AN ANALYSIS OF THE OTTOMAN REAL ESTATE MARKET IN 1725 THROUGH GALATA AND BURSA JUDICIAL RECORDS

Real estates are very interesting in terms of reflecting the cultural, economic, and social character of a city and more broadly of a society with its architectural diversity in addition to being a sign of the status for individuals. The real estate markets of Bursa and Istanbul, two prominent cities that served as the capitals of the Ottoman Empire, constitute the main theme of this study. In the study, real estate markets in Bursa and Istanbul were tried to be analyzed through the real estate sales records of the central jurisdiction of Bursa and Galata


INTRODUCTION
Judicial Records are very important resources for studies on economic history and social history.They have been frequently referred by the researchers working in these fields in recent years and can be mentioned as one of the most valuable Ottoman archival resources.With the shortest definition, Judicial Records are "the registers in which the decisions and records in the Ottoman courts were kept" (Uğur, 2010: 8).The importance of the aforementioned resources cannot be denied especially for economic history studies conducted at the regional level.Each regional study conducted without using these resources, that depict the socio-economic life of a region in a certain period of time with vivid colors, is far from achieving its purpose without exception (İnalcık, 1943: 89).Many issues such as property sales, debt-credit transactions, partnerships, inheritance, power of attorney, surety, divorce, alimony, mehir, slavery, waqfs, taxes, real-estates, crimes and penalties can be found in these records.Moreover, it is known that a copy of many official documents sent from the center, such as ferman, i'lâm, berat, and buyuruldu, was also recorded in these registers.
Bursa and Istanbul were the two capitals of the Ottoman Empire.In the study, the economic analysis of the real estate markets of these two great capitals was examined, and the Judicial Records were used as the main source.In this context, Bursa Judicial Records dated (H.1137-1138) / M. 1724-1725 and numbered B/157 and Galata Judicial Records dated (H.1137-1138) / 1724-1725 and numbered 259 were examined.While Bursa records were obtained directly from the Presidency of the Republic of Turkey Ottoman Archives and was used as the main source, Galata records were obtained from the records latinized and published by the Center for Islamic Studies (ISAM) within the scope of the Istanbul Judicial Records Project and used as a secondary source.
In the study, Bursa central jurisdiction and Galata jurisdiction in Istanbul were selected as the locality criteria since they were the two modern capitals of the Empire.Bursa continued to be one of the largest and most important cities of the Ottoman Empire, even after it lost its title of capital.Furthermore, it came to the forefront as an important trade center due to its location.In addition to the main Silk Road reaching Bursa by following Tabriz-Erzurum and Tokat route, other important trade routes also reached Bursa by connecting to this main road (İnalcık, 1992: 448).It was also an important production center with its agricultural and industrial activities.Along with many travelers who came to Bursa, Evliya Celebi also mentions the abundance and fertility of Bursa in his travel books (Çelebi, 2014: 13).Bursa also came into prominence with its role in the provision of Istanbul.The fact that it was one of the closest cities that could reach Istanbul by sea and its role in providing food for a big capital like Istanbul with its production potential increase the importance attributed to Bursa (Çiftçi, 2014: 166).At this point, the geographic proximity of Bursa to Istanbul and its close relationship with Istanbul affected the decision on the analysis of these two settlements in the same study.
Galata was chosen as the second place in the study, since Istanbul is an important trade center and it is considered worthy of research among the Istanbul Kadiliks.Galata covers the region from the northern shore of the Golden Horn, from Kasimpasa to the Black Sea, and the West Bosphorus, and it also covers Beyoglu, Haskoy, Piri Pasa, Sutluce villages, Karaagaç, Kagithane, Kasimpasa, Karakoy, Tophane, Besiktas, and Sariyer (Tabakoğlu,141).
Galata, the ethnic structure of which was constantly diversified from the conquest until the XX th century and that did not lose its commercial functionality, was the window of Istanbul opening to Europe.Even the Ottoman sultans gave importance to this feature of Galata, and they implemented a different settlement policy in Galata than the rest of Istanbul and desired that Galata would continue its role as a European port city and would further improve it (Zarinebaf, 2018: 39).
According to the figures provided by Mantran, it is estimated that 50.000 people lived in Galata in the XVII th and XVIII th centuries, and around 10.000 people lived in Pera in the XVII th century (Mantran, 1991: 15;Mantran, 2005: 291).According to the 1885-6 population census, the population of Beyoglu Within the scope of this paper, in which it was attempted to make determinations about the Ottoman real estate market in the first half of the XVIII th century based on Galata and Bursa real estate sales records, all existing records in the Bursa registry were scanned and it was determined that 144 of the 311 records in the sicil contained information about real estates in a way that would serve the purpose of the study.Similarly, when the Galata Sicil numbered 259 was scanned, it was concluded that only 105 out of 456 records could be used in the study.With regard to real estates, there are more than 144 records in Bursa records and more than 105 records in Galata records.However, due to reasons such as the failure to read the records, selling more than one real estate together, and the fact that some houses were sold as detachments, that is, a part or parts of which were not clear or they were sold much earlier than the current period, but was submitted to the court years later due to a conveyance notice or a dispute and the records that did not allow directly determining the price of the mentioned real estate were excluded from the study.In this context, a total of 249 records, 105 records which are from Galata and 144 records from Bursa, were examined and given in the table below.All records given in the table were classified in the excel file.During the classification, the type, physical properties, price and geographical location (addresses) of the real estate sold were determined. 1 This process was performed both for the Galata and Bursa records.Thus, descriptive statistics for these data obtained from Bursa and Galata records were created through the finalized excel file.

