Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

From Tax to Proteins: State Fishery Policy and the Disregard of Tradition in Turkey

2004; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 40; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/0026320042000265693

1743-7881

Ståle Knudsen,

Ottoman Empire History and Society

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes Research and fieldwork on which this article is based were funded by the Research Council of Norway. The author thanks Kjetil Fosshagen at the Department for Social Anthropology, University of Bergen, for insightful comments, and Vemund Årbakke and Graziella Van den Bergh for help with Greek and French texts, respectively. B. Öztürk, ‘Boğaz'da biten balıkçılık ve çöküşün hikayesi’, İstanbul, No.32 (2000), pp.81–85, special issue about fish and fishing in Istanbul. I have followed developments in these fisheries since 1990 and conducted approximately one and a half years of ethnographic fieldwork among fishermen and, to a lesser extent, marine scientists. During these years I have followed closely events in one particular fieldwork site, the small town Çarşıbaşı near the city of Trabzon in the eastern Black Sea region. For the historical narrative I draw upon a range of sources, most of it in the original Turkish, ranging from Ministerial reports, laws and marine science textbooks to travel accounts and encyclopaedic entries. Although I survey some of the historical developments within fisheries during the Ottoman empire and in republican Turkey, I do not attempt an exhaustive historical description of either these fisheries nor the state fishery policies. Rather, this historical perspective is drawn upon to inform discussion of some major developments at the interface between fishing and the state, enabling me to discuss why ‘customary’ practices of restriction on access are almost totally ignored by state representatives in contemporary Turkey. GEF-BSEP, Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (Istanbul: Programme Coordinating Unit, GEF Black Sea Environmental Programme, 1996). S. Knudsen, A Comparative Study of Fishing Communities and Public Awareness in Turkey and Ukraine. (Istanbul: Black Sea Environmental Programme, 1997). Today Turkish fisheries in the Black Sea are quite substantial, peaking at 450,000 tons first in 1988 and again in 1995. A. Acara, İ. Mert, G. Şenel and F. Atik, Su Ürünleri ve Su Ürünleri Sanayii Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu. (Ankara: Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry – State Planning Organization, 2001), p.7. The 2002/3 season probably realized even greater total catches, but as yet no official figures are available. In the seventeenth century fisher's guilds specialized in fishing with fishing weirs (dalyan), seines (ığrıp), stake nets (karatya nets), common nets, cast nets (saçma), line, harpoons, pots (çömlek), baskets (sepet), and one specializing in oyster fishing. Evliya Efendi [Evliya Chelebi], Narrative of Travels in Europe, Asia, and Africa, in the Seventeenth Century, tr. Ritter Joseph von Hammer (London: Oriental Tr. Fund. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1834–1968), pp.158–61. P. Mansel, Constantinople. City of World's Desire, 1453–1924 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). H. İhsan, Hamsiname, 2nd edn. (Istanbul: Yaylacık Matbaası, 1972 [1928]), pp.14–15. E. Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesinden Seçmeler (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1991), p.173. Around the turn of the century double or triple-walled net trammelnets were called molozma (in Trabzon) and dıfana (in Istanbul). S. Kazmaz, Çayeli. Geçmiş günleri ve halk kültürü. Ankara, (Türk halk kültürünü araştırma ve tanıtma vakfı, 1994) Türk halk kültürünü araştırma ve tanıtma vakfı yayınları No:5), p.273, K. Devedjian, Pêche et Pêcheries en Turquie (Constantinople [Istanbul]: Imprimiere de l'Administration de la Dette Publique Ottomane, 1926 [1915]). M.T. Gökbilgin, ‘XVI. Yüzyıl başlarında Trabzon livası ve doğu Karadeniz bölgesi’, Belleten, Vol.26, No.102 (1962), pp.243–337. Ö. Yıldırım, ‘III Bölüm: Ekonomi’, in M. Bilgin and Ö. Yıldırım (eds.), Sürmene (Sürmene: Sürmene Belediyesi, 1990), p.516. Ibid., p.517. A.A.M. Bryer, The Empire of Trebizond and the Pontos (London: Variorum Reprints, 1980), VII, pp.382–3. İhsan, Hamsiname. According to the fish technology expert, von Brandt, this kind of weir is/was used in Turkey, Bulgaria and Russia. A. von Brandt, Fish Catching Methods of the World. First published 1964, revised and enlarged 1972 and 1984 (Farnham, Surrey: Fishing News Books Ltd., 1984), pp.161–2. Evliya Çelebi made detailed descriptions of dalyans set up across the Danube in the seventeenth century. E. Çelebi, Seyahatname (Rumeli – Solkol – Edirne) (Ankara: Başbakanlık Basımevi, 1984) Kültür ve Türizm Bakanlığı Yayınları: 580, pp.185–7. See also H. Kahane, R. Kahane and A. Tietze, The Lingua Franca in the Levant. Turkish Nautical Terms of Italian and Greek Origin (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1958), pp.478–80). I have myself seen simple weirs in use in Balaklava (‘balıklava’ means ‘good fishing ground’ in Turkish) in the Crimea. There were between 8 and 15 dalyans (as they are still called locally) in the Bulgarian town of Sozopol in the inter-war period, and in 1990 one remained. B. Marciniak and S. Jentoft, ‘A Capitalist Fisheries Co-operative: a Bulgarian Innovation’, MAST: Maritime Anthropological Studies, Vol.5, No.1 (1992), p.55. Use of dalyans was probably also widespread in other parts of the Ottoman empire. Kahane et al. Lingua franca, pp.477–81. 130 ‘strong fixed nets’ were reported in wartime Greece. Greece. Vol.2. Economic Geography, Ports and Communications. Geographical Handbook Series B.R. 516A (Naval Intelligence Division, UK, 1944), p.96. B. Oğuz, Türkiye Halkının Kültür Kökenleri. Teknikleri, Müesseseleri, İnanç ve Âdetleri. Vol.I: Giriş – Beslenme Teknikleri (Istanbul: Doğu-Batı, 1976), p.592. R.B. Serjeant, ‘Fisher-folk and Fish-traps in Al-Bahrain’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol.31 (1968), pp.486–514. Devedjian, Pêche. C. White, Three Years in Constantinople; or Domestic Manners of the Turks in 1844. Vol.1. (London: Henry Colburn, 1845). Charles White was in Istanbul for three years in the early 1840s as a correspondent for the Daily Telegraph; he mastered Ottoman Turkish and overall had a more intimate knowledge of various parts of Ottoman society than most other visitors and travellers of the time. The three volume work by Charles White is arguably ‘the best and most complete account of the manners and customs of the various inhabitants of the Turkish capital’. Mansel, Constantinople, p.276. White, Three Years, pp.88–90. E. Koçu, İstanbul Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Koçu yayınları, 1960), Entry ‘Balık Emaneti’, p.2014. Devedjian, Pêche, pp.411–34. His very detailed work, which comprises more than 600 pages in the French edition and includes many drawings, figures, maps and tables, as well as current laws, was the first study of fish and fisheries in Istanbul/the Ottoman empire. Because the study was published only in Ottoman Turkish (old script) and French, it is unfortunately not easily accessible to today's scholars. A translation into modern Turkish would be most welcome! Ibid. p.413. Kanlica and Incirköy are two villages a short distance from each other on the shore opposite Stenia on the Bosporus. It is not clear from Devedjian's text whether these rules were inscribed (as text) or not. S.D. Salomone, In the