste et peudant tout sou séjoiur constantinople
3. L’engagenment sera de cinq ans a raison de cinq mülle franes par an payable par douzienne
4. Il l’engage également a couternuer les services pour une seconde periode de ans deus les mêmes
couditioius que des seus si le gouverment ottoman le lui demande
5. La solde de H. Leapaute conuptera da jour son départ de paris les prais de soute de paris a
constaninople pour l’aalles et de constaninople a paris pour le setour, serout a la charge da
goverment ottoman.
6. A la fas de la premieré période de cinq annés ; il sera accondé a H. Leapaute un coregé de deux
mois avec demi sobe daus de cas au il en ferait la domande . mais alors monsieur doudon contactara le
meme engagement ne pourrait jour de celui qui lui serait accondé qu’aprés le retour de H. Leapaute
124 "Les Phares Des Horlogers Lepaute".
63
In 1823 he started to work with Augustin Fresnel to build lighthouses. Lepaute
met with Augustin Fresnel while working on France's lighthouses and beacons in the
Lighthouse Commission. Upon this meeting, Lepaute's company, which made clocks
for monuments/clock towers, previously expanded into production mechanisms to
rotate lighthouse lenses. In 1837 he founded a company of manufacturing lighthouse
lenses.125
3.3.1 The Agreement Signed between the General Director of the Ottoman Lighthouse
Administration, Michel, and Engineer Lepaute
In 1855 Marius Michel and Henry-Lepaute signed the Contract for Henry-Lepaute to
be the head engineer/mechanic for the Ottoman lighthouses. The agreement lasted five
years and offered to pay five million francs to Lepaute in this duration with annual
payments.126 Although the number to be paid seems to be quite a lot, especially
considering the budget Napoleon III provided for the Michel was twelve million
francs, Henry-Lepaute’s tasks included but were not limited to the repair and
maintenance of the lighthouses. Henry-Lepaute had two additional missions. These
tasks were the education of the engineers and possibly the installment of the
lighthouses. In the second article of the contract clauses, Henry-Lepaute becomes a
125 In Stevenson, Lighthouse Construction, and Illumination, 77-78. the works of Lepaute
regardingthe lighthouse construction is narrated: M. Lepaute's form of Revolving Light. — M.
Lepaute, the collaborator of A. Fresnel, gave a design in 1851, in which, in order to avoid the use of
double agents, he increased the height of the lens, and reduced proportionally the angle subtended by
the mixed light prisms above and below. In this way he extended the powerful part of the light
probably farther than was consistent with favorable angles of incidence of rays falling near the top and
bottom of such elongated lenses. The apparatus could therefore parallelize the rays in the vertical
plane only by its upper and lower prisms. Of course, if he had been acquainted with the holophotal
prisms subsequently to be described, he could have parallelized the light in every plane from top to
bottom of the apparatus. In M. Lepaute's letter to the U.S. Lighthouse Board, of 28th July 1851, he
states that his design " received the approbation of the Commissioners of Lights in France;" and he
adds that "The French Administration is about to order from the undersigned an apparatus of the first
order of this description of flashes for every minute, to renew the apparatus of the light of Ailly, near
Dieppe
126"Augustin Michel Henry-Lepaute".
64
lighthouse mechanic and trains high-level engineers who will be added to his team as
soon as he arrives at his post and throughout his stay in Constantinople. This article
entails Henry-Lepaute’s training mission. The other task, the installment of lighthouse
equipment purchased, was not a direct contract article. Together with Henry-Lepaute,
Marius Michel purchased gear from Louis Sautter to supply some lighthouses for the
Ottoman Empire. The selection of companies was due to French supremacy of the
lighthouse optics, and the companies of engineers such as Fresnel, Sautter, Allard,
Cordemoy, and Friedmann dominated the field.127 After the meeting of a "special
commission," the first purchase was chaired by the Minister of the Navy, Admiral
Hamelin, on September 14, 1855. The Commission decided to send fifteen lights
immediately, to be used to light the Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara, and the
Dardanelles. This equipment was manufactured by the Henry-Lepaute Company and
was available, partly at the manufacturer's company, partly in the Lighthouses and
Beacons workshop. The cost of the equipment is estimated at 150,000 francs, not
counting the initial set-up costs.128 From these details of the contract, I conclude that
the installment of the lights to the lighthouses was among Henry-Lepaute’s duties.
3.3.2 The Necessary Equipment and Its Purchase
The purchase contains supplies such as pipes, lanterns, and candlewicks apart from the
lenses. As I have mentioned in the first chapter, a burner structure that operated on
coal gas or oil was necessary for the operation of nineteenth-century lighthouses. All
of these materials are listed in the various purchase documents. For example, a five-
127 Bernhard, "Le Fond Michel PACHA (102 APOM) au Centre des Archives d’Outre-mer des
archives nationales ,"5-14.
128 Bernhard and Thobie, 61-85.
65
page document129 about purchasing the materials required for lighthouses from Paris
includes a list of the following materials:
120 pieces of pipe from the first number
300 pieces of pipe from the second number
400 pieces of pipe from the third number
100 pieces of pipe from the fourth number
Again, from the fourth number, red pipe, 100 pieces
Green tube for small lanterns 150 pcs
50 pieces of white pipe for the English lantern (their lower pole 44 millimeters
and the upper square 33 millimeters and lengths 30 centimeters)
Again, for the English lighthouse pipe (even their lower pole is 43 millimeters,
the upper pole is 35 millimeters, and the lengths are 30 centimeters)
50 pieces of candlewick meter-long from the first number
50 pieces of candlewick meter-long from the second numbers
60 pieces of candlewick meter-long from the third number
60 pieces of candlewick meter-long from the fourth number
100 pieces of candlewick meter-long for small lanterns
50 pieces of candlewick meter-long for British lantern found with a lock
Again, for the English lantern, the roving subway at the twenty-sevenmillimeter
pole 25 pieces
Two dozen of cutters for the necessity of the lighthouses.130
The document includes this list of purchases and contains correspondence notes
concerning several purchases for the lighthouses. One of the notes regarded the help
for the delivery of the needed materials for the lighthouses.131 Another one considers
the account book issued by Monsieur Michel regarding the material required to be
purchased and brought by the Paris embassy for the lighthouses. The naval council
decision attached to this report to the embassy to acquire materials as listed in the
conclusion of the navy council.132 This list above is a part of the correspondence note
regarding the urgency of the purchase. The last document also included the original
French letter written by Marius Michel. This document is additionally concerned with
the illumination of Sulina Strait and Zmiinyi Island located in the Black Sea, near the
Danube Delta. Apart from this document, these lighthouses in the treaty concluded in
129 COA, HR.MKT.207.26.1-7
130 COA,MKT.207.26.5
131 COA,HR.MKT.207.26.1
132 COA,HR.MKT.207.26.3
66
Paris on June 10, 1857, after the Crimean War. I will expand this document in the next
portion since, together with this one, there are two additional documents about the
lighting of Sulina Strait and Zmiinyi Island.
3.3.3 Lighting of Sulina Strait and Zmiinyi Island
The Danube River flows from west to east through much of Europe, with Sulina Strait
serving as one of its departure points to the Black Sea, and the Zmiinyi Island is located
in the Black Sea, near the Danube Delta. The illumination of the Sulina Strait and
Zmiinyi Island was an issue repeated in several documents, one of which is the treaty
concluded in Paris on June 10, 1857, establishing the boundary between Russia and
the Ottoman state in Bessarabia, the Danube delta, and the Zmiinyi Island, and ratified
on December 31, 1857. This treaty was an additional negation to the Paris Agreement
signed on March 10, 1856. In the fourth article of the 1857 treaty, it is stated: "In line
with the interests of international maritime trade, the Devlet-i Aliye (state) undertakes
to build a lighthouse on the Zmiinyi Island, aimed at navigating the ships sailing on
the Danube and going to the port of Odessa; The Danube Coast States Commission,
which was established by Article 17 of the Treaty of March 30, 1856, to ensure
navigation in the Danube Straits and adjacent sea sections, will pay attention to the
regular service of these lighthouses.133
The document about the purchased lighthouses for Sulina Strait, Zmiinyi Island
is issued eight months after the first Paris Agreement on November 4, 1856. The
document explains the payments together with the lighthouses purchased for the shores
of the Marmara Sea as follows:
About the issue of cost and expenses of the lighthouses purchased for Sulina
Strait, Zmiinyi Island (located in the Black Sea, near the Danube Delta)
133 Collas, 1864’te Türkiye. 376.
67
together with Marmara Sea stations with the efforts of Monsieur Michel and
the incomes & payments formed ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety
francs to be arranged and provided from treasure this issue is informed by the
Capitan pasha and as a result of the information he gave and asking for
permission the sultans' order is decreed on the fulfillment of the required
payment and aid about this problem. The mentioned Capitan pasha is informed
about the decree.134
The following document, which was the one with the original French note written by
Marius Michel issued almost a year later, November 29, 1856, is concerned with the
provision of material for the lighting of the lighthouses the oil, candlewick, and flame;
otherwise, lighting could die down:
According to the news received by Sulina, crystal bottle and candlewick were
requested for both the mentioned place and the lighthouse of Zmiinyi Island,
and it was not expected that it would end in such a short time since the
candlewick and bottle [of burner oil] were given to these places. There is no
doubt that the two lanterns will go out in winter when there is a special permit
to send a mechanic and oil and flame to Sulina and Zmiinyi Island.135
3.4 1856 Tariffs
Upon building modern lighthouses and modernizing the existing lighthouses by
installing modern lights to them, in total, there were twenty modern and modernized
lighthouses on the Ottoman shores; nine on shores of Dardanelles, two in the Marmara
Sea, five in Bosphorus, and four in the Black Sea, in the first year of Marius Michel
working as the General Director of Ottoman Lighthouses. At the end of the first year,
in September 1856, the lighthouse tariff was published stating the lighthouse fees
according to the ship's tonnage.136 The tariffs list the lighthouse or light fee to be
collected on the port of arrival. Since the lighthouses were illuminating the routes of
the steamers, they are listed as the "lines" ( خطوط , hutut / hatlar in Ottoman Turkish) in
the tariff. The tariff payment for lighthouse service was taken from commercial liners
134 COA, A.}MKT.NZD.199.76
135 COA,HR.MKT.207.26.7
136 SALT Research Archives, City, Society, and Economy Collections, Other Holdings- ABK003
68
according to their tonnage. According to the arrival location for any ship with a
carriage up to eight hundred tons, an exact price was set according to the arrival
location for any ship with a carriage up to eight hundred tons. If the boat carried more
than eight hundred tons, an additional amount had to be paid for each ton. In the tariff,
the most expensive payment was in Izmir/ Smyrna line with 15 paras up to eight
hundred, 7 ½ paras for each an additional ton exceeding eight hundred. The lowest
amount was 8 and 4 paras for surpassing tons in Albane in the Adriatic Sea. The other
lighthouse lines had a fixed tariff of 10 and 5 paras: Mitilini/Lesbos, Chios,
Thessaloniki/Selanik, Volos, Samos, Kos, Rhodes, Caramine, Syria, Candie, Tripoli
de Barbarie, as well as the Anatolian and Rumelia Sides of Black Sea (which I assume
to be the Dardanelles and the Black Sea). In 1856, this tariff for the lighthouses was
published; its introduction, announced for April 15, 1857, was ineffective until
November 13. After the announcement, it faced a considerable backlash with a group
of protests from the steamship companies.
The Imperial Messengers lodged the first and most strident protest, claiming
that the tariff was based on a far too high base and requesting that the matter be
reviewed. When waiting for their turn, the Austrian Lloyd was hesitant, and the
English "reserved the right to complain if the tariff was too high." In December 1857,
the ambassador Thouvenel expressed his concern: "It seems desirable that such a
valuable work, undertaken under the direction of a French engineer, and which has
been functioning for several months with a regularity attested by the captains of liners,
should not be compromised by prolonged resistance. A joint commission is set up to
review the technical and financial issues; it includes H.E. Said Efendi, adviser of the
Admiralty, Mustafa Pasha, president of the council of the Imperial Navy, Mesud
Pasha, general captain of the direction of the Port, Kabuli Efendi, interpreter of the
69
Imperial Divan, Vartan Pasha, interpreter of the Imperial Messageries, Marius Michel,
general director of the Lighthouses, and A. Garbeyron, frigate captain, with the title of
inspector delegated by the French Minister of the Navy. This Commission, which met
for the first time on February 20, 1858, submitted a detailed report on the tariff system
in April: The Ottoman barrel of 792 tons was used as the basis for the calculations; the
tariff remained unchanged, but a 40 percent deduction was given for liners, and
privileged treatment could be granted depending on circumstances.137
Nonetheless, direct payments remained few and far between. On this matter,
the companies had a strong argument; at the end of 1859, there were still only twenty
lighthouses built or modernized out of thirty-six in the contract. The Ottoman
government bears a substantial portion of the blame for this. The Ottoman authorities
seemed to lose interest in an organization initially costly and likely to cause severe
complications with international trade, especially with Great Britain after the Crimean
War ended. An order of payment dated five months after the end of the Crimean War
states that Monsieur Michel and his cortege had not received any compensation for
one and a half months even though their contract orders payment of twelve thousand
francs.138 Furthermore, the credits of the Lighthouse Director were reduced, leading to
a stagnation of the work undertaken by Marius Michel. Without a doubt, the fees that
lighthouse users paid would have been enough to ensure the business's financial
success, but in the meantime, since it was necessary to undertake costly construction
works, Marius Michel had to enlarge his monetary base.
137 Bernhard and Thobie. "Le rôle de Michel Pacha dans L’administration Générale des Phares de
L’Empire Ottoman"61-85.
138 COA, HR.MKT.154.72
70
3.5 The Lighthouse Construction until the Collas’ Arrival
The tariffs of 1856 seemed to be fair since, by the end of 1856, twenty lighthouses had
been created or modernized; nine in the Dardanelles, two in the Marmara, five in the
Bosphorus, four in the Black Sea. Naturally, these were the lighthouses and lights
entitled to the collection of taxes because of their modernity. However, there were still
only 22 of them in 1860 out of thirty-six in the contract. This relative decrease in
lighthouse construction activity was related to the two major factors I have mentioned
above: the diminishing interest of the Ottoman government and the necessity of more
significant financial support. Applying the 1856 tariff would bring in extremely vital
resources, provided, of course, that lighthouse construction was effective. This
required a long-term plan, a program of orders, the training of technicians, all
initiatives that the Ottoman administration was unwilling to undertake. As a result, the
corporation was expected to function as a concessionary corporation, with contractual
ties with Ottoman State rather than a directly state-owned company. The contract will
define the obligations of the company and the conditions of the concession rights.
There is a prospect of making much money here for the concessionaries of the
building and operation of lighthouses located in the Ottoman shores from the collected
fees. And indeed, if Marius Michel was going to make much money, it must be said
that Camille Collas contributed a good half of it without detracting from the
exceptional stature of Michel Pasha. Hence Bernard Camille Collas’ arrival.
Meanwhile, in 1859 Marius Michel received an Order of the Mecidiye, which is given
to him for his outstanding work and exceptional services.139
139 Bernhard and Thobie, "Le rôle de Michel Pacha dans L’administration Générale des Phares de
L’Empire Ottoman" 61-85. Also COA, A.}DVN.MHM.29.13, The document states: "The lighthouses
administrator from the French intellectual community and responsible from the construction of
lighthouses in several shores in different countries of the state Michel as a person with understanding
and intellect has shown excellent service and loyalty. Therefore, he is worthy of a huge gift; upon this
and as a quid pro quo his needed services he is decorated with the fourth rank of Order of the Medjidie
71
3.6 Collas Meets Marius Michel, Leading to the 1860 Contract of Lighthouse
Concession
Thobie suggests that Marius Michel and Bernard Collas were introduced by their
mutual friend Ferdinand de Lesseps. Ferdinand de Lesseps was the person who had
acquired the concession of Suez Canal construction in 1855. He also attempted to build
the Panama Canal, which had failed in the late nineteenth century. According to many
scholars, the Suez Canal was a vital infrastructure for steamships, creating a drastic
increase in global maritime transportation.140 In the next chapter, I will discuss this
issue with implementing the lighthouses in the Red Sea, considering two
infrastructures together. In his book about his recollections of forty years (1847-1887),
Ferdinand de Lesseps wrote about the origin of the Suez Canal idea in a letter To M.