Literature Review
In this paper, which was designed on the analyzability of the Ottoman real estate market, two magnificent works were directly used to create a theoretical background regarding this issue and to present them to the reader, to categorize the real estates and to express the meanings of their properties at the regional development level and also to interpret their prices from an economic aspect.The first one of them is the work entitled "Orta Halli Osmanlılar" written by Suraiya Faroqhi (Faroqhi, 2014: 143 -183).In this book, the architectural structure of Ankara and Kayseri during the XVII th century was meticulously presented to the reader, based on the court records.The second work is a doctorate thesis prepared by H. Gökçen Akgün Özkaya and later published as a book (Akgün Özkaya, 2015: 117 -140).Both studies were largely utilized to present the theoretical background of the concepts encountered in the Ottoman real estate market in detail, to make the houses, which were expressed as menzil in the mentioned period, ready for interpretation within a certain standardization framework, and finally, to make inferences by evaluating the price trends of the real estates.
The study called "Modernliğin Eşiğinde Bir Osmanlı Şehri" (The Middle East on the Eve of Modernity Aleppo in the XVIII th Century) written by Abraham Marcus was one of the main sources referenced since it is a work analyzing the prices of the houses in Aleppo between 1750 and 1759 (Marcus, 2013: 251).Similarly, the book entitled "Bir Mahallenin Doğumu ve Ölümü (1494 -2008) Osmanlı İstanbulu'nda Kasap İlyas Mahallesi" (A Neighborhood in Ottoman Istanbul -Fruit Vendors and Civil Servants in the Kasap Ilyas Mahalle) written by Cem Behar was another source of great reference for its theoretical perspectives (Behar, 2014: 74 -76).The work prepared by Said Öztürk with the title "Askeri Kassama Ait Onyedinci Asır İstanbul Tereke Defterleri" was another work used to categorize the real estates (Öztürk, 1995: 166).If we go back a little further, the doctorate thesis entitled "The Uskudar Estates (Tereke) as Records of Everyday Life in an Ottoman Town (1521 -1524)" prepared by Yvonne J. Seng was among the valuable works benefited in the study.This study is important in terms of guiding how to interpret the resources used.In particular, Yvonne's interpretations indicating that a house with a value of 200 akce had a style that can be called as a shanty, the residents of Uskudar usually lived in houses with a value of 1.000 akce, the cost of a oneroom standard house built at a higher level than shanty was about 500 akce, and this cost would increase by 200 akce provided that it also had a garden with fruit trees served as an important guide in evaluating the prices of the real estates.Another work that guided the evaluation of the prices of real estates was the work published by Bilgin Aydın and Rıfat Günalan with the title "XVI.Yüzyılda Üsküdar Evi ve Üsküdar'da Ev Satışları" (Aydın etc., 2019: 1-10).Although the study is two centuries behind this study, which is currently examined as the date of its focus, it is important in terms of price evaluations.
Finally, the work entitled "Mediterranean Encounters Trade and Pluralism in Early Modern Galata", delicately prepared by Fariba Zarinebaf, who emphasized the importance and cosmopolitan structure of Galata as a commercial center in the early modern period; sheds light on the study while providing invaluable inferences about the real estate market in Galata with the meticulous details she provided regarding the commercial structure and diversity of Galata.

