The Navigation of the Lower Danube

1. Commercial Navigation at the Mouths of the Danube

S TEAM NAVI(;ATION, introduced on the Danube in 1830,' nourished great hopes throughout Europe, but being still in its infancy was too expensive to allow for carrying the bulky agricultural and pastoral commodities of Moldavia and Wal-

Iachia. Thus during this quarter-century sailing ships remained the usual means of trans- pon on the Imwer Danube, with the ports of Galayi and Braila acting as the terminus points for navigation along the so called "maritime Ilanube," the 100-mile long section accessible to sea-going vessels. This portion of the river presented certain phpical fea- tures, which together with political impositions made its navigation complicated and costly, with visible results for the end price of Danubian grain on the western markets: the 100 mile journey on the maritime Danube increased freight costs from Briila/GalaP to Idondon by 50Y0.~

Analysis of maritime and navigation guides written for the use of seafarers and ship- owners reveals that little information was available in the West before 1829 on the area of the mouths of the Danube and on shipping conditions towards the inland ports. The 1826 edition of such a kx)k mentions exports of wax, honey, hides, wool, butter, tallow, hemp, tobacco and grain from Wallachia, through the ports of Giurgiu and Ruse, with the same products, plus timber and pitch, being sold at Galari. Ressarabian goods-wool, hides, furs, honey and grain-were also considered, which were loaded at C'xtatea Albi (Akkerman)."aiIing details towards the inland Danubian ports were completely absent, the only data referring to the general geography of the Lower Dan- ube and an enumeration of the mouths of the river (varying between three and seven). Sulina, whose position was marked by a lighthouse, was considered the main access gate of the Danube; it had a width of 600 feet and a depth of 18 feet, the Danube waters flowing illto the sea at a speed of three miles an hour.4 Several years later, an 1831 edi- tion of another maritime guide already has more information. The land by the nlouths of the Danube was described as low and marshy, sometimes tlooded by the D,mube and bordering regions with moving sands. Sulina was marked by a lighthome, placed on the southern (right) bank of the Danube, in front of an advanced strip of land, where the

C O Y ~ T A N T I ~ ARDELEANU The navigation of the Lower Danube ( 1 829-1 853) 231

old lighthouse stood.j As for the resources of the Ilanubian area, they were presented in a general way: honey, hides, wax, butter, wool, hemp, tobacco, etc.6

Increasing interest among western ship-owners in carrying cheap Moldavian and Wallachian grain to the European markets is also evident in subsequent editions of these guides, which included detailed information on shipping on the maritime Dan- ube. Equallv important are the testimonies of foreign travellers aboard the busy but relatively rapid and comfortable Austrian steamers, who witnessed de visu the conditions of navigation for sailing ships heading to the inland lhnubian ports. Not least, consular dispatches provide useful insight into this Lower Danubian odyssey.

1 . l . The Geography of the Danube Delta

B EFORE K E F E R R ~ C ; to the conditions of navigation, a short geographical descrip- tion of the Lower Danube is necessary. Below the large Danubian ports, the river continued south-easterly in one stream, with an average width of about

three cluarters of a mile and a depth of at least 28 feet. "At the Ismail Chatal (or fork) the Kilia Branch, containing 17-27&' of the whole stream, takes a northerly direction, and after passing the towns of Ismail and Kilia, forms a delta of its own, through which it discharges itself by five principal mouths into the Black Sea."7 Besides being completely controlled by Kussian cannons strategically placed at Ismail and Kilia? this northern branch had the additional problem of its own delta, hardly navigable and having "at its mouth a depth of only one to two metre^:^'

Below the Isrnail Chatal, the remaining 1 0-2Ps of the stream continued it5 general south-easterly direction. "In passing the town of Toultcha, however, the river makes a sudden bend, caused by a projecting spur of one of the Babadagh Mountains . . . At 6 miles below To~lltcha, or l 1 below the Ismail Chatal, the river becomes again divided, 3 d C h 5 of the Toultcha branch, or 8-271~' of the whole river, continuing the SE direction under the name of the St. George branch, and the rem?inder-'the Su1ina'-flowing in a general easterly direction to the sea."lOThis southern branch was deeper than Kilia along its course, but also more tortuous and meandering, emptying into the sea through an embouchure as difficult to navigate as that of Kilia (with an island in the middle of the channel). Thus, Sulina was considered the main branch of the Danube, its advantages being a width of 200-300 metres, a navigable depth of about six or seven metres and its embouchure, emptying into the sea in a single riverbed, though with a varying depth."

The first obstacle that impeded proper navigation was related to the physical fea- tures of Danube's branches, especially the Sulina, a channel extremely tortuous and, during the shipping season, very crowded. Few things attracted the travellers' attention: the endless marshes covered with brush beds and willows, the variety of the Danube Delta's ornithological fauna and the curse of myriads of mosquitoes, renowned for their size, num- ber and voracity. It was the desolate image of an unhealthy marsh, excessi~~ely humid, its harmful climate inc i~ i )~ : ;*v agues or Danubian fever, a veritable professional disease for local people and seanlen ;like.]' The first victims of this hostile environment were the soldiers from the cordon sanitaire established by Russia along its Danubian frontier.

