La fondation de la ville et du port au 18e. siècle devait faciliter le commerce internationale et en meme temps le controle du sudouest du pays, le Souss ne particulier, contre la dissidence. Source: Merchants Of Essaouira Urban Society and Imperialism in Southwestern Morocco, 1844–1886.
"Essaouira was the most important seaport in Morocco for a century, but compared with the growing port cities in the colonial area, this outlet to Europe was a backwater. Essaouira remained a small city, situated in a relatively barren region. The expansion of other Middle Eastern seaports, such as Beirut and Alexandria, was dramatic in the same period. Beirut's population grew from 6,000 to 120,000 in the nineteenth century. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Alexandria had a population of 10,000; already by the mid 1850, the city had grown to about 150,000. Wherever European commercial interests were strong, port cities began to grow into major emporiums of trade. In contrast, Essaouira's small scale growth from 10,000 to 18,000 seems insignificant.
And yet, historians have often seen the development of Essaouira as highly significant in the modern history of Morocco. Abdallah Laroui argues that Sultan Muhammad III, the founder of Essaouira, can be regarded as the 'veritable architect of the "modern" Morocco described in numerous nineteenth- and twentieth-century accounts'. With the creation of Essaouira, in Laroui's view, the bulk of the state revenues were henceforth derived from customs duties on foreign trade. In this way the prosperity and the very existence of the state became dependent on an activity dominated by foreigners.
The stress of almost all studies on Morocco, since the important book of Miège, has been on the social changes engendered by the integration of Morocco into the world capitalist system. Miège postulates that Morocco's interaction with Europe, and in particular foreign trade, led to a structural transformation of society. Capitalism developed on the margins of the traditional economy, and the growing influence of the bourgeoisie - largely Jewish - effected the economic transformation of the country. A capitalist class of farmers and landlords began to develop in both the towns and the countryside. The inland cities declined as the coastal towns grew. As in other parts of the Middle East, traditional crafts were in crisis or disappeared altogether because of the influx of cheap European manufactured goods. These assumptions have guided a number of in-depth studies on how Moroccan society was transformed in specific towns or regions during precolonial times.
These studies are an important departure from the literature of the French colonial period, which depicts Moroccan traditional society before the French protectorate as unchanging. French writings on Moroccan cities tend to focus on the historic monuments of the town and contributions of each successive Sultan to the urban topography, but are little concerned with social change. Even the study of Fez by Roger Tourneau, one of the most important books on Moroccan urban life and the Islamic city generally, largely sees the precolonial city as timeless. Fez in 1900, in many respects, appears the same as in Marinid times. Implicit in this interpretation is that change came about under the aegis of the French protectorate, but as the recent study of André Raymond has shown - in contradistinction to the notion of urban decadence in the Ottoman period - cities of the Middle East and North Africa were developing in significant ways in the centuries preceding the nineteenth century.
In the precolonial period, social change in Moroccan cities was greatly accelerated because of the growing dependency of Morocco on Europe. European commercial expansion can be seen as the first phase in the process of foreign economic predominance, comparable to that which occurred in the countries of the Middle East. Port cities in particular were susceptible to social change, because they were the principal points of contact between Europeans and the local population. Even more important, the ports served as agents of change, bridgeheads in sub-ordinating the country as a whole to dominant western models.
To what degree does Morocco's principal seaport in the nineteenth century fit this general model? How did the local merchants respond to the external forces of change, and how did they themselves act as agents of social and economic transformation? I hope to answer these questions throughout this book by examining local society and its relations with the interior of Morocco. But before I proceed, a few preliminary remarks about Essaouira are called for.
The town was founded by the Sultan to serve as a royal port, an entrepôt where all trade with Europe could be conducted. The aim of the Sultan was both to contain foreign influence and to limit the volume of trade. The town was situated in a relatively isolated location, and foreigners were not allowed to travel to the inland markets. In the town itself, foreigners and Moroccan-Jewish royal merchants were provided with special separate quarters in the casbah. Their premises belonged to the central government. Foreign trade, in theory, was to be closely administered by the makhzan. In many respects this calls to mind Polanyi's 'ports of trade', in which the trading community was relatively isolated from the rest of society, playing the role of political intermediaries between political frontiers. In this paradigm, administered trade, which centres on long distance 'luxury' items, prevails over the economic process of competition. In some respects, the Moroccan Sultan was able to contain foreign penetration and create an economic enclave in the same way, for example, that the Chinese were able to do in their treaty ports. In China, foreigners were confined to a specific quarter in Canton, and not allowed to travel elsewhere (except on special tributary missions to bring gifts to the Emperor) nor trade with other ports. Foreign trade became a state monopoly, and European merchants were compelled to trade with official Chinese intermediaries. Treaty ports grew rapidly in China in the nineteenth century, though their impact on the traditional Chinese economy remained limited
However, it would be misleading to carry this model too far. Essaouira's economic isolation and political neutrality were always relative, and certainly never complete. The urban patterns that evolved came to resemble those of other Muslim cities, and Moroccan cities in particular. Furthermore, the Sultan progressively lost his control of commerce. Essaouira's trade, even from the very beginning of the town's existence, operated according to the practices which were rooted in Moroccan society. Essaouira was therefore both unique, as an administered port of trade, yet similar to other cities. (...)