Findings
As presented in Table 1 below, the total number of records examined in the Galata and Bursa Judicial Records were 456 and 311, respectively.23% of Galata and 46% of Bursa records are directly related to real estates.As can be understood from the numbers, the real estate market in Bursa was more active.Since Galata was a busy port center and commercial city, based on the available data, it can be said that the people of Galata left real estate transactions behind the trade.Different real estates encountered as a result of the records examined are presented in Table 2.Among them, tanyard (debbağhane), shop and gasilhane need to be explained conceptually.Tanyards are factories where leather is processed, and which are somewhat similar to today's marketplaces, contain different numbers of workplace. 2Shops are open cells where small merchants put the goods to sell and trade (Sami, 2017: 481).Table 2 shows us that gasilhane, where sometimes bathing cubicle and sometimes morgue too, was also treated like other real estate types.However, the situation here should be different from other real estates because when the mentioned record is examined in detail, it is observed that gasilhane consists of a part of property (Yılmaz (Ed.), 2019: 299).Apart from them, cellar refers to a place where goods or food can be stored.Farm, orchard, vineyard, garden and land are real estates expressed as a piece of land as well as having different features (Çiftçi, 2020: 28 -36).
As it is understood from the definitions, shop and tanyard were commercial properties.So, based on the records examined, although there was no sale of trading house in Bursa in the XVIII th century, 5 trading houses were sold in Galata during the same period.
In Table 3 including the mode, median, arithmetic mean, lowest price and highest price data of Galata and Bursa houses, an analysis was performed on the data starred for Galata.In that part,

An Analysis of The Ottoman Real Estate Market in 1725 Through Galata
And Bursa Judicial Records İçtimaiyat Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2021, Cilt 5, Sayı 2 http://dergipark.gov.tr/ictimaiyatSayfa197 three data were excluded.In three of the 86 housing sales records used for Galata, the houses were defined as palaces or seaside residences.One of the two houses with a value of 7.000 kurus (kuruş) was stated as the English palace and the other one was stated as a seaside residence.Furthermore, the term seaside residence was also used for a house with a value of 8.000 kurus.Due to the lack of such houses in Bursa, these three houses were excepted while evaluating the data in Table 3.All prices given in the tables in the study are given in kurus.First, when looking at what price the houses were sold mostly based on the mode value, it is observed that 5 houses in Galata were sold for 200 and 300 kurus while 7 houses in Bursa were sold for 60 and 120 kurus.Accordingly, the prices of the houses subject to sale in Galata are more intensely at the level of 200 and 300 kurus, however, they were mostly at the level of 60 and 120 kurus in Bursa.When looking at the median value, it is seen that this value was also higher for Galata.The median value is 200 kurus for Galata and 120 kurus for Bursa.Based on these data, it is possible to say, houses were sold with higher prices in Galata.
Arithmetic mean could lead to an improper price comparison since it cannot classify the features of the houses according to the size patterns expressed as 2 + 1 or 3 + 1 as nowadays, and age and physical condition of the house are not clearly included in the records.Furthermore, since the effect of the location of the house cannot be denied along with these features, the location rent resulting from this effect should also be taken into consideration.Since it seemed quite difficult to make such an evaluation as a result of the examination of the records, evaluation was performed over the lowest and highest prices.Although there is no big difference in terms of the lowest-priced house, it is remarkable that the house with the highest price in Galata is more than twice the one in Bursa.
From the studies on Istanbul, it is seen that house prices are higher not only in Galata but also in some other districts of Istanbul compared to Bursa.In a study conducted on Istanbul Suriçi, Eyüp and Hasköy regions in 1724-1725, it was observed that house prices varied between 50 and 6000 kurus (Ertuğ, 2015: 139).