2 3 2 T R A ~ ~ Y L V A Y I A Y REVI~LZ. VOL. XXII, SUPPLE\IL\T No L ( 2 0 I 3, -- --p-p- - -

Their morbid appearances and primitive huts stirred travcllcrs' c.olrip.lssrol~, moved h)i the tragic destiny reserved "to these victims of Kussi,l's lniliran dzsljotism," t.x~x)sed to "the miasrna of one of the nlost ullhealthy districts o f Eriropc, hcsictcs heing constantly tormented with clouds of mosquitoes and other poisonous ii~sr'cts',"'

1.2. Navigation at the Sulina Mouth of the Danube

T r r i i S111 IS.\ mollth \vas the route choser~ by vr.sselu i , l l l i r ~ ~ , ~ t lirdil,~ slid Chlati, "as it is the deepe~t . " '~ 'The geographical poil~t w a s ~,.~srlv f i~11 l~1 [I!, masters atid steersmen, who usecl Serpents Island as a lantln~,lt-k tlrc.t~ 5,1ilc-d \iz*st\i~,~r<ls ti)r

about 23 miles. The island was an important mark for zabot,~gc O I I tlic \vt.stcrIi Kl.~ck Sea coast. Called Fidonisi, Leuke or Makaron, it w ~ s cicscribctl .IS r.hon~hoici i t ) fi)rm, with a length of 726 metres NE-SW and the sum of the sides ~niounting t o 2,200 metres; the m,aximum height of the rock was 39.5 metres above sea I e \ ~ l . In 1843, the Russian authorities completed construction of a 20 metre high lighthoiwe, its light being thus placed at 6 0 metres above sea level. The lighthouse had a nlrning light, \,isiblc from all points of the horizon from a distance of 20 miles.'"

From Serpents Islands, ship-masters headed westwards; in good ~ ~ e a t h c r , thcy coilld see the tops of the Be~tepe hills in l l ~ b r u d j a . ' ~ In the first years after Russia's conquest of the llanube Delta, the entrance of the Sulina branch was marked hy a ruined wooden tower, probably the old Tiirkish l i g h t h o u ~ e . ' ~ By article V1 of the Ktlsso-Austrian treaty or1 commerce and navigation ( 1 840). the Russian authorities ~~ndcrtoc )k to build a mod- ern lighthouse at Sulina, with powerfill mirrors. It was supposeif to br. in service during the navigation season, i.e. in the months of March-1)ecenlber; when co~nrnercial ships loaded Danubian grain. The lighthouse was completed in 1842 o n the right bank of the Danube, but it was built on sandy ground, so the e11til.e edifice \\,a sooli wecikened. The base of the construction was at 0.6 m above the L ~ S I I ~ I \vater level, and the light at a height of 18.3 metres; the tower was painted white, and the fixed light was visible from the sea at a distance of 13.5 miles.lX

The river entrance, with a witith of 200-300 meters, was pl~zcii h c n v c e ~ ~ two buoys, the depth over the bar being extremely variable. Having usually nine or t rn feet of water, the depth varied between six and fourteen feet, according t o season and other natural and artificial factors. A Russian pilot boat, statiolied between the bar arld the lighthouse, met all vessels which wanted to enter the port of Sulina. In rrormal collditions, the boat brought vessels into port, but it remained in shelter in bat1 \\scather, ~igr-laling with a tlag on a pole the direction which the vessel had to fi)llo\%. '" T .Iter, after the establishment of the administrative offices at SuIina, ship-masters went to thc I I A S ~ O \ I I rnaster's office on the southern (right) bank of the Darrube, where they presented their health certificate and answered questions on the crew's state of health. bessels in fiec pratiyuc from clean ports handed in the health certificate and recorded the name of the ship and master in the harbour logbook. Ail these fommalities took about a qrlC1rter of all hour, and no sel could be detained longer except in exceptional cases o r in bad weather. As soon as the docun~ents were returned (without the payment of a tax) ,~nd the masters received copies of the navigation regulations in force on the river, vessels continued towards their

C O N ~ T A N T I ~ ARUELMNU The navigation of the Lower Danube (1 829-1 853) 233

destination ports. Ships without a free pratique certificate had to stop in the roadstead and, being considered contaminated, followed instructions from the quarantice officer on board the guard vessel. These vessels could continue their journev, accompanied by an employer of the Russian quarantine service, who was to ensure. that the boat and its crew had no communication with other ships or persons from the protected area during the journey towards its de~tination.~" Foreign seafarers disapproved of these for- malities, which made ship-masters sailing to the Danube from Constantinople ask for a health certificate not only from the Ottoman authorities, but also from foreign consul- ates (preferably the Russian) in the Turkish capital.21

