Abstract

The text deals with the abuse of power towards children in the late Ottoman Empire. It shows that children were often in vulnerable positions, especially orphans and half-orphans, and that their fate was often the subject of public debate and political action. The situation of orphan girls was particularly precarious, as social, moral, financial and political constraints often prevented mothers from protecting their children. Whereas the government did not interfere in early forced marriages of girls, it became active in the religious identity of foundlings and forced conversions, especially in the context of increasing social and religious diversity and Western influence in the 19th century.

Keywords: Child vulnerability in the Ottoman Empire, Orphan girls in Ottoman society, Early forced marriages in the Ottoman Empire, Religious identity of foundlings, Western influence on Ottoman policies, 19th century child vulnerability

Childhood vulnerability and power abuse in the late Ottoman contexts

In the present day, there is much discussion in the media, politics and society about how children in families, public and other institutions become victims of abuse of power and violence. Adult power abuse of children is not new. When studying a past society, as in the LOOP research project,¹ one can observe similar situations, including discourses and debates about that topic as well as policies that address or promote the perceived abuses. However, children are still rarely the subject of historical studies, and the particular vulnerability of children is even more rarely addressed.

The cases presented here from the late Ottoman Mediterranean region provide insights into typical situations of vulnerability for children, especially in the family environment, and situations in which the fate of children became the subject of public debate and political action. This article aims to provide an insight into how children in vulnerable positions could be exploited in the late Ottoman context, for example as pawns in the family context, in society, but also in (inter)national politics and society. The following examples relate to the paradigmatic case of vulnerability, the status of the (half-)orphan. They come from various regions of the Ottoman Empire from the 19th and early 20th centuries, with a focus on the region of Palestine.

The vulnerable position of (half-)orphans

Orphans can be defined as children who no longer have the protection of one or both parents. In Hilma Granqvist’s ethnographic study on marriages in the Palestinian village of Artas from the 1920s, a term is used for this that actually sums up the situation of orphaned girls quite well: “qaṭīʿa“, cut off (from the resources of the family).² This can happen through death, but also when poverty forces the parents to give up a child. A guarantee that the interests of the child will be best served if the child is placed in the care of relatives is to be hoped for, but cannot be obtained.

What all the following examples of children in such positions have in common is that the interests of third parties take precedence over the welfare of the child and the course of life determined (or expected) by their parents. This applies regardless of religious community or ethnic origin. In fact, in the late Ottoman Empire with its pluralities and ethnic, religious and political diversity, it seems to have been particularly easy to instrumentalise those in need of protection for one’s own interests and purposes.

Pushing a girl into marriage

The first example of the exploitation of a vulnerable position concerns an orphan girl from the above-mentioned village of Artas. According to tradition, a girl named Fatme had been promised in marriage to a boy at birth. This promise was binding, not least because it meant additional financial expenditure for the groom’s family: from birth, the bride-to-be regularly received gifts. Therefore, at least in a rural context, such agreements were rather rare.³

Then the girl’s parents died suddenly and, as she had no brothers who could have spoken for her, she was placed in the care of her paternal uncle. He cancelled the promise of marriage with her fiancé, as he wanted to give the girl in marriage immediately so that he could use the bride price to pay off her father’s debts, which he had inherited.⁴ The earlier, binding promise made by the girl’s father could be cancelled by the new guardianship relationship. The girl herself had no say in the matter. For her financial support, she received one-fifth of the bride price. This was not a matter of course, as bride prices were often used to improve the family’s financial situation or as bride money for the marriage of a son.⁵ However, the new bride price was lower than the one originally agreed. There were two reasons for this: firstly, the marriage had to take place quickly so that the debts could be settled fast. Secondly, Fatme was married to a relative. The bride price was lower for relatives than for non-relatives.⁶

Girls without a father

Early marriages of (half-)orphaned girls can also be observed in the Ottoman population registers of Palestine from 1905 and in marriage registers from the same period. It is noticeable that it is primarily the death of the father that frequently causes the entire nuclear family to break up. Only rarely could mothers continue to live alone in a household with their children. Widowed mothers often remarried quickly for financial and moral reasons and were generally not allowed to take their children from the previous marriage into the new household if they were older than two years and therefore no longer received breast milk. The children were then usually placed with the deceased husband’s family or – especially girls – were married off. The marriage register of the Gaza subdistrict from the years 1908-1913⁷⁷ shows this clearly: of 181 brides under the age of 14, the father of 48 (27%) was deceased. Only 13 of them had lost only their mother (7%). Only 8 (4%) were actually full orphans. This seems to be a sign that orphans were less likely to be given into early marriages than half-orphans. This demonstrates the precarious situation of widowed mothers and their daughters in a patriarchal society.