Sayfa199
Tahtânî: one-story houses, (the term tahtânî is generally used as "tahtânî oda (room)" in the records and that's how it is understood the house has only one floor), Ulyâ (=ulvî): means airier and upstairs, it usually refers to the number of floors above two, three or four floors, Vustâ: describes the middle floor of the house, Zîr-i zemîn: an isolated place under the ground as modern basements.
The houses with similar features were selected from the obtained data and were attempted to analyze Galata and Bursa houses by considering their prices.In this context, the houses were classified as "One-story", "Two-story", "Multi-story", "With internal and external units" and one sample from both Galata and Bursa was selected for each classification.Since the features of the farm in Bursa aren't detailed in the record, an evaluation couldn't be made between Galata and Bursa farms.Since Galata is one of the most important regions of Istanbul and has a commercial dynamism, it is expected that Galata houses have a higher price compared to Bursa houses.However, Table 4.1 includes data in the opposite direction.As it is seen in the table, among two houses with similar features, the house located in Galata is 10 kurus cheaper than the house located in Bursa.When the parts of both houses were compared, it was observed that in the cheaper Galata house, there was an additional housing unit, a toilet.In this case, the house, which was 10 kurus expensive, must actually have been the house in Galata.However, the data show the exact opposite.Therefore, evaluating the price of the house only with the housing units of the house may not lead us to the most accurate results.Although a situation that exemplifies the opposite of the expectation emerged at first glance, generalizing the situation with only the mentioned example may lead to a wrong perception.Because, outside the units and features of the house, some issues such as whether it is old or new, construction materials used, and the specific importance of its location at that time, namely the location rent could also be effective on the prices.Therefore, the difference may be due to these issues that are not be given in the records.

Sayfa200
it is noticed that there are differences in the housing units of the houses.However, considering the number of rooms of the houses, it can be said that these differences are not significant.
While there are three rooms, including two fevkânî and one tahtânî, in the house in Galata, there are a total of two rooms, including one fevkânî and one tahtânî, in the house in Bursa.There are also two housing units, consisting of 1 interior hall (sofa) that can be described as a room and a porch of the house in Bursa.Furthermore, the house in Bursa is located around a courtyard while the house in Galata is around a garden.In addition, both houses have a water source, which is stated as a well in the house in Galata and a stream (mâ-i cârî) in the house in Bursa.It was observed that the features of these houses, the prices of which were the same, were also very close to each other.Therefore, the expected price difference between Galata and Bursa houses did not appear in this example.one room in upstairs (beyt-i ulvî), three rooms in downstairs (beyt-i suflî), one interior hall, a hâbiye-i mâ-i cârî, a toilet and some courtyard 120 The data of two multi-story houses with similar features are presented in Table 4. 3. A remarkable issue about multi-story houses is that as a result of the records examined, Bursa houses were built on two floors at most while some Galata houses could be built on three or more floors.Studies on the 17 th and XVIII th century Bursa houses also support this inference (Metin, 2014;359;Yediyıldız, 2003: 190).When the middle floor expression "vustâ" is used for Galata houses in records, it isn't used for Bursa houses.In the example given above, while providing the features of the house in Galata, it is written that the house has at least three floors; because it has a middle floor (vustâ).For this reason, the two-story house in Bursa, which has the closest features to the house in Galata, has been chosen to be compared with the multi-story house in Galata.
As it is seen, the house in Galata is 60 kurus more expensive than the house in Bursa.Firstly, it is considered that this difference of 60 kurus may be due to additional woodshed and interior hall in the house in Galata.However, 60 kurus is a big difference and will not correspond to the cost of only one interior hall and one woodshed.Therefore, even if some of this price difference is caused by the additional parts of the house, it would not be correct to try to explain this price difference only with these features.But it is possible to say that it may be caused by the height of the house.
There may be three reasons why Galata houses were built with higher floors compared to Bursa houses.First, the Genoese, who settled in Galata in the XII th century, built high houses and the effects of this architecture continued in the XVIII th century (Eyice, 1969: 11 -12).Second, it was likely that there would be shops under the houses, which can be described as trading houses.Indeed, such houses were found in some of the records examined.Finally, it was considered that the population density may have caused the houses to expand vertically rather than horizontally.However, this argument could not be supported since no clear data on the population density of Galata at that time could be reached.As seen in the table both houses have extra units compared to each other.For Galata house, extra units are one room, one kitchen, one toilet and one entrance hall and for Bursa house, extra units are three mâ-i cârîs in total.As it is seen in the table, there is a price difference of 200 kurus between the two houses.This price difference was expected due to the extra units in the house in Galata.However, based on the examples given in Table 4.1, considering that an ordinary house with one room, one interior hall, one well, one toilet and some garden or some courtyard is 40 or 50 kurus, it can be considered that the 200 kurus difference between them is very high.Because the housing units' difference of both houses in the table expressed as corresponding to one room, one kitchen, one toilet, and one interior hall may correspond to 40 to 50 kurus compared to an ordinary house described above.In other words, 50 kurus of the difference of 200 kurus can be caused by this excess.However, it is very difficult to clearly express the remaining 150 kurus difference.This difference may be due to the fact that the house is new or old, the construction materials of the house, and the specific importance of its location at that time, namely the location rent and the characteristics of people who sold or bought both houses.As a result of the resources analyzed, it seems impossible to determine the direct reason of this difference.