'S. W. Ruyssenaers, Consul- General of Holland in Egypt:
I confess that my scheme is still in the clouds, and I do not conceal from myself
that, as long as I am the only person who believes it to be possible, that is
tantamount to saying it is impossible. What is wanting to make it acceptable to
the public is a basis of some kind, and it is in order to obtain this basis that I
seek your co-operation.
I am referring to the piercing of the Isthmus of Suez, which has been talked of
from the earliest historical times, and. which, for that very reason, is regarded
as impossible of execution. For we read, in fact, in the geographical
dictionaries that the project would have been carried out long since if the
obstacles to it had not been insurmountable.
I send you a memorandum which embodies my ancient and more recent
studies, and I have had it translated into Arabic by my friend Duchenoud, who
is the best of the Government interpreters. This document is a very confidential
one. Yon will form your own opinion as to whether the present Yiceroy, Abbas
Pasha, is the man to comprehend the benefit which this scheme would confer
upon Egypt, and whether he would be disposed to aid in carrying it out.141
I find the idea of Ferdinand de Lesseps introducing Michel and Collas very fascinating
since both had acquired concessions for maritime infrastructure along the Ottoman
140 Searight, Steaming East., Warf, Time-Space Compression., Barak, Powering Empire. Gelvin and
Green, Global Muslims in the Age of Steam and Print.
141 De Lesseps, Recollections of Forty Years, 153-153.
72
shores. Collas immediately declared his interest in the future of the Ottoman
Lighthouses.
3.6.1 Bernard Camille Collas
Bernard Camille Collas, born in Bordeaux in 1819, already had a prosperous career
behind him. At the age of forty, he was a captain at sea for years. He was narrowly
elected at the French National Legislative Assembly of May 1849 as an independent
deputy. During this mission, he was particularly active in all the problems concerning
maritime interests. Later, he became director of an important shipping company in Le
Havre, a specialist in naval affairs, well informed on major Mediterranean ports.
Additional to his maritime interest, he also had a personal interest in the Ottoman
Empire. He wrote a book about Turkey, "La Turquieen 1861," which he developed
three years later in an updated version. In the introduction of the new edition, he
celebrates the accession to Sultan Abdulaziz's throne and his reforms that transformed
the country.142
3.6.2 Discussions of the 1860 Contract of Lighthouse Concession
The date of Collas and Michel’s first meeting remains unknown, but I assume it was
around a year after the publication of the first lighthouse tariff in 1856. In a document
regarding the translation of books and bills regarding the prices of five lanterns and
other belongings, Michel, the Director of Lights, Monsieur Collas, is listed as one of
the people receiving payment.143 This document was dated November 11, 1857, so
during the end of 1857, Michel and Collas were already working together.
142 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960, 15-19.
143 COA, HR.MKT.217.6
73
In December 1859, Marius Michel and Bernard Collas submitted a first draft
of the concession agreement for the Ottoman lighthouses to the French government.144
This contract aimed to undertake the completion of the lighting system of the Ottoman
Empire coasts in the Mediterranean, the Dardanelles, and the Black Sea; according to
Thobie, a total of 96 lighthouses (74 added to the 22 completed in 1860) as stated in
annex (A) of the contract.145
The contract was signed in 1860 since, according to Thobie’s study, the
negotiations for the agreement didn't go smoothly, mainly because of Sir Henry
Bulwer, the ambassador of Great Britain. Sir Henry Bulwer initially opposed the
project; later, he declared that he would not condemn the initiative. Conversely, Sir
Henry Bulwer was intrigued with the Kapudan Pasha to abolish the concession
contract. Another important note is the dates which were quite confusing; the first
signed text is dated July 15, 1860, while the contract document in the Ottoman archive,
which also Thobie based on dates to 8-20 August 1860, and there is a final signature
date which on September 3, 1860, presumably the date the official signatures were
done for contact come to the force. The document of the concession contract in the
Ottoman archives is dated 8-20 August 1860; therefore, I will take that date exactly.
On May 12, 1860, Camille Collas arrived at Constantinople, and the next day,
together with Marius Michel, he met Ali Pasha, the president of the Tanzimat council,
Mehmet Rüştü Pasha, the grand-vizier, and Fuad Pasha, the Minister of foreign affairs:
all of them gave hope and let it be known that the business was on the right track.146
Meanwhile, Sir Henry Bulwer’s opposition was continuing implicitly.
144 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960, 15-18
145 COA, HR.HMŞ.İŞO 71.2, the annex mentioned wasn’t in the Ottoman archives
146 Bernhard and Thobie. "Le rôle de Michel Pacha dans L’administration Générale des Phares de
L’Empire Ottoman,"61-85.
74
Collas kept the ambassador de Lavalette and Ali Pasha informed of the
progress of the negotiations, and on July 15, 1860, the French text of the contract was
signed. Collas addresses his Emperor to inform him of the situation:
Your Majesty, who deigned to recommend me to Monsieur the Ambassador of
France, will allow me to say to him that he was for me, in all circumstances, of
the benevolence of which I cannot too much point out the delicacy and the
energy… …there is a question of humanity and general interest… …to push
the work with the greatest celerity… …the cast-iron towers, the lighting
equipment, and finally the entire equipment, will be built in France. The work
will occupy a considerable number of workers for a year… …We have to fight
against England, but this fight does not frighten me; France is big enough not
to fear anyone in any respect. We can do as well as the English manufacturers,
but we are not sufficiently known on the foreign markets, and this is the
primary cause of our inferiority in Turkey. We have to get the Turks used to
dealing with us and divert the current that has gone to the English market. It is
easy.147
On September 3, 1860, the exchange of signatures took place, and the next day the
Lighthouse Service was handed over to the concessionaires.
3.7 Lighthouse Concession Contract of August 8/20, 1860
The Lighthouse Concession Contract of August 8/20, 1860,148 consists of nineteen
articles. The main object was for the Ottoman government to fulfill the construction
of a lighting system on the shores of the empire, obtaining the concession and getting
a percentage (78% according to the art. 13) of the revenue from the collection of
147 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960, 20. Thobie quotes from documenet he listed as IV-I. Collas to Napoleon III,
18.7.1860; a copy of the dispatch is addressed to the Count of Montebello “Votre Majesté, qui a
daigné me recommander à Monsieur l’Ambassadeur de France, me permettra de lui dire qu’il a été
pour moi, en toutes circonstances, d’une bienveillance dont je ne saurais trop signaler la délicatesse et
l’énergie … … il y a une question d’humanité et d’intérêt général… …à pousser les travaux avec la
plus grande célérité… …les tours en fonte, les appareils d’éclairage, enfin le matériel entier, seront
construits en France. Les travaux occuperont pendant un an un nombre considérable d’ouvriers…
…Nous avons à lutter contre l’Angleterre mais cette lutte ne m’effraie pas; la France est assez grande
pour ne redouter personne sous aucun rapport. Nous pouvons faire aussi bien que les fabricants
anglais, mais nous ne sommes pas assez connus sur les marchés étrangers, et c’est là la cause première
de notre infériorité en Turquie. Il faut habituer les Turcs à s’adresser à nous et s’efforcer de détourner
le courant qui, jusqu’à présent, s’est porté sur le marché anglais. C’est facile”- translated by author
148 COA, HR.HMŞ.İŞO 71.2 also could be seen at appendix B
75
lighthouse dues on all the lines already established or to be established. These
lighthouse fees were to be collected according to the tariff adopted on September 1,
1856. Additionally, five major ferry companies founded under the Ottoman Naval
Arsenal, the Imperial Messengers, the Austrian Lloyd, and the Russian Navigation and
Trading Company continued to enjoy the 5% discount granted to them on all lines in
principle. (art. 14). To receive this, they were expected to complete the lighthouse
network first. Collas and Michel, each in their capacity, undertook the effort to
complete the lighting system of the coasts of the Ottoman Empire; the Mediterranean,
the Dardanelles, and the Black Sea, by increasing the number of lighthouses from 22
to 96 within three years. The twenty-year concession would begin to run only under
these conditions (art.1, art.3, and art.7). Collas and Michel would build at their own
expense "the towers and masts, fireboats and lightkeepers' houses," take care of the
maintenance of the new lighthouses, and pay for the supplies and salaries of the
employees, and would provide all the expenses of the service. (art.5) The same article
stipulated that all purchases (all equipment related to the lights and all the towers, tools,
supplies, without any exception) would be exempted from the customs fees.
Furthermore, the necessary land would be provided free of charge by the Ottoman
Government.
After indicating the primary purpose, the first issue covered in the contract was
establishing a joint commission composed of Ottoman and European representatives,
chosen among competent people, and presided over by the Capitan Pasha or by a
delegated officer of the Sublime Porte. (art.5). Their span of authority is explained in
seven of the nineteen existing articles. The Joint Commission had the right to
determine whether it would be helpful to establish new lighthouses later (art.4). The
Commission would be obliged to resolve any difficulties that may arise in custom
76
exemption (art.6). It was also expected to inspect the Concessionaires' complete
management of the lighthouses with the Ottoman Government and be obliged to
determine cases of negligence in the service (art.8 and art.9). In addition to the
inspection rights of the Commission, the Ottoman Government would have the
privilege of inspection and would be able to have an Inspector whenever it wished.
The eleventh article concerns the conditions of recent personnel to be hired by
the Direction of the Lighthouses, also asserting the changing status of Marius Michel,
who had served as the General Director of Ottoman Lighthouses and emerged as the
prospective Concessionaire:
Art. 11 - The employees with contracts currently belonging to the Direction of
the Lighthouses will be kept until the expiration of their commitment. The
concessionaires will pay the salaries of these employees until the expiration of
the contracts. The personnel currently serving the established lighthouses will
be left at the disposal of the concessionaires until they have been able to replace
them so that the service of the lighting will not be interrupted. The treaty signed
on August 1, 1855, between the Ottoman Government and Mr. Michel, by
virtue of which he was appointed Director-General of Lighthouses, is
canceled149
Consequently, Marius Michel stepped down from his position as the General Director
of Ottoman Lighthouses, and thereby the Collas and Michel Company was founded.
3.8 La Société Collas et Michel
In order to determine the nature of the relationship between Camille Collas and Marius
Michel, as well as the extent of their respective rights, the two entrepreneurs decided
to create a general partnership, to which they associated a mutual friend, Baudouy
Joseph, Director of Traffic and Maritime Services Administration of Imperial
Messenger Services, living in Constantinople. The statutes of the Collas and Michel
149 COA, HR.HMŞ.İŞO 71.2 also could be seen at appendix B
77
Company were established in 1860, and the duration of the company was based on the
course of the concession of the lighthouses. The company's purpose was to ensure the
operation of all lighthouses of the Ottoman Empire: Collas and Michel were given the
title of general administrators with extensive powers. A remarkable division of tasks
was established between the two partners: Michel was responsible for internal affairs
and management; Collas was responsible for external affairs and planning. Gabriel
Collas, Camille's son, became the director of the Lighthouses with a power of attorney
from the two managing directors. La Société Collas et Michel was French and had its
headquarters in Paris. Its actual activity was reduced to that of an administrative office
responsible essentially for distributing the income from the operation of the
lighthouses among its various partners. In 1860, the rights of each partner in the profits
accruing to the concessionaires were fixed as follows: 4/9 for Collas, 3/9 for Michel,
2/9 for Baudouy. On Baudouy’s death, the company was dissolved, and a new one,
formed by the only two concessionaires, replaced it in August 1879: the rights of
Collas were fixed at 5/9 and those of Michel at 4/9. According to the statutes, the death
of one of the associates could not stop the existence of the company, which would
continue until the end of the partner's term, under the management of the surviving
associate and the son of age of the deceased.150
150 Bernhard and Thobie. "Le rôle de Michel Pacha dans L’administration Générale des Phares de
L’Empire Ottoman,"71.
78
CHAPTER 4
MARIUS MICHEL’S WORKS IN OTTOMAN EMPIRE BETWEEN 1860-1879
4.1 Introduction
The previous chapter ends with the 1860 concession contract and the
establishment of Société Collas et Michel (Collas and Michel Company). In the first
section of this chapter, I will discuss several issues, such as the implementation of
the tariff of the lighthouse fees and the locations chosen for lighthouse construction
activity. Apart from its increasing trend of lighthouse building activity, I will connect
the building activity of lighthouses with technological developments in navigational
safety and another significant infrastructure project, the Suez Canal, in the second
section. Suez Canal is a central infrastructure project in the nineteenth century. In
1870, a year after the inauguration of the Suez Canal, 486 ships passed from the
Canal with a net tonnage of 436,609 tons and with 26,758 passengers. Five years
later, in 1875, the number of ships had almost tripled and become 1,494, the net
tonnage carried had gone up to 2,009,984 tons, and the number of passengers was
84,446, both exceeding their quadruple.151 The increased maritime traffic volume
after the opening of Suez Canal is impressive. In the third section, I also evaluate the
building and operating activity of lighthouses with a relatively global-scale map of
lighthouses in 1850 and 1870, from On Barak’s book on use of coal with relation to
steamship technology and the infrastructures revolving around this endeavor to
enable the access of coal in the London Bombay Coal corridor, titled Powering
Empire. To this end, I also use the revenue tables of the Collas and Michel Company.
After this, I discuss the Suez Canal. I finalize this chapter by renewing the 1860
151 Öngör, Coğrafya Sözlüğü, 808.
79
concession agreement in 1879 or the second concession contract. Additionally, I will
touch upon Marius Michel's life events to trace the timeline of the general
infrastructure development endeavor from the perspective of his life. Marius
Michel’s life events also contain his departure from Constantinople to Sanary-Sur-
Mer to become the mayor. This fact became relevant due to his work in Sanary for
the construction of modern quays in order to enable the approach of the steamships
to the shore. Such connection is important for two reasons. Firstly, and more
importantly for supporting my argument, Marius Michel was an entrepreneur with
foreign direct investment in the Ottoman Empire during nineteenth century, who
rendered the naval trade more compelling. Secondly, to highlight intertwined
infrastructures of maritime transportation elements and make this intertwined
relationship of components of marine transportation infrastructures legible in terms
of linking the quay and lighthouse structures. For the aftermath of the 1860 contract
and tracing of the building activity in the first section, I use a particular document
type called ilanname. An ilanname is an announcement document for marine
workers, to announce the opening of the lighthouses. As the 1860 contract states in
its third article, the construction phase of the planned lighthouses was to be finished
in three years maximum (before 1863). To follow this construction endeavor, I use
the ilanname documents throughout 1861-1864. I also include a part in the first
section of this chapter tariff imposing as a part of the aftermath of the 1860 contract
section. The ilannames are critical to giving an idea about the construction patterns
of the lighthouses. From them, I could trace the exact date and location of a built
lighthouse. The making of the lighthouse network infrastructure system in the
Ottoman Empire became a tangible concept. The tariff document matters since its
structure and application reveal the process after the lighthouse is constructed. The
80
document states the direct proportion between the volume of the steamship and the
fee paid for the lighting service. As a result, this contributes to the argument about
the direct relation of the intensified volume of maritime trade and lighthouses.
Furthermore, I connect the development of regular steam travel discussed in
the first chapter with navigational advancements. To do so, I talk about
cartographical work at the begging of the nineteenth century regarding the survey of
the geographical formations in the Red Sea and the establishment of Greenwich
Meridian as a standard towards the end of the nineteenth century. Additionally, I
include another significant maritime infrastructure project in the second half of the
nineteenth century, the Suez Canal, and its great influence on the intensification of
maritime travel since it was the first modern form of infrastructure enabling the
maritime transportation link to connect the Mediterranean with the Indian Ocean.