If the brides’ age is disregarded, the figures are similar: 118 out of a total of 426 brides no longer had a father (27%), 32 women no longer had a mother (8%). But there is a slight difference: The share of full orphans who were married was 8 percent, i.e. about twice as many as with girls under 14. As puberty usually marks the beginning of the marriageable age, this figure is not surprising. Apparently, it was preferred to marry off a girl who had lost both parents only after she had reached puberty.

Effects on dowry

If one accepts the hypothesis that orphans enjoyed better protection than half-orphans (in this case girls without fathers), this could also have had an effect on the bride price customary in Islamic marriages (mahr, also translated as dowry). Especially if a mother had to find a new home for her daughter quickly.

In fact, when comparing average bride prices for girls under the age of 14, there are clear differences depending on whether they are full or half orphans or have lost their mother or father as figure 1 shows.

If a girl was an orphan, this had an effect on her bride price. However, this was worse than one might have expected. At 28.87 lira, the average mahr of orphans was significantly lower than the overall average of all those registered in the Gaza Marriage Register, which was 35.12 lira.

However, this was still slightly higher than the bride price for daughters whose fathers were deceased and who were to be placed in a marriage. The lowest bride price of 28.45 lira on average is paid for these girls. An above-average price of 45.19 lira was paid for half-orphans whose father was still alive. This clearly reflects discriminatory and disadvantageous attitudes towards women. Not only did girls possibly have to find a new home due to the mother’s plight; it was presumably also assumed that the mothers could not guarantee their daughter’s morals to the same extend, which in turn depressed the bride price. The situation is different with the father: Young girls with male supervision achieved the highest mahr value.

While the difficult situation of fatherless girls and the powerlessness of their mothers is emphasised once again by the below-average bride price in the mahr negotiations, the low result for the orphans is surprising. Perhaps the guardian no longer felt obliged to negotiate a good price at the end of his guardianship but was happy to be rid of the responsibility.

Forced conversion and (inter)national politics

Orphans could become pawns in the hands of not only their relatives but also religious representatives in the Ottoman Empire, sometimes even of (inter)national politicians. Specifically, this involved forced conversion or the threat of forced conversion. In multi-confessional Palestine, but also in other parts of the Ottoman Empire, there were repeated disputes regarding the religious affiliation of defenceless children. The question of the religion of abandoned babies of unknown parentage (foundlings) and, consequently, of the child’s legal guardians, was a frequent source of dispute between state and church representatives. As historian Nazan Maksudyan notes, in big cities such as Istanbul in the years around 1900, extensive investigations about the type of clothing worn by the child, its personal belongings, etc. were first carried out at a police station before the child was placed in care. This was usually so time-consuming that for a long time the children did not receive any care and attention, which they urgently needed.⁸ As Maksudyan notes, it is no longer possible to speak of “care” in terms of the welfare of the child. Here it was solely a matter of the government and church representatives worrying about who could claim the child.⁹ The child’s well-being was of secondary interest.

Armenian expulsion and conversion of vulnerable children

The dispute over the religion of vulnerable children was not limited to abandoned babies. In February 1919, the office of the British High Commissioner in Constantinople, Sir Somerset Arthur Gough-Calthorpe, wrote a letter to the High Porte, i.e. the Ottoman government, referring to the fate of an Armenian mother by the name of Rosa Muwajarian and her daughter Marie from Ankara. According to the letter, Rosa Muwajarian, was “sent into banishment (taghrīb)”. In Aintab (now Gaziantep), where she was travelling through, she then placed her daughter Marie in the household of a Muslim Efendi in Aintab. When she returned two months ago, she wanted to take her daughter back to her, but the Efendi refused to hand over her daughter, who had since been given the name Ayshe, meaning she had converted to Islam. The mother then turned to the Ottoman governor (vali) of Aleppo, who came to the conclusion that the girl did not want to return. The Commissioner’s Office now asked the Ottoman government to investigate the matter in detail together with the local British officials.¹⁰

Here, too, we see not only the exploitation of the position of a defenceless girl, but also of a mother. The mother’s exile, or rather her banishment, most likely refers to the expulsion of the Armenians (from Ankara in 1915). In order to protect her daughter, she had placed her in a Muslim household, headed by a man bearing the honorable title of Efendi, and possibly as a so-called besleme, a “foster-daughter” or girl servant. This practice was not unknown: destitute parents gave daughters as beslemes into the households of often wealthy families so that they could be raised there.¹¹ In return, the girls had to perform household tasks. Orphan girls could also be placed in a household in this way.¹² The example of Rosa and Marie shows that refugees also tried to protect their children from the risks of flight by entrusting them to another family, in this case a Muslim Efendi family. It is remarkable that the girl’s mother, despite the resistance of local institutions (the Efendi themselves and the governor of the Province of Aleppo, to which Aintab belonged at the time), continued to endeavour to look after her daughter and contacted the High Commissioner’s office. The fact that the latter endeavoured to clarify the case gives hope that the story ended well.