Shadow of the Holy Mountain. The Genesis of a Rural Greek Community and its Refugee Heritage (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987) East European Monographs, p.77. Devedjian, Pêche, p.439. Ibid., p.50. Use of the small meshed hamsi nets was not accepted for other species since it would catch undersize and immature fish. G. Palsson, Coastal Economies, Cultural Accounts. Human Ecology and Icelandic Discourse (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991). D. Quataert, ‘Part IV: The Age of Reforms, 1812–1914’, in H. İnalcık and D. Quataert (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914. 1996 edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p.855. Until the Tanzimat a special corps of Muslim seine fishermen were responsible for supplying the sultan's household with seafood (Koçu, İstanbul: ‘Balık Emaneti’, p.2013, Evliya Efendi, Narrative, p.158). The catch from certain dalyans was probably reserved for the sultan's household. E.Ç. Kömürciyan, İstanbul Tarihi. XVII Asırda İstanbul, tr. H.D. Andreasyan (Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık ve Kitapçılık Ltd. Şti., 1988), p.5; S. Somçağ, ‘Balıkçılık’, in Ç. Anadol (ed.), Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, Vol.2 (Istanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı and Tarih Vakfı, 1993/4), p.17. White, Three Years, p.90. Somçağ, ‘Balıkçılık’. Devedjian, Pêche; Koçu: ‘Balık Emaneti’, p.2013; Somçağ, ‘Balıkçılık’ p.17. In all his descriptions of dalyans, Çelebi (or Evliya Efendi), Seyahatname, made careful notes of the manner and amount of tax levied on their operators. Çelebi, 1984, pp.185–7, Kahane et al, Lingua franca, pp.478–80. Describing the Beykoz dalyan on the Bosporus, he writes that ‘[t]he rent for the lease of the dalyan amounts to 70 yük of aspers (i.e. 7 million aspers)’. A.Pallis, In the Days of the Janissaries. Old Turkish Life as Depicted in the ‘Travel Book’ of Evliyá Chelebí (London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., 1951), p.97. A. Pasiner, ‘Dalyan’, in Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi. Vol.2 (Istanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı and Tarih Vakfı, 1993/4), p.545. Somçağ, ‘Balıkçılık’, p.117. Koçu, İstanbul: ‘Balık Emaneti’, p.2011, cites a 1577 ferman (sultanic decree) that gives the impression that this sales tax was also farmed out, but the source is not detailed or clear enough to come to any definite conclusions. In modern Turkish, memur. Salamone, In the Shadow, p.77. Devedjian distinguished, for instance, between volis with privileged access by village(s) and private volis. Furthermore, there were three types of privately operated volis: 1) commissioned volis where 6–10 % of the gross income was paid to the proprietor, 2) rented volis where a set price was paid, and 3) private volis where only the proprietor had access. Gökbilgin, ‘XVI. Yüzyıl başlarında. M.A. Ünal, ‘Tahbir Defterlerine göre Sinop Şehri’, in İkinci Tarih Boyunca Karadeniz Kongresi Bildirileri (Uluslararası I) (Samsun: T.C. Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi ve Fransiz Anadolu Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, 1988), p.192. Devedjian, Pêche, Appendix E. Koçu, İstanbul: ‘Balık Emaneti’ p.2013. Trabzon Vilayeti Salnamesi 1293/1876, tr. K. Emiroğlu, Vol.3 (Ankara: Trabzon İli ve İlçeleri Eğitim, Kültür ve Sosyal Yardımlaşma Vakfı Yayınları, 1995), p.227. B. Duran, ‘Karadeniz Bölgesinin 1870–1914 Arasında Tarımsal Gelişmesi’, in İkinci Tarih Boyunca Karadeniz Bildirileri (Uluslararası I) (Samsun: T.C. