He brings out that we cannot base our viewpoint solely on “monetary phenomena.” Nevertheless, he runs into a problem here. There are no direct statistics that allow someone to assess the change in aggregate production levels during this time period. However, Pamuk determines based on agricultural revenues and revenues of the Treasury, that evidence points to a stagnation and probable declined in “production by urban artists.” He also comes to the conclusion that he can make the assumption of aggregate production levels based on: “the underlying rates of change in production …show more content…
This presents a possible bias. Another weakness is that there isn't sufficient evidence or data to consider other aspects of the empire’s economy other than monetary means; so it leaves it up to educated guesses rather than tangible proof. He also sheds light on conflicting viewpoints that seem to contradict his own in the conclusion. Although it is a strength to consider all aspects of the argument, it made his viewpoint a little blurry. There are other strengths that are profound. Pamuk used a strong amount of sources. He analyzed actual tangible data to form his opinion. He also didn’t settle for the inclusive view of the Ottoman Empire comparative to the rest of the world and how it was impacted by the “big boom.” I would recommend this article to anyone who wanted to see an explanation of monetary data from the Ottoman Empire. However, I would recommend that it be in combination with other viewpoints of it as well, since there are still some mysteries to be solved. The article is a little dated. Documents about history constantly evolve and change based on new information or new perspectives; I think Sevket Pamuk presented an important enough issue to consider incorporating into future documentation about the economy of the Ottoman Empire during 1873 through