Accordingly, I talk about the increasing lighthouse use relating to the development of
regular steam travel in the area.
4.2 The Aftermath of 1860 Contract in Terms of Construction Work
The 1860 lighthouse concession contract demands the accomplishment of works on
the line from the Dardanelles to the Black Sea within one year from the date of the
present agreement. As article three states;
The works on the line from the Dardanelles to the Black Sea must be
completed within one year from the date of the present contract. The work on
the other lines must be completed within a maximum of three years.152
This work is defined according to maritime lines; the lighthouses are not constructed
as singular strategic points. On the contrary, they are defined, hence planned along
the lines of steamers/liners in an indirect manner. These lines connect canals, shores,
152 COA, HR.HMŞ.İŞO 71.2 also could be seen at appendix B
81
and points in islands or island groups. The yield on the lines other than the line from
the Dardanelles to the Black Sea was to be completed within a maximum of three
years. The lighthouses and the lines are listed in an appendix to the contract. The list
was not included in the archives; however, Thobie added a list of lighthouse
constructions until 1884 in his book153. This list is derived from the French
documents of the Lighthouse Administration. The spelling of the list is also done
accordingly. A derivation of this list can be found in table 2. In this list, he included
the building activity until the 1860 contract, which consisted of twenty-two
lighthouses. These are ; Kili, Kara Burnu, Sulina and Zmiinyi Island, Çanakkale,
Gelibolu, Roumelian/Rumeli Fener, Anatolian/Anadolu Fener, Sarayburnu,
Yeşilköy, Nara Burnu, Fener Bahçe, Adatepe, Marsa Alam, Kum Kale, Sultaniye
Kalesi, Kilitbahir Kalesi, Bovali, Galata (Dardanelles), Seddülbahir, Kız Kulesi,
Tophane.154 In the few years following the 1860 contract, lighthouse building activity
picked up great speed. The contract document did not state the number of the
lighthouses to be completed; the chart given in the book of Thobie, L'administration
Générale Des Phares de l'Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et Michel, 1860-
1960, lists ninety lighthouses added to the existing twenty-two, making up a total of
one hundred and twelve lighthouses. Yerlikaya's research reveals a very similar
number. In her research, she asserts, seventeen lighthouses were built between
Lesbos Island-Sığır Cape and Black Sea-Kılı between 1860 and 1863. The total
number of lighthouses constructed, together with the lighthouses built in the Black
153 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960, 265.
154 I have listed the lighthouses with the spellingThobie uses from the French documents of the Michel
and Colas company. The original names are with the same order:Kili, Kara Bournou, Ile des Serpents,
Soulina, Cape Hellès, Gallipoli, Roumélie Fener, Anatolie / Anadolu Fener, Pointe du Sérail, San
Stéfano, Nagara, Fener Bagtché, Ilôt du Fanal, Chablar, Koum Caleh, SultaniéCalessi, Killid Bahr,
Bovali, Galata (Dardanelles), Tchardak, Kizkoulesi, Tophané. Thobie, L’administration Générale Des
Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et Michel, 1860-1960, 265.
82
Sea, Aegean Sea, and Syria until 1864, reached one hundred and eleven, one less
than the figure provided by Thobie. She concludes this from the archives of the
general directorate of coastal safety (KEGM Archive).155 One can assume that a late
addition occurred.
Before tracing the construction activity, I discuss two examples of events in
the lighthouse construction process as prescribed in the 1860 concession agreement,
in order to explore the construction process in a more detailed manner. These
documents will unravel several phases of the process as well as lighthouse use after
the construction. These phases cover the construction of tower, and if a tower exists
(for lighthouse or in the case of Rhodes as part of the fortress), any kind of
opposition it faced and the implementation of the light of the lighthouse itself. The
first document regards the lighthouse construction in Rhodes Island dated July 29,
1863. The essential factor in the lighthouse construction in Rhodes is the lighthouse's
building at the St. Nicholas Fortress in Mandraki Harbor; as seen in figure 5. Thus,
the issue here is the transformation of the old tower in the fort, with the
implementation of a new light to the tower in order to turn the old tower into a
lighthouse. This transformation faced opposition from the locals of the island. The
residents of the island did not welcome the old tower becoming a lighthouse. Since
the tower was part of the fortress, it had military ties too, therefore the artillery
commander was also strongly opposed to the transformation of the tower to a
lighthouse. Here, I want open a parentheses to highlight how the existing structure,
especially an existing structure with a different function than the lighthouse itself,
made the lighthouse implementation process more complicated.156 In the same
155 Olcay Yerlikaya. “İzmit Körfezi’ndeki Tarihi Deniz Fenerlerinin Mimari Analizi ve Koruma
Önerileri” 151-152.
156 COA, HR.MKT.463.48.1 and COA, HR.MKT.463.48.3
83
document later on, it is stated that due to an unknown incident, the old tower had
become a ruin. Consequently, it as not possible to use the old tower as a lighthouse
and the old tower was to be demolished completely to be replaced with a new
lighthouse tower. Furthermore, the correspondence documents concern the
construction of the new lighthouse and display the mentioned process. This process
included but was not limited to the oppositions from the locals and the process of
permission for both demolishment and construction. The ruins of tower were used as
material for the new lighthouse and this decision was part of the proposal Marius
Michel made to the Council of Naval Arsenal (Tophâne-i Âmire Meclisi).157 The last
section of the document concerned the permit for the construction to be given by
Council of Naval Arsenal (Tophâne-i Âmire Meclisi). In the document Moniseur
Michel and Moniseur Collas ask for the permit for the construction in Rhodes since
apart from the permit, everything for the new lighthouse construction was ready.
These documents on the lighthouse construction in Rhodes Island clearly show the
issues concerning the construction in terms of the activity itself, oppositions
regarding construction and the bureaucratic side of the process.
157 COA, HR.MKT.463.48.3
84
Figure 5 Lighthouse in Rhodes Island 158
The second one regards a correspondence document on the construction of two
lighthouses in Port of Beirut and a neighborhood in Beirut called Ra'sü'l-Beirut, and
the tariff demanded at the Port of Beirut and Sidon (mentioned as Sâyda in the
correspondence document) dates to October 31, 1863. The first section of the official
correspondence documents covers Monsieur Michel’s arrival to Beirut for the plans
of construction of two lighthouses (a small one near the Port of Beirut, the other one
more prominent and planned to be located in the neighborhood called Ra'sü'l-Beirut).
Two months later, an officer of the lighthouse administration arrived to bring the
lights for the lighthouses. The lights were installed in a day; the officer demanded the
tariffs from the ferry companies, and the steamships arrived at the Port. Besides, the
mentioned officer ordered taxes in the Sidon pier. He justified this with the
lighthouse in Ra'sü'l-Beirut. His behavior faced opposition since the lighthouse is
three miles away from the Port of Beirut while it was thirteen miles away from the
Sidon. What is more, the range of the lighthouse in Ra'sü'l-Beirut was only twelve
158 Istanbul University Rare Works Collection (Hamidian Visual Archives) , 90807-0010
85
miles. The second section of the official correspondence covers the response to this
complaint; a necessary warning had been given to the officer regarding his behavior
in the Port of Beirut. However, the decision on the Sidon issue was in the jurisdiction
of the council of the Tershane-i Amire (Main Naval Arsenal).159 The first incident is
different because the lighthouse is implemented into an existing fort to remove the
old tower. The second gives us the importance of the distances from the ports and the
lighthouses' mile range, especially for implanting the tariffs. From these examples, I
can infer two important pieces of information regarding both the building and
operation process of lighthouses in the Ottoman Empire during the second half of the
nineteenth century. The incident regarding Beirut concerns the difficulties of the
application of the tariff. Moreover, it gave information about the process of
lighthouse fee collection in detail. It reveals how the lighthouse fees are collected in
terms of the proximity of the lighthouse and the Port the steamship approaches. The
incident about the lighthouse building in Rhodes hints us that the obligation of the
lighthouse construction could be decreased into the implementation of the lighting
structure to an existing tower or fort within the settlement. In order to trace some of
this construction activity process with relatively more specified dates, I introduce and
expand a particular genre of documents called ilannames.
4.2.1 Ilanname
The ilanname documents are the announcement documents regarding the
illumination date of the lighthouses. From these ilanname documents, I was able to
pinpoint the precise date and location of a constructed lighthouse. While in Ottoman
Empire, the construction of a lighthouse network infrastructure system became a
159 COA, HR.MKT.467.72
86
priority, the patterns of the lighthouse we establishment became legible with
ilanname documents by location and date. In the Ottoman Archive, they are
generally grouped as the notices emanated by the Ottoman Lighthouse
Administration. The papers are written in French with the title "Avis au Navigateurs"
pour le phare ("Notice to the Mariners" for the lighthouse). In the documents, the
lighthouses planned to be illuminated are stated. Even though most of these
documents are printed, the earliest one I encountered, dated 1861, is handwritten.
The typical ilanname has the announcement as follows:
Mariners are notified that both of the above lights will be lit on October 1,
1863. The longitudes which determine the positions are counted according to
the meridians of the observatories of Greenwich and Paris. The wind areas
are related to the true meridian of each place.160
Then generally, in bold font, the line to which the lighthouse belongs is stated. In the
ilanname, under each announced lighthouse, the attributes are listed. These qualities
regard; the location, the color of the light (such as red, white, green), occasionally the
frequency of the light, the height, the distance of the lighthouse from the ocean in
meters, and the reaching range of the light in miles. The location is described in
terms of its proximity to the known neighborhoods, the known shores' sides, and the
line that the lighthouse belongs to—the place the lighthouse is located also given in
its exact Latitude and Longitude. The longitude is provided in both, according to the
meridian of Greenwich and Paris.
In the following pages, I will expand on the meridian issue after discussing
the ilanname. I use eight ilannames published between 1861-1864. The number of
lines and the lighthouses announced differs from one document to another. I examine
160 Les navigateurs sont prévens que les deux feux ci-aprés désigneés seront aluumés le 1er octobre
1863. Les longitude qui détéreminet les positions sont comptées d'aprés les meridiiens des
observatoires de Greenwich et de Paris. Les Aires de vent sont rapportées au méridien vrai chaque
lieu. COA, HR.İD. 916.6 -also all of the ilannames could be seen at appendix C
87
the announcements, not by document, but in groups based on the lines to which they
belong. These lines are Rumelia and the Black Sea, the Bosphorus, Carmanie
(Alexandretta or İskenderiye) and Syria, Archipel (Aegean islands), Rhodes, Samos
and Chios, Smyrna (Izmir), Mytilini, and the Marmara Sea. For each line, I list the
lighthouses, noted in the ilannames, chronologically trace dates, and discuss
examples from the different types of lighthouse lines in a more detailed manner; one
island line (Rhodes), one from a long line (Carmaine (Alexandretta or İskenderiye)
and Syria). I examine the descriptions of location in different types of lines. Also, I
should add that these documents cannot provide a complete list of lines and all
lighthouses belonging to said lines. These documents are fragmentary, and they do
not constitute all of the lighthouses in the general list that Thobie provided regarding
the lighthouses built within the 1860 concession contract.
4.2.2 The Lighthouse Lines Listed in the Ilanname Documents
Lighthouses from Charmanie and Syria Lines are mentioned in five different
ilanname documents. The first document dates to October 1, 1863, and it notifies the
illumination of Beirut Cape and Beirut Port lighthouses.161 These are the lighthouses
mentioned in the correspondence documents about the lighthouses in Beirut;
regarding the incident of an officer demanding light fees. The location of Beirut
Cape Lighthouse is defined as, on the top of the N. 0. point of the Beirut cape called
"Beirut Raz" (which could be the Ra'sü'l-Beyrut quarter mentioned above), and at
about 300 meters from its end. The location of the Beirut Port Lighthouse is
described to be on the low point of the ruined fortress near the customs. The second
notification document also concerns the Beirut Cape Lighthouse. Dated October 28,
161 COA, HR.İD. 916.6
88
1863, this document notifies the misinformation regarding the Beirut Cape
Lighthouse.162 The elevation of the lighthouse from the ground and the range of the
light described in the first document are stated incorrectly. In the first document, the
height of the light has been indicated incorrectly as 30 meters above sea level and at
about 300 meters from the end of the Cape. The correct information would have been
38 meters instead of 30, and the distance should be indicated as 400 meters instead of
about 300.
The following ilanname document in concerned with Alexandrette
(İskenderun), Latakia, and Jaffa lighthouses. These lighthouses were scheduled to be
illuminated on April 1, 15, and 23, 1864,163 respectively. The Tuzla Lighthouse had
the notified date of November 15, 1864, for illumination in its ilanname.164 The
notification document with the latest date in the Charmanie (Alexandretta or
İskenderiye) and Syria Line, July 27, 1866, involves two lighthouses: Sour Port (Old
Tyr) and Saida (Old Sidon or Sayda).165
The Rhodes line has two lightouses listed The two lighthouses, Port of
Rhodes and Moulins Point (Mill Point) or Kum Burnu listed in the notice document,
were also called lines. These lines linked canals, coastlines, and points on islands or
groups of islands. On the global scale, their existence on the same peninsula makes
them more of a point, but they are listed as island lines. Port de Rhodes lighthouse
was the subject of the document about demolishing the old tower in order to build a
lighthouse. It is described as on the tower of S. Elme, assuming that was the ruined
162 COA, HR.İD. 916.8
163 COA, HR.İD. 916.14
164 COA, HR.İD. 916.36, Tuzla is listed with its old name Larnaca
165 COA, HR.İD. 916.46
89
tower. Location of Moulins Point is defined on the point called "des Moulins" and at
a distance of 120 meters from its extremity in the document.166
Rumelia and Black Sea Line also includes the Dardanelles Shores, and this is
the earliest line that the Lighthouse Administration worked on. There are lighthouses
listed in the earliest, and the only handwritten ilanname to which I was able to access
is dated 1861. This ilanname contains Rumelia and the Black Sea Line; all other
ilanname documents are printed. The Seddül Bahir, Burgaz Point, Point Keffis of the
Barbiers (Kepez) are listed in the 1861 notification document.167 In another
notification document dated August 15, 1863, the longitude of the Galata lighthouse
was corrected. The last notification document has an illumination date of July 15,
1866, concerning Cape Kouri and Cape Kalacria lighthouses.
The lighthouses in Marmara Sea Line are listed in the two ilanname
documents with the lighting dates July 16, 1861, and December 6 and 10, 1863. The
Cape Koza, Héraclée (Ereğli), Koutaly (Ekinlik Island) and Palaïo Point (Near
Paşabahçe) are listed in the early notification document.168 The scheduled
lighthouses in the late document were Zeytin Burnu, with the lighting date of
December 6, 1863, and Dil Burnu, with the lighting date of December 10, 1863.169
The lighthouses in the Bosphorus Line and the Aegean Islands lines were
listed in the same ilanname of 1861. This ilanname is the only handwritten ilanname
I have encountered, the other ilanname documents are printed, and the dossier
included three handwritten copies of the ilanname. The Bosphorus Line consists of
Kandilli, Kanlıca, Yeniköy, Kavak Fort, Umuryeri, Therapia (Tarabya), Point J'ezen,
and Rumeli Hisar. The Agean Line consists of Cape Sigri in the Western Side of the
166 COA, HR.İD. 916.11
167 COA, HR.İD. 916.1
168 COA, HR.İD. 916.1
169 COA, HR.İD. 916.9
90
Lesbos Island, Point Ponente (West point of Bozcaada), and Geyikli. All of them are
listed in the handwritten ilanname of 1861, with the expected lighting date of July
16, 1861.170
The lighthouses in Smyrna Line and Mytilini Line are listed in the same
ilanname with an expected illumination date of October 1, 1863. The lighthouses of
the Mételin Line listed in the ilanname are; Cape Bozcada, Mytilini Point, Mytilini
Port. The listed lighthouses belonging to the Smyrna Line are Cape Mermindji (at the
entrance of the Smyrne/Izmir Gulf), Süzbeyli, Kedek, Sancak Shore.171
The lighthouses in Samos and Kos Line are listed in the ilanname, which has
the lighting date of January 31, 1864. The document contains lighthouses; Gulf of
Vathi (North of Samos), Tigiani Port (South of Samos), and Scala Nuova (Kuş
Adası).172
The lighthouses in Chios Line are listed in the ilanname dated October 1,
1863. The document covers Ile Spalmadore, Pacha et Vatou, Port of Chios, Ilot de
Paspargos lighthouses. 173
4.2.3 A Matter of Longitude
In the ilanname documents, the locations of the lighthouses are indicated with
Latitude and Longitude. The exciting matter here is the declaration of longitude.