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi ve Fransız Anadolu Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, 1988). Trabzon Vilayeti Salnamesi Vol.17. İhsan, Hamsiname, p.16. E.J. Zürcher, Turkey. A Modern History (London: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd, 1993), p.88; J. McCarty, The Ottoman Turks. An Introductory History to 1923 (London and New York: Longman, 1997), p.310. The annual taxes from the fisheries ranged from 22,635 to 87,803 Ottoman Lira in the period 1882–1914, making up 1–2.5 % of total revenues of the Administration. H. Kazgan, ‘Düyun-ı Umumiye’, in Cumuriyet Döneminde Türkiye Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1983), pp.691–716. In order to check illegal (i.e. non-taxed) fishing they set up their own office at the fish hall. Koçu, İstanbul: ‘Balık Emaneti’, p.2011. A law regulating the export of mussels and oysters was already in effect in 1867. M.S. Çelikkale, E. Düzgüneş, and İ. Okumuş, Türkiye Su Ürünleri Sektörü. Potansiyeli, Mevcut Durumu, Sorunları ve Çözüm Önerileri (Istanbul: İstanbul Ticaret Odası, 1999), İstanbul Ticaret Odası Yayınları, No.1999–2 , p.289. Kazgan, ‘Düyun-ı Umumiye’, p.710. Koçu, İstanbul: ‘Balık ve Balikaılık’, p.2037. Reprinted in French edition 1926:VI. Once the Public Debt Adminstration had laid hands on the profitable fish taxes, the privileges enjoyed by the tax farmers may have come to an end, as was apparently the case in many sector. McCarty, The Ottoman Turks, p.310. Instead of the annual commission (mukataa) paid by more or less hereditary tax farmers, the administration initiated a system whereby fishing rights were auctioned for a period of three years. According to Devedjian, Pêche, p.389, the tax and share regime for one kind of dalyan, the şıra dalyans in Istanbul, was approximately as follows: From Tax to Proteins: State Fishery Policy and the Disregard of Tradition in TurkeyAll authorsStåle Knudsenhttps://doi.org/10.1080/0026320042000265693Published online:24 May 2006Display full size That a commission was still paid to the owner of the voli may indicate that privileges were not entirely abolished. The same individuals may have retained the right to ‘farm’ the volis and dalyans. Koçu, İstanbul: ‘Balık Emaneti’, p.2011. A. Ritter von Kral, Kamâl Atatürk's Land. The Evolution of Modern Turkey. 2nd edn (1st edn, 1935), tr. K. Benton (London: P.S. King, 1938), p.81. Ibid. M.A. Karaömeroğlu, ‘The Village Institute Experience in Turkey’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.25, No.1 (1998), pp.57–73. In 1934 a ‘Sea Products and Catch Directorate’ was established in the Ministry of Economy, but as no progress was made in the sector, the responsibility was transferred to the Ministry of Transport and later to the Ministry of Finance (since this ministry dealt with the renting of fishing grounds). Acara et al. (2001), (note 6) pp.117–18. The Ottoman fishery law of 1882 was, with small adjustments in 1926, still in force. A new law, the Kabotaj Law concerning the Turkish coasts and water bodies, stipulated that only Turkish citizens had the right to fish in Turkish waters. Çelikkale et al., Türkiye Su Ürünleri Sektörü, p.289. The number of dalyans in operation in the Bosporus declined from 38 in 1875 to 27 in 1915. Also the large dalyan at the island of Cromyon, described by White, Three Years, was abandoned in this period. Devedjian, Pêche, pp.396–403. A local industry in dolphin oil processing developed between the wars (a cooperative venture involving local and German businessmen).Yıldırım, Ekonomi. Dolphin oil was listed as one of the main exports from Trabzon in 1930. C. Odabaşıoğlu, Trabzon 1869–1933 yılları yaşantısı (Ankara: İlk-San Matbaası Ltd. Şti., not dated), p.127. Despite its economic importance and potential, dolphin fishing was not affected by state initiatives before 1950. Then the state encouraged the use of shotguns in dolphin hunting in order to develop a passive defence force in face of the new powerful communist enemy to the north. H. Karaer, ‘Kaybolan Yunuslar’, in İ.G. Kayaoğlu et al. (eds.), Trabzon Kültür-Sanat Yıllığı (Istanbul: Trabzonlular Kültür ve Yardımlaşma Derneği, 1989). İhsan. Hamsiname. Devedjian, Pêche, pp.441,445. L. Taner, ‘The Fisherman's Problem in the Marmara Sea’ (Ph.D. thesis, Boğaziçi University, 1991), p.83. A. Günlük, ‘Su Ürünleri’, in Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi. Vol.9 (1983), pp.2321–36. In his detailed and ‘new Hellenistic’ travel account, W.J. Hamilton simply notes that ‘…along the [Black] sea-coast the Greeks are still, as they have ever been, the only fishermen’. W.J. Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, Potus and Armenia. With some Account of their Antiquities and Geology (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1984 [1840]), p.284. Aflalo, in his analysis of Turkey, declares that ‘[t]he fisheries are at present in the hands of Greeks, Lazes and Armenians, with the Turks in the minority’. F.G. Aflalo, Regilding the Crescent (London: Martin Secker, 1911), p.193. This observation echoes the common European preoccupation of that time to differentiate ‘national’ groupings. In such a context the category Laz remains ambiguous since it can refer both to a small, linguistically distinct population east of Rize and to the population along the eastern Black Sea coast in general. See M. Meeker, ‘The Black Sea Turks: Some Aspects of their Ethnic and Cultural Background’, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.2 (1971), pp.318–45. In his encyclopaedic entry on ‘Water Produce’ (Su Ürünleri), Ahmet Günlük claims that most fishermen in Istanbul and Izmir, as well as those operating village dalyan along the coasts of Marmara and the Aegean, were Greek. Evliya Çelebi is often cited in support of this assertion, for example by Kuban who writes that ‘he especially stressed the sailors, sea captains, fishermen and tavern keepers [in Constantinople] were Greek’. D. Kuban, Istanbul. An Urban History. Byzantinon, Constantinople, Istanbul (Istanbul: The Economic and Social History Foundation of Turkey, 1996), p.306. Greek sources (mainly autobiographies) also indicate that at the beginning of the twentieth century most or all fishermen in some communities were Greek: for Gemlik/Kios (on the Sea of Marmara): V. Kulingas, Kios 1912–1922. Anamnisis ewos Mikrasiat (Athens, 1988); for Marmaras Islands (close to the Strait of Çanakkale): Salomone; and for Şile (on the Black Sea coast, near the Bosporus): A. Terzis, Aliste mnimes. Hilites. (Alexandrupoli, 1997). Taygan, Cumhuriet Gazetesi, 14 June 1998. In 1540 three Rum groups were moved from Trabzon into Constantinople in order to resettle the imperial city: the community of fishermen (cemaat-ı balıkçıyan) (138 families), the community of ığrıp fishermen (cemaat-ı ığrıpçıyan) (18 families), and the community of dalyan fishermen (cemaat-ı dalyancıyan) (26 families). H.W. Lowry, Trabzon şehirinin İslamlaşma ve Türkleşmesi (1461–1583) (Istanbul: 1981), p.84. This may indicate that fishermen in Trabzon were primarily Rum. However, Lowry, p.81, also documents that fishing was among the occupations held by Muslims in 1553. Kahane et al. lingua franca, p.ix. Koçu, İstanbul: ‘Balık Emanet’, p.2013, suggests that Muslim and non-Muslim fishermen worked (according to a 1577 edict/ferman) separately, and that it was made clear in the fish hall from which fishermen (Muslim or not) the produce came. The reason for this was that the sultan's household, as well as many other conservative Muslims, did not eat fish caught by non-Muslims. Only a couple of generations later, in 1638, Evliya Çelebi makes almost no mention of such a division. Evliya Efendi, Narrative, pp.158–161. In his detailed description of the great procession of the Guilds that the Sultan Murat IV had ordered, he enumerates 11 categories of fishermen (including the