The navigational obstacles from the Lower Danube required the engagement of pi- lots who knew the hydro-morphological particularities of the area. The Russian authori- ties allowed the establishment of private pilots at Sulina or in the inland ports, "with the aim to pilot vessels and offer them assistance in bad weather, with anchors, cable and other tools." According to the account of a British master, pilots for the Danube could also be hired in Constantinople, but those from Sulina were preferable, as they were familiar with the ever-changing shipping conditions. These pilots were not certified by any state authority, being Greek or Austrian seafarers who had quickly understood the financial opportunities created by the flourishing trade of the Danubian ports. The rate for pilotage on the route Sulina-Galafi/Braila and back was, in 1847, 90 dollars, an amount which decreased, two years later, to 50 dollars. There was no regular charge, the price being fixed by the

Beyond the doubtfd quality of many pilots, who lacked basic knowledge of seaman- ship or were veritable "pirates" eager to speculate on the growing grain trade, naviga- tional dific~dties made the employment of professional pilots extremely necessary when entering the Danube. According to information from a British master, the river was extremely dangerous for seamen unfamiliar with the area for several reasons:

I" The bar, and thc shoals in its vicinity, are apt to shzf, so that what was, in the spring of the year, the best channel may, in the fall, be vevy shallow. 2"9ecause it canwot be de- pended upon, that the buqvs which are placed, one on each side of the bar, will be at their proper places; for thgv are so badly moored, that they ofen shzft, and even sometimes break ad+, as was the case when I ran in during a strong gale j?om ENE in April 1838. 3"' Because the depth of water over the bar varies much, according to circumstances, there be- ingfiom 12 to 9feet, which endangers a vessel whose master or pilot is unacguainted with the depth at the time she is running in. Himever, it is considered safest to run in, dur i~g a mderate breeze, wit17 a loaded ship, parallel with the shore, as there isgenerally at that period mme water caused by the meeting of the stream and the sea; as also the bar, being composed of soft sand, is, during such periods, so stirred up .4~ the counter motion ofthe waters, that a l~essel with a press of canvass cannot have any damage, supposing she was to d r q on theground without stopping. 4" Because the land is so low, that it is impossible to discern the entrance without being quite close, or at about 2 milesj?om the shore, and should a vessel fall in on ezther side, she would5nd it dzfficult to beat out again, the water being very shallow. 51h Because there is no discernible object to mark out the entrance; the houses which are spoken of are very h, and as jiw the ruins of a liglthouse, I could see nothing of the kind; there is, however, one now building on the Soulina, m Turkish bank of the river,

which u7ill be a B O O ~ mark. both by day and night: there is n ~ t a l l u~indmill, ulhich, with the masts of the ships (which are always [y in~ here wind bound, on eithev side), are the best marh for Iznowin~ it; there is also a cluster of trees about 4 miles to the northu7ard, which are z?isible lonn before the land2'

Among these obstacles, the greatest barrier was, by far, the sand bar at the mouth of the Danube. Like other rivers, the Danube made "a large sandbank" where the flow of the river met the currents of the sea; this was the famous Sulina bar, whose crossing was problem- atic for sea-going ships that could easily strand in the shallow waters of the navigable channel. The main complairlt against the Russians was that the channel became cotitinu-. ously shallower after Russia had annexed the l h n u b e Iklta, as she did nothing to clear the sand carried by the river.24

1.3. River Navigation

T FIE MANY bends, which the Turks called " t a ~ l a , " ~ ~ and the lack of any serious scientific research to map the river's hydrographical features on contemporary maritime charts, made navigation on the Lower Danube difficult, although it

was not considered genuinely dangerous. Travel accounts provide valuable insight into shipping conditions in the Sulina branch, an extremely sinuous and, during the grain trade season, crowded channel. The British writer and diplomat James Baillie Fraser no- ticed, in 1836, the large number of vessels going up to the Danubian ports, mainly two-mast- ed brigs "or those polacre-rigged vessels of native whereas the officer Adolphus Slade mentioned the narrowness of the river in certain sections, as well as the fact that the Austrian steamboat slowed down and navigated carefiilly, "on account of numerous vessels ascending with a fair wind."*'

During this age of sail, there were different rules for upstream and downstream navi- gation. In the first place were the quarantine rules, which required ships to keep close to the right (Dobrudjan) bank of the river. When ships had to approach the opposite bank, guarded by the posts, masters were to follow strict rules: r ~ ) communica- tion with the quarantine guards o r other persons in the safety corridor; n o permission to bring or take anything to o r from the shore without permission from the Russian guards; no fire on that bank; no sailors allowed on that part of the Danube, except for tracking the ship towards its destination, under the surveillance of the Russian guards. When foreign vessels required and received the assistance of guards from the curdun sanitaire, they were obliged to observe the regular quarantine period.2"

Upstream navigation was complicated by the numerous bends of the river. Beyond the difficult points which will be mentioned below, there was the simple reality that only a good ESE wind could propel ships directly to the lhnubian ports.29 Thus, it was necessary to hire at Sulina two or three men to help the crew track the ship against the current; if the ship was loaded, more trackers were needed, "as even with a good wind it was very difficult against the current." These men remained on board until the ship returned to Sulina; they received food and worked together with the crews, being extremely useful for loading cargo in the Danubian ports and for handling any cargo