Longitude is given with reference to both the meridian of Greenwich and the
meridian of Paris. The works and studies regarding the establishment of the Paris
Meridian go back to the late seventeenth century, being worked for over two hundred
170 COA,HR.İD. 916.1
171 COA, HR.İD. 916.6
172 COA, HR.İD. 916.13
173 COA, HR.İD. 916.6
91
years. The Paris meridian runs through the Paris Observatory in Paris, France; 2° 20′
of longitude east of the Greenwich Meridian.174 As an interesting fact, I have come
across, while looking into the navigational background of the meridian
establishment; I have found out that the Christiaan Huygens telescope was a
fundamental part of the calculations regarding the Greenwich Meridian. Apart from
his telescope, Huygens is the founder of the Huygens theorem, which was part of
Augustin Fresnel’s studies. Fresnel is the inventor of the Fresnel lens used widely in
lighthouses. During the beginning of the 1850s, an instrument was invented by the
British royal astronomer George Biddell Airy, now called The Airy Transit Circle
(telescope). This telescope took the first observation on January 4, 1851.175 The
observations done with this instrument specified the Greenwich Meridian. Murdin
explains this instrument and its level of development with respect to the navigation
requirement of naval transportation:
This instrument, and as it has come to be today, producing observations of
unprecedented accuracy. Their accuracy and that of the calculations, coupled
with the emergence of Britain as the dominant marine power and the
extensive Empire over which it had influence, meant that the British system
of latitude and longitude came to predominate over the French, as I shall
relate in this chapter. Having found the latitude and longitude, a sailor would
need to relate this to his position on the sea, meaning he would need to have
accurate maps of the continents' sea, islands, and coastlines.176
The emergence of the newly defined Greenwich meridian in parallel to the Paris
meridian, which had been used and developed for almost two centuries, created
confusion. The United States, with the order of the U.S. President Chester A. Arthur,
U.S. Navy, U.S. Signal Office, and Secretary of the Railway Time Convention,
organized a meeting in Washington DC in 1884 to address the international
uncertainty and develop a longitude and time zone system throughout the world. The
174 Murdin, Full Meridian of Glory,129-143.
175 “Airy Transit Circle .”
176 Murdin, Full Meridian of Glory, 131.
92
international ambiguity was due to the increase in trade and global communication,
which intensified even more in the nineteenth century with the technological
developments. The United States (and Canada) had decided that a Greenwich-based
system would be more appropriate for railroad owners.177 The navigational tools
were also fundamental for maritime activities, and the technological development of
steamship technology went hand in hand with the changing navigation technologies.
In the further section of this chapter, I discuss another type of navigational
development, cartographical activity, and indubitably lighthouses.
4.2.4 Imposing the Contract and Tariff of 1856
From the ilanname documents, the increasing construction activity of the lighthouses
during the first half of the 1860s is quite evident. The enforcement of 1856 tariffs for
these lighthouses was not easy. The previous chapter covered the issue of opposition
about the determined lighthouse fees stated in 1856 tariffs. Regarding the application
of the tariff of 1856, there was significant backlash from the steamship companies
such as The Lloyd Company, The British Peninsular and Oriental (P&O) Company,
Messageries Maritimes Company, and Russian Steamship and Trade Company. The
contestation was still going on during the 1861-63 period. Thobie points out that the
usual suspects of this reaction are; Sir Henry Bulvver, whom we know from the
opposition when the 1856 tariff was first published, and the Müşavir Pacha, alias
Adolphus Slade, Admiral of the Port of Constantinople. They had another party
supporting them, a rather powerful one: a newspaper, the Levant Herald, published
periodically between 1861 and 1863. The newspaper launched what Thobie called a
series of attacks against the Directorate of Lighthouses and tried to rally local public
177 Murdin, Full Meridian of Glory, 137.
93
opinion. This opposition was correlated with the impact lighthouse fees had on
steamship transportation and maritime trade. As stated above, the 1856 tariff of
lighthouse fees states the amount of lighthouse fees must be paid by the steamship
company according to the tonnage of the steamships. Such payment would have a
direct and powerful impact on the maritime trade. Hence as a great expenditure item.
The local public opinion problem concerning the Levant Herald was resolved in
1861. Michel and Collas won the defamation lawsuit that they had brought against
the Levant Herald. Collas won his case in front of the consular court of the British
SM; Mr. Mac-Loan was condemned to £50 of the fine and the expenses of the
lawsuit as the defaming party. Still, the issue was not solved completely. The
Ottoman government – in a somewhat surprising decision - instructed Camille Collas
to go to London to deal with the English obstacle and agree with them directly
around late 1862. The issue was settled in 1863 on Collas’ second visit to London the
same year.178
While the construction of lighthouses gained momentum and the issues about
collecting the lighthouse fees were resolved, the French and Ottoman Empires
recognized Marius Michel's work on the lighthouse construction and operation. On
December 31, 1863, by the proposal of the Minister of the Navy and the Colonies,
Commander Michel was knighted in the order of the Legion of Honor. As I have
already mentioned in the previous chapter, Sultan Abdülmecid, wanting to reward
Commander Michel for the "dedication he had shown throughout the time of his
service" towards the Ottoman government, conferred to him the fourth class (officer)
178 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960. 25-30.
94
of the imperial order of the Mecidiye in 1859. He was elevated to the rank of
commander by Sultan Abdülaziz on July 17, 1869.179
In the time in-between, in 1864, a document in the Ottoman Archives states
Michel’s moving out from Beyoğlu.180 Assuming that most of the construction
process was completed, Marius Michel could decide to go back to France even
though the building was not entirely completed. Especially since the contract clearly
states the management and administration of the service could be fulfilled by a
delegate residing in Constantinople. Marius Michel's relocation could be the case
since, in the year 1865, Marius Michel became the Mayor of the Sanary-Sur-Mer.
During his first term as mayor (1865 - 1872), Marius Michel became interested in
maritime issues. He notes that in Sanary, as in Istanbul, the quays were not
satisfactory for the berthing of boats and needed to be strengthened in order to ensure
the unloading of heavy materials. He was, therefore, determined to build new ones.
As for the Port itself, major filling works (development of open spaces conquered
from the sea) were initiated.181
4.3 Navigational Developments and Lighthouses
So far in this chapter, the aftermath of the 1860 contract is discussed in terms of
building activity, tariff imposition, and the occurrences in Marius Michel’s life. The
intensified lighthouse construction in the Ottoman shores and islands is pretty
distinguishable. Lighthouses were not the only navigational development assuring
the safety of maritime activities. This section discusses other examples of marine
developments linked to regularized steamship transportation, such as establishing the
179 Office de Tourisme de Sanary-sur-Mer, “Exposition Michel Pasha”.
180 COA, A.}MKT.MHM.309.96
181 Office de Tourisme de Sanary-sur-Mer, “Exposition Michel Pasha”.
95
navigation standards with the Greenwich Meridian and navigational practices within
the example of a hydrographic survey of the Red Sea. Navigation is a complex issue
that also includes practices of cartography apart from the establishment of
lighthouses to provide navigational safety of maritime transportation. In this part, I
investigate the other navigation methods connected to lighthouses, following from
the study of Alexis Wick, which he discusses within his broader narrative of the Red
Sea, including the hydrographic practice of making a cartographical survey of the
physical features included in the coastal and oceanic area of the Red Sea. I continue
with the increasing frequency of steamship transport and its correlation with the need
and use of the lighthouses.
Wick mentions two navigational guides authored by James Horsburgh, which
were built on the original study of Alexander Dalrymple. The final work, which
consists of two volumes published in 1809 and 1811, produced via the laborious
investigation of several ship records and memoirs, would become the essential
reference for guiding the eastern seaways.182 The first half of the nineteenth century
witnessed the establishment of navigation guides, cartographic studies, and scientific
surveys of the sea in a systematic fashion. The navigation and the safety of the sea
were a concern from the beginning of the nineteenth century, and the works to
provide security increased alongside technological developments. These
developments have a wide range, extending from cartographical practices to the
development of optical equipment. Parallel to this process, maritime navigation
became a more serious issue with the development of steamship technology since
steamship traveling became more frequent. Wick engages us with a type of
navigational practice with an emphasis on navigational safety; cartographical
182 Wick, The Red Sea, 133-141.
96
description of the physical features of the Red Sea. This practice includes the
underwater reefs within the scientific construction of the Red Sea. I have already
covered a part of the navigational practices in the first section of this chapter under
the matter of longitude and the development of the Greenwich meridian. This matter
included but was not limited to the navigational advances in cartography. Wick, in
his work, narrates the cartographical survey of the Red Sea to detect the hazards of
the sea in the 1830s. This work of cartographical survey as a navigational practice to
provide assistance in maritime transportation should be underlined in terms of a
launch of the navigation before steamships became a consistently used technology.
Wick describes this situation as follows:
The actual regularization of steam travel in the Indian Ocean would take a
few decades. This was in large part due to technical matters that maintained
the superior efficacy of sail over steam. As Daniel Headrick has shown, it
was only in the 1850s and 1860s that "four innovations . . . lowered costs and
improved the competitive position of steamers vis-à-vis sailing ships: the
screw-propeller, the iron hull, the surface condenser, and the compound
engine." In the early 1850s, steam navigation in the Red Sea was still a
rarity.183
Navigational practices such as cartography aiming to provide safe transportation
were an integral aspect of maritime travel since the beginning of the nineteenth
century. Advancements in geographical studies were an aspect navigational
practices, as well as the lighthouses. The changed element within the technology was
the increased regularity of maritime activity due to steamship technology. Barak
explains this relationship in his work "Powering Empire: How coal made the Middle
East and Sparked Global Carbonization" under two significant aspects: environment
and risk. In the environment section, the necessity of coal depots for steamships to
access the coal within the long trips along the coal corridor Barak demonstrates from
183 Wick, The Red Sea,147.
97
London to Bombay is emphasized together with the other infrastructural elements
needed to support this corridor in terms of navigation and establishment of
Archipelago to provide depots. The environment chapter considers the lighthouse as
both the infrastructural support is provided along this axis and an expression to trace
the development along this axis. The risk section leans on to the accidents that
occurred along this corridor, emphasizing the Red Sea, stressing the need for
navigational safety. This study is revolved around the use of coal in the 19th to 20th
centuries. Barak carries a bifold attribute for this study.
The steamships (as well as trains) and the steam engine development were
dependent on coal, and the steamships were critical to carrying huge cargoes of coal.
The access to coal and transportation of coal needed its own network and technology.
Steamers could manage their load and buoyancy as they passed through an
increasingly interconnected web of depots by exchanging coal, water ballast, and
salt.184 This web included an extensive range of infrastructural support, from creating
the artificial Archipelago and the chain of depots on natural islands conditioned
along the corridor of London and the East India Company capitals of Bombay and
Calcutta, to the telegraph network both visible and underwater. The depot network is
supported by coastal connections of lighthouses and submarine telegraphy, made
possible by steamships' continuous, linear velocity and their ability to install wires
uniformly. The infrastructure and the supply of such a system were developing
together with technology – lighthouses, and telegraphy were significant cases of it.
Barak describes this issue as follows: "…weight and light fees incentivized the
clustering and spread of lighthouses near coal stores …."185
184 Barak, Powering Empire, 129.
185 Barak, Powering Empire, 132.
98
The central aspect here was the factors that the developing technology
enabled. Regarding these factors, I have considered the increase in the number of
trips with steamships and the total rise in maritime transportation. I have emphasized
this correlation between the emerging steamship technology, developing regular
steam travel in the area, and the need for lighthouses as an infrastructural aspect. In
comparison, Barak introduces two factors in terms of what developing technology
enabless. The first aspect coincides with the intensification of marmite travel and
voyages due to the use of coal, instead of wind as source of energy. The shift in the
energy source enabled steamers to make trips any time of the day or the year. The
second attribute concerns the steamships' size and carrying capacity, hence
increasing hazard possibility, especially in challenging locations. In addition, the
weight increases also meant an increase in the light fees since they are calculated
according to the weight a steamship carries. As I stated above about the sections
Barak included concerning lighthouses and their necessity, while he states the need
for coal directly correlated with the increasing use of the steamships, he articulates
the increased number of accidents and navigational support required for frequent
steamship transportation.
Barak formulates those two factors since both indicate possible accidents in
the sea, creating a maritime safety issue that requires the help of technological
development and technical support. The Suez Canal construction resulted in a
significant increase in naval transportation, hence the naval safety issue. The increase
in both the number of trips and the ship sizes were factors of risk. Barak articulates
this issue as follows:
Ship design and technical features were also informed by other characteristics
of the east-west voyage. For example, since its inauguration, the Canal's
narrow waterway promoted screw-propelled steamers and demoted sidewheelers,
which hit the banks with their propellers, and sail ships, which
99
depended on costly towing services for the entire stretch between Suez and
Port Said. The Canal itself kept changing during its first decades it was
continuously widened and deepened, a process which both suited and
informed the changing size of the steamers that passed between its banks.
Ships' shape and geography recreated one another.186
The Suez Canal and the changes it brought in terms of maritime safety are
momentous. Barak conveys this issue both from the aspect of environmental change
and the increasing size of ships. Both of the factors are precarious. Any kind of
environmental change, especially in geography with many reefs like the Red Sea,
could be perilous. The technology enabled the transport of coal and at the same time
required coal for more carrying capacity; hence, the enormous steamers were also a
risk factor for accidents. In such a situation, lighthouses were an essential part of
maritime security and navigation as an infrastructural element, and lighthouse
construction indeed experienced a prosperous era throughout the second half of the
nineteenth century. In this chapter, I will discuss the 1850-70 phase of this as part of
the repercussion of the first lighthouse concession agreement.
4.4 The 1850-1870 Period Regarding Lighthouses
In this part, I demonstrate the increase in lighthouse use and production with the help
of the revenue tables and maps. 187The tables originated from the revenue tables that
Thobie created in his work based on the accounting books of General Administration
of Lighthouses and Journal de Paris.188 The maps of the Mediterranean and the
Indian Ocean in 1850 and 1870 are from the book Powering Empire by On Barak.
186 Barak, Powering Empire, 124.
187 Barak, Powering Empire, 123. Barak states he created these maps from multiple sources
188 To be more exact the documents were AdminstrationGenerale des Phares, Grand Livre,
Constantinople, Volumes A to N period 1861-1940 Journal de Paris, Volumes A to I, for the period
1860 1959. These documents Thobie had been authorized to consult, in 1970, by Mr. Guy des
Closières, when the archives of the Collas and Michel Company were located at 15 rue La Pérouse in
Paris, were not transmitted to the National Archives of Aix-en-Provence.Thobie, L’administration
Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et Michel, 1860-1960. 77.