Examples of houses with internal and external units are presented below in
Eyice mentions the presence of many taverns and entertainment venues in Galata since Galata is a port city, a crowded commercial center and also a frequent destination for sailors (Eyice, 1969: 15).Likewise, he indicates the presence of sailors, brokers, civil servants, clerks, intermediaries, agents, embassy representatives, roustabouts, porters, janissaries protecting the boats, barkeepers and all kinds of sellers and buyers in Galata thanks to the sea (Mantran, 1991;41).Among these people, some high-ranking people such as translators lived in beautiful buildings (Mantran, 1991;50).It is also known that rich merchants and sea captains of all origins permanently resided in the mansions and seaside residences in Galata and Kasimpasa (Zarinebaf, 2018: 154).Unlike Bursa, the presence of a richer population living in Galata could be the cause of richness and diversity in architecture.The fact that two seaside residences and a palace in Galata were found in the records, and yet no house built as a seaside residence or a palace was found in Bursa may support this idea.This situation also could be the answer to the question of whether the houses in Galata are more luxurious.Besides, the presence of mansions as housing units in some of Galata's houses can be interpreted as an indication that Galata is richer than Bursa in terms of both architecture and the individuals living in these houses.
It is considered that this difference between Galata and Bursa houses is reflected in the prices.Therefore, all data on prices were divided into 25% percentiles for both regions, and the averages of these percentiles were calculated from cheap to expensive.In Table 5, the data were divided into four equal percentiles from cheap to expensive in order to interpret the prices of Galata and Bursa houses more clearly.Looking at the cheapest 25% percentile, it is observed that the average house price is 62.6 kurus in Galata and 44.4 kurus in Bursa.Accordingly, the price of a house in Galata, which is among the first 25% cheaper percentile, is approximately 1.41 times the price of a house in Bursa.This difference increases as the percentiles move towards more expensive.Looking at the most expensive 25% percentile, it is clearly seen that the average house price in Galata is approximately 2.6 times the price of a house in Bursa.The price difference between these two places can be seen more clearly in the graphic below.
Graphic 1: Price Difference of Houses According to Percentiles (from Cheap to Expensive) When the prices of Galata and Bursa houses were analyzed at the average level, it was observed that the average prices of Galata houses were higher compared to Bursa houses.It has been examined the houses which have similar features in the tables above (Tables 4 series).In two examples, it was observed that the prices of the houses with the same features are close to each other or the same, and in the other two examples, it has been observed that the houses in Galata are more expensive.The latter brings to mind the idea that there may be other factors affecting the houses' prices other than their features.Location rent was the first to come to mind.Here, the factors such as the fact that Galata is a port city, a busy trade center, the wealth of individuals living in Galata makes Galata with higher location rent.Besides the structuring in Galata may contain more luxury elements.Indeed, as it was indicated before, as a result of the examination of the records, it was concluded that Galata houses were built in a way that can be considered luxurious, with high-rise and more sections and also parts like mansions, and furthermore, these houses were sometimes referred to as palaces or seaside residences.