COUSTANTIN A K D ~ L ~ A ~ U The navigation of the Lower Danube (1 829-1 853) 235

that had to be transhipped into lighters. Another advantage was that these sailors were used to the climate and could work when most foreigners had problems from Danubian fevers or dysente r)...jO The usual pay for a tracker was 20 dollars for the voyage out from Sulina and back, whatever the destination port. As the offer of workers was higher at Constantinople, several navigation guides advised masters to hire additional hands in the Bosphorus, where the quality and price of trackers were better than at S ~ l i n a . ~ '

In normal conditions, when the direction and force of the wind did not allow vessels to approach the Danubian ports, they urere tracked o n the tracking path. The Dobrudjan bank chosen for this operation did not otTer many facilities; more favourable was the left bank, watched by the Russian guards. Moreover, in spring, sometimes until July, the water level was extremelv high, the banks flooded, and the tracking roads became impracticable. When facing river in spate, commercial vessels covered the distance be- tween the mouth of the 1)anube and the ports of Gala$ or Braila in three o r four weeks. The situation was better in the months of July-November, when the current was less strong, and the water level was up to eight feet lower than in spring time.

Navigation guides and maritime maps also offered information on points where traf- fic was obstructed b!. sandbanks. 'The most dangerous were: between the third and fourth bends of the river, in the area called Louos-tavlesi; south-west of the confluence of the Pjpidia River, where there was a clearance of two miles; south-west of the eighth bend, getting out of the 1)obrudjan bank; and at the St. George Chatal. In the point of Argagni, 5 miles below the St. George Chatal, the depth amounted in certain seasons to only nine feet. The nest difficult points were halfway between the St. George Chatal and Tulcea, and five miles above Tulcea. Another dangerous area was between Isaccea and ILeni." Difticult places for upstream navigation, they raised similar problems for loaded vessels coming downstream. One of the most dangerous obstacles was "the rocky point ofToultche [which] projects outside about 80 yards, off which lies a dangerous ledge of 1 uneven sharp rocks. extending ah)ot 40 p r d s under water, steep to, over the shoalesr part of which, in the spring of the year, are from 3 to 5 feet, and in the fall is that much above it."j3

At all points with insuficient depth, ships had to tranship their cargo into lighters. At descent, ship-masters stopped at Tulcea and sent the pilot to sound the depth of the Argagni point. If the depth was not sufficient, lighters had to be employed, either to cross that point alone or to get merchandise to the roadstead of Sulina, where it was re-embarked on sea-.going ships, Engaging lighters was considered the most efficient so- lution in terms of time and costs, as in case of accident enormous expenses were needed to refloat a ship."4 Taking into account the large number of "pirates" in the area, ship- masters were advised to great care when hiring these lighters.

1.4. In the Danubian Ports

0 N ARRIVAL at Galati and Briila, vessels had to moor on the opposite bank and wait for 24 hours bchre approaching the quarantine. Goods were unloaded and loaded in this enclosure, separated from the city itself by a wall about three-

quarters of a mile in length. The wall was provided with several holes through which

the gram merchants poured the gram, u h ~ c h was loadcd In ~1ck5 I>\ thc. crc\zr~lernher\ and brought on board sh~ps b\~ mean\ ot pulle\ s 1 he arr'~ngcmcnt\ ere con\ enlent enough, and a s h ~ p w ~ t h a capaclty of 1,200 quarters could be Iod~lcd in t ~ o i i a ~ 5 Thc expense for load~ng the cargo wa\ eqi~allu d ~ \ ~ ~ d e d bet\bcen the grain ~tlcrchant ancl the shlp-master or ship owner.

As the vessels were In quardntlne ancl the crew could i io t go to to \c l l hetorc the c\ plratlon of the safety per~od, the masters comm~sc~oned ship chandlers tor the nececsq provicions.'h The latter did not have their o w n ctore\, but \yere nllddlemen who took 10% of the value of the goods dellbered

2. Quantitative Data on Danubian Navigation

L:ANTITATIVE DATA on the evolution of Danuhian nav~gation in thc q t~~r te r -cen tury up to the Crimean War prove a growing interest in F,~iropean commercial circles in the resources ofthe Komanian Principalities. We only have systematic

and c inuous data on the development of 1)anubian shipping tiom L837 onwards, Q due to the diligence of the British vice-consul at Galati, Charles Cunningham, who com- piled each year detailed returns of the Ihnubian trade and navigation. The data available prior to 1837, though rich, are too inconsistent to allow for valuable and convincing conclusions, Nevertheless, some quantitative references arc extremely usefill: thus, in 1831 a total of 182 ships (among them 63 Greek-'Turkish, 54 Kussian, 31 French and Anglo-Ionian, 30 Austrian and 4 Italian) were recorded at Gala~i and 105 at Krjila (38 Greek-Turkish, 31 Kussian, 19 Anglo-Ionian and 1 7 Austrian).'V~n 1832. the only figures available are 195 ships recorded at Galali and 280 ships at Hriil~~,"" whcrcas in the following year 193 ships called at Galayi (87 Russian, 40 Turkish, 3 1 Xnglo-Ionian, 13 Sardinian, 6 French, 4 Austrian, etc.). In 1834, French sonrces rnerltiolled for Galali a total of 236 ships (60 Ionian, 42 Kussian, 36 Austrian, 30 Greek, 30 Turlush, 18 Sardinian),q' and two years later 410 ships, probably including the regular Austrian steamboats (128 Turkish, 100 Greek, 63 Russian, 52 Austri.~n, ~ t c . ) . ~ '