100
The focus of On Barak's book is the coal corridor stretching from London and to the
East India Company capitals of Bombay and Calcutta. Therefore, he did not include
the lighthouses along the Black Sea. I have marked the lighthouses in the Black Sea
line constructed between 1855-1870 with yellow. I utilized the locations listed in
Thobie’s work to do so.189 He divides the marine engine development into phases,
starting with 1830–50 as the early first period. In this chapter, the second period he
devised will accord with the first lighthouse concession aftermath. On Barak
describes these periods as:
… 1830–50, this early period is defined by equidistant coal depots along a single line
stretching from Gibraltar via Aden and Ceylon to the Indian ports of Bombay and
Calcutta, the two capitals of the EIC. The second period in question (1850–70) saw
technological innovation in both ship design and engine efficiency (mainly screw
propulsion and iron and later steel shipbuilding). In the 1860s, the development of
compound steam engines that used the same steam twice (expanding steam via
multiple cylinders of progressively lower pressure) proved more energy-efficient and
allowed engines to sustain higher pressures. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869
drove the infrastructural explosion evident in the third period, in figure 14.
Technologically, steamers could now carry cargo as well as mail and people. By the
1890s, the triple expansion engine, which worked at two hundred pounds per square
inch (psi), had come into use, taking engine coal-consumption efficiency to its
pinnacle during that era. By then, the depots system had stabilized, and the last of the
major coaling stations was established during this decade.190
189Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et Michel,
1860-1960.
190 Barak, Powering Empire,123.
101
Figure 6 Mediterranean and Indian Ocean Lighthouses in 1850 and 1870 The author
added Black Sea Lighthouses 191
Here the periodization became an issue because the Collas and Michel Company was
established in 1860. Consequently, the periods laid out by Thobie and On Barak do
not entirely overlap. Moreover, the accounts were recorded starting from 1862, and
the data regarding the years 1860 (three months), 1861, and 1862 are rearranged.
191 Barak, Powering Empire,131.
102
Therefore, the revenue numbers begin with 1862. Still, the revenues are outstanding
during 1862-1873, with 11.201 million francs. Before moving on to the numbers, I
should include a short section regarding the expenditures of the Collas and Michel
Company and their relationship with the Lighthouse Administration.
The expenditure elements were financial costs, operating costs, the cost of
installing new lighthouses and lights. The economic costs were due to the
specificities of the Ottoman monetary system, grouped under the title "agio." The
operation costs included the maintenance costs of the lighthouses, the cost of salaries
of the employees, and various supplies, which were the highest and most repetitive,
and establishment costs. A percentage of the revenue from the collection of
lighthouse fees on all established and future lines was allocated to pay the
concessionaires for the costs of the lighthouses. This percentage would vary over
time.192
Table 2 shows the profitability of the Lighthouse Authority divided into fiveyear
periods Although the profits are outstanding, as seen in Table 2, the first years’
profit appears to be below average, compared to the broader period of 1862-1913.
This drop is related to the expenditures of the lighthouse construction activity. The
unusual drop during 1874-1878, compared with the broader period of 1862-1913, is
explained by the 1877 Russo-Ottoman war.
192 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960,75-86.
103
Table 2 Profits of Collas and Michel Company (%Five-year periods)193
Five-year periods As a percentage of
total revenue
As a percentage of
total benefits
Relative share of
concessionaires in
revenues. (profitability)
% of revenue
1862-1868 * 41,3 65,9 52,6
1869-1873 48,4 68,8 62,1
1874-1878 39,9 62,8 46,4
1862-1913 33,6 59,6 43,2
Thobie, regarding the relationship between revenue and construction activity,
remarks:
In the very first years, until 1868, the agio is very low, and the operating
expenses oscillate between 300.000 and 500.000 F, but the first three years
are increased by the installation of new lighthouses. From 1869 onwards, as
the network grew, the agio and operating costs increased and stabilized, the
former between 110,000 and 150,000 francs per year and the latter between
700,000 and a small million francs. It remains to explain the accidents to a
curve quite regular."194
This increase in lighthouse construction activity and the establishment of the
lighthouse network are quite visible. From the maps of lighthouses in the
Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean in the years 1850 and 1870, the increased
number of lighthouse lines along the Bosphorus line, shores of Dardanelles
(Rumelian-Black Sea Line), Eastern Mediterranean (Charmanie (Alexandretta or
İskenderiye) and Syria Line), and even some at the Red Sea is very legible. The
formation of the network had its costs, but even then, the profits were extraordinary.
The outstanding yields were correlated with the regularized and enhanced steamship
traffic due to the improvements in the steam engines. Thobie created a graph
193 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960,83.
194 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960,83.
104
displaying the revenue curve that essentially parallels that of the growth of the
Ottoman Empire's maritime movement. The maritime traffic is calculated from the
tens of thousands of barrels registered. The graph (fig 6.) is essential for displaying
the increased naval activity and exemplifying its direct correlation with the
lighthouse fee revenues.
Figure 7 General maritime movement of the Ottoman Empire (in tens of thousands of
tons of register) and total income of the Lighthouses (in thousands of francs)195
4.5 The Suez Canal
The Suez Canal is considered the most significant infrastructural development for
nineteenth-century steamship travel. Searight notes, "The opening of
the Suez Canal in 1869 - celebrated with fireworks, the presence of several royal
steam yachts, several groundings and a banquet prepared by 500 cooks and served by
1,000 waiters - meant that ship travel to India became almost routine." 196 In the third
chapter, I have talked about Ferdinand de Lesseps, who founded the Universal
Company of the Suez Canal. From his memoir (and the letters inside), we know that
195 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960. Pp 246
196 Searight, Sarah. Steaming East: The Forging of Steamship and Rail Links between Europe and
Asia. London: Bodley Head, 1991. Pp2
105
the Suez Canal was an idea he had since, at least, 1852. In 1854, a ferman from the
khedive (viceroy) of Egypt, Said Pasha, authorized the construction of the Suez
Isthmus. Four years later, Ferdinand de Lesseps established the Universal Company
of the Suez Canal, a ninety-nine-year concession was granted for the Canal's
opening. The construction work was carried out in two stages, from 1859 to 1863
and from 1866 to the inauguration in 1869.197 The Canal was the outcome of the
need for infrastructure to facilitate the regularized and exaggerated steamer traffic
and enabling the coal corridor to the Archipelago. The inauguration of the Suez
Canal in 1869 also meant an increased number of steamer accidents due to increased
steamship sizes and traffic flow. The maritime security, therefore lighthouses, were
relative to the issue. The entrance of the Canal from the Mediterranean is Port Said.
The establishment of the Port Said lighthouse, finalized a few days before the Canal
opened, was "completed a few days before the festive inauguration of the Suez
Canal, was one of the first major structures built with reinforced concrete by the
inventor of this building system, François Coignet."198 The issue of the lighting of
the Red Sea after the Canal's opening was perhaps the biggest concern of the
Ottoman Lighthouse Administration after the second concession agreement was
signed on July 12, 1879.
197 Bernhard, Ferdinand, Thobie, Jacques. 2007. " Le rôle de Michel Pacha dans l’administration
générale des phares de l’Empire ottoman ". In Michel Pacha Actes Du Colloque. 2007. pp 61-85.
198 Barak, Powering Empire.pp 130
106
Figure 8 Port Said Lighthouse in the entrance of Suez Canal 199
Figure 9 Suez Canal 200
199 Istanbul University Rare Works Collection (Hamidian Visual Archives) , 90492 -0003
200 Istanbul University Rare Works Collection (Hamidian Visual Archives) , 90492 -0002
107
4.6 The Second Concession Agreement in 1879
In February 1877, Collas presented Rauf Pasha, the Minister of the Navy, a draft
contract concerning the construction of 16 additional lighthouses on behalf of an
extension of the Concession by fifteen years. The Minister of the Navy agreed while
the State Council was seeking an increase in the current share of twenty-two percent
from the lighthouse revenues. The discussions regarding this concluded with an
agreement to raise the percentage from twenty-two percent to twenty-six-point five
percent, and the State got fifty percent of the excess over the previous five years on
average. The Concession was extended for a period of fifteen years. The extension
occurred in May 1879, and the process still did not conclude until the cut of the State
was increased from twenty-two percent to twenty-eight percent in June 1879.201 On
June 12, 1879, the Additional Convention to be annexed to the Convention of
Lighthouses, concluded on August 8/20, 1860, was signed by the Minister of the
Navy, Grand Admiral of the Empire, Mehmet Rasim Pasha, Collas, and Michel. The
contract consisted of nine articles. The most remarkable difference between the first
and the second concession contract was the inclusion of the Archipelago and the
Adriatic Gulf. These locations were added to the sites mentioned in the 1860
concession contract, such as the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. These locations
were selected for the building of nineteen new lighthouses.202 The discussed issue of
revenues is stated in the sixth article as follows:
Art. 6 - The Imperial Government will continue to receive, as in the past,
22% on the gross proceeds of the lighthouse fees until September 4, 1884, the
term of the first Concession. From this date of September 4, 1884, and until
September 4, 1899, the term of the first Concession, the Imperial Government
will continue to receive 22% of the gross proceeds of the lighthouse dues.
201 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960, 31-35.
202 COA, HR.HMŞ.İŞO 71.2 also could be seen at appendix B
108
The State's share of the gross profits of the lighthouse fees will be raised to
28%.
At the end of the term of the first Convention, the total income from
lighthouse fees collected during the previous seven years shall be averaged,
and if during the fifteen years of the Concession the annual income exceeds
the average, 50% of the surplus shall belong to the Imperial Government.203
The new agreement was signed with a compromise made by Collas and Michel.
They compromised from their share of the lighthouse fees, decreasing it to 72%, to
continue holding their concession rights. Considering the increasing revenues until
the 1870s, examined above in Table 2, lighthouse construction is promising and an
excellent investment to continue. Especially in 1879, 10 years after the Suez Canal
construction, the potential of illumination of the Red Sea must have been appealing
to the concessionaires. As a result, this compromise by six percent in revenues
probably seems less like a compromise and more like an investment.
203 COA, HR.HMŞ.İŞO 71.2 also could be seen at appendix B
109
CHAPTER 5
MARIUS MICHEL'S WORKS IN OTTOMAN EMPIRE BETWEEN 1879-1894
5.1 Introduction
Up to this point, lighthouse construction in the Ottoman Shores in the 1855-1879
period was narrated. In the second chapter, I discussed how the lighthouses become
necessary elements of infrastructure networks as the intensity of maritime travel
increased during the nineteenth century. Then, in the following chapters, I touched
on Marius Michel's works in the Ottoman Empire during 1855-1860, until the
establishment of the Collas and Michel Company, and Marius Michel's efforts in the
Ottoman Empire during 1860-1879, until the second concession agreement. This
chapter will cover lighthouse construction activities after the second concession
agreement until the third concession agreement, signed in 1894, along with other
infrastructural investments by Marius Michel and Bernard Camille Collas, such as
quay and railroad construction. As in the other chapters, the lighthouse narrative will
follow Marius Michel's life. In this chapter, first, I talk about Marius Michel
becoming Michel Pasha a few months after the second concession. In the same year,
Michel Pasha signed another agreement for the privilege of building and operating
the Istanbul (Eminönü and Galata) Quays. I will also touch upon the extension of the
quay concession and the construction process agreement signed between Michel
Pasha and the Ottoman State. As I have already briefly stated in the introduction
chapter, the intertwined network of infrastructures was formed with the assembly of
different types of infrastructure webs, which are uneven in terms of their complexity.
The fragments of the interconnected infrastructure network are non-identical. In my
argument, their similarity is strongly emphasized with regard to their function of
110
supporting the intensified maritime travel during the nineteenth century rather than
their different qualities. Considering the scope of this thesis, I will just focus on the
fundamental differences between the lighthouses and quays. This difference could be
evident only with the numbers of Marius Michel's structures acquired the concession
rights and managed the construction. While Marius Michel directed the building of
all of the Empires' lighthouses, their numbers exceeding a hundred, the only two
quay projects he directed were located in Istanbul. Definitely, Istanbul was the
capital of the Empire and a historic port city with multiple layers; therefore, any
construction process in Istanbul is more complicated. Together with the peculiarity
of Istanbul, there were two major differences between the making of quays and
lighthouses. The first factor coincides with Istanbul being a historic port city; the
construction of quay must be done on top of an existing, thus functioning port, where
there is ongoing trade.204 The second factor is the proximity to the city. The majority
of the lighthouses were located on the shores without settlements; in contrast, quays
are part of the city. Erkal formulates the dock space as a strip of commercial area,
where there are buildings related to the port, such as customs hotels, etc. This
constitutes an interface between the city and the quay "Kordon". This almost generic
situation in the Eastern Mediterranean port cities displays the proximity between the
quay and the city. 205
Furthermore, I will focus on ports and quay constructions on the Sirkeci-
Unkapanı axis, Galata, and the railway construction activity in the Jaffa and
Jerusalem line, and the Haydarpaşa-İzmit-Ankara line, including the building of the
Haydarpaşa quay. These infrastructural elements are covered here since they are built
204 For futher reading about the multi-later structure of the Istanbul Port: Müller-Wiener, İstanbul
Limanı and Erkal, Haliç Extra-Mural Zone: A spatio-temporal framework for understanding the
architecture of the İstanbul city frontier
205 Erkal, “Bugün Liman Kara Olmuştur”, 31-48.
111
with investments made by Michel and Collas. I will consider in this chapter the
Haydarpaşa-İzmit-Ankara railway line as an investment attempt by Collas; since
Collas was not the concessionaire of the Haydarpaşa-İzmit-Ankara railway project.
Another company funded the project. Provided that, Collas was considered an
investor for this project. The idea that the lighthouse concessionaries dominated the
quay construction at both sides of the Bosphorus shores is remarkable. However, the
project was never entirely fulfilled because Michel acquired the concession rights of
the building of quays, bonded warehouses, and improved custom-house
accommodation in Eminönü and Galata, while Collas could not obtain the
Haydarpaşa concession. Still, Collas acquired rights of concession of the Jaffa and
Jerusalem railroad.
Meanwhile, I will continue the lighthouse narrative. I will examine the
general assessment of lighthouse construction activity and their use in the 1870-1890
period. Accordingly, I will evaluate the changing trends in the revenue of the Collas
and Michel Company. In addition, I will include the third concession agreement,
which is the last one signed before Marius Michel's death.
This chapter is significant as it displays the combination of infrastructure
networks and the lighthouse network as a vital part of a global network of modern
infrastructures. Indeed, the construction of the lighthouses should not be read as a
singular concept. On the contrary, its links with the construction activity of various
maritime and land transportation infrastructures should be considered. In this
chapter, these links became very legible because the investors of the other types of
infrastructure projects were the company owners, holding the lighthouse construction
and operation concession rights. While these links became legible, my argument
112
concerning the interlinked nature of various infrastructural webs as of from the
intensified maritime activity flow, is confirmed.
This chapter will consider the unevenness of the different infrastructures as I
mentioned above, especially in terms of the complexity of the making of the web of
infrastructure type. In this thesis, apart from the lighthouses, only the Suez Canal is
mentioned, and later on, the railroads and quays will be added. These infrastructures
connect not only in the geographical sense but also in terms of the people
constructing them regarding the concessionaries. However, they also have their
specific complexities and impacts.
Before considering Marius Michel and Bernard Collas' further investments, I
want to briefly discuss how Marius Michel was rewarded for his works. A few
months after the second lighthouse concession agreement, Marius Michel, who had
already received several orders from the Ottoman Empire, became a pasha with the
Sultan's order. On September 23, 1879, Sultan Abdülhamid raised Marius Michel's
rank to the honorary rank of miralay (captain of a ship) in the Ottoman navy with an
order. Then with a second-order, dated October 1, 1879, promoted Marius Michel to
the second class (grand-officer) of the imperial order of the Mecidiye and, by a third
patent, rendered five days later, on October 15, 1879, the honorary grade
(corresponding to both the two degrees French Rear-Admiral and Vice-Admiral in
the Ottoman Navy) was conferred upon him, entailing by right the dignity of
Pasha.206 This pasha title is a title of honor, situating Michel Pasha in a highly
respectable position. According to Geyikdağı, this title caused tension among the
other foreigners. As she notes, "The British ambassador in Istanbul objected to
Michel Pasha's new project (and perhaps to his assertive new name) …".207 At this
206 Office de Tourisme de Sanary-sur-Mer, “Exposition Michel Pasha”.
207 Geyikdağı, “French Direct Investments in the Ottoman Empire before World War I,” 525-561.
113
point, I also wanted to add my thoughts concerning Marius Michel's position in the
Ottoman Empire. In the documents in the Ottoman Archives before Marius Michel
became Michel Pasha, he is mentioned as Lights Administrator Michel.