The Sarah Steinberg affair

Vulnerability, religion and politics were also the ingredients of one of the most exciting cases of imminent forced conversion in 19th century Palestine, although it can only be discussed very briefly here.¹³ The case is also exciting because Western protective powers clash here and the Ottoman government hardly plays a role in this case. The affair surrounding a 14-year-old girl named Sarah Steinberg even occupied the Prussian government (North German Confederation) under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who was also Chairman of the Foreign Ministry, and was discussed internationally in the press, for example in several issues of the German Jewish journal Der Israelit.¹⁴ In this case, it is about the 14-year-old Sarah Steinberg, the daughter of a Jew who had immigrated to Jerusalem from Prussia and who was a Prussian protégé. In the 19th century, the USA, Germany, France, Russia and Great Britain had protectorate rights over non-Muslim residents and immigrants. In the course of increasing immigration and missionary work, this soon became a power contest between the Western states.

Sarah’s family was poor and often visited the English mission, where they expressed a desire to convert to Christianity. This may also have had something to do with the fact that they hoped to receive better support as Protestants.¹⁵ The mother actually died as a converted Protestant, but the father remained Jewish until his death in 1866/7, leaving three children, including Sarah and her older brother Yaakov and an older sister, Dvora. While Sarah and Yaakov remained Jewish like their father, their sister married a Jew who had converted to Protestantism and she also converted. Sarah remained a Prussian subject, while Dvora became an American protégée.

In January 1868, Sarah and her brother fell ill with typhus and were admitted to the Rotschild Hospital in Jerusalem, where Yaakov died. Dvora wanted to take Sarah home with her after her recovery. However, Sarah did not want to go with her because she feared that she would then also have to convert to Protestantism. She made this known at the hospital in the presence of a clerk and a doctor. However, Sarah’s sister insisted on taking in the underage girl and approached the American consul Victor Beauboucher. As Sarah was a Prussian protégée, Consul Beauboucher turned to the German consulate. At this time, however, the position of consul in Jerusalem was vacant. Consul General Weber in Beirut had transferred the day-to-day business of the consulate to the consular interpreter (dragoman) Dawud al-Kurdi. Dawud al-Kurdi was to fetch the girl on Beauboucher’s behalf. Sarah Steinberg could no longer be found in the meantime, however, as she had been picked up from the hospital by a woman commissioned by Rabbi Arie Marcus and taken to the woman’s house. Marcus was also a Prussian patron and head of the Jewish community. Beauboucher and al-Kurdi immediately suspected him of having something to do with Sarah’s disappearance and therefore searched for her in his house. According to witness reports and his own statements, Arie Marcus was physically assaulted by the American consul and eventually arrested by Dawud al-Kurdi. He was only released from custody again, but then immediately, when the interim consul Heinrich Julius Petermann arrived in Jerusalem. Rabbi Arie agreed to hand over Sarah Steinberg. The girl was then placed under the care of a Jewish guardian appointed by the consulate until a relative of hers could be found in Alexandria, who then took over the guardianship.

In addition to Sarah’s personal fate, this case was primarily about one thing: who had the right, who had the power over religion and citizens in late Ottoman Palestine? And who failed here in terms of protection? Representatives of several Jewish communities summarised their perception of this affair in several letters to the press, to the German consulates in the Ottoman Empire and directly to the Chancellery of the North German Confederation and formulated three accusations: American Protestant missionaries were not deterred from engaging in aggressive proselytism; Jews in Palestine under Prussian protection received insufficient protection from their protecting power, who allowed the Americans to interfere in the affairs of Prussian subjects.¹⁶

In fact, the German side was concerned about its image in its dealings with other Jewish protégés.¹⁷ In order to resolve the conflict, the North German Confederation wanted to present itself as a serious protective power in Palestine. This was intended to reassure its fellow protectors, but also to appeal to the other Western powers, above all the USA. On the one hand, diplomatic and disciplinary consequences were drawn. Thus, the interpreter of the German consulate, Dawud al-Kurdi, was dismissed after 20 years of service. In the spring of 1868, the Istanbul embassy also contacted the North American embassy on behalf of the Federal Chancellery to draw attention to Beaubocher’s behaviour.¹⁸ As early as June, the United States government informed the Federal Chancellery that it did not support (‘disavowed’) the actions of Consul Beauboucher and had removed Beauboucher from office.¹⁹

On the other hand, the German government wanted to focus on their Jewish protégés and offer protection to ‘foster wards’. The directive was clear. The envoy of the North German Confederation, Count Bassier de St. Simon, wrote to consul Petermann, consul of the North German Confederation in Jerusalem:

In future, it will be important to continue the education of fosterlings in the Jewish religion and to avoid anything that could be interpreted as favouring proselytism.²⁰

Orphans who fell under the protective power of Prussia or the North German Confederation were therefore to be adequately protected from attacks by other states and religions. To prevent poverty, some of them were even sent to Germany for an education. At the same time, the state also discovered its duty of care in connection with strengthening the German language and thus its position in the Ottoman Empire. But that is another story.