Quantitative data on the lhnubian maritime trade shows a gradual growth in the number of sea-going ships calling at the great Moldavinn and Wallachian ports. The bad years were those with scarce harvests (1841-1842) or with political unrest and foreign military occupation, when the grain quantities available for export \\ere significantl!. lower (1848-1 851 ). At the same time, the port of Galap s , t ~ ii!:;tive stagnation, as the outlet had reached its maximum export capacities, whereas Rriila grew t o a fi)rniiclable total of 1,553 maritime ships in 1847, when the rich grain harvest in Wallacl-lia attracted a large number of ships t o the Danube. This is to be related to the bcttcr conditions that Briila afforded as a re-exporting centre for the more distant corn-growing areas. Thus, a veritable fleet of small river-going boats loaded grain along the 600 miles of the Wallachian Danube and carried it to Brsila, where it was trans-shipped onto the larger maritime vessels.42

COMTANTIN ARDELEAKU The navigation of the Lower Danube (1829-1 853) 237

In terms of flag, the Greek tlag dominated Danubian shipping with 37.98 % of en- tries into Galati and Braila during the decade 1837-1846,4~ollowed by vessels under Turkish (28.19 %), Sardinian ( 10.10%), Kussian (8.42 %) and Austrian flag (6.02 %). In the first years of the interval, the number of vessels hoisting the Turkish flag was slightly larger (although many of them could have been Greek-owned), but during the 1840s the Greek ship-owners became the major carriers of Moldavian and Wallachian grain to the European markets. French commercial correspondence referred to the fact that, until 1840- 1841, "the Turkish tlag was first among other nations," but as things changed the Greek flag preponderated thanks to the Greeks' geographical position, "their usual presence in these areas, their light vessels, which make them apt to navigate on the river, their practical character in fitting them out and in nourishing themselvesn.* It is also interesting to notice the limited presence of the British and French fleet (1.50% English, 3.37% Ionian and 0.38% French vessels), as well as the diversity of other rather "picturesque" flags, proof that the Danube had become a known destination: vessels from Kome, Jerusalem, Belgium, Naples, Denmark, Bremen, Tuscany, Prussia, Holland, Sweden, Hamburg, Noway, Hanover, Mecklenburg, Serbia and the United States of America all called at Braila and Galagi.

For the next decade, 1847-1856, we have new data from the statistics of the Eu- ropean Comn~ission of the lhnube." Thus, despite the period of the (:rimean War, the dominance of the Greek fleet is even more obvious, in terms of both number and tonnage. Greece had 48.76% of ships and 51.34% of the tonnage, Turkey 13.79% of the total number and 11.28% of the tonnage, whereas Great Britain and Austria had 8.12% and 7.92% of ships respectively, and 7.88% and 9.24% of total tonnage. The same diversity of flag applies, with numerous ships from Northern Europe (Denmark, Hanover, Holland, Mecklenburg, Norway, Oldenburg, Prussia, Sweden, the Hanseatic cities) frequenting the Romanian outlets. Interesting remarks can be made for the pe- riod of the Crimean War, when the neutral Greek tlag amounted to huge numbers and percentages of the totals (2,15 1 ships in 1855!).

Nevertheless, all these vessels had a small tonnage, with an average of 179 tons.4" The Greek ships averaged 189 tons, whereas the Turkish ones only reached 146 tons. The tonnage of ships grew constantly, as a contemporary observer noticed: according to his data, vessels which "visited the Danube during the latter period [ 1843-1 8481 were of a larger size and of a better class than those of the preceding term. During the first interval [ l 837-1842], 5,539 ships were loaded with 2,663,222 imperial quarters, whilst during the second [ 1843-1 8481 8,669 vessels were loaded with 6,536,632 quarters, and in deducting from the above stated number of vessels those loaded with planks, staves, etc., the medium cargoes of grain of each ship during the first period were about 550 quarters, whilst in those of the second the medium cargo was at least 850 quarter^."^'

It is also interesting to analyse the distribution of these ships by categories of ton- nage.+"bout two thirds of the ships which called at BAila and Galari belonged to the three average categories (121-150, 151-200, 201-250 tons), and fewer than 5% were included in the large categories (over 301 tons), The largest were the Greek and Austrian vessels, with a special mention for Austria, 18.33% of whose ships were larger than 301 tons. About 14% of the total was represented by snlall vessels, under 100 tons, which could never sail further than Constantinople.

Regarding British presence in the area,4y from a very limited number of ships in the first years (15 in 1837, 12 in 1839, 14 in 1842 and 26 in 1844), British vessels boomed to a total of 394 vessels in 1847, to slowly decrease in the following three years, but reaching 304 ships in 1851 and 339 ships in 1852. In terms of percentage, from an aver- age of 1% in the first decade after the establishment of the free port at Galari and Briila, the number of British ships which called at the Danubian outlets represented 17.17% of the grand total in 1847, 18.23% in 1851 and 19.3% in 1852.