Furthermore, after he founded the Collas and Michel company with Bernard
Collas, he was still mentioned as Lights Administrator Michel in the archive
documents. From this, I consider that Marius Michel was only associated with his
work in the Ottoman Empire. One month after Marius Michel became Michel Pasha,
he signed another concession agreement concerning the construction and operation
of Eminönü and Galata Quays, dated November 23, 1879.
5.2 1879 and 1890 Concession Agreement of the Istanbul Quays and its
Repercussions
According to Zihni Bilge's account, titled History of Quays of Istanbul: The Quay,
Dock and Warehouse Company regarding the quay companies of Istanbul, the first
idea of construction of a quay on the shores of Istanbul was discussed after the end of
the Crimean War in 1856, during the Paris Agreement discussions.208 The
construction of lighthouses along the shores of the Ottoman Empire was also on the
agenda during the Paris Agreement discussions. In addition to these discussions, a
correspondence submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Paris Embassy,
dated February 1, 1867, is concerned with the Istanbul quays. In this correspondence
document, Bernard Collas, who holds the concession of constructing and operating
lighthouses together with Marius Michel, wanted to build docks and pools on the
shores of the Golden Horn as trade facilities, similar to the cities of London and
208 Bilge, Zihni. İstanbul Rıhtımlarının Tarihçesi, 1955
114
Marseille.209 According to the report by British Consul Wrench, among the three
presented projects, Marius Michel's proposal was accepted by the Sublime Porte in
1879.210 As Geyikdağı notes, the British ambassador opposed the port construction
project: "The British ambassador in Istanbul objected to Michel Pasha's new project
(and perhaps to his assertive new title of Pasha), continuing antipathies voiced
earlier; about his lighthouses."211 The construction did not start until 1892. Even in
1890, a new concession agreement was made. This was because the time gap
between the date construction began in 1892 and the concession agreement date,
1879. Although the discussions for the Istanbul quays were started simultaneously, if
not before212 the construction of quays started tens of years later than the lighthouses.
This time gap lies in the complexity of the quay project in Istanbul since the port of
Istanbul was existing and functioning one. Moreover, the proximity of the port to the
city itself with the possibility of interruption of ongoing commercial activities and
the inner-city sea transport emerges as an issue. 213
209 Bilgili, Nazire. “İstanbul Limanlari’nin Modernizasyonu: DersaadetRihtim ve Anadolu
Demiryollari Şirketlerinin İnşa Faaliyetleri (1890-1934).” (Master of Arch.thesis, İstanbul Technical
University, 2016). 22-27.
210 Hastaoglou-Martinidis, “The Building of Istanbul docks 1870-1910, Some New Entrepreneurial
and Cartographic Data,”83-99.
211 Geyikdağı, “French Direct Investments in the Ottoman Empire before World War I,” 525-561.
212Erkal, Bugün Liman Kara Olmuştur: İmparatorluk-Cumhuriyet Eşiğinde İstanbul Rıhtımlarının
Dönüşümü,”34. Erkal mentions that in the first idea of transforming the Golden Horn port area into a
modern quay came up in 1839 ilmuhaberwhich is the urban codes of the planning study of Hermann
von Moltke.
213 Hastaoglou-Martinidis, “The Building of Istanbul docks 1870-1910, Some New Entrepreneurial
and Cartographic Data,” 83-99.
115
Figure 10 View of the Galata Quay 214
Until 1890 there were not many applications of the first concession contract of
Istanbul Quays, meaning the construction process had not started. Therefore, in 1890,
the Minister of Public Works, Raif Pasha, and Michel Pasha signed a new concession
agreement.215 In general terms, the contract reveals the limits and purpose of the
concession given to Michel Pasha, who later established an Ottoman company
named the Dersaadet Quay, Docks and Warehouses Company. The concession
agreement marked the beginning of the eighty-five years of concession privileges of
constructing the quays on the shores of Sirkeci-Unkapanı and Tophane-Azapkapı.
The contract also ordered construction to be set in motion in two years. Also, the
agreement states that the Ministry of Public Works' approval was required for any
214 Istanbul University Rare Works Collection (Hamidian Visual Archives ), 90615 -0010
215 Ergin, Mecelle-iUmûr-ı Belediyye, 2796.
116
plans prepared by the company regarding the construction activity. These plans were
expected to be in line with the content of the agreement. Moreover, the company was
also held responsible for constructing the docks between the Galata and Eminönü
bridges.
Figure 11 Project drawing of Galata Quay 216
Galata and Eminönü Quays' construction was completed between 1892-1995 and
1895-1899, respectively. For the construction of the docks, quarries were opened in
Istanbul (in Fındıklı, Kağıthane, and Silahtar districts) and its surroundings (in
Kınalı, Hayırsız, and Burgaz Islands) to supply marine filling materials.217 Moreover,
when these quarries became insufficient, new quarries were opened in Sivri Ada
Island and the entrance of the Danube River from the Black Sea.218 In the second
chapter, I have explained that the quarries were opened for the material needed for
the quay construction, and steamships were used to carry material from these
quarries.
216 Istanbul University Rare Works, Collection (Maps and Plans), 93416 -0002
217 Bilgili, “İstanbul Limanlari’nın Modernizasyonu: Dersaadet RihtimVe Anadolu Demiryollari
Şirketlerinin İnşa Faaliyetleri (1890-1934).” 22-32.
218 Bilge, İstanbul Rıhtımlarının Tarihçesi, 4.
117
The quay projects are interlinked and directly correlated with the growing
volume of international sea trade fueled by the technological development of
steamships. As in the case of lighthouses, port and quay projects were expected to
meet the rising volume of maritime traffic. Significantly, quay construction was
closely intertwined with lighthouse construction. The subject of quay construction in
Thessaloniki could be an appropriate example of this symbiotic relationship. In the
Thessaloniki port construction specifications of expenses and obligations, dated
1892, the lighthouses are listed among the utilities that had to be constructed
alongside quay structures.219 Furthermore, during his first period as the mayor of
Sanary-Sur-Mer in 1865-1876, Marius Michel initiated quay construction in his
town.220 Hastaoglou-Martinidis claims that the inspiration for the Eminönü and
Galata quays was linked to the increasing construction activity in the south of
France:
"In December 1895, 758 meters of docks in Galata were completed, built on
concrete blocks in the example of the Marseilles Quays.Along the narrow
embankment, a street of 19 meters, wide by the standards of the time, was
laid down, with a parapet of eight meters to allow loading and unloading. "221
5.3 Bernard Collas' Investments
In this section, I will talk about Bernard Collas' investments regarding the
acquirement of construction and operation concessions of the Haydarpaşa-Izmit-
Ankara and Jaffa Jerusalemrailway projects. Collas could not obtain the Haydarpaşa-
Izmit-Ankara concession rights; therefore, I used the title "the Haydarpaşa Attempt."
The reason behind this title is also correlated with the Haydarpaşa quay project. The
219 MeropiAnastassiadou, Tanzimat Çağında Bir Osmanlı Şehri Selanik (1830-1912),136.
220 Office de Tourisme de Sanary-sur-Mer, “Exposition Michel Pasha”.
221 Hastaoglou-Martinidis, “The Cartography of Harbour construction in the Eastern Mediterranean
cities: Technical and Urban Modernization in the Late Nineteenth Century,” 90.
118
Haydarpaşa quay was planned and built later with the concessionaires of the railway
project.
To put it another way, the Haydarpaşa project included a quay project as well,
like the projects of the Eminönü and Galata Quay, which Michel Pasha worked on.
The second railway project was the Jaffa-Jerusalem railroad. The Jaffa-Jerusalem
project started with a potential of high profit, but in the end, it did not reward its
investors. Nevertheless, the success of these projects is not the primary concern here.
I intend to display the interlinked nature of the diverse infrastructures and their
central aim of facilitating the intensified maritime activity. The connection between
the Haydarpaşa quay project and hajj travel shifting from land to sea routes created a
need for the discussed railway projects.
5.3.1 The Haydarpaşa Attempt
The information regarding the Haydarpaşa-Izmit-Ankara railway line, together with
the construction of the port quay and the Haydarpaşa train station, is complicated due
to the changing financiers. Sultan Abdülaziz issued a decree for a railway network
covering the whole Asian territory in 1871. The hardships of such a massive project
became clear while implementing rails from Haydarpaşa to Izmit. Nonetheless, the
Ottoman empire could not obtain the necessary finances for it, and it was short of
personnel with professional knowledge. The shortage of personnel was solved in
1872 when German engineer Wilhelm von Pressel was hired for the railway project.
Provided that, the financial problem was not solved until the end of the 1880s.222As
Christensen notes, Wilhelm von Pressel was hired for the Imperial Turkish Railway
Company by Maurice de Hirsch, "wealthy Bavarian-born financier and
222 Özyüksel, Murat. The Berlin-Baghdad Railway and the Ottoman Empire, 15-25.
119
philanthropist... …Hirsch established the Imperial Turkish Railway Company in
Paris, where he lived, and he hired Wilhelm von Pressel, an engineer from
Stuttgart."223.
In 1889, the concession agreement of the Haydarpaşa-Izmit-Ankara railway
was signed. The agreement was on the subject of the privilege of the construction
and operation of the Anatolian railways, the operation of the Haydarpaşa-Izmit
railway, and the extension of the Haydarpaşa-Izmit line to Ankara. The concessions
were given to Deutsche Bank-Württembergische Vereinsbank for ninety-nine
years.224
There is something that gathered my attention during my research in the
Ottoman Archives; I came across a correspondence document, dated 1887, about the
concession rights Haydarpaşa-Izmit-Ankara railway project. The document states
that the mutual agreement on concession rights of construction and operation for the
Haydarpaşa-Izmit-Ankara railway project had been reached. The interesting part here
is that the concessionaire is not the Deutsche Bank-WürttembergischeVereinsbank in
the 1889 agreement, but Monsieur Collas and Monsieur Donon. The document states
that if Monsieur Collas and Monsieur Donon accepted the negotiated conditions, the
concession agreement could be signed.225 This correspondence document is dated
January 25, 1887. Given the date of the correspondence and the concession
agreement, Bernard Collas was interested in the construction of the Haydarpaşa-
Izmit-Ankara railway project, and his proposal was considered. The critical point
here is the interconnectedness of diverse infrastructural elements and their prospects
as valued investment opportunities. Collas, who already has the lighthouse building
223 Christensen, Germany and the Ottoman Railways: Art, Empire, and Infrastructure, 12.
224 Albayrak, “Osmanlı-Alman İlişkilerinin Gelişimi Ve Bağdat Demiryolu’nun Yapımı.”1–38.
225 COA, HR.İD.2011-31 and HR.İD.2011-32
120
and operation privileges, sought additional construction and operation privileges of
infrastructure projects.
5.3.2 The Jaffa-Jerusalem Railroad
The significant movement of pilgrims arriving in Jaffa to visit the Holy Places
suggested the idea of a modern means of transportation between the port of
Jerusalem. One of the most evident changes regarding steamship was the tremendous
growth in the number of traveling Muslims doing the hajj, notably those coming
from India and the Malay Archipelago. Nile Green articulates this issue "unlikely
that such steamboat pioneers as Thomas Dundas and Robert Fulton imagined that
their inventions would enable more Muslims to make the hajj than had gone in the
previous twelve centuries, but this is precisely what took place.".226 The reasoning of
the Jaffa- Jerusalem railroad stands in a slightly different point since it does not
directly facilitate the maritime trade. As one of the outcomes of steamship
technology, Hajj travel shifted from land to sea. This shift in movement resulted in a
growth in cities such as Alexandria, Port Sudan, Aden, Jeddah, and Jaffa.227
According to Searight, the railways built in the Empire until the 1880s were
considered as fragments of railroads aiming to connect the Ottoman Empire's coastal
fringe and inner lands.228 For instance, the Izmir railway, which is eighty miles long
with the islands of the Menderes valley, was extended in 1888, and another small
railroad line connecting Mersin and Adana was inaugurated in 1883. Both of the
226 Further on the issue of :haji travelers in the steamship era and later : Mary Byrne McDonnell,
“Patterns of Muslim Pilgrimage from Malaysia, 1885–1985,” in Muslim Travellers: Pilgrimage,
Migration, and the Religious Imagination, ed. Dale F. Eickelman and James Piscatori (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1990), 111–30; F. E. Peters, Th e Hajj: The Muslim Pilgrimage to
Mecca and the Holy Places (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 266–315
227 Barak, PoweringEmpire,24-53.
228 Searight, Steaming East, 237.
121
railroad lines aimed to connect the inland to ports and coastal areas. I find Searight's
argument stating that the Jaffa and Jerusalem railway line was part of the railway
fragments providing connections from the shores compelling.229 Furthermore,
Christensen elaborates on this issue with respect to the Suez Canal:
… construction of the connection at Iskenderun reinvigorated
much of the trade and livelihood that had been lost decades earlier
with the construction of the Suez Canal. As a result, the urban growth
that ensued was primarily industrial and occurred around the station
and along a corridor nestled between the railway and the
Mediterranean waterfront.230
In 1888, Youssouf Navon Efendi obtained a seventy-one-year concession for
the Jaffa and Jerusalem railway line. Despite this, he did not own the finances for this
project. Therefore, Youssouf Navon Efendi convinced Bernard Collas to provide
financial support. On December 29, 1889, Société du Chemin de Fer Ottoman de
Jaffa à Jerusalem (Ottoman Railway Company from Jaffa to Jerusalem) was
established in Paris, with Collas as the first president. In the same year, the
concession of the Jaffa Jerusalem railroad was transferred to Société du Chemin de
Fer Ottoman de Jaffa à Jérusalem (Ottoman Railway Company from Jaffa to
Jerusalem).231 In the Hamidian Visual Archives, on a photograph titled Chemin de
Fer de Jaffa à Jerusalem, dated 1892,232 Collas is listed as the president of the
Ottoman Railway Company from Jaffa to Jerusalem. Hayrettin Bey is listed as
General Director. Celal Pasha (Aide de Camp of the Sultan) and Ibrahim Pasha
(Governor of Palestine) are also in the photograph. The names of other people in the
photograph are also listed, but their relationship is not stated. Geyikdağı elaborates
on the continuation of the Jaffa and Jerusalem railway line as such: "A Swiss
229 Searight, Steaming East, 237.
230 Christensen, Germany and the Ottoman Railways: Art, Empire, and Infrastructure 148.
231 Geyikdağı, “French Direct Investments in the Ottoman Empire before World War I,” 525-561.
232 Istanbul University Rare Works Collection (Hamidian Visual Archives), 90400-0019.
122
subcontractor firm completed the 87-km line in 1892, and an Ottoman Greek subject
had directed its technical department. Sadly, due to construction errors, the line was
closed in 1894. Later, even though the problems were not eliminated, its operations
began under new management".233
Figure 12 Chemin de fer de Jaffa a Jerusalem 234
I want to point out the similarity between the concession process of
lighthouses and other infrastructure types. Much like lighthouses, railroads, by
connecting shores to the inner lands, aim to cater to frequent maritime traffic. The
quays also have the same purpose, enabling steamships to approach coasts. On the
other hand, as I have stated at the beginning of this chapter, each type of
infrastructure has its own level of complexity. Keeping Marius Michel's career as the
233 Geyikdağı, “French Direct Investments in the Ottoman Empire before World War I,” 525-561.
234 Istanbul University Rare Works Collection (Hamidian Visual Archives) , 90400-0019
123
lens upon this complex system, I have examined the lighthouse and quay differences
due to the existence of a historic functioning structure before the construction and
proximity to the settlement. The various types of infrastructure projects to facilitate
the increased naval traffic developed through technological innovations during the
nineteenth century. Moreover, as indicated by the Haydarpaşa project, which
included the quay and railroad constructions, these infrastructures were closely
interlinked. This connection among the different types of infrastructure projects
becomes evident because the same concessionaires invested in these varied
infrastructure projects. The following section will cover the analysis of the
lighthouse construction in a similar manner to the previous chapter via the profit
tables of Collas and Michel Company, the maps provided from the On Barak's
Powering Empire, and the table demonstrates the distribution of lighthouse fees paid
during 1874-1883 according to the country.
