Miners and the State in the Ottoman Empire: The Zonguldak Coalfield 1822-1920
The story takes place within the coalfield of Zonguldak, which is situated along the Black Sea Coast. The area was well-endowed with mineral deposits, and as the economy entered the steam age, there was the need for a continuous supply of coal. The mines were discovered, and miners from the villages had to be employed to work in the mines. Quataert explains the experiences of the coal miners had in the Ottoman Empire. The coal miners came from the Zonguldak villages, and they worked under deplorable conditions. The miners had a difficult lifestyle since there was no free medical care, and if any of them got injured, he or she would be thrown out. Quataert’s thesis is that the Zonguldak coalmine employees worked under poor working conditions because of the capitalistic greed of the ruling class.
Quataert’s story entails the general characteristics of the Ottoman society, the political class of the Empire, history of the coalmines of Zonguldak, and the involvement of foreign coal mining countries in the economy. It focuses on the state's role as a whole concerning coal mining and the working conditions provided by the Ottoman Empire to the coal miners. Quataert in his book mentions underground workers boring 300kg of coal in each shift. He further goes to state that contemporary observers and later writers also went to record asserting that the coalfields’ working conditions were horrendous. This is also an insight into Quataert sources; he seems to borrow from earlier writings and the observations of those well versed in the Ottoman Empire’s coal mining.
Quataert proves his thesis by examining aspects like the hiring, working and wages provided to the miners. The workers worked in shifts, and there were underground and aboveground workers. He also examines the fact that before there was free labor, but as the need for coal arose, labor was compulsory, and even military groups had to work. This influx of labor is well illustrated by the particular provision in the laws that lowered the definition of a grown up male, just so to have more young men working in the coalfields. Military adult age started at 20 while coalfield worker adult age started as early as 12 years.
In another classic display of the coalfield worker’s troubles, Quataert borrows from Ethem Cavus’s description of miners’ housing during the 1880s through the 1890s. Cavus describes shelters carved out of the earth into cave-like structures because the employers did not provide shelter. This also shows Quataert’s reliance on personal accounts. It would have been easy for Quataert to take these accounts for face value. Some might have held personal prejudice but for the sake of his argument, Quataert has avoided error by making it clear that those were not his words. He merely adds on to what the earlier accounts explain. In his defense, Quataert knows that the national archives at the time did not hold impartial records. In an interview with a 74-year-old former coalfield worker, Quataert learns that the employees worked up to 12-hour shifts, filling wages for coupons. This interview provides a unique first-hand glimpse into the coalfields. Quataert’s argument begins to solidifies his argument because of the backing of the firsthand witness.
Quataert avoids bias himself by also quoting from what the mining laws of the day provided. It would be easy to dismiss his arguments by just saying that maybe workers housing, labor rights and medical care were not common in that era. In that sense, Quataert’s arguments would be unfair because ignorance could be argued in part of the coalfield employers. In the 1867 Daliver Pasha regulations, Article 56, stated that workers were not provided any free day of the week. In this example, Quataert illustrates that it is the law that facilitated some of the injustices faced by the workers. In this instance, Quataert argues that the law itself went to degrade the Zonguldak coalfields. There was obviously no consideration of workers welfare in drafting these regulations.
Different from any run of the mill historical account, Quataert’s account focuses on the coalfields from the perspective of coalfield workers. Different from other accounts, Quataert does not glorify the coalfields for their successes but underlines it all by equating the workers to slaves. “Slaves” was a bit strong a term to use but perhaps goes to show which side Quataert biases. Having a bias would not be wrong in this case because Quataert backs his thesis with factual accounts, thus dispelling prejudice. His arguments agree with his thesis argument.
His argument is logical and makes sense because he has discussed the contemporary issues that had affected the miners over the years; he examined the history of the Ottoman Empire, which was corrupt, and the corruption was perpetrated by some Ottoman elites. The government’s corruption, in turn, affected the laborers. His work is unique because unlike other sources, he has focused on the ordinary people and the laborers who are left out in other historical writings. This time, he has not focused much on the elite and the elite society. Instead, he has acknowledged the importance of the so-called lower working class. Therefore, this approach makes his work important.
In conclusion, the argument made by Donald Quataert carries a lot of weight since it focuses on the role of the laborers in society. They may be left out in many historical narratives, but they still have a role to play. I strongly support Quataert’s course of recognizing the laborers. It is important to focus on the needs of workers because at the end of the day they are important; therefore, his work upholds the central thesis of ‘history from below.’ From legal documents to interviews, Quataert ensures that his book provides modern day historians with a clean slate on which to base their verdict.
Work Cited
Quataert, Donald. Miners and the State in the Ottoman Empire. New York: Berghahn Books, 2006. Print.