Equally impressive is the increase in the number of ships loading at Galayi and Braila directly for the British ports, which grew from about 1% in 1843 to about a quarter and then a third of the total number of vessels registered in the Danubian ports.j0 Thus, if 568 ships (25.64%) loaded cargoes in 1847 for Great Britain, in 185 1 and 1852 the totals were 616 and 650, or 36.93% and 37.02 % of the grand total. It used to be cus- tomary to send grain to the entrepdts of the Mediterranean, where it was re-embarked for England, but changes in British navigation laws made it possible fix other ships to come to the Danube and load directly for England.s1

In 1846, most ships headed to Constantinople or the Mediterranean re-exporting centers. Thus, according to British sources, 203 ships that left Galati headed to Con- stantinople, 165 to Trieste, 1 18 to Marseilles, 6 1 to Genoa and 57 to England. The fol- lowing year shows a completely different distribution, with 206 ships going to England, 145 la Marseilles, 123 to Constantinople, 58 to Genoa, 39 to Malta, etc. In 1848, the totals were 133 to Constantinople, 115 to England, 44 to Trieste, 26 to Marseilles, etc. In the case of Braila, the destinations of the 9 1 1 vessels that cleared the port in 1846 were: Constantinople--489, Leghorn and Marseilles-203, Trieste and Venice-131, Algiers--67, England-l l , Malta-10. Two years later the same changed pattern ap- plies, with 359 ships going to Constantinople, 136 to Trieste, but a massive 1 15 to Eng- land.j2 It should be mentioned that much depended on the quality of the grain, as only the best quality wheat and maize could make the long voyage to the British archipelago.

Conclusions

umc; Tl lE mro decades preceding the Crimean War, the navigation of the Lower Danube developed considerably, following a favourable economic and political constellation. The first factor that attracted numerous foreign ships to

the Danube related to the provisions of the Russo-Turkish I'eace of Adrianople (1829), which granted the two Romanian Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia full freedom to pursue commerce and to navigate on the Danube. This secured for the inland ports of Galati and Braila the chance to become large suppliers of grain on the European markets. In a short time, the Romanian provinces, endowed with favourable custom tariffs and a legislation that stimulated foreign capitalist investments, became a veri- table commercial heaven both for the export of agricultural and pastoral goods and for the import of western manufactures. The second factor related to the initiatives of the Austrian DDSG, whose establishment in 1829 marked the beginning of a new era in Danubian history, not only through the direct effects of its fleet of steamers and the

Corusi~\-rl\ ARIJ~LGZNLJ The navigation of the Lower Danube (1829-1 853) 239

constant tratlic of voyagers and goods between Vienna and Constantinople, turning the 1)anube into one of "the most important lines of communication in Europe," but also since it brought to the maritime Danube thousands of foreign travellers who personally experienced the immense prospects of the area and reported on the navigation of the majestic river. There was much t o report on, as the area represented a hot-spot of Euro- pean diplomacy, with navigation itself an object of negotiation between the owner of the l3anube I>rlta, Russia, and thc powers most interested to develop Ihnubian shipping, Austria and Great Britain. . . I hus, the joint force of steam ,uid capital forced the way fbr Austrian steamers through the insurniountable Iron Gates, u,hich opmed enormous commercial prospects through- out South-Easter11 and Central Europe. The same trading opportunities fuelled the navi- gation of the Lower lhnube, with thousands of commercial ships each year frequenting the Moldavian and Wallachian ports and turning the maritime section of the river into one of the most crowded corridors of European inland navigation. From this pcrspective, the de\~elopnient of 1)anubian shipping tells the classic story of how a periphev is gradu- ally attracted to the core of the capitalist world system, from the inclusion of the area on geographical-economic maps and its commercial emergence by means of foreign capital, to regulation of its course and status by wcstern engineers and jurists.

n

Notes

1 . Dr. Henry FI~j~ial, The Danube. Its histolical, political and economic irnpmance (The Hague, 1920 1, 123- 129. Details also in Jcromc Klurn, "Transportation and Industry in Austria. 181 5- 1848," The Journal of Modern Hi.rtmy 15, 1 (1943): 29 and Virginia Paskaleva, "1,e rcilc de la navigation 1 vapcur sus Ie bas Danube dans sktablissement dc liens cntre 1'Europe Ccntralc et C'x>nstantinoplc jusqu'i la gucrrc dc CrirnCe," Bu{qalian Historical ReYinv 4, 1 (1976): 67.

2. Freight and insurance primes were 25-.30% higher than at Odessa-"Des ports russes dans la Mer Noirc ct dams 1'1 rncr dlA;l,of," Hmue hntannique, 6'h series, 15, 5 (1848): 74.

3, John l'urdv, 'The Men- Sniliq l.)2'rectwns fv the Meditmnnean Scn, the Adriatic Scn, m Gulfof Knice, tlleArc/~ipel~qo nnn' I.evarzt, thc Sea cfMannnra, and the Black Sen (London, 1826), 289.