5.4 The 1870-1890 Period Regarding Lighthouses
In this section, I focus on activities related to lighthouse construction and utilization.
This period is different from the first one I discussed in the previous chapter. The
difference pertains to improvements in steam engine technology, causing an increase
in the regularity of steamship travel. Besides this, the base network of lighthouses is
established. To put it in another way, 90 lighthouses, were ordered in the 1860
concession agreement, and 22 lighthouses before 112 lighthouses were already
constructed. Since construction was the most significant expenditure item, it affected
the expenditure costs. Many lighthouses had already been installed and undergone
expansion in this period as a foundation of the lighthouse network. Therefore, the
lighthouses built during the period between the first two lighthouse concession
124
agreements (1860-1879) established the base of the lighthouse web. It is essential to
add that the Suez Canal construction had a major impact on the overall maritime
activity. Considering the importance of the Suez Canal, in this section, I will begin
with the lighthouse construction in the Red Sea and continue with the lighthouse
construction and operation activity on other shores to finalize with a general
assessment.
5.4.1 Lighthouse Construction in the Red Sea
The opening of the Suez Canal was a turning point for global maritime
transportation. The lighting of the Red Sea shore was directly correlated but not
limited to the inauguration of the Suez Canal. As part of the coal corridor stretching
from London to Bombay, the Red Sea was a focal zone since the beginning of the
nineteenth century. In addition to this corridor, the environmental structure of the
Red Sea,including many reefs, makes the area risky for navigation. Consequently,
the navigational safety of the Red Sea had remained a topic for a long time. The
cartographical work regarding the site during the 1830s is an illustration of the major
safety concern.235 On the issue of lighthouse construction activity before the
inauguration of the Suez Canal, Thobie remarks, "as early as 1856, the Egyptian
government gradually established in the northern part of the Red Sea six lighthouses
- Newport (Suez Bay) in 1856, Zafazana and Ashrafi in 1862, Doedalus in 1863,
Raz-Garit in 1872-- but the lighting remains insufficient, and [the number of ]
shipwrecks multiply."236
235 Wick, Alexis. The Red Sea, 133-141.
236 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960, 43. translated by the author the original quote : « Dès 1856, le gouvernement
égyptien a progressivement fait établir dans la » partie septentrionale de la mer Rouge six phares —
125
The shipping companies demanded a solution to the insufficient lighting
problem from the Ottoman Imperial Admiralty after the inauguration of the Suez
Canal in 1869. In 1875, as a response to this demand, the Imperial Admiralty
commissioned Collas and Michel to conduct research on the illumination of a few
reefs and the coastline of Hijaz, Yemen, the Persian Gulf. Alongside this, another
proposal emerged. William Allet created a map of future light locations: Edouard
Hid provided the entire project. The Tophane commission chose the Collas and
Michel project on February 28, 1881. On 12/14 April 1881, the contract, which
covered forty years, related to the construction of thirty lighthouses and lightsin four
phases. These phases are planned to render from the regions. The first phase regions
are Hijaz and Yemen coasts, and the second phase region group is named
international navigation, the third phase constitutes the Persian Gulf coast, and the
last phase covers the southeast Arabian coast. The revenues were shared between the
concessionaires and the State, similar to the contracts of 1860 and 1879. The
lighthouse fees belonging to the first phase would be shared as 78% to the
concessionaires, the rest to State; for the lighthouses' fees of the second phase after
August 1884, the share of the concessionaires was decreased to 72%.237
5.4.2 Lighthouse Construction in Between the Second and Third Concession
Agreements
As stated earlier in this study, the main priority of the Collas and Michel Company
was the illumination of the Red Sea after the opening of the Suez Canal. In addition
Newport (rade de Suez) en 1856,Zafazana et Ashrafi en 1862,Doedalus en 1863,Raz-Garit en 1872,—
— mais l’éclairage reste insuffisant et les naufrages se multiplient. »
237 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960, 43-51
126
to the lighthouse construction in the Red Sea, I will discuss the lighthouse
construction activity on other shores. To this end, I will utilize an ilanname
document dated November 1879. This ilanname document contains notices of three
groups of lighthouses stipulations for the second concession agreement signed July in
the same year 1879. The first group was to be illuminated on November 30, 1879.
The second group was listed as "lighthouses to be illuminated soon but later than
November 30, 1879", and the last group of lighthouses was the ones with ongoing
construction. The first group includes Kefken Burnu Lighthouse, Amasra
Lighthouse, and Trabzon Lighthouse, which belonged to the Black Sea Line;
Macaronia Lighthouse belonged to Mytilini Canal Line, and Çeşme Lighthouse
belonged to the Chios Canal Line. The lighthouses to be illuminated soon were from
the Black Sea Line (Bafra Burnu, Çivi Burnu, and Vona Burnu) and the
Mediterranean Line (Gulf of Thessaloniki, Bodrum, Castellorizo, and Dedeağaç).
The last line contains lighthouses from the Black Sea Line (Emoneh Burnu) and
Mediterranean Line (Alanya, Aghios Ionnis Cape, Sidero Cape, Gavdo Island,
Tripoli, Benghazi, and Derna), and additionally contains the Samana Point
Lighthouse in the Ataurique Line. Although the emphasis on the works of Collas and
Michel company was the illumination of the Red Sea from 1879 to 1894, the other
lines of the lighthouse network were also expanding.
5.4.3 General Evaluation of the Construction and Use of the Lighthouses Between
1870-1890
In this part, I will demonstrate the increase in lighthouse use and production with the
help of the revenue tables and maps in the 1870-1890 period. The charts derived
from the revenue tables Thobie created in his work were based on the accounting
books of the General Administration of Lighthouses and news accounts in the
127
Journal de Paris.238 The maps are also informed by the 1870-90 maps provided by
On Barak in Powering Empire. This period was marked with the opening of the Suez
Canal in 1869 and the extension of the regularized use of the steamship. This
periodization considers steam engine technology together with the Suez Canal
project. Steam engine technology reduced the size of the vessel engines, enabling
more room for a considerable amount of cargoes.239 In addition, at this point, the
propeller engine could be installed on the already built sail ships. As a result,
steamship numbers increased with the possibility of converting sail ships to
steamships with engine installation.240
In the maps (figure 13), the increase in lighthouse construction is demonstrated
on a global scale. The significant increase in the number of lighthouses along the
Suez Canal is noticeable on the map. Since the Suez Canal was part of the coal
corridor stretching from London to Bombay, the Red Sea had been a focus since the
beginning of the nineteenth century. Correspondingly, England had the highest
percentage of the ships which had paid lighthouse fees Ottoman State and Collas and
Michel collect, with nearly 40% of all payments paid for lighthouse fees, evident in
the table of lighthouse fees distribution by country between the years 1874-1883.
They were followed by Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Greek, Italian, and Russian
ships, which paid lighthouse fees; French ships come in seventh place, with 6.4% of
the total. 96% of Ottoman lighthouse earnings came from seven countries, including
the Ottoman Empire itself. Still, there were sixteen other countries in the list of paid
lighthouse fees distribution in 1874-1883 by country. This variety illustrates the
increasing scale and globalized reach of maritime trade activity.
238 To be more exact the documents were AdminstrationGenerale des Phares, Grand Livre,
Constantinople, Volumes A to N period 1861-1940 Journal de Paris, Volumes A to I, for the period
1860 1959. These documents Thobie had been authorized to consult, in 1970, by Mr. Guy des
Closières, when the archives of the Collas and Michel Company were located at 15 rue La Pérouse in
Paris, were not transmitted to the National Archives of Aix-en-Provence.Thobie, L’administration
Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et Michel, 1860-1960, 77.
239 Barak, Powering Empire,123.
240 Rippon,. Evolution of Engineering in the Royal Navy, 89.
128
Figure 13 Mediterranean and Indian Ocean Lighthouses in 1870 and 1890. The
author added black Sea Lighthouses 241
Together with steamship technology, all corners of the world became accessible for
frequent travel. Here I include the Black Sea portion of the 1890 map. To this end, I
used the hydrographic map, including all types of physical features and the
lighthouses of the Black Seadone in 1897 by Captain Muhittin Efendi. It was
241 Barak, Powering Empire, 131-132.
129
published by the Naval Map Drawing Office (Bahriye Harita Resimhanesi) and is
now located in the Ottoman Archives.242 The increase of lighthouse construction
activity in the Black Sea line and Charmanie and Syria Line is striking in the maps,
likewise the lighthouse construction activity in the Red Sea.
Table 3 Distribution of lighthouse fees for 1874-1883 by country243
Rank Country of Ships % in total
tonnage
Lighthouse fees
paid from 1874
to 1883 Agio
deducted 8.5%
in LT
Lighthouse fees
paid from 1874
to 1883 without
agio 8.5% in
FF
% in
Lighthouse
fees
1 English 39,634 399.998 8.999.963 39,6
2 Ottoman 12,376 124.874 2.809.677 12,4
3 Austrian-
Hungarian
11,014 111.131 2.500.469 11
4 Greek 10,874 109.709 2.468.458 10,9
5 Italian 9.265 93.484 2.103.390 9,2
6 Russian 6,856 69.177 1.556.487 6,8
7 French 6,438 64.959 1.461.590 6,4
8 Swedish-
Norwegian
1,098 11.079 249.277 1,1
9 Belgian 0,982 9.908 222.939 1
10 German 0,832 8.395 182.885 0,8
11 Dutch 0,338 3.410 76.724
12 Danish 0,240 2.421 54.487
13 American 0,028 282 6.356
14 Spanish 0,022 222 4.994
15 Portuguese 0,002 20 454
16 Uruguayan 0,002 20 454
Total 100 1.009.091 22.707.574
Annual average 100.909 2.270 757
The increase in lighthouse construction activity reflected directly on the revenues.
The increase in the lighthouse numbers meant the firm could collect more fees from
steamships in more ports. In contrast to their earnings, their most significant
expenditure was the construction costs for the Collas and Michel Company. This
242 COA, HRT.h.710- also could be seen at appendix D
243 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960, 79.
130
expenditure linked with the substantial increase in the lighthouse building activity
could be traced to the completion which concession agreements orders. Therefore, in
the years following the concession agreements, those lighthouse constructions
experienced a boost. In the table below, the periods of 1862-1868, 1879-1883, and
1894-1898 were the periods with the lowest percentage of total profit and revenue
ratio. Provided the costs of the lighthouse network formation, the return is still
remarkable. On top of that, after the first concession, a foundation of the lighthouse
network was established. The revenues were rising while the lighthouse network
expanded.
The general trend of the profitability of the Ottoman Lighthouses was increasing.
This increase is correlated with the regularized and enhanced steamship traffic due to
the improvements in steam engine technology. The investments of the lighthouse
concessionaries Michel Pasha and Bernard Collas are linked to facilitating the
increased steamship transportation flow and expanding the network of
infrastructures. Another critical point regarding the profits was visible in the second
renewal of the 1860 concession agreement or the third lighthouse concession
agreement in 1894. During the negotiations for the third lighthouse concession
agreement, the financial liberty of the concessionaries and the risks Michel Pasha and
Bernard Collas took to acquire the concessions again proves the profitability of the
Ottoman lighthouses.
131
Table 4 The profits of Collas and Michel Company (% Five-year periods)244
Five-year Periods As a percentage of
total revenue
As a percentage of
total benefits
The relative share of
concessionaires in
revenues. (profitability)
% of revenue
1862-1868 41,3 65,9 52,6
1869-1873 48,4 68,8 62,1
1874-1878 39,9 62,8 46,4
1879-1883 33,6 59,6 43,2
1884-1888 36,8 53,9 54,2
1889-1893 43,1 54,2 67,3
1894-1898 39,4 51 63,7
1899-1803 21,7 24,2 46,2
1904-1908 38,2 38,2 61,8
1909-1913 37,2 45,1 67,9
1862-1913 36,07 49,36 56,41
5.5 The Third Concession Agreement in 1894
The company's terrific financial results led the directors-general Collas and Michel to
negotiate a third concession agreement for the lighthouses starting from 1893. The
third concession agreement was the renewal of the 1879 agreement or the second
concession for lighthouses, which was the modified version of the first concession
agreement signed in 1860. The concession agreement of 1879 gave to the Collas and
Michel Company the construction and operation privileges of the lighthouses, which
extended the existing concession until 1899. In 1893, bankers and business people
from Constantinople applied to be candidates for the lighthouse concession,
proposing the Ottoman government a substantial loan to secure their position for the
lighthouse concession. The affair of the third concession agreement was promptly
carried out despite various alternative proposals from bankers and business people.
On October 13/25, 1894, an irade granted the extension of the concession of the
Lighthouses for 25 years, extending from the previous end year of the second
244 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960, 83.
132
concession, which was 1899, to 1924. The negotiation of the third concession
agreement went incredibly smoothly. There were two reasons behind this. Firstly,
Collas aided the Sultan by publishing a series of pieces in Journal des Débats
supporting the Ottoman government's policy. Bernard Collas and his son were
among the administrators appointed on January 17, 1893, to Journal des Débats.
This support was precious since it occurred when the Ottoman Empire was violently
attacked by the entire European press, particularly for its autocracy and Balkan
policy. The second factor that eased the third concession agreement process was
related to the substantial financial step down from Collas and Michel. They increased
the State's share in the lighthouse fee revenues from 28% to 50%, starting in 1899.
The extreme revenues of the business allowed Collas and Michel to take this
otherwise risky decision. This decision received a warm response from the Ottoman
Government.245
245 Thobie, L’administration Générale Des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman et La Société Collas et
Michel, 1860-1960, 43-51.
133
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
This study is concerned with lighthouse construction activity during the second half
of the nineteenth century in the Ottoman Empire. To understand the lighthouse
building process, I have gone through several contextual layers considering the
technological advancements within the nineteenth century, maritime transportation
frequency, and establishing an interlinked global infrastructure system containing
networks of railroads and ports well as lighthouses to provide connections and
navigational support. The first layer is a broad context of steamship technology
development and its uses in the nineteenth century. The second layer regards
steamship companies, and their services in maritime traffic go on top of the first
layer. The second layer resulted from the first layer of steamship technology
development during the nineteenth century. The last layer considers the need for
infrastructures to facilitate increased maritime traffic navigation and links to connect
with the land. As a part of the infrastructure system and navigational safety, the
requirement of lighthouses and their construction activity is relevant to these layers.