imperial household's own fishermen, who may have all been Muslim). Yet Çelebi makes no note of any distinction along religio-ethnic lines, except to mention that a few Greek fishermen, though exempt from taxes, ‘…are obliged to catch dolphins which serve as medicine for the emperor’, Evliya Efendi, pp.159–60. Although the fishery guilds may have comprised both Muslims and non-Muslims, the produce could still have been separated according to who caught it. Charles White, Three Years, p.52, notes that ‘the whole corps of boatmen [for passenger transport] are Turks and Greek; the former preponderating in the city, the latter nearly monopolizing the Bosporus’. But, in his chapter on fishing and the fish market he writes that ‘[t]he majority of the dalyan and boat fishermen are Bulgarians, from the vicinity of the Black Sea.…Few Turks work at this trade, unless as overseers or agents of government contractors.’ p.90. The retail fishmongers, on the other hand, were mainly Greeks, p.98. H. Millas, ‘Istanbul'da Rum’, in Ç. Anadol (ed.), Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih vakfı, 1993/4), p.365. Mansel, Constantinople, p.424. In one of the novels of the well known Turkish novelist Sait Faik, Greek and Turkish fishermen work together and mingle at the same kahve (teahouse) on the Princess Islands outside Istanbul during the latter part of the 1930s. Faik mentions that many fishermen sing the latest hits from Greece, and his Turkish and Greek fisherman characters share the same Istanbul style of seafood consumption and the joy of drinking upon returning with full pockets from selling their catch. S. Faik, Medarı Maişet Motoru (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1944), Sait Faik Bütün eserleri: 3. A 1952 description of the 20 shops, kahves and meyhanes (place where alcoholic beverages are drunk) in one of the small streets in the fish market area at Eminönü by the Golden Horn shows that Turks were proprietors of only two establishments/shops (and no meyhane). One was run by a Bulgarian, and the rest by Rum. Koçu, İstanbul: ‘Balıkçilar Loncası Sokağı’, pp.2008–9. The novelist Halikarnas Balıkçısı gives some indication of continued contact between Turkish and Greek (sponge) fishermen in the Aegean long after the population exchanges. H. Balıkçısı, Deniz Gurbetçileri (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1969), Halikarnas balıkçısı Bütün Eserleri:10. T. Deyrolle, 1869'da Trabzon'dan Erzurum'a Seyahat, tr. E. Koçu (Istanbul: Çığır Kitabevi, n.d.). Unfortunately, the Turkish text does not give sufficient information to provide a proper reference to Deyrolle. Ö. Şen, Trabzon Tarih (Trabzon: Derya Kitabevi, 1998), p.235. Russia invaded and occupied the Ottoman lands east of Tirebolu for two years during 1916–18. Devedjian, Pêche, p.333. Mansel, Constantinople, p.424. Published 1941, quoted in Koçu, İstanbul: ‘Balıkçı’, p.1992. Zürcher, Turkey, p.226. If not specified otherwise, the ensuing discussion is based on the following sources: ‘Su Ürünleri’, in T. Parla (ed.) Yurt Ansiklopedisi: ‘İstanbul’ (Istanbul: Anadolu Yayıncılık, 1982/3), pp.3917–19; Günlük, ‘Su Ürünleri’; A. Acara et al., Su ürünleri ve su ürünleri sanayii. VI Beş yıllık Kalkınma Planı (Ankara: Devlet planlama Teşkilatı (State Planning Organization), 1989; H. Ergüven, ‘Ülkemizde Balıkçılık Araştırma Çalışmaları ve Kurumları’, in Cumuriyet Döneminde Türkiye Ansiklopedisi. Vol.9. (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1983), pp.2332–3; E. Özbey, ‘Ülkemizdeki su ürünleri çalışmalarının tarihçesi’, in Tarım, Orman ve Köyişler, No.38 (1989), pp.2–5; and, the most comprehensive: Çelikkale et al., Türkiye Su Ürünleri Sektörü, 1999. Note that there are often discrepancies between the sources, especially with regard to time frame. Although the sources are somewhat