4. Ibid., 283. 5. John William Noric, hTn17 Piluti~cq L)r'recticnzs jiri tj~c Meditnmnean Sea, the Adriatic, w GulfofIkn-

ice, the Black Sea, ( h i a n Archipelago, and the .Seas a f l ~ m u t r n and Awf(1 .ondon, 1831), 284. 6. Ibid., 295. 7, John Stokes, "Notes 017 thc 1,owcr L)anubc,"]otirnal of the Royal Geographical Society ofhnn'un

30 (1860): 163. 8. h dctailcd description o f the Danube 1)elta in Edouard Taitbout dc Marigny, "Voyagc

d'0dcss.1 au Danube jusqu's Isniaii, fait en 1835, ct description Jc la branche de Soulina," Bullftin k La Soribtide Giographic, 2'" series, 5 (1836): 359-372.

9. ThCophilc-Skbasticn I-.avallCC, "Ixs villcs du Bas-I>anube," RL7w d'(h+ent 14 ( 1853): 405-406. 10. Stokes, 164. 1 1. 12avallCC, 406; John !'1rrtl\: The New Sailing Directmy for the Strait ofGibraltar and the Mstem

L)ivi.~wn ofthe Meditewanenlr ,;in ( I .ondon, 1832), 195; J. W Noric, New Sailing ntrertions fw the Meditervnnenn Sea, tile Adriatic, m Gulfof Enice, the Black Sea, Grecian Archipelago, and the Seas ufMamzara and Amf (Idondon, 1841), 203; J. S. Hobbs, New Sailing Directions fm the

L40 TKA~SYLVANIAN REVIELZ. VOL. XXII, SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 (201 3 )

Llardanelles, Sea of'Mamzam, Ro.ip11m-us, Black Sea alrd the Sca if',izc~ll, iornpilcd chic(]\ tic ) I T I

the surveys of E. 1: dc Marigny C% co by -, (London, 1847), 20; more iollsistcnt details in E. 'T: dc Marign!; I'ilotc de la Ilfer Nmre et de h i1.1erd',4r~n~ ((:onsr.~ntinoI,Ic, 1850). 38.

12. Valentine Mott, 7i.a1~cls in Europe and the East (New York, 1842 J , 44.5 13. Edmund Spencer, T N T - k ~ , Russia, the Black Sea and Cirms.cin ( 120ndo~~, 1 85 g), 147- 1-18. 14. Noric, 202; Hobbs, 19. 15. E. T. dc Marign); "l~escription des phares russcs dc la Mcr Noirc et dc: 1.1 hlcr d'Azov,"ilnale.c

maritimes et coloniales, 3"' series, first section, Sciences et Arts 3 1, 1 ( 1846): 268; othcr details in Norie, New Sailing I)irections, 205 and Hobbs, 22. For Scrpcnts Island, tictail in Thornc~s Abcl Krimage Spratt, "Remarks on Serpent Island," Journal of':lje (;fo,~raphicnl Societ?, qf' London 27 (1857): 220-224.

16. Noric, 202 and Hobbs, 19. 17. I'urdj; 193; Noric, 202. 18. Mdrigny, 268-269; id., Pilote (IE La Mer Noire, 39; Captain E. G. I)cn~, "'Sailing 1)ircitions

from the Archipclago to the Danube, with Remarks on the Voyagc," fit 12fsrcnrrtilr h1nr-k Magazine and Nautical Recmd, 1 ( 1 854), 26.

19. Norie, 204. 20. "Quarantine Rcbmlations for All Ships Entering and l'rocecding Up the I),lnubc ( 1836),"

Quarantine Regulations (Contagion of the Plague), Chespondevzce Relatziv to t h C:ontngion of Plague and the Quarantine Regulations of Fmegn Countries, 183-1 843, Accounts and Pnper.7 225 (Idondon, 1843): 131-133.

21. Dent, 24-25. 22. Ibid., 25-.26. 23. Noric, 203-204 and Hobbs, 2 1-22. 2-1. I>ctails in Constantin Ardelcanu, "Russian-British Rivalry rcgdrdtng l)<~nubc nxigation and

the origins of the (;rimcan War ( 18-261 853)," Journal ofMeditc~7nne~zir stud if.^ 19, 2 (20 10) : 165.1 86.

25. Marign): 38. 26. Jamcs Baillie Eraser, Na~l-ative ofthe Residence of thc Pclrinir 1'vznce.c in London, in 18.35 and

1836 2 (London, 1838), 208-209. 27. Slade, Travels il-2 C;ennnnv and Russia, 200. For the introduc.tion of the quarantine, sec Ar-

dclcanu, "The Danube Navigation in the Making of Dacid Lrrquhart's liussophobia ( 1833. 1837)," Transylvanian Review 19, suppl. 5 (201 0) : 337-352.