"Essaouira was the most important seaport in Morocco for a century, but compared with the growing port cities in the colonial area, this outlet to Europe was a backwater. Essaouira remained a small city, situated in a relatively barren region. The expansion of other Middle Eastern seaports, such as Beirut and Alexandria, was dramatic in the same period. Beirut's population grew from 6,000 to 120,000 in the nineteenth century. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Alexandria had a population of 10,000; already by the mid 1850, the city had grown to about 150,000. Wherever European commercial interests were strong, port cities began to grow into major emporiums of trade. In contrast, Essaouira's small scale growth from 10,000 to 18,000 seems insignificant.
And yet, historians have often seen the development of Essaouira as highly significant in the modern history of Morocco. Abdallah Laroui argues that Sultan Muhammad III, the founder of Essaouira, can be regarded as the 'veritable architect of the "modern" Morocco described in numerous nineteenth- and twentieth-century accounts'. With the creation of Essaouira, in Laroui's view, the bulk of the state revenues were henceforth derived from customs duties on foreign trade. In this way the prosperity and the very existence of the state became dependent on an activity dominated by foreigners.
The stress of almost all studies on Morocco, since the important book of Miège, has been on the social changes engendered by the integration of Morocco into the world capitalist system. Miège postulates that Morocco's interaction with Europe, and in particular foreign trade, led to a structural transformation of society. Capitalism developed on the margins of the traditional economy, and the growing influence of the bourgeoisie - largely Jewish - effected the economic transformation of the country. A capitalist class of farmers and landlords began to develop in both the towns and the countryside. The inland cities declined as the coastal towns grew. As in other parts of the Middle East, traditional crafts were in crisis or disappeared altogether because of the influx of cheap European manufactured goods. These assumptions have guided a number of in-depth studies on how Moroccan society was transformed in specific towns or regions during precolonial times.
These studies are an important departure from the literature of the French colonial period, which depicts Moroccan traditional society before the French protectorate as unchanging. French writings on Moroccan cities tend to focus on the historic monuments of the town and contributions of each successive Sultan to the urban topography, but are little concerned with social change. Even the study of Fez by Roger Tourneau, one of the most important books on Moroccan urban life and the Islamic city generally, largely sees the precolonial city as timeless. Fez in 1900, in many respects, appears the same as in Marinid times. Implicit in this interpretation is that change came about under the aegis of the French protectorate, but as the recent study of André Raymond has shown - in contradistinction to the notion of urban decadence in the Ottoman period - cities of the Middle East and North Africa were developing in significant ways in the centuries preceding the nineteenth century.
In the precolonial period, social change in Moroccan cities was greatly accelerated because of the growing dependency of Morocco on Europe. European commercial expansion can be seen as the first phase in the process of foreign economic predominance, comparable to that which occurred in the countries of the Middle East. Port cities in particular were susceptible to social change, because they were the principal points of contact between Europeans and the local population. Even more important, the ports served as agents of change, bridgeheads in sub-ordinating the country as a whole to dominant western models.
To what degree does Morocco's principal seaport in the nineteenth century fit this general model? How did the local merchants respond to the external forces of change, and how did they themselves act as agents of social and economic transformation? I hope to answer these questions throughout this book by examining local society and its relations with the interior of Morocco. But before I proceed, a few preliminary remarks about Essaouira are called for.
The town was founded by the Sultan to serve as a royal port, an entrepôt where all trade with Europe could be conducted. The aim of the Sultan was both to contain foreign influence and to limit the volume of trade. The town was situated in a relatively isolated location, and foreigners were not allowed to travel to the inland markets. In the town itself, foreigners and Moroccan-Jewish royal merchants were provided with special separate quarters in the casbah. Their premises belonged to the central government. Foreign trade, in theory, was to be closely administered by the makhzan. In many respects this calls to mind Polanyi's 'ports of trade', in which the trading community was relatively isolated from the rest of society, playing the role of political intermediaries between political frontiers. In this paradigm, administered trade, which centres on long distance 'luxury' items, prevails over the economic process of competition. In some respects, the Moroccan Sultan was able to contain foreign penetration and create an economic enclave in the same way, for example, that the Chinese were able to do in their treaty ports. In China, foreigners were confined to a specific quarter in Canton, and not allowed to travel elsewhere (except on special tributary missions to bring gifts to the Emperor) nor trade with other ports. Foreign trade became a state monopoly, and European merchants were compelled to trade with official Chinese intermediaries. Treaty ports grew rapidly in China in the nineteenth century, though their impact on the traditional Chinese economy remained limited
However, it would be misleading to carry this model too far. Essaouira's economic isolation and political neutrality were always relative, and certainly never complete. The urban patterns that evolved came to resemble those of other Muslim cities, and Moroccan cities in particular. Furthermore, the Sultan progressively lost his control of commerce. Essaouira's trade, even from the very beginning of the town's existence, operated according to the practices which were rooted in Moroccan society. Essaouira was therefore both unique, as an administered port of trade, yet similar to other cities. (...)