The further fate of Sarah Steinberg is unknown. However, her case led to Jewish orphans who fell under Prussia’s protective power being given greater protection from non-Jewish institutions.

Summary

The situation of underage orphans, especially girls, was precarious in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. This also applied if the father had died and the mother was unable to care for or protect her children – and this was usually the case due to social, moral, financial and political pressures. Different social and legal situations could arise between urban centres and villages and between different religious communities. But children in vulnerable positions could be found everywhere. The government did not interfere with marriage policy. The situation was different, however, when it came to determining the religious identity of foundlings or in cases of forced conversion. This was especially true since the second half of the 19th century, when the population in many parts of the Ottoman Empire became more and more diverse, both socially and religiously, and was increasingly exposed to political influence from Western powers.

Further contributions from Sarah Büssow: https://ercloop.hypotheses.org/author/sarahbuessow

---

1. See also the blog research notes of the ERC-funded project LOOP, Late Ottoman Palestinians https://ercloop.hypotheses.org/. ↩︎
2. Hilma Granqvist, Marriage conditions in a Palestinian village, vol. I (Helsingfors, 1931), 27. ↩︎
3. Fatme’s case is described in Granqvist, 26-27. Granqvist knows of only seven such cases for this village; Granqvist 29. ↩︎
4. Granqvist, Marriage conditions, 26-27. ↩︎
5. Granqvist passim. ↩︎
6. Ibid. ↩︎
7. ISA (Israel State Archive), Gaza marriage Register Nr. 279, 1, 1324-1329/1908-1913. ↩︎
8. Nazan Maksudyan, “The fight over nobody’s children: Religion, nationality and citizenship of foundlings in the late Ottoman Empire,” New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 41 (2009): 151-179; 164-5. ↩︎
9. Ibid., 166. ↩︎
10. BOA, HR.SYS 2569/3-48, ed. in Muharrem Varol, A reader of Ottoman official phraseology. Notes of the British High Commission in Constantinople to the Sublime Porte (1918-1922) (Istanbul, The Isis-Press, 2020), 59. ↩︎
11. Nazan Maksudyan, “Foster-daughter or servant, charity or abuse: beslemes in the Late Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Historical Sociology 21, no. 4 (2008): 488-512. Ehud Toledano, Slavery and abolition in the Ottoman Middle East (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998); idem, As if silent and absent: Bonds of enslavement in the Islamic Middle East (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007). ↩︎
12. Maksudyan, “Foster-daughter or servant,” 491. ↩︎
13. With a focus on the Jewish community see Mordechai Eliav, “The Sarah Steinberg Affair: An Episode from the Yishuv’s Conflict with the Missionaries,” Sinai 9 (1968) [in Hebrew]. The case of Sarah Steinberg is also mentioned in Ruth Kark, American consuls in the Holy Land, 1832-1914 (Wayne State University Press, 1994); Lester Vogel, To see a promised land. Americans and the Holy Land in the Nineteenth century (Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993); Margalit Shilo, Princess or prisoner. Jewish women in Jerusalem 1840-1914 (Brandeis University Press, 2002). ↩︎
14. Der Israelit, issues starting from 12 February 1868; Volume 9, Issue No. 7, 9 and 13. ↩︎
15. Eliav, “The Sarah Steinberg Affair,” 80. ↩︎
16. Der Israelit. ↩︎
17. Eliav, “The Sarah Steinberg Affair,” 90. ↩︎
18. This and following references are from the German consularic conversation archived in ISA, The German consulates in Palestine 1842-1939, file no. 503, BI 64 „Amerikanischer Konsul Beauboucher / Arie Markus wegen Sarah Steinbergs angeblicher Entführung, Januar 1868-Januar 1869“; Brassier de St. Simon and Petermann, Constantinople, 30 March 1868. ↩︎
19. Delbrück to Petermann, Berlin, 22 June 1868. ↩︎
20. Count Bassier de St. Simon, envoy of the North German Confederation to Petermann, North German Confederation Consulate, Jerusalem, 30 March 1868. ↩︎

---

---