28. "Quarantine Regulations," 131 -1 33. 29. Norie, 203; Hobbs, 20; Mdrign): 40--41 30. A fatal disease, as was the case with an Englishman who dted .ificr contracting the fi~rnouh

"Danubian fever,"- John Hanvood, Stambnul and the Sca of Gen1.i ( I .ontlon, 1852), 48-49. 31. Noric, 205; Hobbs, 22; Dent, 26. 32. l'urcl\; 194; Noric, 203-204; Hobbs, 20; Marign): 41. ?'he h p g n i po~tit was pasacd ~vith

many difficulties as early as the 1830s, when ships hat1 to lighten hcrc C:. H., "Notes of 3

Voyage by Steam fron~ C;onstantinoplc to l'est, by thc D.tni~bc. in the Autumn of 1836, by a British Officer," The United Service Journal and Naval and i l frlrta~ ilfqazirze 1 ( 1837), 154.

33. Norie, 203-205. 34. Dent, 28. 35. Ibid., 27-28. 36. For the taxes asked in the p m , cf. "The Frcc Navigation of the l)anube," Ilailv Nm~s (I.ondon),

14 March 1855. 37. Dent, 28. 38. Paul Cernovodeanu, Rela[iile comerciale rmano-englezc b contestul politicii cm'entale a Marii

Britanii (1803--1878) (Cluj-Napoca, 1986), 61.

COI>TA\IIL AKI)FIEA~U The nav~gat~on of the Lower Danube ( 1829-1 853) 241

39. Ibid., 62-63, n o t c 154 and 158. A French source provides other information: 6 0 Ionian, 42 Russian, 36 Austri'ln, 30 Grcck dnd 30 'lilrkish, 8 Sardinian----quoted by Constantin B u ~ c , Cowzer~ul rute1-imprin Gala$ szib rqimul de pprwl,fi.ane (18.?,7--18#3) (Bucharest, 1976), 26.

40. Ibid. 41. Ibid., 46. 42. Ccrnovodcanu, Rcatricc Marincscu and Irin'~ Gavril5, "Corncrpul britarlic prin Galayi ~i Hriila

intrc 1837~-1852," Hr~1ista de zstmie 31, 1 (1978), 634. 4 3 Ibid. 1)ata also in (Icrnovodcan~ "An unpublished British sourcc concerning the intcrnation-

a1 trade through Galatz and Rraild benvccn 1837 and 1848," Hnme Koumaine d'Histoire 16, 3 (1977): 526--527, <:crnovodeanu and ~ a r i t l c s c ~ l , "Hritish tradc in the 1)anubian ports of Galatz and I%raila bctwccn 1837 and 1853,"Journal ofEuropean Economic H i s t q 8, 3 (1979): 707-742 and (2,nstantin A Vacalopoulos, "DonnCes statistiqucs sur la prkdominance du potential hcllCnique dans la navigation et Ic commerce au Has-Danube (1837-1858)," Bal- kan Studies 21 (1980): 109-1 10. For 1837 and 1838, see also Scarlat Callimachi and Vlad Gcorgescu, "Une source anglaisc relative au commerce sur le Danube ( 1837--1838)," Reme Roumaivre d'Hirtoire 3, 2 ( 1964): 275.

44. Burjc, 47. 45. Compilctl on the basis of data from the Library of the Galati County Branch of thc National

Archives, (:o~nn~issiota EuropCenne ciu Danube, Statistique de La nav&atiorr h l'embouc/~ure du I)anube, 18s7-1860; the figures differ from those provided by Vracaloupulos, "l3onnkes statistiqucs," 109.- 1 10.

46. <:ompilcd on the basis of data from Stn~istique de la navzpation h I'embouchure du Iknube, 1857--1860.

47. "Comnlercc of the I>anubc," HurrtS- Mc~chants' i2f~qazine and CTommercial Kn~iew 27, 3 (1852): 294.

48. Ibid. 49. <:crnovodcanu, ~Uarincscu and Gavrilj, "Comcqul britanic," 634 (percentage and totals re-

calculated by me). 50. Ibid. (percentage and totals recalculated by me). 5 1 "Commerce of the Danube," 295. 52. The National Archives of the United Kingdom, Forcign Office, F 0 78, archival envelope

79211 849, hls . 122-1 3 3 (Rcport of Charles Cunningham, Galati, 23 April 1849).

Abstract The navigation of the Lower Danube (1 829-1 853)

The paper presents the development of Danubian navigation during the second quarter of the nine- teenth century. The first part, T / J ~ navtgation of commercialships at the mouths of the llanube, presents the conditions of navigation on the Lower Danube, as sailing ships remained the usual means of transport during this quarter-ccnmry, with the ports of Galati and Briila acting as the terminus points of maritime navigation along the so called "maritime Danube," the 100-mile section accessible to sea-going vessels. This portion of the river presented certain physical features, which together with political impositions, made navigation complicated and costly, with visible results for the end price of Danubian grain on the Western marken. The second part, Quantitative data on llanubian na~yation, provides statistical information on the development of Danubian shipping, with reference to flags, tonnage of ships, des- tinations of cargoes etc.

Keywords Danube, Navigation, Danube Mouths, Austrian steamers, Galafi, liriila, Sulina, 1829-1853