Sayfa203
Apart from the price, there are two remarkable differences between Galata and Bursa houses.The first of them is the situation of water resources and the second one is the positioning of the houses adjacent to the garden or enclosed area.The difference between the water sources of Galata and Bursa houses indicates that Galata houses usually met their water needs with wells while Bursa houses met the same need mainly through streams.This situation confirms both statements of travelers about the abundance of Bursa's water, and Eyice who indicated that streams were brought to Galata from embankments outside the town and that Galata's water needs were met by public fountains between the 16 th and 18 th centuries (Günaydın etc., 2000: 58 -76;Çelebi, 2014: 13). 4 Several wells were dug in Galata for the need for water, but since the water coming out of it was bitter and there was no outside water in ancient times and the water collected in the cisterns was insufficient, the people of Galata brought water from Istanbul in barrels.However, during the time of Sultan Mahmud I (1730-1754), water was brought there from Bahcekoy and fountains were built by notables (İncicyan, 1976;101 cited in Tabakoğlu, 2017: 153).The second remarkable difference between Galata and Bursa houses is that the houses are located adjacent to the garden or enclosed area.While the majority of Galata houses are located adjacent to the garden, the majority of Bursa houses are located to enclosed area.The statement "These houses are generally two or three-story houses built according to the adjacent order with a small garden behind them" used by Eyice to describe Istanbul houses in his work entitled Istanbul throughout history confirms the results obtained about Galata houses, which may largely represent Istanbul houses (Eyice, 2010: 218).The fact that Galata houses are surrounded by garden can also be supported by Mantran's definition of Galata as a rich town with its vineyards and gardens (Mantran, 1991: 19).
Evaluating the prices of houses in terms of purchasing power may shed light on a different point in the study.A clearer judgment can be made about how high or low the price of a house is based on people's income.For that, it is necessary to have information about the wage of a person working in any sector in Galata and Bursa.When such information is available for Istanbul, no data for Bursa is available for that period.However, since the aim is not to directly compare Galata and Bursa, but to make a final evaluation, a one-dimensional evaluation can be made about Galata.On behalf of Galata, the average wage of an unskilled worker in Istanbul in the mentioned year was around 24.9 akce (Pamuk, 2000;71).5When an unskilled worker saved his wages to buy a house without spending any other expenses, he could buy the cheapest house worth 1300 akce in Galata with a 52-day wage.He could buy an average house in the cheapest 25% percentiles with a daily wage of approximately 302 days.
An analysis of gold prices can make interpretations more meaningful, it is important to determine how many grams of gold the sales price of the houses is in order to better understand the relative prices of Galata and Bursa houses.Considering that the price of one miskal of gold was 573 akce during the XVIII th century and that a miskal in the Ottoman Empire was 4.81 grams, 1 gram of gold was equivalent to approximately 119.1 akce in the relevant period (Bölükbaşı, 2010;75 -77;Kallek, 2005: 182 -183;İnalcık, 2004;445;Hinz, 1990;6).As a result of the records examined, it was determined that the cheapest house was 1300 akce in Galata and 1200 akce in Bursa.So, while it was possible to own a house in Galata for 10.9 grams of gold, although it was not very good, the cost of owning a house with similar features in Bursa meant 10.1 grams of gold.Moreover, while it was possible to buy an average house in the cheapest 25% percentiles with 63.1 grams of gold in Galata, such a house with similar features in Bursa could be bought with 44.7 grams of gold.

