"The Philippines in the Maritime Trade of Armenians" (conclusion) - Yuri BARSEGOV

Article by Yuri Barsegov is devoted to the concluding part of a study on Armenian maritime trade with the Philippines (Manila) in the 17th–18th centuries and continues the publication begun in previous issues of ANIV.

Introduction and Methodology

The author sets out to reveal the true scale and significance of Armenian "Manila" trade through the lens of the discriminatory conditions under which it existed. The source base consists of archival documents of the English East India Company — the minutes of meetings of the Council of Fort St. George (Madras), dispatches to London, and the correspondence of the Company's board for the period 1708–1737.

Forms of Discrimination Against Armenian Seafaring

Barsegov systematizes the main mechanisms employed by the European East India companies against Armenian merchants:

• obstacles in shipbuilding, armament, and outfitting of Armenian ships (bans on the sale of cannons, anchors);
• restrictions on hiring captains and navigators of European origin;
• compulsion to purchase expensive flags and passes as a condition for relative safety of navigation;
• prohibitions on importing goods into foreign settlements, chartering ships of third countries, and entering into trading partnerships with foreigners.

Key Episodes of Confrontation in 1724

Central to the article is a detailed examination of the case involving the detention of an Armenian ship bound for Manila in 1724. The author shows how the Madras Council, citing the "insolence" of Armenian merchants (Khoja Gevork, Khoja Petros, and others), initiated a revision of the privileges enshrined in the 1688 treaty between the Company and the Armenian Nation. Despite the treaty's direct provisions guaranteeing Armenians equal rights with the English in trade with Manila, the Council arrived at a decision to restrict the shipment of cargo on foreign vessels until English ships were fully loaded.

The Argumentation of the English Side

Special attention is paid to the rhetoric of English colonial officials, who:

• declared the 1688 treaty "outdated," citing changed circumstances;
• accused the Armenians of violating the terms of the concession through cooperation with the French, Spanish, and Dutch;
• justified the priority of the Company's own ships over the chartering of "free merchants."

Consequences and Establishment of the Precedent

Barsegov traces how the 1724 decision became a precedent for subsequent restrictive measures (1734, 1737), despite the fact that Armenian merchants continued to successfully conduct Manila trade through alternative ports (Porto Novo), circumventing English prohibitions.

Conclusion

The author concludes that, despite the systematic political, economic, and legal pressure of the colonial powers, Armenian merchants retained significant positions in maritime trade with the Philippines thanks to the flexibility of their commercial strategies and their use of competition among the European colonial structures.