unclear on this point, the state probably transferred the right to tax fisheries to Municipalities. Koçu, İstanbul: ‘Balık Emaneti’, p.2011. This new tax was generally much lower (5–8%) than the state tax (20–22%) had been. Yıldırım, ‘III Bölüm: Ekonomi’p.518. Çelikkale et al., Türkiye Su Ürünleri Sektörü, 1999. Acara et al. (2001), p.124. Acara et al. (1989), p.77. Türkiye'de Kooperatifçilik, Türk Kooperatifçilik Kurumu Yayın No.88 (Ankara: Türk Kooperatifçilik Kurumu, 1997), p.33. S.B. Çakıroğlu, Karadeniz'de Balıkçılık (Fisheries in the Black Sea) (Ankara: Bilgi Basımevi, 1969), pp.99–100. Acara et al. (1989). Acara et. al. (2001). Çakıroğlu, Karadeniz'de Balıkçılık; S. Knudsen, ‘Karadeniz Balıkçılık Sektöründe Türk Su Ürünleri Kooperatifleri Nasil Bir Rol Oynayabilir?’, Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, Vol.15, Nos. 3–4 (2000 (1998)), pp.315–29; S. Knudsen, ‘What Role for the Turkish Fishery Co-operatives? Organizational Preconditions for a New Management Regime in the Black Sea’, in Düzgüneş et. al. (eds.), FISHECO'98: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Fisheries and Ecology (Trabzon: KTU Faculty of Marine Sciences, 1998). No.1380, amended in 1986 as No.3288. A new ‘Water Produce Law’ had been drafted in 1952, but it did not secure enough support in the parliament. After having surveyed the status of fisheries in Europe, the government drafted a new law in 1957. Again, it was rejected by the parliament. Çelikkale et. al., Türkiye Su Ürünleri Sektörü, 1999, p.290–1. For example Devedjian's study, which was sponsored by the Public Debt Administration. Koçu, ‘Balık ve Balıkçılık’, p.2037. This institute was established as part of the old Darülfünün (to be reorganized as Istanbul University in 1933) during the early years of the republic. Lack of resources forced it to close towards the end of the 1940s. Acara et. al. (1989), p.172; Ergüven, Ülkemizde Balıkçılık. A. Özer, ‘1940’lı yılların çağdaş eğitim kurumlarına yöremizden bir örnek: Beşikdüzü Köy Enstitüsü’, TRABZON. Vol.4. (Trabzon: Trabzon İli ve İlçeleri Eğitim, Kültür ve Sosyal Yardımlaşma Vakfı, 1990), pp.47–52. Zürcher, Turkey, p.224. With the reorganizations in higher education after the coup in 1980, the Hydrobiology Institute in Istanbul was closed down, and its resources transferred to the ‘Water Produce College’ which was established as a branch of the Ministry of Education in 1973, but affiliated to Istanbul University in 1983. Ergüven, Ülkemizde Balıkçılık’; Acara et. al. (1989), pp.172–3; Özbey, ‘Ülkemizdeki’ su ürünleri. Çelikkale et al., Türkiye Su Ürünleri Sektörü, p.316. This template is adhered to by state personnel within the bureaucracy as well as by many scientists. Various permutations of this basic model can be found in the introductions to many different texts, including; textbooks, for example S. Sarıkaya, Su ürünleri avcılığı ve av teknolojisi (Ankara: Gıda Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı, Su Ürünleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1980); reports from the State Research Institutes, for example Karadeniz'de av araç ve gereçleri ile avlanma teknolojisinin belirlemesi projesi (Trabzon: Trabzon Su Ürünleri Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü, T.C. Tarım ve Köyişler Bakanlığı Tarımsal Araştırmalar Genel Müdürlüğü, 1992); symposiums on ‘water produce’, for example Su Ürünleri Üretimi Artırma ve Kredi Yönledirme Sempozyumu (Ankara: Ziraat Bank, 1982); planning documents, for example Acara et al. (1989); Acara et al. (2001); and to some extent in scientific papers, for example E. Düzgüneş and H. Karacam, ‘A General Review of Institutional Factors and Marketing Channels in the Fishery of Turkey’, in W.E. Schrank and N. Roy (eds.), Econometric Modelling of the World Trade in Groundfish (London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991), pp.329–45. Sarıkaya, Su ürünleri avcılığı. Karadeniz'de hamsi balıkçılığı ve sorunları. Seminer (tebliğler ve panel) (Istanbul: İktisadi Araştırmalar Vakfı, 1988), p.7. Knudsen, ‘A Comparative Study’, 1997. Özbey, ‘Ülkemizdeki’ su ürünleri, p.5. I had problems making sense of this quotation, and therefore asked for the advice of Bernt Brendemoen, Professor in Turkish Language at the University of Oslo. I was reassured when he could tell me that the sentence ‘is full of nonsense; it almost sounds like an election campaign speech with a lot of air and little concrete content. It is impossible to turn it into proper Norwegian (or English)’. Guided partly by his comments (in Norwegian), I have produced the present translation that hopefully conveys some of the convolutedness of the language. This also applies to the State Water Produce Research Institute in Trabzon (Trabzon Su Ürünleri Araştırma Enstitüsü), where most junior or young scientists are trained as agricultural engineers. By 1998 this institute had been responsible for a total of 21 research projects (completed, in progress, or new). Despite the overwhelming importance of coastal and ocean fisheries in this region, only eight of these projects were related to fish stocks and fishing, while eight focused on aquaculture and the remaining five addressed ocean pollution. As a curiosity, I also note that ‘water produce’ is mentioned in only one sentence in a long text on agriculture in the 2002 election programme of the Justice and Progress Party. H. Özdemir, ‘Cumhuriyet Döneminde Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma’, in Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Vol.1 (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1983), pp.266, 272–3. One example is the VI Five Year Development Plan special issue on ‘water produce and water produce industry’, which from the very beginning of the introduction bases its discussion on the concern about nutrition and proteins. Acara et. al. (1989), p.1. In the IV Five Year Development Plan it is stated that in Turkey 17.5% of the population consume too few calories, 10% consume too little protein, and 22.5% have an unbalanced intake of protein. IV Five Years Development Plan, p.462, cited in M. Tezcan, ‘Türklerde Yemek Yeme Alışkanlıkları ve Buna İlişkin Davranış Kalıpları’, in Türk Mutfağı Sempozyumu Bildirileri (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1982), p.129. C. Alexander, Personal States. Making Connections between People and Bureaucracy in Turkey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Oxford Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology, p.74. Tezcan, ‘Türklerde Yemek’, pp.130–1. J.C. Scott, Seeing Like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998). J.C. Scott (ed.) Yale Agrarian Studies Series. See S. Bozdoğan, Modernism and Nation-Building. Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001). M. Foucault, ‘Governmentality’, in G. Burchell (ed.), The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality (London: Harvester, 1991), p.95. Foucault, ‘Governmentality’,1991, p.101. S.W. Mintz, Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1985). H.Ü. Nalbatanoğlu, ‘Modernity, State, and Religion: Theoretical Notes towards a Comparative Study’, Sojourn, Vol.8, No.2 (1994), p.353. K.H. Karpat, ‘The Ottoman Adoption of Statistics from the West in the 19th Century’, in E. İhsanoğlu (ed.), Transfer of Modern Science and Technology to the Muslim World (Istanbul: Research Centre for Islamic History, Art and Culture, 1992), pp.283–95. Ibid. Ş. Mardin, ‘Projects as Methodology. Some Thoughts on Modern Turkish Social Science’, in S. Bozdoğan and R. Kasaba (eds.), Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey (Seattle and London: Universi