Sayfa204
Another real estate type that we come across in the records is gardens.The sales of only 1 garden in Galata and 17 gardens in Bursa were found in the records.Firstly, this situation may be perceived as an indication that Galata experienced a more intense urbanization.Furthermore, after Mantran's above mentioned statement that Galata is a rich place with the vineyards and gardens, it is noteworthy that there was only one garden sale in Galata in the relevant year.However, the low number of records about gardens in Galata may not be due to Galata has few gardens, but to the fact that the records include just the ones subjected to sale.There are two different price data in the table above.The first price is the price written in the record, the second price is the unit prices calculated for a healthier evaluation based on the prices of the gardens' size.Furthermore, the reason why three examples from Bursa are given in the table is that there are three different garden types as garden (hadîka), mulberry garden and chestnut garden.
The most remarkable point about the gardens is that 12 of the 17 gardens sold in Bursa are mulberry gardens.One of the prominent industrial branches of Bursa was definitely sericulture.The wars with Iran in the XVI th century caused difficulties in raw silk imports from Iran, thus, raw silk production started in Bursa towards the end of the century (İnalcık, 2008: 239).From the middle of the XVI th century, silk weaving began to decline, and there was an orientation to cocooning activities in the XVII th and XVIII th centuries (Dalsar, 1960: 309).At this point, the amount of mulberry garden sales can be explained by their commercial importance.A study about Bursa in the first half of the XVIII th century shows that the majority of the gardens subjected to sale in Bursa in this period were mulberry gardens (Keleş Yıldız, 2019: 156).In the garden sales records of the same period, the records such as the fact that the gardens were sold together with the mulberry trees and the retail sale of the mulberry trees on an estate reveal the importance of mulberry trees and gardens (Keleş Yıldız, 2019: 156).In this regard, it can be said that the demand for gardens, especially those with mulberry trees, was higher in the Bursa real estate market.
The table below includes data on three types of gardens with different features.At this point, it is important to know the unit of measures such as dönüm (decare), zira', evlek and kıt'a.According to Halil İnalcık 1 zira' = 0,537 sqm and 1 decare = 4 evleks = 919,302 sqm (İnalcık, 2017: 26, 44).And kıt'a means a piece without a numerical amount.In the records, the gardens without any feature were evaluated in the garden (hadîka) category.Apart from these, while the mulberry gardens were most frequently encountered, a chestnut garden was also encountered.The lowest price, the highest price and the average price are given in the table over the gardens the unit of which is expressed as decare (dönüm) and evlek.The garden measurements given as kıt'a couldn't be converted to decare, since kıt'a has no numerical amount.As the chestnut garden is specified as kıt'a, the comments were made based on the garden and the mulberry garden.
Based on the table, it can be said that mulberry gardens were sold at higher prices than normal gardens.Although the prices of a mulberry garden sold at the lowest price were much lower than the lowest price of a normal garden with 24 kurus, it may be due to the amount and productivity of mulberry trees in that garden.However, in general, the prices of mulberry gardens were higher at the average price and the highest price, which is another factor that reveals the importance of mulberry gardens.Table 8 includes data on three vineyards, two of which are in Bursa and one in Galata, and the size are given as decare (dönüm).Here, it is possible to clearly say that vineyard prices were higher in Bursa.The reason for this may be those agricultural activities such as vineyards or gardening in Bursa played a bigger role in the subsistence of the people compared to Galata.In addition, the fertility of the vineyard and the cultivated area, that is, the ratio of the product taken from the vineyard may also affect the prices.Table 9 includes the data on lands/plots in Galata and Bursa.In Galata, only zira' was used as a measuring unit to express the land's size, however, decare and evlek were used in Bursa.Since the majority was expressed with zira', an evaluation was made over this unit.According to the available data, the price of one zira' land in Bursa is 3.9 kurus using the weighted average, and 6.2 kurus using the arithmetic average.The weighted average of one zira' land in Galata is 5.3 kurus while its arithmetic mean is 7.3 kurus.In that case, it can be said that Galata lands were more valuable than Bursa lands.
The last real estate examined was the cellar, which appeared sometimes as a part of a house or a separate real estate.In Table 10, cellars offered for sale as a separate real estate were evaluated.While the price of a cellar, which was sold together with three water mills and store in Bursa, was 200 kurus, the price of cellar with only one door in Galata was 160 kurus.When these two examples are evaluated, prices are perceived to be higher in Galata firstly.However, in the second example, the cellar with a room, a well, a winery and a barrel is worth 100 kurus.It is very difficult to make a clear judgment since having no further information about the width and usefulness of these cellars.

CONCLUSION
When all real estates in Galata and Bursa were discussed in terms of prices, at the first stage, it was noticed that there was a serious difference between the average prices of Galata and Bursa houses.At the beginning of the paper, it was an expected situation that the location rent might be higher in Galata due to its location and features and therefore the prices would be higher.However, after the classification made according to the features of the houses rather than all data, it was observed that sometimes a house in Bursa was more expensive, sometimes the prices were very close to each other and sometimes the Galata houses were more expensive.Considering the features of the houses, especially based on the examples in the first two groups, it was observed that the prices in Galata and Bursa did not differ significantly, which brought to mind the question of why the average house prices calculated with all data were higher in Galata.At this point, it was concluded that the commercial and cosmopolitan wealth of Galata were reflected in the architecture and real estate market.Because it is an undeniable fact that a wealthy class, especially formed as a result of commercial relations, lived in Galata.The presence of buildings indicative of wealth, such as seaside residences and palaces, which are not found in Bursa, and the presence of houses with some luxurious features support this view.Although location rent can be shown as the reason for the price difference between Galata and Bursa real estates, it was concluded that the main important factor that increased the gap was the wealth and diversity of Galata.