To study the lighthouse building activity within these intertwined contextual layers, I
have decided to utilize Marius Michel’s life and career. He was behind lighthouse
construction activities in the Ottoman Empire during the second half of the
nineteenth century and served as a lens to unravel the complicated structure of these
layers. His works were the lighthouses in the coastlines of the Ottoman Empire,
which provided navigational aid, and quays for the steamships eased their approach
to land. The relationship I seek to reveal is a correlation between these infrastructures
and the developing steam engine technology. This relationship concerns the
134
advanced steamship technology, which enables regular and frequent maritime
transportation during the nineteenth century. This frequent maritime transportation
involves the intensification of the maritime trade in global scale. As a result,
increased maritime flow requires infrastructural support. This support includes but is
not limited to the quays for steamships to approach to land, railroads to connect the
inlands with the ports and lighthouses to provide navigation and coastal safety. For
the case of the Ottoman Empire, the relationship with infrastructural development
and maritime trade generally concerns the foreign direct investments. The economic
impact goes further than just facilitating the maritime trade; it was a part of the
integration of the global economy since construction processes included foreign
direct investments to the Ottoman Empire. The foreign direct investments aimed to
provide the necessary infrastructure for the maritime trade especially after the
Baltalimanı Trade Treaty in 1838. I have thought this connection in a similar manner
with a contemporary idea of needed telecommunication infrastructures required for
the financial transactions. I aimed to display the establishment of the lighthouse web
in the nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire and its connections as part and parcel of
the global infrastructure network, including railroad and quay networks. While doing
so, I also considered that the intertwined global infrastructure network was
established to cater to the increase in maritime activities, due to the steam engine
technology advancements. In addition, this thesis considers the differences of the
discussed global infrastructure network's fragments, which was created by assembly
of several types of infrastructure webs with varying degrees of complexity. As I was
considering Marius Michel’s life and career as the frame of reference, to trace these
differences, I focused on the differences between lighthouses and quay structures.
135
To this end and I have utilized, together with Ottoman State documents, the
concession contracts of the lighthouse building and operation and ilanname
documents which are the records that depict lighthouses' establishment dates. In
addition, I used the profitability tables of Société Collas et Michel, the company
holding the concession rights for the lighthouses in the Ottoman Empire, and maps
locating the lighthouses in the shores of the Adriatic Mediterranean and the Indian
Ocean, Red and the Black Sea. In addition to these sources, I have used concession
agreements of other infrastructure projects within the scope of this thesis, funded by
the partners of Société Collas et Michel and two books, Lighthouse Construction and
Illumination, written by Thomas Stevenson in 1881, and The Story of Our
Lighthouses and Lightships: Descriptive and Historical written by W. H. Davenport
in1891 about the lighthouse construction.
After providing extensive background on maritime travel speed enabled by
the development of steamship and lighthouse technology before and during the
nineteenth century; I focused on the Marius Michel’s career starting from the year
1855 when he became the General Administrator of Ottoman Lighthouses, to the
year of the final concession agreement he signed with the Ottoman state regarding
the lighthouse construction in 1894. The second chapter, regarding the broad
contextual background, has an extensive time frame, including all of the
developments throughout the century, while the other three branches are organized
chronologically. Chapters three to five ended with the signature of the lighthouse
building and management concession contract. The third chapter ends with the first
lighthouse concession agreement signed between the Collas and Michel Company
and the Ottoman State in 1860. The fourth chapter covers the process until the
signature of the second lighthouse concession agreement (a renewal contract) in
136
1879, and the last chapter ends with the third concession agreement (a renewal
contract). While I narrated this process linearly, I have included other infrastructure
projects such as the Suez Canal, Galata Quay, and Jaffa- Jerusalem Railroad, and the
relation of these projects with lighthouse construction activity managed by Collas
and Michel Company. In addition, in the fourth and fifth chapters, I included an
analysis of lighthouse construction, including the profit tables of Collas and Michel
Company and the Map of Lighthouses during 1850, 1870, and 1890 covering shores
of the Adriatic Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea and the Black Sea.
Meanwhile, these complex processes are traced from Marius Michel’s career path
and his direct investments in the Ottoman Empire as a part of an intertwined global
infrastructure network of ports, canals, telegraph lines, railroads, etc. in order to
facilitate the intensified trade, and maritime activity increased in the nineteenth
century.
I claim that lighthouse construction is directly correlated with the
advancement of steamship technology. Furthermore, as integral components of
navigational practices, the lighthouse network is an interconnected infrastructure
network. That being said, the scope of this thesis has constraints due to the limits of
an MA program. Regardless of the variety of sources I have used, the scope of the
study could be extended. To begin with, for the ilanname documents, I have only
included those from the 1861-1879 period. The ilanname documents of the
lighthouses after 1879 could provide a larger scope.
Furthermore, each line considered in the fourth chapter could be analyzed as
cases in which the lighthouse line is discussed and the other investments for
infrastructural elements, a sole topic to be examined with in-depth analysis. For
137
example, the illumination of the Red Sea could have been a topic of another study by
itself.
Another issue concerning the possible expansion of the scope of this study, is
the emphasis on the steamship companies, which could have been studied with the
exact routes and their correlation with the lines of lighthouse construction. The
intensified maritime traffic was a fundamental part of this study and the maps of the
frequent routes used by the steamship companies and the changes of the preferred
routes over time could be very beneficial to understanding the patterns of lighthouse
construction.
The lighthouse construction boom was experienced as a part of the great
expansion of infrastructures during the nineteenth century. This trend was a global
trend and the lighthouse building activities in Indian and Pacific Oceans should be
evaluated together with the Ottoman lighthouse construction experience. This would
unravel the lighthouse building process in the different geographies.
Marius Michel’s life and career were the primary focal points and the lens I
have used in this study. A study with an emphasis on the life and career of Bernard
Camille Collas, the partner of the Collas and Michel Company, which holds the
concession rights for the lighthouses in the Ottoman Shores, could be an interesting
extension to this work.
Finally, the quay and railroad projects evaluated with the lighthouse building
process were funded by the concessionaires of the lighthouses. This was a purposeful
decision to demonstrate in a very concrete manner and highlight the intertwined
nature of the global infrastructure projects catering the maritime links with
navigational support and structural support connecting inland to the coastal area.
However more railway and quay projects could have been discussed together. In
138
addition, apart from the physical unfractured social and financial infrastructure
elements such as trade companies, banking, insurance, and municipal services could
expand the perspective of this study substantially as part of the evaluation of the
infrastructural advancements supporting the maritime trade. To conclude, this thesis
is a preliminary attempt to examine the increasing infrastructure construction in the
nineteenth century, when global connections and maritime transport increased
through Marius Michel's life and works.
139
APPENDIX A
TARIFF OF LIGHTHOUSE FEES OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
OF 1 SEPTEMBER 1856
140
APPENDIX B
LIGHTHOUSE CONCESSION CONTRACT OF AUGUST 8/20, 1860
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
APPENDIX C
TRANSLATION OF
LIGHTHOUSE CONCESSION CONTRACT OF AUGUST 8/20, 1860
Lighthouse Concession Contract of August 8/20, 1860
By the present Contract it is agreed between the Government of His Imperial Majesty
the Sultan, represented by His Highness Mehmed Ali Pasha, Grand Admiral, Minister
of the Navy, decorated with the Medjidié and the Nichan-Iftikhar of the first class,
decorated with Austria, Spain, Sardinia, Persia, Greece, Russia, and other foreign
orders, on the one hand.
And 1. Collas (Bernard Camille), Knight of the Legion of Honor, member of the
second class of the Imperial Order of Saint Stanislas of Russia, presently in
Constantinople, residing in Paris; And 3. Michel (Marius), Director General of the
Lighthouses of the Ottoman Empire, member of the Hedjidié of fourth class, residing
in Constantinople, on the other hand:
Art.ler. Mr. M. Collas and Michel undertake to complete the lighting system of the
coasts of the Ottoman Empire in the Mediterranean, the Dardanelles and the Black
Sea, as stated in the annex (A).
Art.2 - There will be a Mixed Commission, composed of Ottoman and European
subjects chosen among competent persons, and presided over by the Kapudan Pasha,
or by an officer delegated by the Sublime Porte. This Commission shall be vested with
the powers specified in the present Contract, as well as with any other powers that may
be required for the supervision and inspection of the lighthouses and the regularity of
the service.
The Concessionaires or their representatives shall be heard by the Commission
whenever they deem it useful to the interests of the service for which they are
responsible.
Art.3. - The works on the line from the Dardanelles to the Black Sea must be
completed within one year from the date of the present Contract. The work on the other
lines must be completed within a maximum of three years.
Art.4 - If the Commission believes that it would be useful to establish new lighthouses
at a later date, the Concessionaires will have the privilege of constructing them under
the above-mentioned terms, accepting reasonable conditions. In the event of a
difference of opinion as to these conditions, they shall be determined by Arbitrators
chosen by the Ottoman Government and the Concessionaires. The Arbitrators may, if
necessary, appoint a third Arbitrator, whom they themselves shall designate. If the two
arbitrators cannot agree on the choice of the third arbitrator, he shall be appointed by
the Joint Commission.
Art.5 - The towers, masts, boats, lights and houses of the guards to be to be established
will be raised or built at the expense of the Concessionaires, and their good condition
duly noted. The necessary land will be provided free of charge by the Ottoman
Government. The Authorities of the places where the lighthouses will be established
will have the right to enter the lighthouses whenever police measures or public order
may require their presence, these grounds being considered as Ottoman property. The
148
equipment and lights destined for the Dardanelles line currently existing in the Arsenal
stores will be transferred free of charge to the Concessionaires, as well as all the
towers, lights, equipment, tools, supplies, etc., without exception, currently existing
on the points already lit.
Art.6 - The materials intended for the construction or the repair of the towers and
lights, the tools, the supplies necessary for the lighting, finally all the objects which
will be necessary to the Administration of the Lighthouses will be exempt from
customs duties during the duration of the present Contract on all the points of the
Ottoman Empire where are located the lighthouses which form the subject of the
present Contract. The Concessionaires shall be required to justify the use of these
objects in the service of the lighthouses, and to take all measures intended to prevent
abuses on the part of their employees. Any difficulties that may arise in this regard
shall be resolved by the Joint Commission specified above.
Art.7 - From the day of the signing of the contract, and as soon as the Concessionaires
have been given the use of the existing lighthouses, they will be responsible, at their
own expense, for the lighting and maintenance of all the lights built or to be built
during the term of the concession. The duration of the concession will be twenty years,
starting from the day when the work is completed on all the lines.
Art.8 - The Concessionaires will have the complete management of the lighthouses,
under the high inspection of the Ottoman Government and the Joint Commission.
The direction of the works, the organization of the service and the operation, the choice
of personnel, their dismissal, the number of salaries, the distribution of attributions
will belong exclusively to the Concessionaires. It is understood that the
concessionaires will adopt the following principles to employ as many Ottomans as
possible in order to train them for the service of the phases. From the beginning of the
operation, there will be a certain number of number of employees who will be Ottoman
subjects. However, the Ottoman subjects employed in the lighthouses will not be able
to acquire the protection. In addition, all employees, regardless of their nationality,
shall wear the uniform of the Ottoman Navy and shall be considered, with respect to
their position, under Ottoman authority, as other foreigners in the published service of
the service of the State.
Art. 9 - In case of negligence in the service, duly noted, it be inflicted to the
Concessionaires a fine of 1000 to 5000 piastres. Irregularities arising from causes other
than negligence shall not in any case give rise to the application of this penalty. In case
of negligence of the employees in charge of the lighting, and in addition to the abovementioned
fine, punishments, either personal or pecuniary, will be inflicted on them
according to the regulations that will be formulated by the Mixed Commission, which
will appoint a tribunal to judge these faults.
Art. 10 - The Government will have the right of inspection and will be able to have an
Inspector whenever it wishes. It will name one or two General Inspectors who will
have the faculty to visit at all times the lighthouses, in order to ensure that the service
of lighting is done in a satisfactory way. A part of the funds that the Government will
receive from the Concessionaires, as will be said hereafter, will be put in reserve, under
the control of the Joint Commission, so that the inspection can never be hindered for
lack of money.
149
Art. 11 - The employees with contracts currently belonging to the Direction of the
Lighthouses will be kept until the expiration of their commitment. The salaries of these
employees will be paid by the concessionaires until the expiration of the contracts. The
personnel currently serving the established lighthouses will be be left at the disposal
of the concessionaires until they have been able to replace them replace them, so that
the service of the lighting will not be interrupted. The treaty signed on August 1, 1855
between the Ottoman Government and Mr. Michel, by virtue of which he was
appointed Director General of Lighthouses, is cancelled as regards the obligations that
the Ottoman Government has contracted with Mr. Michel
Art.12 - Although the costs of the maintenance of the equipment are entirely at the
expense of the Concessionaires, they will not be responsible for damages resulting
from earthquakes, i.e. cases of force majeure. In such cases, repairs will be paid for
by a levy on the gross receipts up to the full amount thereof, and before any division
of such receipts between the Government and the concessionaires.
Art. 13 - To remunerate the Concessionaires for the costs of construction, annual
maintenance, employees and supplies, and finally for all the expenses of the service,
they shall be allocated, from the day of the signing of the present contract until the
expiration of the Concession, 78 percent of the revenue from the collection of
lighthouse dues on all the lines already established or to be established.
Art. 14 - On the line from the Dardanelles to the Black Sea, the fees will be collected
in accordance with the tariff adopted on September 1, 1856. On the Danube line the
dues will be collected in accordance with the present tariff, until a definitive tariff has
been established by the Danubian Commission. On lines to be constructed, tolls shall
be collected in accordance with Schedule (B), and shall begin to be collected on each
particular point as soon as the lighting is operational. The five major companies of the
Arsenal, the Zarb-Hané, the Imperial Messengers, the Austrian Lloyd, and the Russian
Navigation and Trading Company will continue to enjoy on all lines the 5% discount
which has been granted to them in principle. Warships shall be exempt from the
payment of lighthouse dues on all points of the Empire during the whole duration of
the Concession. It is understood that this exemption from duties is granted only to
warships proper; it is not applicable either to subsidized or privileged companies, or to
State vessels which may be assigned to postal, commercial or other services of the
same nature. The assistance of the maritime authorities will be given to the
Concessionaires to protect and ensure the collection of the rights on the various lines,
as it is currently practiced in Constantinople, in Cavak in the Dardanelles and in Sulina.
The collection of lighthouse dues will be carried out on behalf of the Ottoman
Government by the concessionaires the Ottoman Government by the concessionaires,
without them being able to claim any to claim any indemnity from it.
Art.15. - The Ottoman Government shall place at their disposal free of charge the
premises already allocated to the lighthouse service and to the collection of dues. On
the lines to be created, it will lend to the Concessionaires, free of charge, suitable
premises for collection offices near the port authority and the sanitary offices. The loan
of offices on the lines to be created will be obligatory only to the extent that the existing
buildings permit. If there is no space available, the Government will not be obliged to
build it. In this case the construction costs will be borne by the concessionaires.
Art.17 - At the expiration of the Concession, the towers, lighthouses At the expiration
of the Concession, the towers, lighthouses, lodgings of the guards, boats, mits,
150
equipment, accessories, &c., in short, all the equipment without exception, in a good
state of maintenance, and in accordance with the inventories of the Company, which
will be properly inspected in this regard, will become the property of the Ottoman
Government, without the Concessionaires being able to claim any compensation for
this handover.
Art.18. In the event of the death of one of the Concessionaires, their heirs or assigns
shall continue to execute the present Agreement during its entire duration.
Art.19. It is understood that if the Ottoman Government believes that it must take over
the service of the lighthouses, it will always have this option, whatever the number of
years that the Concession will have to run, except for an indemnity which will be
decided between the interested parties, and in case of disagreement, by arbitration. In
cases other than the one specified below, the Licensees must receive this indemnity
before withdrawing from their Contract. In case of war, however, either between the
Porte and another Power, or between allies of the Porte, signatories of the Treaty of
Paris, the said Contract shall cease in full and in fact, and the payment of the indemnity
fixed by the parties or by arbitration, as soon as this is not possible, shall in no way
affect the cessation of the contract, which shall be immediate. The Ottoman
Government was then exclusively responsible for the administration of the
lighthouses, and was obliged to adopt the most effective measures to safeguard its
position as a belligerent or as a neutral. The Joint Commission, however, will be
responsible for directly supervising the management of the lighthouses and the
selection of personnel, as well as the recot and expenses, of which an exact account
will be given. The Commission will also take a detailed inventory of all that the
Concessionaires have left, and will safeguard it all until peace is restored. It will also
be responsible for any revenues that remain above expenses during the war.
151