Sayfa207
While examining the Galata and Bursa real estates, it was observed that the physical features of the houses in the two spaces differed from each other at some points.Galata houses were mostly located around the garden, while Bursa houses were mostly located around an enclosed area (avlu).This issue may be due to the usual architectural structuring, as well as the lifestyle of the people, or the production and consumption habits.It was mentioned that the gardens of Galata were frequently mentioned in the literature.However, only one garden sales record was found in Galata for the year 1725, which also suggests whether Galata's reputation for its gardens derives from the gardens located around the houses rather than the individual, commercial gardens.When Bursa is examined with regard to gardens, especially the presence of mulberry gardens attracts attention and the commercial weight of these gardens are important for Bursa.Galata also has higher rise houses than Bursa.The continuing influence of the Genoese who built high houses in architecture, the presence of trading houses in the buildings, and the vertical architecture due to population density, in other words, expanding houses vertically rather than horizontally may be mentioned among the main reasons for it.
Water supply is an important physical difference, too.While the houses in Galata met their water needs mostly from wells, it was observed that the houses in Bursa met these needs through streams, natural resources.This situation is reflected in the architecture of the houses in both cities.Bursa was a city famous for its streams and fertile in terms of water resources.This feature is also reflected in the structure of the houses.Galata was a town that met its water needs by bringing water from other parts of Istanbul, which indicates that the houses meet their water needs with a well and shows how the need was reflected in the architecture.
In conclusion, it is wrong to associate the prices of real estate's just only with the physical features and location rent of the real estates.Moreover, many different factors such as the city's natural resources, needs, subsistences, population, lifestyle and living standards of the population, interaction with different cultures have effects on this interaction.
Beyt: room, Bi'r-i mâ: well, Camekan: glassed space unit, Dâhiliyye (=internal unit): the private part of the house that is closed to the external units, namely public space, Hariciyye (=external unit): an intermediate part that is more open to the outside, namely to the public area, before entering the private part of the house from the outside, Dehliz: the equivalent of the concept of hall or entrance hall in today's architecture, Eşcâr-ı müsmire ve gayr-i müsmire: fruit and non-fruit trees, Fevkânî: houses with at least one second floor, (the term fevkânî is generally used as "fevkânî oda (room)" in the records and that's how it is understood the house has more than one floor), Hadîka: garden, Hamam: bathroom, Kenif: toilet, Kiler (=mahzen, ambar, bodrum): units suitable for storing any commodity, Mâ-i cârî / hâbiye-i mâ-i cârî: stream, Matbah: kitchen, Menzil, hane ve beyt: house of residence, Muhavvata (=avlu, havlu): engirdled, enclosed area, courtyard, Müştemil: containing, Sâyeban (= gölgelik, sayegân): cool settlement unit under the shade, Sofa: interior hall, Sundurma: covered and open front place, porch, Süflâ (=suflî): one-story houses that are ordinary, hovel, poor, and smaller than fevkâni ones,

Table 1 :
Total Number of Examined Records

Table 2 :
Number and Percentage of Records According to Real Estates

Table 4 .
2 includes two selected houses with similar features with at least the second floor.Although the prices of these houses seem to be equal in both cities, when the records are examined, An Analysis of The Ottoman Real Estate Market in 1725 Through Galata And Bursa Judicial Records İçtimaiyat Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2021, Cilt 5, Sayı 2 http://dergipark.gov.tr/ictimaiyat

Table 5 :
An Analysis of The Ottoman Real Estate Market in 1725 Through Galata And Bursa Judicial Records İçtimaiyat Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2021, Cilt 5, Sayı 2 Price Difference of Houses According to Percentiles An Analysis of The Ottoman Real Estate Market in 1725 Through Galata And Bursa Judicial Records İçtimaiyat Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2021, Cilt 5, Sayı 2 http://dergipark.gov.tr/ictimaiyat

Table 6 :
Selected Galata and Bursa Gardens

Table 7 :
Selected Garden Prices from Bursa

Table 8 :
Selected Galata and Bursa Vineyards

Table 9 :
Selected Galata and Bursa Lands